Las Vegas - How Many More Times?

It is hard to know what to think or say about the most recent random shooting/slaughter of people in the USA. One can make all of the usual sounds of sadness or empathy that are spouted out at these kinds of times; one can express the shock of hearing the news and the frustration that these events seems to happen without a rational (if the words random shooting and rational can be used in the same paragraph) reason or explanation. But these events happen with such frequency that the words have lost their value. How many times can you say you are sorry that some stranger was killed before one becomes numb to the events, the horror? How many time can you utter those platitudes before one is just saying words that no one, for good reason, is listening to?

The pundits roll out their all-too-well worn phrases that argue that we need to do more to stop these random types of killing but any suggestion that they make has been made both made and ignored before. Politicians will wring their hands, ask their God for blessings and support in these trying times, and then not use what few god-given brains they have to start to address the underlying problems. Only the most naive person would ever assume that any of these words would have any effect; even the least cynical among us will assume that it will happen again and again and again.

There will be, of course, a debate about  gun control. The anti- gun lobby will demand tighter controls on who buys guns, and what type of guns can be owned by citizens; the pro-gun lobby will argue that guns don't kill people - people do . The same lobby will argue that as criminals, who are by definition people who don't follow the laws - will ignore the laws and that therefore the best protection is for everyone to have a gun. At the end of this debate, if citizens of the USA are lucky nothing will have changed - if they are unlucky the laws will have changed - making it even easier to buy and carry a gun.

I understand that some of my neighbours to the south are committed to their belief that their constitution guarantees them the absolute right to own as many guns as they wish to. I do not understand that need - but I accept it as their reality. I am quite sure that the vast majority of gun owners in the USA - including those who own a large number of guns - are concerned and alarmed at the number of people who are being killed by solo gunmen acting out their own personal fantasies or nightmares. I am equally as sure that many of those gun owners deeply believe that they are not part of the problem. And for the most part they are not...except for the fact that they refuse to allow their communities, including their politicians, to have the debate as to how to resolve this ongoing issue of citizens killing other citizens for no apparent reason.

As long as the debate is framed by the issue of what is or is not guaranteed by the constitution, and that such rights can never be taken away -it will be impossible to talk about insuring that people who do not need guns, people who are struggling with mental health issues, people who are bound and determined to force their values on to others and people who are afraid of change do not have access to guns. The debate should not be framed as one where some people want to take away rights from some other people (although lord knows the USA does that fairly constantly), but rather ensuring that people are safe from those who do not have the capacity to act in a safe and rational fashion.

Owning a gun in the USA may be a constitutional right - but surely along with all rights comes the moral and legal obligation to not hurt other people. Gun owners need to get over their paranoia of being picked on by a few liberal democrats and start to worry about the safety of themselves and their children.  If they joined the debate - they might be surprised to find out that most in the anti-gun lobby could not care less about how many hunting guns their neighbour had - as long as they were locked up safely, but rather they just want to be sure that their neighbour does have weapons whose only function is to kill as many people in the shortest time possible or that that same neighbour harboured a deadly grudge against society.

That, at least to me, seems a reasonable

A Predicable Scam

Last week, CBC (Goggle ) had a number of articles about various people who had been scammed by non-existing universities granting graduate degrees. There were two aspect to these stories. One was that some people have been fooled by people representing themselves as graduates from some university and have been disappointed, or even shocked that such a thing could happen. Those people were concerned that they might have lost money or reputations by hiring people who misrepresented themselves. I have some empathy for people who accept facts at face value especially as the falsely qualified individuals had lovely multi-colour diplomas and their fake universities can be called and the applicants marks etc are confirmed. I have significantly less empathy for those who appear to be shocked that their advanced degrees - for which they paid thousands of dollars for, but for which they did no academic work for - are of no value.

The latter group appear to believe that it is entirely appropriate and even now normal that advanced degrees are given based on personal life experiences. They, if one is to believe them, seem to have assumed that that the world is changing and that one can get the status of a degree and better employment opportunities (as well as a nice diploma to hang on the wall) by telephone.  At best one can only describe these misguided people as naive or perhaps extraordinarily unworldly; at worst they are con artists. Being the cynic that I am, it is far easier for me the latter possibility is true. It is inconceivable to me that someone could actually believe that one can get a doctorate in some field without ever reading a book or writing a single word.

As companies and institutions start to demand ever more qualified applicants for entry level positions,  the pressure to earn those academic qualifications  (whether or not they are of any real value in the job) easier also increases. It is not surprising that some enterprising con artists have created a way for people to get those credentials. In fact, it could be argued that the very existence of such diploma mills are the direct result of the ever increasing inflationary academic qualifications.

While there is clearly, for some employers, the very real possibility of being caught up in this con and risking their companies reputation, these diploma mills pose a much more serious threat to the millions of people who have gone to graduate school, have read hundreds of books, attended countless hours of classes and written numerous well researched papers. It is part of a trend to de-value their hard work. In Canada in the last 10-15 years there has been steady diminishing of the amount of work required to earn an advance degree. A number of the more prestigious Canadian universities have reduced the amount of time and work needed to get a Masters degree - just as seeing it as a brief way stop on the way to a PhD.  By finding ways to make it easier  to get into a PhD program - universities are reducing the value of other degrees. There are, as well, an ever increasing number of valid, recognized universities that  offer on-line courses. When teaching at a community college, probably half of my colleagues had a Master's Degree in Education from an on-line university. I would not argue that such on-line degrees have no value, but they significantly reduce the value of a Masters degree.

Education should not be about getting gaining entry into the work force, but rather about exploring and expanding our interests. It should be about assisting people to develop into someone who can think critically, who can debate issues without resorting to mindless rhetoric and who can be an active citizen in their community. The existence of individuals prepared to either grant or earn bogus degrees is but one symptom of an education system who, with the active support of companies and institutions,  has the main priority of finding and retaining consumers (students) for as long as possible.

It is no longer about good education, but rather about ensuring that there are sufficient students to maintain the institution.  That seems backward to me.

A Minor Gap in Our Medical System

I spent a bit of time this week with a couple of doctors, some nurses and a x-ray technician. They were all very nice.  They treated me with respect and kindness. A few of them had a nice quirky sense of humour that made the whole experience if not enjoyable, at least far more than tolerable. Unfortunately, I was reminded that while our medical system in Canada guarantees that all Canadians have equal access to our health care system, not all citizens have equal capacity to benefit from that system.

Almost three weeks ago I was standing on a 18 inch high plastic stool doing some household repairs when the stool fell apart. It just disintegrated with all four sides collapsing outward. I fell straight down , landing on my feet. For some reason it really hurt. I was pretty sure that I had not gone over on my ankle (something that has happened all too often in the past) but my ankle and lower leg hurt as if I had. I hobbled unto the house, swallowed two no-name ibuprofen and laid down. An hour later my ankle had swollen like the proverbial balloon and I knew I was in for a few days of being uncomfortable. Fortunately I carve walking canes for a hobby and had a number to chose from to assist me as I hopped from counter to counter, from one piece of furniture to the next.

I knew I could have/should have gone to the hospital, but the thought of driving there and then having to walk from the parking lot to the emergency room was just more than I could bare. I made something to eat, went to bed with some confidence that the next day would be better. It was - but only marginally. Over the next ten days it got better bit by bit but it did not feel as if I was recovering as quickly as I should.  There were times when it just ached and other times when I put too much weight on it that it hurt - a lot. Two weeks after the accident - I went to see my doctor. She sent me to get an x-ray. The technician looked at the pictures of my ankle, made it clear that he could not diagnose or comment on the x-ray, and he suggested that I see a doctor as soon as possible if not sooner. The next morning I went to my doctor who eventually got the x-rays and suggested that I get to the hospital to have a cast put on.

It turns out that I had not pulled or sprained a ligament but rather had broken bones on either side of my foot. I assume that the force of me falling straight down caused the breaks. It was suggested that I purchase an "air cast"( picture). I did so the next morning. I was not offered the option of a plaster cast. Given the fact that I have a car with a manual transmission - and therefore needed to take off the cast to drive - the air cast made some sense.

However the air cast costs $178.00!! If I had not had the money to pay for it, the emergency doctor admitted that that that would be a problem. No other solution was offered. I bought the air cast at a pharmacy but if I had not asked, I would have gotten no instruction at all. As it was, what I did get - was not that useful. I have no idea as to whether or not I have got it on right - if I have pumped up the air bladders sufficiently to keep the foot stable. I am appalled that I (1) it cost me $178 to purchase something that I needed to get better and (2) that in spite of the doctor giving me prescription for it, no one has made sure that I am using it correctly.

Everyone including the x-ray tech, my doctor and the hospital doctor  were great. I got great service. However, if I had not been able to afford the cast or had been too shy or  uncomfortable to ask for assistance at the pharmacy - all of the niceness and kindness in the world would not have helped one little bit. It seems to me that our medical system needs to ensure that people have access to the supplies and services that they need - especially if they can't afford it or do not know how to ask for help. It is, I think, quite easy to be nice to me. I am polite, know how to ask questions and almost never blame the bearer of bad news. At the hospital I was not stressed about money or how I was going to get home or any other of the details of life other people may have to deal with. I am one of the lucky ones....but for so many people - paying for and then knowing how to use it would have been more than they were able to manage. We need to do better.

The Unfairness of it All

Huston, Texas got walloped by one heck of a storm. Not only were there winds strong enough to rip roofs off of houses, but it rained and rained - in some areas over 1.25 metres of water fell. There has been wide spread destruction of property, thousands have been left homeless for the foreseeable future and at least  20 people have died as a direct result of Hurricane Harvey. Without any doubt the effects of the hurricane on the residents of Huston has been devastating. If the USA's response to Hurricane Katrina is any example - it may be a generation before some of the damages are repaired. For some, their lives may be shattered forever. BUT the USA has the capacity to assist Huston and its residents to recover. If the politicians, the bureaucrats and the voting public choose to - the full resources of the American Armed Forces, of the various  emergency organizations and numerous not-for-profit organization could both significantly ease the suffering of individuals and contribute to the quick rebuilding of the city's infrastructure. The United States has the capacity to do it all - quickly and without a lot of outside help. They could also do much to prevent future crisis by ensuring that the drainage systems were functional and had the capacity to deal with extraordinary amounts of rain and that developers were not allowed to build housing on swamps or flood plains.

But the good people of Huston are not the only ones who have experienced too much rain. In Bangladesh - 7.1 million people, in Nepal approximately 1.5 million and in India nearly 14 million have been affected by flooding (Red Cross). The death toll in these countries may be in the thousands. The sad fact is that these countries are far less able to, in the short term, provide relief to the victims of the flooding. They are even less able to develop the kinds of long term strategies that will ensure less flooding in the future. There seems to be some sort of cosmic rule that natural disasters are worse and therefore have a far greater impact upon those countries who have the least capacity to deal with them. It also seems to be the rule that if we cannot relate to the people affected by the disaster, our capacity to care is reduced.

I perhaps should not be surprised that there is so little news as to what is happening in India, Nepal or Bangladesh. On CBC's website this morning ,there were seven stories about Huston - there were none about Bangladesh. I understand the USA are our neighbours and that it is natural for us to be more concerned about them than people who live nearly halfway around the world. I also understand that it is easier to relate to the suffering of people whose lives somewhat resemble ours. But it would seem to me that the news media have some responsibility to at least present to us the stories from other parts of the world - I may chose to not read that story - but at least give me the chance to make that choice.

Whether we like it or not we live a global world. No longer are we isolated by oceans that cannot be crossed safely, no longer can we remain ignorant as to what is happening to millions and millions of people. People keep on saying that we are all connected, that the internet allows us to share information, stories about people's lives that make us feel as if we are all part of the same human family. Someone needs to start telling more of those stories  and a lot more loudly. Our brothers and sisters in India, Nepal or Bangladesh need our assistance and if you are so inclined - our prayers.

The Hiding of Canada's History (part two)

Not withstanding the absurdity of a teacher asking a board of education to change a school's name  (CBC Globe), one has to wonder why the teacher's federation decided to focus on this issue as opposed to the myriad of other issues that need to be addressed within our educational system. If the teachers were truly committed to dealing with Canada's long and sordid history of being a country that based and continues to base some its policies on racism, there were numerous other resolutions that could have been far more useful and perhaps even implementable.  In fact, their resolution seems to have far more to do with being politically correct - without having to invest any real energy or resources into dealing with the issues; it feels as if a bunch of elites (they have well paying union jobs, all have a university education and I would bet that the majority of them are of European descent) passed a motion that makes them feel as if they have done something - and then as usual, expect someone else to do the work.

They could have, for example:

- passed a resolution stating that in their next contract negotiations their top priority would be for the government to more adequately fund and support the education of Indigenous youth in their home communities.

- or passed a resolution to demand (again as their top priority) that Indigenous youth in urban areas receive have access to educational programs that both reflect their cultural heritage and that prepare those youth for the 21st century.

- suggested that all such federations across the country review their teaching practice and curriculums to ensure that when the history, the economics or the politics of this country are being discussed that there is the opportunity for all students to recognize that some of the decisions that have been were destructive to whole groups of people - most of whom were already disadvantaged. 

The list of what they could have done goes on and on and on.

If in fact the teachers' federation wanted to initiate a conversation about how we name our public buildings, and if they wanted to do so out of genuine concern for the oppressed peoples of Canada (as opposed to some knee-jerk reaction to what is happening in the USA), that is wonderful. There is a long list of building and places names after people who said or did things that were clearly racist. Let us change the name of the Nellie McClung library branch in Victoria because she certainly was a racist (as well as someone who supported the concept that people who were deemed to be sub-standard, should not be allowed to have children).

My grandchildren have gone to an elementary school called Churchill - perhaps because it is on a street called Churchill - named after Winston Churchill, the revered leader of Britain during WW2. Churchill  deeply believed that Europeans were destined to rule the world - he was clearly a racist (Guardian). Should the name of that school be changed? How far do we go in being politically correct?

It is clear that the teachers' federation did not think through this motion. The teacher behind the motion, when asked about deleting Prime Minister  Sir Wilfred Laurier's name from any school building because  of his role in the banning of Chinese immigrants during his tenure suggested that the teachers were only concerned with injustices of  First Nation peoples. It would seem that if we are truly going to finally accept the reality of racism in Canada, that while we recognize as a priority the gross injustices done to our First Nation communities - we as well need to identify and address all racism. To suggest that people from different cultures/races are less important than others sounds like racism.

The teachers' federations motion was at best a noble, but empty gesture. It may have done more damage than good if only because it is easier to talk about ancient names and what they may or may not have done than it is to address what we are doing or not doing today.