Something on my Mind: El Fungo Says (3-4)

Friends:  Here are the other two of the four-part series.

Part of the urgency of sending three of these out within the same week, is that my newspaper editor refused to publish the first in the series (the one on vaccination).  Just found out tonight.  I sent him the one on abortion yesterday, but I strangely haven't heard back about that, but I assume he won't publish that either.  I have sent him the last two, as I have done to you.  I asked him to respond ASAP on these two, as I need to rush a column to replace the banned ones.  As this weekend is a holiday weekend, my deadline moves up a couple of days, from the usual Friday or Saturday.  Not my fault...

I'll try to remember to keep you abreast of what's happening.

In the meantime, I did write two this morning on turning 65 , but I need to edit them some more, then get Russ to re-edit them. They're kind of melancholy.

He should approve of them as they don't mention anything really critical or touchy, although I make a passing comment on some public institutions.

Reap 'em and reap.  (Yes, I do know the actual expression.)

CF

El Fungo Says (3)

I am trying respond to Cousin Reggie's questions, as you know. He is really going for the jugular, isn't he? First, vaccinations, then abortion. Now, politics.

"Hey El Fungo, I see you have a new government in Alberta. Any passing thoughts?"

I have a lot of thoughts about a lot of things, but "passing" (read: shallow) thoughts on the new UCP government isn't one of them. That is to say, I have some very detailed thoughts that I cannot pass along in just a few paragraphs. Suffice to say, I was so relieved that the government got in with such a landslide. I was happy that Albertans finally woke up from the serious mistake that happened four years ago, and then the consequences of that mistake for the past four years.

I see Jason Kenney and his team are starting to implement their election campaign promises. One thing of many that I like about the UCP is that they are keeping their word. And the word they keep will benefit all of Alberta—left, right, and center—not just a select few.

As an example, even the re-working of the vile Bill 24, now known as Bill 8, is a vast improvement. It just doesn't go far enough, but it's headed in the right direction.

The UCP victory is part of an all-Canadian trend , namely, a shift to conservative politics. It seems that so many provinces have finally woken up to a better form of governance.

Socialism is a failed experiment, at both the provincial and global levels. It has also been a deadly one, at least on a global one.

Just as an aside, if you're not clear on what the above means, please do some homework: Research any socialist state within the last, say, fifty years. Examine how they came to power, what was the immediate and long-term impact on the citizens and the economy. And note the trend: High personal net worth = free market, low personal net worth = socialism.

It is very unnerving and disturbing, indeed.

Alberta was heading in the same direction, namely, economical and social catastrophe.

Financial matters and people matters are the two essential planks of true conservatism. Keep those in focus, and we have a thriving economy and and motivated citizenry.

I think you get my view, Cousin Reggie: I am delighted that a conservative, free enterprise party got in. I don't think any party is perfect, and we're bound to see some flaws in this group as time wears on. Needless to say, this party is a massive upgrade on every count from the previous government. We need to support them to the best of our conscience and ability, to revive this province, in order to bring it back to its greatness of a generation ago.

Are you satisfied with my attempted responses? There are no facile answers for anything these days, as you know. I am sure everyone on the other side feels that they are right, too.

As I have stated many times before, follow your conscience, consider the other person's viewpoint, and discuss the differences affably. It matters of ethics and morality, life and death, that could be a stretch for most of us!

Just make sure you come up with easier questions next time. Maybe something about the weather (global warming?). Not everyone wants to deal with the ones you posed, even though they are all very pertinent and pressing, with deep, deep ramifications for future generations.

I see you have at least one more for me. You must have a lot of time on your hands these days. I will deal with it next time.

Thanks for asking.

El Fungo Says (4)

This is the fourth and final set of questions that I am responding to. Cousin Reggie is not playing around, is he? I need to remind him sometime that this is not acceptable (especially if one wants to be popular). After all, to question the status quo is just not politically correct these days. We are a nation of groupthink, where we think as a crowd.

The crowd may be right, but the crowd may also be wrong. We need to think for ourselves.

We are losing our freedom to think and speak out loud, not to be confused with anarchy (which is strangely acceptable). Freedom of speech from a conservative perspective is often linked with extremism, though that is not an accurate assessment at all. Believe me, there is plenty of extremism on the Left.

Rational conservatism is thus unwelcome in most contexts. It is unwelcome in North Korea, Somalia, France, or Albania, but here here in freedom-loving Canada? Where have we gone wrong?

So here's another question: "Hey El Fungo. There are a number of really frightening restrictions floating around there—such as the use of plastic straws, meatless burgers, fossil fuels, and climate "emergency," just to name a few. Do you see a pattern here?"

Good questions, Cousin Reggie. Each question stands on its own merit, but I think I will draw this series to a close, so I'll have to answer briefly. I am scrambling to see if there is a common thread with all of them.

There may be a commonality, but I hope you don't see me as a conspiracist (which I'm not). There are a lot of unproven and unscientific ideas being crammed down our throat(s) these days, that's problem one. This is most worrisome.

Problem two is how arbitrarily it is being decreed that all plastic products are useless, that plant-based burgers are better for you than meat patties, that fossil fuels are dangerous, and that so much of this world's ills are caused by climate change.

Including Donald Trump. Okay, I jest.

I say "whoa" on all these and more. Where's the true science in all this? Where's all reasonable discussion in all of this? Or has there been any discussion at all? What's behind these trends? I have an idea.

I see an over-arching, top-down, no-questions-asked approach on all of these (and other) matters. It means there is too much intrusion on the part of the government and its cronies. That is perhaps my greater concern, well beyond the plastic, beefless (not a real patty nor a real word), oil, and wacky weather theories.

I am not questioning the sincerity or intelligence of some of the people who are pushing this agenda. I do question their tactics, though. For our part, we need to push back and stand up for what is proven.

Can't we get more creative with our use of plastic? Yes. What are the ramifications of a beefless diet? Very serious. While it is not being crammed down our throats (yet), it seems that there is a strong push away from animal-based food.

(Just for the record: Cows eat grass, and we eat cows, so aren't we eating plant-based food already?)

And the fossil-based energy is taking a serious hit, but where's the science in the discussion? Is there truly a connection between fracking and earthquakes? Is our bad air quality because of the oil sands?

And now climate change has been ratcheted up to new level, namely, climate "emergency." Seriously? That's a new word in the discussion. What will the wholesale changes be like with this unproven phenomena, beyond the rhetoric? Not good.

The basis of these brief "El Fungo" series has been a tongue-in-cheek approach, though with sincere underpinnings. We really need open-minded, reasonable discussions on these and other matters. I'm just not clear why that is not happening. Why are there are no sane alternatives (if actually needed) proposed by the Left and the government.

I also fear that the compliant masses who just simply accept what comes down the line, with few questioning the government's edicts along these lines. This is where the "groupthink" term comes in. A few more taxes here, a few more restrictions there, and it's all solved. Hardly.

Dearest Cousin Reggie has posed some great questions. I have some more, and you likely have some yourself.

One of the hallmarks of a free society is the liberty to exchange differing ideas. When there is no forum for discussion, we are in serious trouble.

And people, we are in serious trouble, and only getting worse. If you don't fear for yourself, at least think about your kids and grandchildren.

I want to thank Cousin Reggie for his questions. Next time, pal, don't use Morse code. I hear that there's this new method out there. It's called smoke signals.

Something on my Mind: El Fungo Says (2)

Dear fans in Newspaperland: Cousin Reggie has sent a few questions to me, which I dutifully want to answer. I have already dealt with one in my previous column. He seems bent on asking me contentious questions, but I will try to respond as rationally and politely as possible. I don't want to be rude or ignorant in my responses. There is really no place for that, is there?

I really like writing witty columns, ignoring the deeper, more pressing matters. However, from time to time, someone somewhere needs to speak up for what I see a serious injustice in health or education (for starters). My motive is sincere, a good place to start.

He writes me: "Hey, El Fungo. Do you care to comment on that abortion brouhaha in Georgia, as well as in other places?

Reggie, old boy, you sure like controversy, don't you? Do you know that if you keep on bringing up these taboo subjects they may call you names, and lump you in with wingnuts like me?

Whether it's the life of a living child (vaccination) or a pre-born child (abortion), the stakes are too high to simply turn a blind eye.

It's just that it can be such a heated, irrational discussion that it's almost not worth the headache.

But on the other hand, I feel a moral duty to speak of the killing of innocent babies (or better, infanticide). That's tad inflammatory, but this is a highly inflammatory issue.

You know, dear distant relative of mine, the real issue is not a woman's right over her own body, though we would discuss it endlessly if it was that basic. But it is that simple; it's just that the so-called pro-choice faction are focusing on the wrong issue.

The matter hinges on whether the "fetus" within is a living human being or not a person. Everything in this argument starts (and ends) right there. Or at least it should.

If that fetus within (though I use this word loosely; I would rather say "life [or baby] within") was a mere blob of cells, it would be no big deal, wouldn't it? But I have often wondered why the medical professionals perform in utero corrective surgical procedures on what is just a blob? Why the fuss over caring for a mother who goes into early labour, if what she is delivering is just a cluster of cells?

Why is that fetus within subject to an ultra-sound , gender identity, and even a possible name, if it is really just extra flesh within the mother? Even using the word "fetus" (instead of "baby") minimizes the reality of a living, human being.

It really boils down to terms: blob or baby? Cells or child? The mother is indeed a significant player in this matter, but real issue is the child within.

I'm not sure if you have sensed some serious inconsistencies when it comes to why people kill, or permit others to kill, a defenceless little human baby. That action is barbaric, sadistic, unnecessary, and inconsistent with all that decent humans stands for.

Again, that is really provocative talk, but this is a really a provocative matter.

If that human being is not wanted by its birth mother, there are tens of thousands of families that would be willing to adopt it and raise it.

The state of Georgia (and now others) nailed it: Blobs don't have heartbeats, but living human beings do. Good on Georgia. It would be great if our provinces had the same courage.

Something on my Mind: El Fungo Says (1)

Sometimes Cousin Reggie —that distant, but still not distant enough, relative from the East—sends me a brief note, via Morse code. Morse code? Yes, indeed, he hasn't quite caught up with modern technology.

He addressed me by my Spanish name, and that's a bit of a code in and of itself. Between you and me, I think he's trying to be witty. He 's about halfway there, if you get my drift.

Anyway, he's often pushing the envelope when it comes to questions—real zingers, indeed. He recently Morse-coded (is the verb form even a word?) me the following questions; here's the first one:

"Hey El Fungo. Do you have any serious thoughts on this vaccination rage that is sweeping the land?"

Good question, Cousin Reggie. That's really brave of you to bring this up. It's not popular to challenge the status quo these days. And I think the word "rage" is a good choice on your part. I cannot understand how people who promote injections into kids get so enraged when this discussion comes up. And as well, they get all up in arms with those of us who want to take care of the health of our own kids. Go figure.

It seems that almost everyone in the pro-vaxx camp refuses to even discuss it rationally. In one sense, I don't blame them, but not for the reasons you may think.

You asked if I had any thoughts about this serious matter. Yes, I do, but mostly what I would say wouldn't likely be listened to. There are a lot of reasons, mostly scientific, and it's so sad that these cautions are not being heeded. And I wouldn't know where to start, anyways.

As you know, hundreds thousands of families like ours are completely committed to pro-life and pro-health. Just in case you were wondering whether pro-vaxxers are anti-health or anti-science, we are very pro-health and pro-science.

It's very divisive matter, I get it, and there are a lot of raw emotions on both sides of the argument. This includes a wide diversity of walks of life, including some health and medical professionals.

I recognize that I am making broad-brush claims. This column is not a detailed, footnoted treatise. In fact, for this column and the three more to follow, it is simply a response to a fan (Reggie, you're really a fan, but you did write me a letter. I sense you speaks for more others.)

It is really important to consider alternative viewpoints. But there is no real platform in the public arena to work through this issue. I really wish both sides could come together and discuss their differences, as much as possible.

I would have to say that I see a lot of intriguing secrecy and inconclusive evidence in this whole process from the pro-vaxx camp. It is not totally conclusive with either side, though I have seen, heard, and read enough to alarm me. So I say, when in doubt, hold off.

We're talking about the health and welfare of our children, so we need to be very, very cautious. There are many other issues that there are two distinct sides (e.g., fluoridation),  where there seems to be a reasonable truce, so why not regarding vaccination?

One of the most egregious matters that comes to mind is how the State is overstepping parental rights in this matter. That is very worrisome, and may be the bigger issue in this discussion.

You must be aware of the warnings about restricting shopping and school attendance—e.g, in New Brunswick and New York, respectively—based on flimsy yet popular evidence. And my fear is that it will be a growing trend, but in the wrong direction.

It worries the you-know-what out of me when the State can take such draconian measures by prohibiting non-vaccinated kids in their personal lives. I know "shopping and attending" is in the public area, but aren't vaccinated people safe from health risks?

If the issue is Ebola or cholera, established diseases that often lead to death, I see the need for protection. We need to be so careful when i t may appear to be a some unproven witch hunt.

Speaking from a scientific perspective, do we have any idea what is in the vial that kids are being injected with? I hear it is really dangerous stuff. This comes from qualified medical people, not health quacks. I believe if parents knew what was being injected into their children, the argument would be dead in its tracks.

And maybe they do; hence, the outcry.

Another point, Cousin Reggie, is this: If immunization is so effective, what's the fear? If a vaccinated child comes in contact with a non-vaccinated child, why worry? The vaccination is supposed to be effective, so there should be no risk of taking ill, right? Apparently not. That is dangerously ineffective logic (and inconsistent) to me.

I have even heard of kids who were vaccinated still coming down with the very disease they were vaccinated against. Funny, I don't read that in the mainstream media.

Aren't you proud of me for not even mentioning the "autism" argument? There are so many other legitimate reasons why we need to be be so very careful these days.

I should develop this further, but space and the nature of this column forbid. I don't doubt that many medical practitioners are sincere is their position on vaccination. I just say, as in so many other quirky notions these days, do what you (as a parent) think is right, and please let the rest of us do the same.

Oh, I see you you have a few more questions for me. Let me answer them in the next column.

Something on my Mind: Confessions of a Saint

I doubt very much that you have heard of St. Craig, but if you have, don't worship him. I, er, he doesn't exist.

If I ever used the title "Saint" ( or St.), it would only be as a joke. The term I use a lot, "M'Lord," but all I ever got was laughs, which is the intention.

There are Saints and then there are saints and then, saints. The Saints is a name of an NFL team from New Orleans. Nice name, bad label. There are a smattering of other non-professional teams scattered throughout the land, usually of the high school or junior hockey flavour.

Then there are the saints of a religious order, as in St. Augustine or St. Agnes. There are many towns, schools, and roadways scattered around Alberta bearing those names and others. These have usually come about because the early settlers and missionaries were of the Catholic persuasion.

Speaking of "religious persuasion," with as much respect as possible, there is some misunderstanding as to who, what, when, how, and why a person is a saint. The following will fly in the face of religious tradition and conventional knowledge of sainthood.

And this is where I finally tie in my "confession" of a saint.

I am not a saint for a number of reasons. One, I am living and I don't know of any religious saint who is living. To be a saint, in that tradition, one must have been dead for a long time. Two, I see no precedent of a canonized saint in Scripture (saint, yes; Saint, no). And three, "saint" is applied accurately to any living follower of Jesus Christ, and not limited to dead ones.

So at any given time, if you were so inclined, you could say the following about me: "He's such a saint." That may or may not be true, but we all would know what you mean. But you shouldn't say the following about me: "That St. Craig is such a wonderful dude" (Is "dude" still in vogue?).

I may be a saint, but certainly not a Saint.

If "saint(s)" and "sainthood" are based on the Scripture, now augmented by tradition, it's best we reference the Good Book for what a saint is and isn't, to see if any of us measure up. Few of us would; most of us will think of our dear mothers (but not fathers, for some reason) as a saint, but that could be more on sentiment than anything else.

Sentiment aside, a true saint is one who is holy and set apart, usually in a practical everyday sense. Don't be picturing those 15^th Century paintings in which the so-called saints have that pious glaze, wearing those stained halos, sitting around with other saints doing the same thing.

Sainthood has been invested by God, and God alone, and I confess—there's that word again—I rarely measure up. Maybe you do, but this column is not your confessional! I rarely exhibit those virtues of patience, love, grace, etc. (marks of a true saint) in the cauldron of everyday life.

Being a true saint is one who is not caught up (yet "dragged down" at the same time) with secular values and habits. Being a true saint is one who lives in view of a better place beyond the grave. Being a true saint exhibits the virtues of the only true Saint (not the team, thankfully) Who ever lived on earth.

So my confession, then, is that I don't always exhibit those virtues. I don't always live up to the title. But it's not about perfection. Rather, it's about character and a standing before Almighty God.

Even playing for the Saints wouldn't help.

Something on my Mind: Confessions of a Dad

It's only a few weeks before we "celebrate" Father's Day. I may to be jumping the gun by coming up with a dad-themed column. It's actually part of this mini-series of "Confessions."

So far, I have made some admissions about being a writer, teacher, saint, and now father. I have a couple more up my sleeve, but we'll see if I write them.

Most dads I know feel very inadequate for fatherhood. Most of us are quick—likely too quick—to admit our shortcomings and failures (and too often "helped" by others to feel that way). The strident voices of the warped media, academia, and feminists don't help.

As if fathering isn't tough enough, I find it tragic beyond civil words that we get stomped on because of our skin colour and gender (with "white male" becoming such a vile standing in life). If the skin colour was reversed, there would be no end of the hue and cry.

My comments today are directed primarily at dads, but moms and potential dads can read along if they want to.

I know that I have failed multiple times as a father—and that would be only before breakfast. Some of my kids would likely tell you that in a heartbeat, if asked. Owing to the fact that I pass through this journey once, it's impossible to back up and do it again. One just hopes that as the kids grow up and mature, there's room in their heart and conscience to forgive and move on.

Sort of like me with my dad.

Now I am not speaking of physical, sexual, or mental abuse, nor am I sugarcoating it in other homes. That must be dealt with thoroughly, either through accountability groups, the law, and even the church. I just don't believe I have ever been guilty of those evils.

My failure as a dad has been of the short temper, the non-listening, and the general disconnection variety. Perhaps you are guilty of the same? As an example, my own dad was guilty of that, though he had other complicating factors, as he was a product of his generation. They did things differently back in the '40s and '50s.

I know I mentioned this line before, but it bears repeating: Any one can be a "verb" father, but it takes some serious effort at being a "noun" father. Re-stated: males are created to father a child, but it takes a lot more work to be a father to a child.

If I could do it over again, which is impossible, I would do some things differently. Here are four to consider:

1. Create more meaningful family time. I did a lot of that, via trips, traditions, and special nights, but I see now that it wasn't enough. And part of that "meaningful family time" is to block out many outside-the-home demands.  Some of us Type A personalities often take on more and more responsibilities outside the home at the expense of family. Not a wise move at all.

2. Take time to listen more and speak less. That could be one reason why our Designer gave us two ears and one mouth, not the other way around. I know I would have benefited from that as I was growing up. That's not a shot at my own father, by the way. As I said before, he was the product of his generation.  And he didn't have the privilege of reading a county-famous columnist...

3. Get to know each of your kids individually. That sounds bizarre on the surface, but I am not writing this one on the surface. Each child you help bring into the world is an individual, and must be treated as such. This takes time and effort on your part, but it is part of your duty.

4. Let them know you love them. That could be expressed in all sorts of ways, but really needs to be done and said. Even a simple touch once in a while works wonders.

It strikes me that if more dads had more meaningful family time, listened more often to their children, got to know their kids better, as well as showed love, there would be a marked change in our crime rate, street safety, and we would be a better nation overall, no doubt about it. We would see a nation of happier, more well-adjusted, and productive children.

And in advance of this next Big Day, may every day be a "father's" day for you.

Something on my Mind: Confessions of a Saint

I doubt very much that you have heard of St. Craig, but if you have, don't worship him. I, er, he doesn't exist.

If I ever used the title "Saint" ( or St.), it would only be as a joke. The term I use a lot, "M'Lord," but all I ever got was laughs, which is the intention.

There are Saints and then there are saints and then, saints. The Saints is a name of an NFL team from New Orleans. Nice name, bad label. There are a smattering of other non-professional teams scattered throughout the land, usually of the high school or junior hockey flavour.

Then there are the saints of a religious order, as in St. Augustine or St. Agnes. There are many towns, schools, and roadways scattered around Alberta bearing those names and others. These have usually come about because the early settlers and missionaries were of the Catholic persuasion.

Speaking of "religious persuasion," with as much respect as possible, there is some misunderstanding as to who, what, when, how, and why a person is a saint. The following will fly in the face of religious tradition and conventional knowledge of sainthood.

And this is where I finally tie in my "confession" of a saint.

I am not a saint for a number of reasons. One, I am living and I don't know of any religious saint who is living. To be a saint, in that tradition, one must have been dead for a long time. Two, I see no precedent of a canonized saint in Scripture (saint, yes; Saint, no). And three, "saint" is applied accurately to any living follower of Jesus Christ, and not limited to dead ones.

So at any given time, if you were so inclined, you could say the following about me: "He's such a saint." That may or may not be true, but we all would know what you mean. But you shouldn't say the following about me: "That St. Craig is such a wonderful dude" (Is "dude" still in vogue?).

I may be a saint, but certainly not a Saint.

If "saint(s)" and "sainthood" are based on the Scripture, now augmented by tradition, it's best we reference the Good Book for what a saint is and isn't, to see if any of us measure up. Few of us would; most of us will think of our dear mothers (but not fathers, for some reason) as a saint, but that could be more on sentiment than anything else.

Sentiment aside, a true saint is one who is holy and set apart, usually in a practical everyday sense. Don't be picturing those 15^th Century paintings in which the so-called saints have that pious glaze, wearing those stained halos, sitting around with other saints doing the same thing.

Sainthood has been invested by God, and God alone, and I confess—there's that word again—I rarely measure up. Maybe you do, but this column is not your confessional! I rarely exhibit those virtues of patience, love, grace, etc. (marks of a true saint) in the cauldron of everyday life.

Being a true saint is one who is not caught up (yet "dragged down" at the same time) with secular values and habits. Being a true saint is one who lives in view of a better place beyond the grave. Being a true saint exhibits the virtues of the only true Saint (not the team, thankfully) Who ever lived on earth.

So my confession, then, is that I don't always exhibit those virtues. I don't always live up to the title. But it's not about perfection. Rather, it's about character and a standing before Almighty God.

Even playing for the Saints wouldn't help.

Something on my Mind: Confessions of a Teacher

As you have read here before, I think one of the noblest professions on this planet is that of a teacher. When you read "teacher," I assume you are thinking of a classroom teacher. That's essentially what I'm saying, though there are other types of instructors that I admire.

I have always held that view, even when I was just a student and had the highest regard for some of my own teachers—a Mr. Redmond. There were other types (=non-Redmond) that I have endured, and perhaps you have, too,

Now to be clear, I have absolutely no time for classroom teachers who abuse their power and influence over impressionable minds, indoctrinating them in areas that are hurtful and harmful. That would include any number of ideologies that run contrary to common decency, common sense, and common conventional thinking—and I'll leave it at that.

I have always admired (and even tried to emulate) those teachers who inspire, instruct, and illuminate, for the good of their students. But those who incite and confuse them in the face of the common good are not worthy of their vocation.

The above paragraphs could become a three-part series sometime, but I am taking a fairly simple approach, limiting my comments to this column.

I was a teacher for over a twenty-five years, running the gamut of full-time, part-time, and substitute. Over a span of forty years of working, teaching was only my third (of three) full-time vocations. That was because after I graduated from UBC with my B. Ed., the last job I wanted to do was teach.

It wasn't till twenty years after I graduated that I finally ended up in a classroom. I got the paper that said I was qualified to teach in 1977, but I found I needed twenty years of life experience to flesh that out. "Life experience" meant raising my own kids, living in a practical world (as opposed to a book-learning one), and being a student of the school of hard knocks, that rounded out my own education.

Technically, I am a "certified" teacher. That means I got the valid paperwork to teach; whether I was "qualified" to teach is another matter! Getting that paper does not mean I am a teacher by any means. It just means that I have taken the appropriate training to teach.

Now, having been out of the classroom for three years, I often reflect on my teaching career and wonder to myself: Was I ever any good at teaching? In what I thinks makes for a good teacher, I think so.

The so-called jury of students, parents, and colleagues, scattered from San Salvador (El Salvador) to Kamloops and Langley, (BC) to Bow Island and Medicine Hat, (AB), would have some say in that. I believe I would come through fine, with supporters and detractors in both sides.

By the way, my best years were right here in Bow Island, teaching at Cherry Coulee Christian Academy.

In addition to the degree and experience, there are many other qualities that are equally important to teaching. Enjoying being around kids is one. Patience is certainly a key ingredient. And I think a wide streak of creativity in methodology is up there.

For me, those so-called boxes didn't all check off, but I came fairly close. I liked most kids I taught, I struggled with patience betimes, and I was occasionally creative.

I have often thought of what made a good-to-great teacher when I was a student back in Richmond, BC. I remember fondly Mr. Redmond and Mrs. Matthews, in particular. I think their genuine warmth and kindness stand out in my mind. But in my case, if I were anything like them, my warmth would be more "heat," as in temper; and my kindness that could be construed for "weakness."

Looking back, I certainly measured up in what made for a good teacher. I still think my greatest training for the classroom was the responsibilities I had at home. With nine kids of my own, we pretty well had our own classroom! We all know that there are many habits and rules in the home that apply to the classroom.

With the recent election of the UCP, I sincerely hope that parental choice in education will be restored. This is vital in a healthy, balanced educational landscape. As there are many types of teachers (good, bad, and ugly), there are also many viable types of education models (public, charter, day, home, and everything in between).

And in all those models, parental involvement and choice is ideal, which brings me to where I really see the value in the private and home school options, each of which entail a high degree of parental involvement.

Me, a teacher? I would probably give myself a passing grade.

Something on my Mind: Confessions of a Writer

"Relevant" is one of those multi-faceted words that can be understood in a number of ways. It has multiple applications and contexts.  Here are a few considerations: It could mean changing an application of any truth by disregarding the past and exchanging it for the present.   It could mean doing anything and everything to gain favour with the current market.  Or it could mean embracing change for change sake, but leaving truth and orthodoxy in the dust.

While I should limit my comments to the writer,  it is the challenge of the retailer, preacher, media, and other spheres where people intersect with people.

The retailer, for instance, may be stuck in the 50's when it comes to marketing his wares (as well as the merchandise itself), and thus, be irrelevant for today's market. That is, of course, unless that is his market. There are many retailers who cater to that era and are very successful at it. But does that make him relevant or irrelevant? Is that even a fair question?

The preacher must be relevant, though certainly not at the cost of truth. Truth is always relevant, but it may be "packaged" in an irrelevant way, thus diminishing its effect. His style, stories, outlines, topics, and other techniques may come under the microscope of discernment, as he attempts to be relevant

In a preacher's context, sometimes how he presents his material may trump what he is presenting—how unfortunate!

The same can be said of the apparent relevance of the media personality (just the latest in technology and graphics), the school teacher (strictly a cool dude, friend of the students), the contractor (only the latest designs and patterns), and other vocations that involve people with people. At what point, if there is one, does relevancy overshadow effectiveness?

One may ask the following question when serving as a retailer, preacher, media icon, school teacher, and the others just above :  Am I relevant?

I just think that's the wrong question.

The real question for all those above, including writers, is: Am I making an impact?

It really doesn't matter if I am cool, hip, or modern, so long as I am having some sort of positive impact on my readers.  While that may be hard to gauge, changing and encouraging my readers' lives is the real litmus test.

There is always the need for each writer to apply good writing techniques, ample illustrations, while dealing with matters that are current (and thus not lost in the past), all the while scratching where it itches, soothing where hurts, and stimulating to the mind and conscience.

To me, as a writer, that is the mark of relevance! Needs of every sort demand relevant solutions, and writers are responsible to rise to the occasion.

Some of my favourite writers are not necessarily relevant, but their writing moves me, enthralls, me, and excites me. Does that make them relevant in the strictest form?   Probably not, but their writing is having an impact of my life (and my own writing as well), and that's where true relevance kicks in.

Of course, I need to ask myself: Am I relevant as a writer?  Well, certainly not in a cool, hip, or modern way, for sure. I certainly try to be relevant, but I do it as one who wants to make an impact on my readers (even as I write this paper).   We are only relevant to the extent that we are impactful (not a legitimate word, but what's a little slippage among friends?).  Often that means digging deep into the past, a place where some writers who are consumed with relevancy rarely go.

It's not a matter of going into the past for past's sake. But, as in so many other contexts, knowing where we have come from will aid in where we are going.   The past and present are seriously linked, and will produced a significant form of relevance. We draw from lessons learned, mistake made and corrected, and something very relevant called life skills.

I write this paper essentially as a writer, so the above examples are themselves relevant and current.   The last thing I would want is to be irrelevant in my deliveries, whatever form they take.   If I strive to make an "impression," rather than make an "impact," I am missing the mark.

However, if I aim for impacting my audience, then I believe I am truly relevant.

Something on my Mind: April Insanity (2)

To carry on my listed thoughts from last week...

3. Obviously, the Tampa Bay Lightning is a shoo-in from the East, and quite probably for the whole thing. Washington is coming on strong, at the right time, and should be considered as a finalist. I am leaning towards the New York Islanders, mostly for past and present reasons, both for sentiment and skill.

I am not a prophet, but that has never stopped me from going out on a limb and naming the two finalists for Lord Stanley's mug. So (drum roll, please) in the grand scheme of things, I would call for the Flames or the Jets out of the West and the Lightning or Islanders out of the East.

When it comes right down to it, I call Calgary and Tampa Bay, with Tampa Bay taking home the Stanley Cup.

4. Under no conditions do I want to see the Toronto Maple leafs get anywhere. I am so sorry they have clinched a playoff berth already. I just hope they get swept in the first round.

Regardless of what sports source I read, it's "Toronto this" or "Toronto that." Every other Canadian team gets minimal coverage. Everything revolves around the Raptors, Blue Jays, Argonauts, in addition to the Maple Leafs. I get so weary of a Toronto-centred sports scene.

5. There are some really cool success stories out there, with the Islanders and the Coyotes coming to mind. The Islanders have struggled for years with mismanagement and were predicted to be well out of the playoffs by this time of year. Much of the turnaround can be credited to their current bench boss, Barry Trotz, and general manager, Lou Lamoriello.

But the really warm (pun mercilessly intended) story is the Arizona Coyotes. While Trotz will likely get the Jack Adams award, Rick Tocchet should get serious consideration. What he has done with those "desert dogs" is astounding. They didn't make again this year, but they were very close.

There are a lot of skilled players on that team and it seems that their talents have all been pooled together finally. I can't see them making it out of the first round, whatever year they get there. But, who knows: They've made this far on goals, guts and grit.

Like my thoughts on basketball, while I am neither player nor fan, at least with hockey I do enjoy it. I follow the game fairly religiously, but not to the point of being of being "holy" consumed with it.

You see, I am cool, calm, and collected, so that makes me a fan. It's when I am consumed with madness that I'm a fanatic.

Here's to insanity.

Something on my Mind: April Insanity (1)

This is the time of year, at the time of writing, that many sports fans are glued to their phones, tablets, and that old-fashion thing called television, to watch basketball. Not just any basketball, but college basketball. And not just college basketball, but something appropriately called "March Madness."

It is the best of teams from all over the Sates meet and greet to defeat other teams for college basketball supremacy.

I think "Madness" is a great moniker, but for different reasons, which may offend my fans. I would rather be beat up for my views on vaccination than on college basketball.

All I can say, in my defence, is that it's only a game: five guys on each side, with very long legs, and a peach-coloured bouncy thing that keeps on flying around the court and stands.

The "March" part I get, even though it rolls over into early April. It's the "Madness" part I'm still not clear about. Is it "madness," as in the team gets mad because they don't win? Is it "madness" because a favourite team loses? Or "madness" because a certain form of madness consumes you while watching? Probably a little "yes" for all three.

I have never been much of a basketball player or fan. My first experience as a player was being cut from the grade nine team. (I guess that would make me a non-player.) I thought that was unfair: I threw up that orange thing into the mesh with no bottom a hundred times, scoring twice. Wasn't that good enough? Apparently not.

Just before I was cut, I was thrilled when they told me I was a guard. But I was not thrilled when I found out that I was to guard the Gatorade from the other team.

I learned a new meaning for "foul line." Have you ever played with a bunch of stinky players, your own teammates included? Now there's a new meaning for "foul." I know they usually take showers after the game. But before and during would be in order, too.

I never got a grasp (pun intended) of which end of the ball to hold. I tried to grab it like a baseball or football, and throw it properly, but I couldn't even do that.

And I never knew how to keep my hands off the other team's players (though in the proper way, of course). There is a science to it, I'm sure, but jumping up and down, waving my arms in front of his face, yet keeping at least six inches from his body, was way beyond me. I always wanted to say, "boo!" but apparently that wasn't appropriate. That would have netted me a foul, but not the stinky type.

That was fifty years ago, and I remember it as if it was yesterday.

March Madness will be long gone by the time you read this. There will be fifteen teams grinding through their way through year-end exams, with only one team still hungover from celebrating their madness.

But that's okay. We will then be in the middle of another form of "madness." I call it "April Insanity," Though it will actually include May and June.

It's the NHL play-offs, where more than half of the teams qualify for the post-season. It could go for twice as long or more as the college championships, maybe up to two months.

A thousand thoughts flood my mind, but I don't have the space or time to develop them. Let me predict:

1. No, the Vancouver Canucks will not be in the playoffs...surprise, surprise. However, neither will Edmonton, Detroit, nor Florida. There are a few other good teams that will be golfing earlier than hoped for, all good teams in their own right...just like Vancouver.  Vancouver will be more ready than ever next year, what with all these very gifted young players they're grooming. We Canucks fans say that every year, but it's becoming a closer reality. Maybe for the 2021 finals, yes?

2. Calgary Flames, ahem, could go deep into the playoffs this year. Or again, maybe not. It's not hard to like them, starting from the coach and his assistants. If they don't go all the way, my vote is for Winnipeg (from the West).

More on "Insanity" next time.