Unite the left (and build a pipeline)

             I recently completed an online quiz to see which party’s platform I most closely adhere to.  Interestingly, my support for the NDP and Liberals came within one percentage point of one another.  One percent.  That means their policies are so similarly aligned, you might as well flip a coin as to who you’ll vote for (if those are in fact your two top choices, which in my case they clearly are not).
            The Green Party would have garnered the same percentage support except that I unequivocally support oil pipelines.  Yes, I’m a closet pipeline supporter (I guess I’m now out of the closet).  And as I’ve learned, I’m the black sheep in my family when it comes to this issue.  I do support the environment, but is there any reason to oppose efficient, well-built pipelines that transport our secure, non-terrorist nation’s sweet crude to the minivans of soccer moms around the world?
            But enough pipeline spin.  Other than the pipeline issue, the Green Party’s platform is also remarkably similar to that of the Liberals and NDP.  Elizabeth May, leader of our nation’s left-wing fringe party, won’t even suggest an increase to the GST to help meet our country’s environmental challenges. Corporations, yes, but middle-class Canadians are off the hook when it comes to addressing climate change Armageddon.
            While there is one wedge issue that divides the NDP and Liberals, that being whether the budget ought to be balanced sooner or later, it’s really window dressing.  We all know the NDP would favour this approach if it was their idea, but it wasn’t.  Justin Trudeau beat them to the punch and outflanked them on the left.  The NDP thought they would show Ontario they were good budgetary stewards and overcome their Bob Rae-created reputation as reckless spenders.
Unfortunately for them, it’s done nothing of the sort. Most Canadians recognize the need for more spending on infrastructure and that relatively small deficits at this time are not the end of the world.
            So the Liberals have moved to the left, the NDP has moved to the right, and voters of both parties are becoming more and more confused.  If you typically vote NDP, you might be considering voting Liberal this election, and vice-versa.  You might even vote Green, except that you worry your vote is wasted on a left-wing politician who has also committed to balancing the budget.
            There is no significant difference among the left-of-centre parties anymore, which begs the question: Why don’t they all just join up to defeat the right-of-centre Conservatives?
             It makes complete sense from an average voter’s point of view.  The problem, of course, is that politics is involved.
            Trudeau and Mulcair both have massive egos that are hard to deflate after two years of campaigning against one another.  The NDP is looking to finally turf those arrogant Liberals, and the Liberals are looking to restore their Chretien-Martin dynasty (back when the right was divided).  Both leaders will go to almost any length, including leaving their traditional stance on issues, to claim that top spot as prime minister of Canada.
            While they appear to be fiercely opposed to one another, I expect all of that to change once the election results are in, and they find themselves in a situation where the only way to defeat the Conservatives is to work together.  Their supporters may just demand it.
            Isn’t there an expression, “Politics makes strange bedfellows”?  Trudeau and Mulcair appear, at first glance, to be polar opposites.  One is fundamentally cerebral, an introvert with a beard and a bit of a hot head.  The other is charismatic, an extrovert with nice hair who’s prone to say silly things.
            So different, yet their views are so remarkably similar.

School just ain’t what it used to be

            Almost two weeks of my daughter’s school year are over, and once again I must reflect on how school has changed since I was young.  Yes, times sure change in 30 years.  While I hesitate to say those were the good ol’ days, they were indeed good days.

            But before I get too sentimental, I'll humbly offer some slightly critical observations of our school system today.  Please take them with a grain of salt.

• No more A’s.  That’s because the early grades, at least in our school, now receive an “R” for “ready” or “P” for “progressing” or NQRTDTTNKD for “not quite ready to do the things normal kids do” (okay, I made that one up).  And I suppose it’s all right for the younger kids – why do they need to know they’re failing grade one after all?  And grades are over-rated, I completely agree. But when you’re as academically competitive as I am, I’m really looking forward to my daughter’s first A (and it better be an A!)
• Interesting bell times.  While not at my daughter’s school, I’ve noticed other schools have some interesting bell times.  For example: opening bell at 8:53, recess at 10:38, lunch “hour” from 11:58 to 12:43.  Most adults have a hard enough time getting to work at 8:00 let alone making sure their kids are at school at 8:53.  But it does lend itself to some interesting math practice for kids.  For example: “If you start school at 8:53 and begin recess at 10:38, how much instructional time does your teacher have left before the end of the day?”
• Nut-free schools.  This is something I didn’t grow up with either.  I completely understand it given that some kids have severe allergies.  I’d just like to know, what’s up with this?  Some researchers have recently suggested that lack of exposure to peanuts at a young age may be causing the epidemic.  In Ukraine, where my wife is from, they’ve never heard of kids of having such allergies.  Nor in India, where nuts are used in so many of their meals.  I’m not blaming the school system, I’m just asking, what’s up with this?

  

  The dreaded second day of school picture
• Physical literacy.  This is a new term I just learned the other day.  Yes, it has something to do with phys ed.  My fondest memories of phys ed were playing King’s Court with a teacher who threw giant over-sized rubber balls at our heads.  Sometimes the game would end in tears, but normally we just had a good time.  In today’s world, phys ed begins with parents filling out an evaluation of their child’s physical abilities.  I suppose the intention is for the child to improve in certain areas.  But what about the giant over-sized rubber balls?
• Blogs.  Definitely a new thing in our electronic era.  My parents used to get hard copy newsletters.  In our school, we’re inundated with teacher blogs.  Not only her regular teacher, but now the phys ed teacher, too.  While I’m still not sure if I want to know everything about my child’s day, it is nice to have the daily communication.
• No more cursive writing.  That’s right, they’ve eliminated it from the curriculum.  I really wonder about this one.  Even in this computerized age, I still find myself having to use a pen for much of my work.  We’ve taught our daughter how to write, but there will be many in her generation who will never know how to properly write their names.
• New math.  I can’t say I know much about the new math yet, as we’ve done only basic math up to this point.  But I’ve heard from friends that it’s wonderful in creating new parent-child challenges (much like a science project).  My daughter’s teacher told us that we won’t be able to help her much because there are so many words involved.  So many words in math…. That just doesn’t sound right.  Don’t you just learn the rules, memorize the tables, and go at ‘er?  This is why kids who hate reading love math!

So that’s my diatribe.  I really do love my daughter’s school.  In fact, I’ve been very impressed with the quality of teaching.  I just think the system could use a little tweaking.  You know, to make it more like it the good ol' days.

When a picture (hopefully) changes everything

            It’s taken one photo to galvanize the public.  They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and in this case, it’s worth far more. 

The tragic photo of the three-year-old Syrian, Alan Kurdi, lying face-down on the beach could be the beginning of a dramatic change in Canada’s stance toward refugee claimants.  To date, the public has remained largely uninterested in the refugee crisis abroad, more interested in volatile stock markets and low oil prices.  It’s been easy to convince ourselves that this is primarily a European issue. 

But the boy’s connection to Canada highlighted the fact that this issue extends far beyond the Atlantic Ocean, where Canadians are very much connected to friends and family from around the world.

We can identify, having family in Ukraine where the civil war has caused us much worry and angst.

Our nephew narrowly escaped being withheld for military duty this February.  As soon as we learned the Ukrainian government planned to prevent military-aged men from leaving the country, we bought him a ticket to Canada.  He arrived three days later. 

He’s now attending school here, hoping to immigrate as soon as he secures employment.  His brother is less fortunate, still serving the second year of his five-year military contract.  He has the unenviable task of transporting and training Ukrainian civilians, anywhere from age 18 to 50, to participate in the ongoing conflict.  He already performed his tour of duty in the now infamous town of Debaltseve, where a bloody battle ensued last winter and rebel forces finally gained control.

Like in Ukraine, the situation in Syria has been deteriorating for years, but now is reaching a boiling point.  The refugees are clearly desperate, and they cannot be ignored.  Their treatment, however, is raising alarm bells. 

Seeing in the news a train transporting refugees, unknowingly, to a detainment centre in Hungary, brought to mind images of Jews being sent to concentration camps.  We’ve seen videos of refugees being beaten, finger-printed, and pepper-sprayed.  They’re treated like a plague, and I fear what might come of this.  When the Hungarian prime minister starts talking about their impact on the Christian population of Europe, I wonder if this will lead to even more xenophobic rhetoric and consequent mistreatment.

While Canadian leaders would hopefully never voice such words, they have been guilty of leading an ineffective effort.  By laying on the red tape and not applying enough resources to the situation, Canada has fallen far behind other countries in accepting Syrian refugees.

Based on my own experience with the immigration process, it's apparent the federal government has become less and less interested in accepting new immigrants.  So much so that the provinces have established their own systems to fast-track the immigration process and entice more workers to support their struggling labour markets.

And now I learn that when it comes to refugees, the Canadian government is nowhere near the levels accepted in the past or in other developed nations like Germany.

In 1979 and 1980, under both a Conservative and Liberal federal government, 60,000 refugees from Vietnam were accepted into Canada.  Teams of Canadian officials were sent to the region to process refugee claimants.  Mike Molloy, the Canadian official how oversaw this process, said that it took on average 12 minutes per case!

As a child, I remember the Vietnamese families who became part of our church in the 1980s and who lived with some of our relatives.  They were not seen as a burden, but rather an opportunity to extend compassion and enrich our own lives.

Canada is currently struggling to meet its paltry target of accepting 10,000 refugees from Syria by 2017, having accepted only 2,374 since January 2014.  The reasons, as illustrated in the case of the family of Alan Kurdi, are due to the complex, lengthy process.

The government has made it so, and in some cases, for good reason.  But in these dire situations, as that picture clearly indicates, expediency must rule the day.