Unions, the people who brought you weekends!

Here is a copy of the letter I wrote to Christy Clark, Peter Fassbinder and my MLA, Linda Reimer:

All right, this is ridiculous.  You and your government have had over a year to reach some sort of labour peace with the teachers and you seem to have no idea how to get past the impasse that you have created.  Teachers have been willing to change their salary demands and have made a number of proposals to solve the problems your government created with regard to class size and composition and you have done nothing.

It appears that public schools will not open as they should on September 2.  Of course, that doesn't concern you, Ms. Clark, since your son will still be able to attend his private school without interruption.  Aren't you ashamed?  If you aren't, you should be.  One of the most important roles of government is to provide services to its citizenry.  In this respect, you have clearly dropped the ball.  If you can't do your jobs, perhaps you should all consider standing aside and letting a more capable group take over.

I am a teacher and a parent.  You have offered to provide me with forty dollars a day to deal with my 12 year old son's needs while you stand helplessly by and let his school remain closed.  I also have a 15 year old son, but you appear to be unconcerned about his educational needs.  You have offered me nothing as a teacher to demonstrate that you value and understand the important work I do in my classroom, my school and my community.  Shame on you all.

*********************
 As you can imagine, I'm feeling very apprehensive and defeated by the lack of progress at the bargaining table.  It feels like this situation will never get solved.  Obviously, something will eventually happen and schools will open again and we will be back in our classrooms, but when and what will that look like?

If you want to observe Labour Day in an appropriate way, perhaps a letter to your MLA might inspire him or her to see what can be done to find a solution to this nightmarish situation.

Win a house! Win a car!

We visited the Pacific National Exhibition on Tuesday.  Lots of people I know "pooh, pooh" the P.N.E. and say, "oh, it's the same thing every year" which is true, and that's it's hokey and tawdry, which is true, but I guess that's why I like it.  It's predictable but it is excellent value for a day with a variety of fun in it.  There are the rides, of course, and now that the lads are older, they're willing to try more of them and get scared or exhilarated or a bit of both.  There are all the games of chance -- both lads tried a couple in the hopes of winning an ipad or a Go Pro or whatever the latest technology is called.  I am sure some people win, but they didn't.  I remember at the Weyburn Fair long ago when I was a girl (talk about hokey and tawdry), my parents played some game of this sort and ended up losing what was then a huge amount of money (probably thirty dollars or something, which at that time was a sizable sum) hoping to win some sort of electrical appliance and walking away with a pink stuffed rabbit (which I still have).

We saw the Super Dogs show (always great -- "there's nothing like a dog, nothing in this world" to misquote Rogers and Hammerstein) and ate food that isn't good for us at all, and went through the barns and saw the baby chicks and pigs and calves and rabbits and goats and bees and all the amazing creatures we exploit.  (No negativity there.)  There was a dairy farmer there describing how cows give birth and how they take the calves away immediately "for safety".  I know he's the expert and everything, but I just don't buy it.  He said the cows and calves aren't emotionally attached to each other at all and it's all for the best.  They feed the calves with their own mother's milk from bottles.  I wanted to hear another perspective on this and so I looked it up on line and found a source I trust (The Manchester Guardian newspaper) which said that although the idea that the calves need to be protected from infection may have some validity, it is also likely that there is an attachment between mother cow and calf, that neither animal is isolated from the other without emotional and social problems and that, once again, the separation is more a matter of money than any animal's well-being.  I remember seeing a you tube video of a herd of dairy cows which had been confined in the barn over the winter.  It was the first day they had been able to get outside in spring.  They clopped out on the cobblestones outside of the barn and made their way across the yard to the green field beyond.  Once they got to the field, they were so excited and happy (I suppose the dairy farmer at the PNE would say I was anthropomorphizing, but it was clear to me that they were happy) that they were kicking up their back feet and running and playing, like dogs or horses or other mammals like us.  My conclusion is that we don't know enough about other animals' emotional states to make the judgement that they don't feel things.  And so I must say, "baloney" to that farmer.

Anyway, there is never enough time to see and do everything that the PNE has to offer.  They have free concerts in the evening (we saw Great Big Sea last year, if you were reading my blog then) and there is a Game of Thrones exhibit (very popular, you have to book a time to see it because there are so many people wanting to -- I don't watch the show, so I wasn't willing to make the effort) and an animation show and of course, the merchandise building (we walked through this year and saw all the accomplished salespeople plying their trade) and street performers and the horse races and there really is literally something for everyone!  There are two and a half more days to enjoy the fun, so check it out!

One ... thing ... after ... another!

Scott McGillivray says that in an ad for his show on Home and Garden Television and so we see it a lot, since Mike is very fond of all the things they feature (except maybe Mike Holmes).  I can hear my mom's voice chiming in, saying to count my blessings and remember how lucky I am to have my health, but there is a little dark cloud over my head this morning.

We will be starting picketing tomorrow, and I will be in front of my school with my picket sign, just like I spent the end of the last school year.  It is really depressing that we could not get a deal over the summer, at least not yet.  Vince Ready is on the case, and if anyone can find a settlement, I guess he's the one (he settled our illegal strike a number of years ago), but just when I think things can't continue in this vein, they do.  Let me say this -- teachers do not want to be on strike!  Anyone who tells you we do is crazy.  In fact, nobody wants to strike.  But it is a working person's only bargaining chip.  "If you can't negotiate with me and can't give me a fair deal, then I won't work."  Teaching is a tough job.  Yes, we "get the summers off" and "yes, we get a good pension", but it is important work and it  is not easy.  Every kid in my class needs something from me, some more than others, and my job, as I see it, is to try to give them what they need.  I want the kids I teach to leave my classroom feeling like they've taken intellectual and creative risks and that they've been successful.  I want them to appreciate each other and the world we live in.  I want to think of things that they can do that will push the envelope and make them and other people think differently about what's going on.  I want them to enjoy themselves and be curious and want to learn things.  I want them to feel excited about coming to school and also safe, both physically and emotionally.  But instead of all of this, I'll be walking back and forth wearing a sign that says I'm locked out.  And all the government thinks I do is generate marks.  (Because that's one of the things they thought was "essential" at the end of last year.)

Some of you know I sent out my "young naturalists" book to a publisher.  I really love it and I think it tells an important story.  (That's me, the author, talking.  I guess not everyone is going to see it that way.  I know these publishing houses take a huge risk in publishing anyone's book, especially an unknown like me.)  Well, it was rejected.  They liked the story, but they didn't like how the two little boys narrate it.  I really thought about it -- should I rewrite it and have just one boy tell it?  But I'm not ready to throw in the towel on Aubrey and Walter just yet.  So out it goes to someone else today!  I hope someone will be able to see that the conversation between the boys is one of the hooks, and not a detriment to the book.

So . . . two bad things.  But bad things come in threes.  Uh oh.  I'd better be looking over my shoulder in the next few days.  And holding tightly to the stair railing when I clump down to the living room in the morning.  And keeping Daisy on the leash.  And eating right and getting lots of sleep!  And not going to the casino (I never go anyway -- to me, it is an extraordinary waste of money, when you could entertain yourself by going to the theatre or a concert or buying a piece of art or donating to some worthy cause.)

Hot Ice and Wondrous Strange Snow

I saw "A Midsummer Night's Dream" last night at Bard on the Beach.  It is such a lovely venue for theatre and the production was full of energy and colour . . . and raunchiness!  The costumes were terrific -- kind of a mashup of farthingales and leather boots and bustles and flowing metallic see-through fabric.  I loved all the fairies (Puck had this great Billy Idol kind of sneer and he wore a bright bustle-skirt but carried it off with real masculine vivacity) and the young lovers were great, especially Hermia (who was very crisp and gave you a sense of a volcanic kind of energy under tight control) and Lysander (who was a nice foil to Hermia -- more languid and fluid).  The big fight scenes were terrific -- really physical and exciting and creative and all over the stage and full of intensity.

I liked the incursions into the audience -- Puck watched the rude mechanicals' rehearsal from a seat in the middle of the second row -- he climbed over people and plunked himself down, causing a little frisson among the audience members -- always fun for everyone, even the audience members who don't get to sit near him.

They achieved the forest with a bunch of different umbrellas, some were mesh that cast nice shadows like a gobbo would, and some opaque -- I didn't love that.  I didn't like the tendency of some of the actors to use modern phrases in throw away lines.  It doesn't fit if you're throwing stuff in, especially when you've already said it in the way you're acting (like when Bottom asked Philostrate what she was doing later -- we already knew they'd made a kind of connection).

I must say I really didn't like Bottom at all.  Scott Bellis played him and he is a very talented actor, but he chose a kind of Austin Powers sort of persona with the clothes and the walk and the accent which I don't think worked at all.  He had a very red nose (I guess because when Thisbe is crying over his dead body,  she says "this cherry nose"? because I don't think there is any suggestion beyond that that Bottom is a drinker) and buck teeth (which, I guess, suggests the donkey and Austin Powers) and mutton chop face whiskers and he was just a buffoon.  There was no soft side at all.  My favourite speech ("I have had a dream - past the wit of man to say what dream it was . . .") was just lost.  It meant nothing, because he really hadn't had an experience of magic and love and romance -- he was too much of an idiot to have an inkling of anything special except himself.  I appreciate that Bottom is egotistical, but I think there is enough dimension in the character that he can have a sense of something greater than himself and the lost note that he can never recover.  Shakespeare always gives us that -- something beyond the obvious.

For Bottom's transformation, they used a metal cage as his donkey head, which I hated.  It reminded me of the movie, "1984", and the cage that has the rat inside and that made it have this horrible menacing quality, which really curtailed the sense of luxurious romance between Titania and Bottom.

And I didn't find the "play within the play" that hilarious.  I liked Quince, Snug and Snout and their roles in the play but I felt like the others didn't catch their characters either as their actual character, nor as their role in the Pyramis and Thisbe play.  There were parts that were funny, but it wasn't the laugh riot I think it should be.

But criticisms aside,  it was great fun to see and also great fun to go with a couple of experienced MSND actors who had lots of great insights into the production (some of which I've used here), so thanks for thinking of me when you were planning your outing!

With hey, ho, the wind and the rain

We've been having a "staycation" for the last little while.  Yesterday the boys and I saw "Twelfth Night" with Boris playing Sir Andrew Aguecheek.  Of course, Boris was terrific as he always is.  I'm thinking of doing the play this year at school if we ever get back to normal.  It is a lovely show and I got lots of great ideas by watching this production, although I don't plan to copy it at all.  That wouldn't be kosher.  They had a beautiful water feature on stage and I was very envious -- how charming it was to hear the water ploshing as the play unfolded.  When Orsino walked in at the beginning, I thought he should be in a silky smoking jacket and be a bit languishing and oily.  He's a bit of a silly fellow, anyway.  And wouldn't it be good if Feste had sort of a standup comedian attitude?  The whole Cesario thing opens up a great "yes-no" kind of romance.  Orsino is attracted to Cesario, but how can that be?  He thinks of himself as a man's man.  He could be really conflicted and in denial.  But Olivia's not in denial -- as soon as she sees Cesario, she knows what she wants.  But Viola is conflicted.  She needs to keep up the disguise, but she's not interested in Olivia.  It would be lots of fun to really play with the idea of identity -- what we think of ourselves and how we see others!

I feel sorry for Malvolio.  He is an irritating guy, but they really humiliate and torture him.  I think we should be a bit ashamed of ourselves for laughing at him earlier in the play.

Today we went on a tour of the Seymour Watershed.  We got to go up and see where our water comes from.  It was fun -- we saw a lovely big bald eagle in a tree by the dam and had a walk in an old growth part of the Seymour forest and explored the river and saw the baby fish at the hatchery.   I am always gratified by the volunteers that run places like the hatchery.  The man who spoke to us knew a lot about salmon and you could see he really cared about them -- certainly I am grateful that there are people like him to take care of salmon and the streams where they grow and spawn and live part of their lives.

Tomorrow, we're going on our traditional "transit trip".  We will take the bus, the skytrain, the seabus and the West Coast Express in a circle tour with a stop at the Lonsdale Quay for lunch.  We've been doing this trip since the boys were tiny and it is always a fun outing.  These are fun and fairly inexpensive things that you can do with your family right here in our own community.  The Watershed tour is absolutely free (sponsored by MetroVancouver) and you get a bus ride up to the dam with a guide and activities along the way.  It's well worth it.  All you have to do is go on the Metro Vancouver website and sign up.

Goldfish dumped by Coquitlam pet owners become invasive species

This is a headline on the CBC this morning.  What is wrong with people?  Firstly, if an animal or a plant aren't already living in an area -- they don't belong there!  You can't just dump it because you don't want it any more!  Secondly, if you think you're setting it free, you're not.  It will likely die a terrible death of starvation or be preyed upon by the animals that do survive where you've dumped it.  But often, like with rabbits and the fish that the story referenced, the poor creature has time to mate and produce offspring that screw everything else up.  Finally, when you buy a pet, you're responsible for it.  Before you bounce off to the pet store (and you shouldn't get a pet from a pet store -- get a pet from the SPCA -- they have all sorts of animals, not just dogs and cats -- or from a reliable breeder), really think about whether you are willing to commit yourself to pet ownership.  Dogs live at least 15 years, cats 20 (if you keep them inside so they are safe and don't prey on songbirds), some birds can live as long as a person!  (Orlando, my brave little cockatiel, lived 30 years!)  So you should think about it as seriously as you think about getting married or buying a house or what career you want.

And don't get an exotic pet.  They are stolen from the wilderness often at the cost of many others who die in the capture or in transit.  A dog is a great pet.  They're smart and loyal and loving and they encourage you to get exercise and they are therapeutic and a good companion.  But you get what you put into it.  You have to make an effort.  I have never had a cat but my sister had her cat, Topper, for over twenty years and she loved him and he was beautiful and sweet and provided her with a great deal of joy.  And they have lots of cats at the SPCA.

"theft was as a splinter in his heart"

He saw the moonlit nursery every time he spoke his cousin's name; he blushed at nothing; he sometimes pinched himself, or uttered an oath, at the memory.  For although a man is judged by his actions, by what he has said and done, a man judges himself by what he is willing to do, by what he might have said, or might have done -- a judgment that is necessarily hampered, not only by the scope and limits of his imagination, but by the ever-changing measure of his doubt and self-esteem.
                                                                  The Luminaries, by Eleanor Catton

I finished my project, which was to read this book by Saturday.  I found the plot rather hard to decipher -- everyone was scamming everyone else, it seemed, and although by the end, I knew who was bad and who was good (not possible in real life, in most cases, but in this book, two of the characters were really terrible people and the rest were just weak or flawed), I would be hard pressed to describe exactly who tricked whom and how and where the gold came from and who deserved the profit from it.

But I really enjoyed the read.  It was like reading Wuthering Heights or something -- it starts with quite a detailed description of one person, who turns out to be a minor character in the actual story.  We see things through his eyes at the beginning, but then it gives the story from a variety of viewpoints.  It was an epic, sweeping story and I felt like it was a combination of "Unforgiven" and "Bering Sea Gold" and Wilkie Collins and Emily Bronte.  I have to take it back to the library tomorrow so I'm rereading the beginning, now that I kind of know where it's all going.