Activism

Keep Scona Pool Open!

mig14 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:21:00 GMT

With the buzz surrounding the potential closure of the Edmonton City Centre Airport these last few weeks, another issue has fallen by the wayside. I’m talking about the proposed closure of Scona Pool. The city cannot allow this to happen.

One of the things that major cities tend to pride themselves on is the community feeling in certain neighbourhoods. For the most part, Edmonton lacks those elements because of the way the city is designed, and the fact that our transit system renders it next to ipossible to get anywhere in a relatively short time. It is difficult in Edmonton to really feel at home in a neighbourhood because not all neighbourhoods are designed the same way.

We don’t really have an Edmonton version of Kitsilano (in Vancouver) or Queens (in New York). Instead we have a city that is sprawling to the point of absurdity, and the slow death of anything small or intensely local. In many parts of the city outside of the downtown core and the Old Strathcona neighbourhood, it is difficult, if not impossible, to find a place that allows for the strengthening of community bonds to the point that you’d find in a small town.

For many families in southwest Edmonton, Scona Pool IS that place.

Part of the problem with the Scona Pool is that the City now has to pay to maintain the facility itself, and pay the wages set out in the bargaining agreement between the City and CUPE Local 30. With wages starting at $17.16 per hour and increasing to $23.02 per hour, it is little wonder that the pool can operate at all, let alone with a surplus.

The hours that Scona Pool is open do not allow for adequate use of the facility, or adequate cost-recovery. It is open to the public for a total of 15.5 hours per week. The major user group for the facility is Strathcona High School, and for most of what they use, they pay $10.50 per hour under the Joint Use Agreement between the City of Edmonton and the Edmonton Public and Catholic School Boards.

I could be wrong, but a school booking the pool for even 3 hours a day at $10.50 per hour (for a total cost of $31.50 per day) cannot even begin to make up for the wage of the lifeguard on duty. Even if the lifeguard was being paid the minimum salary, they would still be paid a total of $51.48, or $20 more than the cost of the rental. The truth is that most daytime lifeguards are not just starting out, and will be at the top of the pay scale, leaving that daytime lifeguard at Scona Pool with $69.06 in their pockets, and the facility with an almost $40 shortfall.

This does not make financial sense. Other facilities are being forced to trim their budgets by up to 20% for the upcoming year, but Edmonton’s City Council is willing to spend $122,000 to keep the facility open, and another $90,000 to assess the building. That is over $200,000 which could be used to keep other facilities open for longer, or to hire more instructing or lifeguarding staff to cover the holes in various schedules.

It does make sense to close down the pool; this is undeniable. But City Council is not willing to take that step just yet. Why? Because the City recognizes Scona Pool’s importance to the community, and will do what it can to keep the facility open.

The pool has become more than just a facility. Families have been using Scona Pool for over 50 years; children have been taught to swim there, and a local swimming dynasty was born out of that environment. While I don’t think that this is the only reason the pool should stay open, I believe that to foster both competition and active living, it’s important for students at Strathcona High School to have access to the pool. I also believe that it is important to keep the pool open to provide kids with somewhere to do during the summer where they won’t be getting into trouble.

What the City of Edmonton, and specifically the Community Services department, needs to do is make Scona Pool work. This will involve being open for more than 15 hours a week. This will, undoubtedly, cost money, but the benefit in the long term will far outweigh the costs.

The facility is in serious need of renovations. But in the long run, the community needs the pool much more than the city needs to worry about an airport downtown. The closure of a secondary airport in a city never destroyed people’s sense of community like the closure of a swimming pool will.

Kids These Days....

mig14 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:03:00 GMT

So I became much less engaged online (at least on my blog) over the course of the past 10 months. Instead of blogging, I was using Twitter fairly prolifically for a while; that, too, has dropped off. One of the things I'd like to do more of is tell tales out of school. I'll be professional and all that, but some of my students are amazing, and their stories should be told. They're also kind of ridiculous, and make me laugh; those stories need to be told as well.

I don't know what it is, but I've attained the status of a rockstar, at least with some of my students. The grad banquet this year was a prime example. I literally could have charged money for people to take pictures with me, and would have come out at least a hundred bucks ahead. I'm not sure what the reason for this is, but I find it really funny. Part of me thinks it's because I'm relatively young and I make the effort to get to know who they are outside of my classroom, but their never-ending obsession with MY life outside the classroom is borderline creepy. They wanted to know for MONTHS what kind of car I drove, and when one of the grade 12s found out, he told EVERYONE withing a day. They invite me to the bar, and out for their birthdays, and they're not just playing around. They are actually serious.

All year long, I've been extolling the virtues of my grade 12 kids, because that class was definitely the most fun I've ever had. One of the things I liked best about them was their willingness to buy whatever I was selling (both literally and figuratively). I had them coming to class on the day of their commencement (when they didn't go to any other class); they came on the last day of school, after they had written their diploma exam. I never had to chase anyone down for late assignments, and no one skipped a test (with the exception of one kid at the beginning of the year). This really was an interesting bunch of kids, and I had a ton of fun with them.

One of the boys in the class came to me on the last day with a card. He had made it himself, and inside he wrote: “I cam to your class because it was always full of laughter and because you are so much more personal than any other teacher I've had before. I haven't had a teacher that actually seemed to care about individual students. I appreciate that you treat me like and equal and friend. You've helped to brighten a year that otherwise would have been dull. Thank you.” I was literally blown away. I knew this kid appreciated the laughs we had in class, because he always joined in, but I had no idea that he felt so strongly about the class. One of the girls in the same class also gave me a card and said “ Thanks for being supportive, encouraging and patient. I know that you will be a fantastic teacher for a very, very long time and your future students are lucky to have you as their teacher.” Again, I was floored. I don't think anyone sets out in this profession to be loved, or even to be liked, but that's a huge bonus.

All self-promotion aside, one of the neatest things happened near the end of the school year. One of my kids, who I'm certain will go on to do great things in his life, told me that he thought I'd teach for a few more years, then I'd go out “and change the world”. I wasn't sure what to do with that kind of assertion, because it's my job as a teacher to be telling kids that, not their job to be telling me that. I was honestly speechless (and those of you who know me know how unlikely that reaction is). I actually teared up a bit at that. For an 18 year old to possess that kind of insight, for him to KNOW that I don't want to teach in a public school forever without me ever having said that, you could say I was just a little bit impressed. While it's very true that this student was my absolute favourite for the year, and we spent a lot of time after school talking about his plans for the future, I was still quite amazed that he picked up on it. I thanked him profusely and then shooed him out of the classroom so that I could take some time to gather my thoughts. (I'd write his name down here, but then he might read it, and would be embarrassed that he's been mentioned, and then categorically deny any involvement in the above situation. He's funny like that.)

I don't want to give this kid all the credit (though he changed my perception on the ideology behind World War II with a brilliant essay that he wrote), but I've done a lot of thinking in the last couple of weeks about where my career will take me, and I've ultimately come to a decision. In a few years, I'll be gone, at least for a while. I'd like to go to Uganda, and start with a teacher exchange there, and then do some work that is actually meaningful. Don't get me wrong. Teaching is great. There are very few jobs where a person can go to work and legitimately feel like they've done something good. Sometimes, though, I feel like I'm not necessary. My students would ultimately learn whether I'm in front of them or not (though the quality of that education would definitely be under some scrutiny), so why not change things up and spend some time in a place where most people wouldn't go, and do some work that most people wouldn't do?

I'm going to do it. It's time for me to start actually “walking the talk“ with respect to the things that I care about. I can't do it yet, but now that I've decided, I can make the decision to save money for these future adventures. And then maybe I can come back home and change the world.

I guess I just need a travel buddy....

If I Were President, How Would I Spend $100 Million?

mig14 — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:45:00 GMT

Since November I've been relatively quiet (at least online) about the election in the US, and the People's President, Sen. Barack Obama.

I will not stay silent anymore.

I have never been a big fan of Obama. Part of that comes from his hard-fought campaign against Hillary Clinton (whom I admire greatly). The other part of my non-love for Obama stems from his outright hypocrisy.

Looking at video clips of Obama from the last 2 years, there was a marked improvement in his ability to think on his feet, but he still leaves a lot to be desired in that department. Of course Obama is far more skilled at off-the-cuff speaking that someone like Sarah Palin, or George W. Bush. There is no comparison, so let's not even go there.

However, right now the thing about Obama that is bothering me has nothing to do with his skills as an orator.

It's his skin colour. Or at least how he's using his skin colour to his advantage.

Throughout the entire campaign, Obama himself made a big show of the race not being about race. It was about qualifications and integrity and honesty and patriotism and doing what is best for the United States of America.

Now? It's about race.

Obama's people can pretend that it's not, but when the list of performers and celebrity attendees for inauguration week reads like a who's who of Black Hollywood, there's a problem.

Obama is supposed to be the people's president. He is supposed to bring the country together, not drive it apart. He even said so on election night:

It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled – Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

He's absolutely right. And what better way to show off the United States of America and all of its diversity by not having any Latino performers and very few white artists to help celebrate the cause.

The other thing that's happening right now that baffles me is the inauguration celebration itself. In a time of economic crisis, it shocks me to think that American taxpayers are okay with their new president spending upwards of 100 million dollars on an inauguration celebration that will alienate huge segments of the population. Instead of spending the money, perhaps a muted celebration with family, friends and political allies in attendance woiuld have made more sense.

Rather than spend money to travel to Washington DC to see the inauguration in person, people could save their money and pay off some of their debt. Obama could save the government and the taxpayers millions by scaling things back to a “moderate“ 10 to 15 million dollars, using the rest to invest in America's future and hire more teachers, or clean up Washington DC's crime problem.

Instead of having over 6000 volunteers pick up garbage along the parade route on January 20th, perhaps Obama could have given his speech at Camp David in Maryland, and had it streamed into football and baseball and basketball stadiums across the country. This would have saved countless taxpayer dollars, but also provided people who are down on their luck an opportunity to see this historic event in a crowd setting, rather than having to catch snippets on a radio or nearby television screen.

The lack of outcry for the cost of this inauguration is one more reason I think that President-Elect Obama has fooled the entire nation into believing his mantra of “Change We Can Believe In“. (By comparison, George W Bush spent only $42 million for his second inauguration celebration in 2005.)

Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I can't quite get over the fact that American Democrats were bamboozled by a relatively young guy with shiny, happy rhetoric, and that the rest of the country was then duped. Then again, they did elect George W Bush twice, and Richard “I am not a crook” Nixon twice as well.

What's that saying again? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Congratulations, America. You probably deserve what you're getting.

tags: obama politics USA clinton inauguration taxpayers democrats

Do You Know Where Westboro Baptist Church Is?

mig14 — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:42:00 GMT

If you didn't before, you will when you're through with this.

I regularly read a column by Mitch Albom of the Detroit Free Press, and over the years I've found his writing to be very informative, as well as entertaining. You may have heard of his as the author of "Tuesdays With Morrie" (which I also read and loved, let me tell you).

In his most recent column, Albom talks about a group of people who are being unfairly attacked for their jobs: soldiers. Apparently, a congregation from the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, has been targeting the funerals of soldiers who served in the Middle East and protesting the involvement of American soldiers because they died "from wounds the Lord his God inflicted upon him. ... (They) volunteered to serve a nation that hates God. ...What more evidence do you need to tell you he's in Hell?"

Albom himself is rather annoyed by all of this:

Personally, I don't need help connecting the dots. It's a pretty straight line from hate to stupidity.
But it's a crooked path from rights to right. The protesters' rights to free speech -- which, by the way, is part of what our soldiers fight and die for -- don't supercede the right of a family to bury its child in peace.
So I am all for legislation that limits funeral protests to a certain time before or after the service. Personally, I would feel no loss if protesters were banned altogether from funerals. It would only be decent. But we've already seen decency swept away by the broom of free expression.

The people from Westboro obviously have nothing better to do than protest at funerals of soldiers who are serving overseas in order to try to prevent terrorist organizations from attacking the very country that they live in. Soldiers who, after finishing high school, saw no other vocation than being in the military, and were willing to sacrifice their lives to protect the values that they hold dear, the rights that say that the gay-bashers in Westboro are allowed to have freedom of expression. As I said to Tom Poon, I'm so offended I might anthrax the church.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I can't even believe that people who consider themselves Christian would even deign to say something so ridiculously, well, ridiculous. We all know that I don't necessarily consider myself a spiritual person, but even I think there's something wrong with this. I don't agree with suicide bombers who claim to die in the name of Allah, and I don't agree with these people who say that their soldiers, their future leaders, are dying because the country is being overrun with homosexuals: "You turn this country over to the fags, now your children are coming home in body bags."

I'm sorry but there is nothing that anyone can say that makes this okay. Given the controversy about our troops in Afghanistan right now, I think that this comes at a good time for us to think about how important our troops really our to ensuring quality of life for everyone, not just those in Western democracies. Our soldiers are fighting in order to bring some semblance of order and stability to a very volatile part of the world. I don't necessarily agree that we should have gone in the first place, but now that we're there, we can't simply leave.

And to the people at Westboro Baptist Church: Maybe you ought to let the "fags" be in control for a while. The straight guys didn't do a very good job of running things in the past.

Recap: Bill Clinton

mig14 — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:04:00 GMT

Apologies for the lateness of this recap. As Mack so eloquently stated, he and I were fortunate enough to see Bill Clinton speak at Rexall on Thursday night. I was pretty excited about it (ask anyone I work with, I couldn't stop talking about it), and I'm pleased to say that Bill delivered.

I was always a fan of Clinton as President, mostly because I ound that listening to him you could tell that he was very passionate about his work. Listening to him speak in person captured so much more of that intensity, and made me feel like I was having a private conversation with him. While he spent a lot of time talking about policy and how we as private citizens can effect change, I was also quite impressed with the human element of his talk. When asked who he admired, he replied "Nelson Mandela and (former Israeli Prime Minister) Yitzhak Rabin. He then told the audience very personal stories about these men, and it struck me that even the President of the United States is human too.

The thing I took away more than anything was that not only was I fortunate enough to see the 42nd President of the USA speak live, it's an opportunity that I'll never have again. And I think that I'll look back on the experience and say "when I was 22, I saw Bill Clinton speak. It was awesome."

Why I Hate Politics...

mig14 — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:26:00 GMT

Politicians are dirty bastards. I have yet to hear a politician say something in this campaign that isn't directly derogatory to other politicians.

The Conservatives are circling envelopes into people's mailboxes that state "If you were a friend of the Liberals, this envelope would have money in it." I don't care how true it is; can these people not cmampaign in a manner that doesn't make them look like the kid on the playground who tattles on everyone because he has no friends??

As some of you may be well aware, the Liberals released an ad that attacked the Conservative proposal to station more regular troops across the country, and have more reserve troops as well. I don't necessarily see the problem with the Conservative proposal, but the way the Liberals attacked it was completely uncalled for. Stephen Harper is not my favourite person, I've been quite clear about that. But I don't condone attacking the man for the policy. It's not HIS policy, it's party policy. The ad started off with a blurred picture of Harper overlayed with text. Some people said it evoked images of Hitler when they saw it. I don't think that this was necessarily the image that was being portrayed, but someone definitely screwed up.

We all know how I'm in full support of Canada's Armed Forces (more lately than before), and I fully support an increase in funding so that our troops aren't using old US National Guard cast-offs for equipment. I think that our military needs to be up to date, especially if we want to maintain our role as peacekeepers. I don't, however, think that increasing funding and the number of troops will lead to a police state. Some of the "best" police states in history were (and are) dirt poor. Money doesn't make military might within a country's borders; zealotry does.

On January 23, do the right thing. VOTE. (Or at the very least spoil your ballot if you're indifferent to the whole thing)

Why I hate Stephen Harper...

mig14 — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:38:00 GMT

THE MAN HAS NO CHARISMA!!!!!

Seriously. Those commercials on TV where he's sitting with that lady who's supposed to be some kind of newscaster/tlak show host/ conservative whore drive me INSANE. The script is so bad that Stephen Harper comes off as LESS charismatic than normal, if that's even possible. Some people would say I don't like him because he's a Conservative, but that's not true. I like Peter MacKay quite a lot. He has a presence when he's on TV, and it shows up quite well in my eyes. Harper, on the other hand, reminds me of the little kid that used to live down the street who only said something when we told him to and never thought for himself.

I'm a MUCH bigger fan of Paul Martin, Jack Layton and even Gilles Duceppe (though I think that if someone wants to leave so badly, they should). You may find yourself asking why. The answer is simple my friends: I can listen to them speak without wanting to either throw something at my TV or attempt to reach THROUGH the picture tube to rip out their voice boxes.

Do us all a favour on January 23, vote someone other than the Conservatives. Maybe if they lose agian, Harper will go away. Or maybe Peter MacKay will be the new leader (which he should have been anyways) and I won't come across as so left wingnut-ish. Or not.

Remembrance Day

mig14 — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 22:47:00 GMT

Every year, on November 11, we get a day off from school or work (depending where you work) to remember. lately, I've been wondering how much we actually remember on this day. On November 11, 1918, at 11am, an armistice was agreed to that ended World War I. In Canada, that day every year is designated for the exact purpose of remembering.

But what exactly is it that we are remembering? Those of us born in the late 20th century cannot begin to comprehend the sacrifice that was made by our grandparents in order to assure us of the freedom we enjoy today. But does that mean that we have to be ignorant about it? Not at all. I have always wondered how many people take the time on Remembrance Day to have a moment of silence and actually think about what it means for us today to be free.

Looking back to junior high and high school, we always had a ceremony on November 10th (because we obviously were not in school on the 11th), and it always struck me as very contrived. I don't think that a ceremony has to be formal in any way, but it should at least attempt to invoke some sort of emotion from the participants. Unfortunately, there is not enough context for these ceremonies, as so much of the history of the world wars, plus Korea and other missions, is lost on today's youth. But just because kids today aren't learning the stuff doesn't give us the right to forget what we've learned.

In so many ways, we owe everything to those men and women who went to war in Europe, Africa and Asia. Some would argue that if the Germans hadn't been defeated, we would all be living in some kind of police state. Maybe that's true, but even if it's not, I'm sure that it would only take a few minutes to actually think about how great we have it here, and remember that it might not have been that way had it not been for some very brave Canadians.

I would like to thank the millions of men and women who served in our armed forces over the years. Though it may not be seen with much prestige anymore, it is still appreciated by many Canadians.