I don’t post a lot of pictures of food on my blog but I couldn’t let this one go by.
After Pace’s swimming lessons today, we decided to check out a new restaurant called Coney Island Cafe which was rumoured to have a few varieties of poutine rather than the traditional fries/gravy/cheese curds version you get in most places in Saskatchewan.
Well, they didn’t have the 22 varieties we were faced with in Montreal but it had a solid six or so that ranged from Mexican to Cheeseburger to a quinnessential Saskatchewan version, Perogy Poutine, which is the version I chose of course.
We saw a group of three EMT’s pull up just before we did and once we realised they weren’t there on an official call, I thought “How unhealthy can it be if the EMT’s eat here? Or even if it is, how lucky to know a defibrillator is nearby?” 😉
Yep, that looks like “heart attack on a plate” to me…
I’m not too interested in policing how people use Facebook – I have my share of Facebook friends who vaguebook, overshare, “envy post” and so on and either enjoy or ignore their posts as required.
Plus I probably do these things myself too on occasion but at the same time, when I post a cute picture of Sasha, is my subliminal intention to tell the world “I’m better than you because I have a cute kid” or just “I have a cute kid”?
Either way, this article calling out some of the worst offences is interesting. By their stated criteria, I think my baby pics, unless posted with the intention of making people jealous of my life – and if you are, come change a diaper anytime! – would qualify as “unannoying” to most people viewing them. (Now if I posted dozens of pictures a day like some new parents do…) 😉
To be unannoying, a Facebook status typically has to be one of two things:
1) Interesting/Informative
2) Funny/Amusing/Entertaining
You know why these are unannoying? Because things in those two categories do something for me, the reader. They make my day a little better.
Ideally, interesting statuses would be fascinating and original (or a link to something that is), and funny ones would be hilarious. But I’ll happily take mildly amusing—at least we’re still dealing with the good guys.
Pace’s grade one class has access to a site called IXL.ca. This site has a series of modules on various aspects of math that kids can work through to learn concepts including counting, addition, shapes and so on.
There are dozens of modules under various headings, each with escalating levels of difficulty – for example, under “Addition”, the first module might be “Adding by 1” then “Adding by 2” then “Adding by 5” and so on.
We worked through Pace’s first five modules this weekend (the teacher gives a small prize for every five modules a student completes) and I had a few random thoughts as we did them…
Not every student has their own idevice, and [Grade 1/2 Teacher] Maley admits some parents have (completely understandable) misgivings about sending their Grade 1 child to school with an extremely breakable piece of $500 equipment — that’s why the class has a few general use iPads and access to laptops to blog and tweet.
Personally, I’m not opposed to the use of modern technology in the classroom or for homework such as the IXL site (would I buy Pace an iPad and send it with him if he went to this school? Hmm…interesting question.) But my concern comes from a place of equality – shouldn’t kids in the poorer areas of the city have access to the same tools as kids in the wealthier or else do we just reinforce existing class divisions by giving upper class kids an instant leg up? Even within the same school, you have to wonder if every kid in our working class neighbourhood, which has a relatively high percentage of new immigrants and low income folks, will have access to the Internet in their home to take advantage of this site? And then, when Pace gets some Dollar Store trinket tomorrow, how does the kid who doesn’t have Internet at home feel? I mean, sure, if you’re extremely dedicated as a parent, you can always get Internet at the library or elsewhere but even something as simple as the fact that Pace and I could multi-task to complete his fifth and final module tonight while he was in the tub and I was perched beside him with the iPad showing him the questions, is a lot easier than going to the library or wherever to help your child.
– On that same note, the use of iPads by children in general was also a story on the supper hour news tonight and the experts all reiterated the fairly standard guideline: “we recommend no screen time before age 2 and heavily moderated use after that.” I’m sitting there thinking “Pace has been using our iPhones since he was younger than two and one app he loved about how to identify shapes made one of these modules sail by in five minutes!” (On average, they’re supposed to take 10 to 15 minutes each.)
– I showed Pace a couple things that probably aren’t part of the purpose of the IXL site but that can be useful skills for life in different ways nonetheless. For example, I taught him about using “the process of elimination” in that in the first two of three answers in a multiple choice question weren’t correct, he could be reasonably sure the third answer was the right one and didn’t have to bother counting it. Then, after noticing that the first answer of three choices was rarely the correct one (the program obviously wants kids to use repetition for their learning), I suggested he start by counting the third option first then the second as those were more likely to be the correct one as a time saver. (I wouldn’t have done this if I was sure he was doing fine and getting the concepts. But I’ve also never liked busy work – going back to my own elementary school experiences!)
– I also showed him how to do calculator races which can be a lifesaver during boring classes when you’re older. (If you’ve never done one, you and a friend hit “1” then “+” then the equals sign repeatedly as fast as you can until someone hits 100.)
– Recently read Malcolm Gladwell’s new book, “David and Goliath” and he’s got some interesting thoughts on whether it’s better to be a “big fish in a small pond” or a “small fish in a big pond.” Shea and I debate this ourselves – for a variety of reasons, we’ve purposely chosen to live in a neighbourhood that’s probably not as reflective of our socio-economic status as the neighbourhoods of many of our peers. Is this a disadvantage to our children or could it be, as Gladwell claims, an advantage (see Slide 6 in that last link)? Time will tell…
– Anyhow, we must be doing something right as this is one of Pace’s favourite songs of all-time and there’s been many a car trip where we’ve had to listen to it on repeat over and over and over again! 😉
This is not a new idea to Canada (or to this blog).
But this article is timely in light of a recent post that came across my Facebook News Feed about how “We all pay taxes so the government can give it to someone who doesn’t work as hard as you do.”
That misperception that people on social assistance are somehow inferior or lazy is a common one. But among many problems with that belief, the worst is that you can label all poor people “lazy” (or all well-off people “hard-working”.) As with anything in life, there will be a complex range of personalities and approaches and stereotyping everyone in a similar fashion is a huge mistake.
Beyond that, the larger point is that, as a society, we’re *all* better off when every adult is guaranteed a basic living income – without strings, rules and conditions – and research repeatedly shows that people with a guaranteed incomes have healthier families, improved education and workforce success, and tend to spend their extra income locally (including at businesses owned by “hard-working” Canadians who post about how much welfare offends them!) 😉
Essentially, Dr. Hanlon says, people will make the right choices without an aid worker peering over their shoulders. “Poverty is fundamentally about a lack of cash. It’s not about stupidity,” he says in his speeches. “You can’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you have no boots.”
We already know that guaranteed incomes make a significant difference in people’s lives – because we already do that for seniors in Canada (something even conservatives recognize.)
Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, one of the more vocal proponents of no-strings-attached aid for the poor, points out that the guaranteed-income program for seniors has greatly reduced poverty, especially among women.
In politics, it’s rare to find ideas that appeal to both left and right wing. A guaranteed living wage is one of those that has much potential to do exactly that.
