River levels are high here in Calgary and once again as well as in communities south of the city.Everyone is watching the skies with nervous anticipation as more rain is being forecast for today.Not what would really qualify as torrential amounts,but more than we need at the moment.

To the eye,the Bow River seems to have at least twice it's normal amount of water flow,all of it muddy and filled with debris.Some of the lower islands are nearly submerged upstream of downtown.But the Bow is not really the problem child of rivers as Calgary and southern Alberta go.It has fairly larger banks to contain it,and though there are some low lying areas around,most of the buildings are a fair distance back from the rivers edge.

Not so with the Elbow however which snakes its way in from the southwest,forms a huge reservoir behind the Glenmore Dam then cuts through a number of very high end residential areas,past Stampede Park and into the Bow east of downtown.On the Elbow,dwellings are often built right up to it's banks,as is the case on 24th Ave,S.W. where I lived during the June floods of 2005.Usually the Elbow is a pastoral little stream winding through the heart of a large city,and is lovely to have literally in your backyard.But it does not have high banks at all and can flood easily even with moderate rainfall and snow melt.The Glenmore Dam holds back a lot of water,but it's old and in 2005 there was a need to release some of the water behind it.Water over ran the banks and we were forced to evacuate for nearly a week.The stock footage of that event  that was played over and over by The Weather Channel was filmed at the very bottom of my street.Local news today is showing very similar scenes,though I no longer live in an area that causes me as much of flooding.Still,people seem to be gearing up for a flood,much the same as they were then.The situation doesn't seem nearly as dire as in 2005,but that could change very quickly if we get the rain that's anticipated.Watching the radar is rather spooky this morning as there seems to be storms all across the west,including a rather big, nasty looking one in Montana,about 200 miles away as bad weather flies.There is a concern of tornadoes east of here as well and there are watches and warnings out all over the place.It's calm right now,but the sky is smudged with gray all about and it's cool and damp with a slight wind.Kind of like what might be called a pregnant pause in the weather for now.

                                                                              

memoir writers homework/joke,tricks

I seem to be getting behind in my homework.Over the past few weeks the memoir group to which I belonged while living in Toronto has taken on some most interesting topics and you are likely to see a few appearing in this weeks offerings.This topic is from the Monday,June 18 meeting

I think as kids we all love a joke,or trick and most of us don't seem to ever get over it completely until some short minute before we die.what else could account for the fact that everyone who has ever gotten married seems to end up with an array of cans tied to the back bumper of their car.at least that was still true while cars still had bumpers that allowed you to tie cans to them.A very innocent trick,familiar to the point of cliche.But we once tied nearly forty oil cans in a string to a car of a friend of mine who had just gotten married.Oil used to come in cans.Those cans used to be made of aluminum and were big and very hollow and made a lot of noise.But at the very last moment,just before he was about to leave the church,we all did one better than that.While some of us distracted the newly weds,some others brought out a milk can-the kind you use in a barn to collect milk before sending it to the dairy-and chained it to the back of the car.When the married couple drove off it sounded something like they were dragging an entire scrapyard behind them.

There were always the standard jokes or tricks,of course,like the one that involves a doorbell,paper bag and contents and a small fire.Everyone knows that one.Most everyone has pulled that off to perfection at least once.There was one miserable old woman who used to fall victim to this trick every year.We even invented a variation to this theme once.The variation involved a pair of latex gloves,a jar of peanut butter and a small parking lot beside a doctors office.No fire though.We did this trick on April Fools Day,but never on Halloween.

On a washroom wall in a gas station across from my high school,there was a little white box that sold a certain product not nearly as commonly used in the 1970's as it is today,and not nearly as available either.You see,we hadn't heard of AIDS then and virginity seemed to be somewhat more popular then too.But,finding these things,you just know that boys are going to be boys and at least one really good use for the product will be invented.Aside from the one it was actually intended for that is.Well,we found two new uses for them.One involved the product,of course,and the tailpipes of cars in the teachers parking lot.The other involved some helium from the chemistry lab and some of the airspace directly outside the principals office.In fact,considerably more airspace than we imagined it might.It seemed to be a very durable sort of product,but getting the end tied off was a bit of a trick.It sure was funny though to hear a loud"what the hell..." coming from the hallway,halfway through class.

Americans/Canadians

Often I look to our southern neighbors with a kind of morbid fascination,especially when they've elected Republicans.Up here it seems to be somewhat of a pass time laughing at or ridiculing Americans.And while it's true that you have to come north of the border to get a decent doughnut,there are some very important things the Americans get right.Even the Republican ones,or to be more correct,perhaps,the right leaning ones.And it doesn't even pain me to say so from my somewhat left of center political viewpoint.

One such thing is the way Americans deal with dangerous criminals like child molesters,specifically,in this case Jerry Sandusky a former football coach at Penn State University.I am not certain what sentence Sandusky faces,but it will likely be much greater than the two miserable years handed to former hockey coach Graham James north of the border.In fact,most of the articles I've read suggest that Sandusky is unlikely to ever see the outside of a prison again.And for that alone I salute our American friends.

As a liberal,I often argue that we need to be putting fewer people in prison,not more.But to be more specific,we need to be incarcerating more of certain kinds of offenders for longer periods of time.People like Sandusky or James.People who lurk in the shadows of respectability with the sole intent of destroying young lives and tarnishing the institutions they represent.Americans get this.Canadians do not.Republican get it,most certainly.I suspect most Democrats do as well.But this is not about partisan politics on either side of the border.It is plainly about common sense and informed self interest.Children must be protected.That is the bottom line and the only thing I care about.

So,in a few more years,after the sentence is appealed, Graham James will be off to serve his sentence here in Canada.But,with parole eligibility and time served,I wonder how many more days it will be until he is happily living in some neighborhood unknown to all the families that also live there.And this is not his first time at the rodeo.It's been nearly twenty years since I first heard of this beast.By comparison,Sandusky will still be rotting in a Pennsylvania prison in a few years.No further generations of young players will be subjected to his perverted appetites,because he is likely to be there for life..And I don't know many people,even among my liberal friends who are calling this draconian.Most people seem to favor the word "enlightened."

Child molesters ruin children, often beyond repair.Its long past time Canadian leaders grew a set and started providing forever protection from these monstrous individuals.If you  molest children I have no difficulty at all in saying you should be locked away in the dungeon of a prison in the far north,out of sight and out of mind until you rattle out your last pathetic breath.I'm not interested in your rehabilitation or your redemption.You can look to God for your mercy because you'll get none from me.I'm not even interested in your comfort beyond insuring you the necessities of life,like food and water and basic medical care.Do you hear me loud and clear?Molesting a child is a forever decision and it should have forever consequences.I don't want to worry about such persons in my neighborhood.I want to be safe in knowing that they are forever sequestered in their own neighborhood,that being a federal prison until they die,and Hell thereafter,providing that they still have not repented.

What kind of makes me chuckle though is that there is likely a Canadian,conservative politician who will read this and come to the conclusion that I'm far to radical.Well,if that's not a case of the Red Tory calling the Liberal a cracker!But again,it's really all about common sense,not partisan politics.

memoir writers homework/black sheep of the family.

I guess I was destined to be a black sheep in my family,but perhaps not the only one.In fact I sometimes wonder if we are not a whole family of black sheep,with maybe just a single white one thrown in to make life interesting.For certain we've all had our troubles,but the one doing the pointing and saying "black sheep"has never even tried walking in my shoes,so I really don't care?Except that she is my sister,the other black sheep,so I guess I really do care.

I've never really understood the term black sheep anyway.It seems to me that it means rogue or outlaw,though not always in an uncomplimentary way.Sometimes it just means non-conformist,to which I proudly admit,being as I am somewhat of an iconoclast.I f you want to be an iconoclast,being a black sheep is part of the job description.

There seem to be a number of ways of becoming a black sheep,aside from normal sheep genetics. But since I'm, in part from Western New Brunswick we won't get into sheep genetics.The mere mention of Sheep,DNA and Western New Brunswick in the same sentence has been known to make some people uncomfortable.

One of the dynamics that sometimes goes on between people from Atlantic Canada and those who live in Atlantic Canada,but are not from there is this whole"from here" and "from away" kind of thing.It's really a sort of racism,which I'd always heard of but never been quite aware of in my own life until just recently.I've heard of school kids being beaten for "being from away."In fact,I recently, in a web search to locate my fathers sister,my aunt Rosanna,discovered that she was making a big deal in her home community about her grand daughter being bullied at school by students objecting to her Alberta origins.But I never dreamed it would happen to me.I've always considered myself an Atlantic Canadian,just as a routine part of my identity.But it's not my whole identity.I've lived away for many years,out of necessity for the most part.But this last time I went back,I find I'm being accused of not being there for my family for all those many years.I'm somehow morally lacking because I moved to Alberta in 1979,even though my parents supported me in this decision.So I wish the families black sheep would explain how I came to "be from away"Because I really don't understand it.

rhetorical questions.

Lets just ponder some rhetorical questions today.If a tree falls in the forest with no one around does it make a sound?Does a bear poop in the woods?Well,the answer to the second question would seem to be yes.And from that it would seem to follow that the answer to the first question is yes as well.Unless the requirement for the making of sound is the presence of a human to hear it of course,and that's just way to anthropocentric for me.Can God make a stone so large that He can't move it?You get the picture.By rhetorical I mean a question that doesn't require an answer so much as it needs to be asked for it's own sake.

Now lets suppose you lived far from your own hometown.And lets suppose a tragedy befell your family.One of your family members was suddenly taken away.You travel to your hometown for the funeral,and,if necessary you would be prepared to stay and help with the family,though that would involve sacrifice.You see,the person taken away was the sole caregiver for their ailing partner who had been in poor health for a number of years.

But all seems to be well when you get home.A sibling has decided to take over the care giving duties and that sibling is a professional caregiver by trade.All is looking very well.You can return home with complete trust that your surviving parent is in good hands.You have a heart to heart discussion with your sibling about transparency and how you,as a family member expect it,and that sibling agrees that not only is it appropriate,but also in the best interests of caretakers in general.And so you set off to the airport thinking that this is going to turn out as well as can be expected.Only to be confronted at the front door by that angel of mercy,you sibling,who is now very angry with you over...what?Some seemingly insignificant thing.But the point is that it was done when you were on the way to the airport,bags in hand ,and of course,had no opportunity to answer back?Rhetorical question.Would this be called an ambush?Just wondering.But more to the point,would you now be justified in feeling somewhat more uneasy trusting the care of your parent to this sibling?Rhetorical question.Does there seem to be more going on here than meets the eye?

Rhetorical question.Should you have been able to see any of this coming?Well likely.There were small signs all along it seems.The baby monitor that was used to monitor your parent's care being placed right next to a window that would allow the whole neighborhood to listen in.My God,if your parent were going to the bathroom the neighbors could here the grunting.You made mention of this but were brushed off with"I don't have time to move it"to which you replied "it only takes a few seconds to move it."The answer you receive to that is"a few seconds could be used to get a cup of coffee."Rhetorical question.Aren't caregivers supposed to believe in and uphold human dignity?What does human dignity look and sound like?Grunting an the sipping of coffee?Or maybe that's just a stereotype you have about all caregivers.Never mind,but,rhetorically,where is your level of concern now compared to that time the angel of mercy was telling you about transparency?

Rhetorically speaking,life goes on despite your concerns,which are now not being answered on a daily basis.But I guess you should have expected this.In fact,a number of years pass,then your remaining parent passes from this world.Rhetorically speaking,don't you find it odd that you still cannot get any answers from your parents caregiver as to what was going on over the last few years?Of course you want to believe the best,after all who wants to believe that an angel of mercy has tarnished wings and a soiled robe,but,rhetorically speaking,isn't it just a bit naive to go on believing at this point,especially when the only real answers you've  been getting is to "go pound sand"or something to that effect,but with slightly more to offer in the way of expletives and hate charged invective.

One more rhetorical question.When confronted by a person who is extremely defensive,as you now are,don't you normally find that people become extremely defensive because there is something to be defensive about?

Remember,these are just rhetorical questions that don't require an answer and may or may not have any meaning in the real world.But even rhetorical questions serve a purpose.

After a three year absence from the province of Alberta,I arrived back here just as a provincial election was called.And despite a change in the political landscape,in the form of a new political party(The Wildrose Party),it appears to my eyes and ears that the more things change,the more they stay the same.Political conservatives,or perhaps a better term would be the political right, have been in power here for as long as I've lived here and for some decades before that.From time to time the party names may change,but the ultra right wing nature of their thought seems to be as untouched by reason as it ever was.In all honesty,I must say that some of the rhetoric frightens me.

Well,the election has come and gone,and the Conservatives have been re elected.If you listen to all the political pundits,they are the least conservative of the two parties,with the Wild Rose Party being representative of the far right side of the political spectrum.It seems that Alberta conservatives are perceived to have been gradually drifting to the left,hence the legitimacy of The Wild Rose Party.But I'm under no illusions that there is anything remotely leftist about their leanings.Still,I think that we've done well not to elect some of the scarier personalities that have run in this particular election.

Take the Reverend Alan Hunsperger for instance.In a blog from more than a year ago Mr.Hunsperger wrote that homosexuals were bound to spend eternity in a lake of fire.Fast forward to April of this year:Alan Hunsperger finds himself a candidate for election in a South Edmonton riding.And his party leader backs his right to have made the statements he did because they maintain a policy of not silencing their candidates.All the better,I suppose because then I get to hear what it is Alan Hunsperger really thinks.Evidently enough other voters got his message too and decided not to elect him,an event for which we can be truly grateful.

Finally I located a copy of Mr.Hunspergers speech,and I must say that, as a Christian, I have a somewhat different take on the issue of homosexuality.Nevertheless I did not find Mr.Hunspergers blog to be overtly homophobic.His basic take was that it is an error to think that because one is made a certain way,that one can act on that nature without consequence.He further goes on to note that all persons were made a certain way and that if they died that way,that is to say unrepentantly sinful,they would face eternal damnation.I am certainly glad that he made that statement with respect to all sinners,and not a selective few whom some "Christians"have chosen to revile more than others.That way,I don't have to elaborate why the church house gossip is in as much peril of damnation as any homosexual.Understand this Christians,we are all sinners.And while we are all sinners,God chose a means in which we could be reconciled to him.And that means does not exclude homosexuals so far as I can read anywhere in scripture.

Where Mr.Hunspergers statements start to cause me slightly more concern is his mention of people perceiving that because they were born a certain way,they have a "right"to live that way.Specifically what are Mr.Hunspergers views on rights in general and the rights of homosexuals in particular.As far as I know God does not force us to live his way should we chose not to.Though obviously as a Christian I believe that if you die rejecting God,God will ratify that choice for all eternity.My question for Alan Hunsperger, then is,if you were elected,could we expect to see an erosion of rights based on religious belief(yours)?And.of course,how far would that erosion of rights take us?Looking historically at right leaning governments of the past,I'm not extremely confident that you would not impose your own beliefs on those who did not share them.

When I hear the rhetoric of an Alan Hunsperger I wonder how it is that he is able to fulfill his commission to bring souls to the Lord at all.Often I think that we as Christians are so nasty in our approach to homosexuals in particular,that the tendency is to leave a whole group bereft of spiritual guidance.That is a tragedy.It destroys the quality of our witness for Christ when we cause others to stumble.We need to realize that when we encounter other sinners,we may be the only picture of Jesus that that person ever gets to see.For me,the beginning of all things Christian is in John 3:16."For God So loved the World..."While hell may very well be real,there is no point preaching it dogmatically unless you also preach Gods love,grace and mercy that provide the opportunity to avoid such torment.

I will not deny that God says something very definitive about the practice of homosexuality(as opposed to the "being"homosexual.But I do not know the condition of anyone's soul,and with respect,neither does Alan Hunsperger.That being the case I'm prepared to let God be God,and not allow the divisive issue of homosexuality to move me from what He has asked me to do-preach the Gospel,love my neighbors,value justice and mercy and walk humbly with God,among a multitude of other things.Mr.Hunsperger,will you stand with me?

Fathers Day-Epilogue

I've given my fathers history,and how I viewed it in considerably more detail than I had intended to when I started out.Really,I just wanted to give a straight forward tribute to my father on Fathers day.However,I find that there was really nothing all that straight forward about my father.I don't think I've nearly approached all of this subject and much more is likely to follow as I begin to write memoir,some of which will be shared in this blog

But I had several things to say before leaving this subject behind.Firstly,was my father a good or a bad man?I really don't have the whole answer to that and it is fitting, I think that children should not,necessarily be all knowing in this regard.Simply put we need our fathers,and we need them to be persons who can be looked up to,quite apart from whether or not they are actually worthy of our reverence.The fact is that  God commands us to look up to,to respect our parents.To do otherwise is,in fact an affront to God,who portrays his own relationship to us as being paternal in nature.I don't mean though that that relationship is SIMPLY paternal or that it can in any way be reduced to the status of a human paternal relationship.It is much greater than that.And that brings me to another point.God is all those things that our earthly fathers are not.So,before we sit in judgement,we would do well to remember that our earthly fathers are not all powerful,or infallible or all knowing.The world is a difficult place,full of difficult problems that demand decisions that are not easy to make or be accountable for.Being a man is not easy.Criticism is the lot of any adult regardless of what decision is made.And we do not know or see this when we are children.Therefor,our fathers are worthy of being judged with compassion.

As to my own father,what would I say?I never thought I could do enough to satisfy him.I always thought that no matter what I did,or who I was something more would be demanded.But that is not always a bad thing.There were times we didn't seem to agree on anything,especially after I became an adult and I asked myself"why does this man hate me so much?"In fact I don't think he hated me at all.People can and do change there basic beliefs over time,and if they do,is that not a sign of open mindedness?In my life I've chosen to emulate my father in some things and not in others.I don't enjoy the use of alcohol,for instance and that is a direct product of my upbringing,though not in the way that one might think.I believe,by the way that it bothered my father that I would never sit and have a drink with him.

But here is what I think of my father.He was an imperfect man in an imperfect world,trying to do his best.And he didn't do badly.He kept our home together and he provided for us.He was never in jail,or falling down outside the tavern.I never knew him to be unfaithful to our mother.At times he could seem downright unreasonable,but mostly he made a solid effort to get along with people and to be a decent man,a good neighbor and a good father.Moreover,many of his failings,especially in later years seemed to me to come about as a direct result of poor health.There is,to my thinking,no reason why his children,down through the centuries to come,should not think well of him.

There is one more thing that needs to be said.It's something I've often noticed regarding fatherhood,but I don't know as I've ever written this down before.As I noted above,there is a difference between our fathers here on earth and Our Heavenly Father.I'm not just stating the obvious here,people have told me this.A great many people seem to confuse the two,especially those who have had less than ideal fathers.It is understandable perhaps,but we need to remember,Our Heavenly Father is nothing like our fathers here.He is perfect and not only loves us,but knows how to love us perfectly.Many people though seem ,to my eyes to be unable or unwilling to put their trust in a heavenly father as the result of a less than perfect relationship with their earthly father.This is tragic because,taken to it's final end ,it will result in a child that is lost for all eternity.It points to the huge responsibility of being a father,but also to our need to be kind and forgiving with fathers who are not always as they should be.