Work is Difficult.

Work is not easy.  Maybe eventually, but overcoming the base inertia of not working is often the challenge. 

This post is a distractive example of not working, despite the fact that it takes work to do this.

I say distractive because I should be doing something else, and that something else is big and important to me and difficult and terrifying. So this blog is easy.

I hope that by starting something easy (easier?) to write, I will get on a roll or into the practice of spewing my thoughts onto the page. If you are reading this and you go go back and look at my previous, sporadic posts, you may notice a common thread. That thread is not in the content, but in the amount of push they had on my thoughts towards sharing them with the world.

The big work is my PhD dissertation. I claim that computers could model humour appreciation. That is, a computer program could express some "reaction" to something humorous by following a version of the way humans do. I'm not claiming it will have MY sense of humour, but rather it would have ITS sense of humour. Of course this would be based on how it is "trained" and how it stores and retrieves its context. 

That's what we do: we learn a bunch about the world ("training and context"), we experience something surprising (unexpected in some way), we resolve that surprise in a safe manner (it's not going to kill us...), and then based on that surprise, the time it takes to resolve, and additional context we will react (laugh, snicker, snort, eye-roll, groan, ignore, etc.).

This is a lot! It is difficult. It is hard (in both the conventional and the computational sense). It has even been said that humour is NP-Complete. I don't know if I could prove this, but that would be a perfect outcome of this project. Doesn't solve humour... but at least it sets the level of challenge and gives us some ways to make accommodations and compromises to approximate the solutions.

All things in, though. I think this is enough effort on this for today. I will now move on to the big work.  And come back in a day or two with some distilation of that big work in progress... maybe.

*sigh*

Brains.

A God for Atheists?

Agnosticism as a Spectator Sport

I watch the verbal sparring between theists (usually monotheist or some close variant) and atheists (usually the "don't believe" and the anti-theist variants) and as I sit on the agnostic bleachers (the "cannot know" variant), I find myself wondering about the interplay between the belief and the existence of any god or gods.

I lightly JP this process with some definitions:

• universe - the collection of all energy and matter to which we (potentially) have access
• exist - A thing can be said to exist if it can act or be acted upon. This includes, but is not limited to everything in the universe (as defined).
• god - An entity that can choose to control at least one aspect of the universe.
• belief - A mentally held construct of some truth, whether grounded or not. Not a knowledge claim.
• theist - An entity that holds a belief that at least one god exists.
• atheist - An entity that holds no belief about the existence of gods.
• antitheist - An entity that holds a belief that no gods exist.

Belief Without God(s)

Suppose no god exists -- the theist's belief is false and the antitheist's belief is true. 

This might lead to some paradox if we hold to a truly "free will". By the definitions provided, we could be considered a god and therefore would exist and invalidate this supposition.

Belief With God(s)

Suppose at least one god exists -- the theist's belief is true and the antitheist's belief is false.

The existence of a god being in concordance with a belief that a god exists does not make any other claims about that god; the breadth and limits of the control that the god may choose to exercise are another consideration beyond existing.

• One Omni-God - This one god controls everything.
• One Supreme God (with 0 or more lesser gods) - One god controls everything but may delegate to others
• Pantheon - collections of gods who collectively control aspects of the universe. A pantheon could be directed by a supreme god.
• Belief Begotten God(s) -  gods that exist as a direct result of belief. The gods that people believe in come to exist and fulfill the details of the belief -- the breadth and limits of control. A kind of collective force of will to shape the universe. (The core concept of Neil Gaiman's "American Gods"

Who cares?

From the human perspective, either way, we just go through life making (what feels like) choices. 

From a god perspective (if any exist), the god or gods will go on making their choices for their reasons. Perhaps these choices are made with our intercession, or perhaps our pleas are ignored.

The whole point I am stalking here is that if god(s) exist, is it only the us who believes? Does everyone need to be a Claude Hooper Bukowski? Maybe not, but if no god believes in us -- acts with regard to our persons -- we may as well be in the position of there being no gods since we are irrelevant to them. And maybe if there is at least one god, then at least one god believes in antitheists despite (to spite?) the antitheist position.

But what do I know? 

(These thoughts are subject to change.)

Baby Steps

The Problem

After numerous attempts to get council to follow its own Procedure Bylaw 6250 and the Municipal Government Act by making inquiries and politely asking for justification, City Council has moved in the right direction. 

A bit.

They have actually started to address the agenda in official agenda order!

They have started to adopt amendments to the agenda before acting on those agenda items.

And sometimes --sometimes-- they follow the MGA before moving into closed session.

Not today, though. Also at least one time in the previous meeting. So maybe 10-20 times in the last year.

It shouldn't be that difficult. Madam City Clerk probably even has the motion on paper in front of the Mayor.

So where do I turn?

I've tried 311. I've tried Mayor and Council feedback form. I've tried conversations councillors. This is still a problem.

So I sent a message to the Minister with some details and asking for advice on how to proceed.

Time will tell.

Q and A: The struggles of getting answers from Lethbridge City Council (Part 1 of ?)

I posted a question for @LethbridgeCity council on X. The response was, "Talk to 311."

I hit up 311 on the chat on the City of Lethbridge website with the same question. The response was, "Send your question to Mayor and Council using the online form." (Available here: https://www.lethbridge.ca/council-administration-governance/mayor-and-councillors/)

I sent my question via the form.

I waited.

That was February 7th, 2024.

While I was waiting, I had more questions. @LethbridgeCity on X.com referred me to 311 who referred me to the Mayor and Council Form where I submitted my seven questions and a request for an answer.

Your worship and council,

With regards to the proceedings of the February 27^th, 2024 council meeting, I watched the broadcast of the meeting (those portions that were broadcast) and I have consulted the published agenda and subsequent minutes. I find that there are discrepancies between what I saw and what constitutes the official record:

·         Council moved to go into closed session at 12:30pm before the meeting was called to order at 1:30pm

·         The motion at 12:30pm to go into closed session references 3 items that were not on the published agenda.

·         When the agenda was adopted the three additional items presumably discussed in closed session were added to the agenda. These three added items were the only noted amendments to the agenda.

·         On the item of the Consent Agenda, the chair stated that the items in the consent agenda were those that were published in the agenda package, but there were two additional items added (and displayed on the screen) that were not on the published agenda nor on the amended agenda.

·         The minutes of the motion by Councillor Crowson at 2:47pm to go into closed session have more specific wording different from what was provided on the floor to the public in attendance.

·         There was no motion for nor mention of an amendment to OBM 6.1 nor to passing it as amended, but the motion in the minutes differs from the motion presented on the floor and in the agenda package.

Given that the “Agenda means the items of business of a meeting and the associated reports, bylaws or other documents and includes the order of business and time for said meeting” (Procedure Bylaw s.5(d) ), and that “If the agenda has been published, a Member may present an item as Urgent Business at the beginning of a meeting for inclusion on the Agenda” (Procedure Bylaw s.107(b)), and that “If a Council Member wishes to make change to the order of the agenda at the Meeting, the Council Member may, before the Agenda is adopted, make any such alteration by General Consent” (Procedure Bylaw s.110):

1)      Which Council Member presented items 14.3, 14.4 and 14.5 as Urgent Business at the beginning of the meeting? What was result of the vote to allow those items?

2)      Which Council Member wished to change the order of the agenda to consider items 14.1 through 14.5 earlier in the agenda? Was there general consent?

3)      Which Council Member wished to change the agenda to move items 14.1 and 14.2 into the consent agenda?

Both the MGA and the Procedure Bylaw give clear direction about holding meetings in closed session. From the Procedure Bylaw s.131: “Before holding a Closed Meeting, Council […] must adopt a motion, in a Meeting open to the public, that part of the Meeting be a closed meeting and the Motion must include: (a) the title of each item to be discussed; and, (b) the applicable provisions of the Act and/or FOIP.” From the MGA “197(4). Before closing all or any part of a meeting to the public, a council or council committee must by resolution approve (a) the part of the meeting that is to be closed, and (b) the basis on which, under an exception to disclosure in Division 2 of Part 1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the part of the meeting is to be closed.”

4)      Did council pass a motion in an Open Meeting at 12:30pm to go into closed session for the stated purposes? Was the wording on the floor the same as that in the minutes?

5)      Did council fail to follow the requirements of the MGA and the Procedure Bylaw at 2:47pm when a non-conforming motion was put forward to go into closed session, which motion was passed and acted upon?

Given that the role of the Chair of any meeting includes the responsibility to preside over meetings and enforce the rules of the Procedure Bylaw, and that all Members having committed to the Council Code of Conduct Bylaw:

6)      Will the Mayor (as Chair) and any other Council Members commit to following the Procedure Bylaw in “the spirit of fairness, equality, and common sense”?

7)     Will the Mayor and other Council Members hold each other accountable to the Bylaws in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct Bylaw?

I look forward to your timely answers to these seven questions.

Regards,  

Stephen Graham

Lethbridge Alberta

And I waited.

That was March 5th, 2024.

On March 11th, I had an online chat with 311.

On March 12th, I submitted some more questions. This time directly to the Mayor and Council Form.

And I waited.

On March 25th, I was on a chat with 311 and did a follow-up on my 3 outstanding requests for information from Mayor and Council.

And I waited.

On March 28th, 2024, I happened to be in City Hall so I enquired at the 311 desk about this. The person at the desk referred me to call 311. I did.

The 311 person on the phone forwarded me to another person. I left a voicemail.

And I waited.

On April 8th, 2024, I phoned 311, I was transferred to the person tasked with resolving my questions. She apologized for the delay but there were some internal things happening. She was working on it and had to confer with colleagues. It would be 2-3 more days.

And I waited.

But today, April 18th, 2024 at 7:54 a.m., I received an e-mail from 311 Inquiry Resolution:

That's it. Not answers, just thanks for being interested, your concerns have been noted and forwarded.

I wonder how long I will have to wait to chat with the Mayor, City Manager, or City Clerk about this?

Is my next stop Municipal Affairs? The Ombudsman? Court of King's Bench?

I'm beginning to think council and administration don't want to be questioned.

No More Virtual Meetings!

I was invited to another virtual event. 

I figuratively snapped at the invitation, "THIS IS A REAL EVENT! It just happens to be online!"

In these modern times of actual remote workers (telecommuters, we used to be called) let's just acknowledge that online interaction with other humans is real. It may just be the most real experience we get with our colleagues/students/families. It is different, but still real.

My Teaching Experience

Teaching is challenging at the best of times. I think I'm doing okay with my online teaching at Lethbridge College. I don't even know how anyone even teaches elementary school at all, never mind online! 

I log in to my [very fast sounding platform] class and sometimes I have a few students arrive before me. They actually chat about their day and their classes. It almost feels like a regular, in-person class. Most, however, have their cameras and microphones off. I do ask them to share A/V because it helps them connect with each other and with me, but I cannot make it compulsory.

I say that it helps me. I'm sure that any other teachers would agree that the micro-feedback you get from a student's face will alway help guide the pace and direction of a class. If I can't see you with a blank look, I can't know that you are lost. I absolutely cannot differentiate between stunned silence and "mute". I even miss the cues I get from the old "You must have questions at this point-- Ask away!". In person, I can see who is trying to formulate questions and who is playing tower defence. I miss it.

My Employee Experience

Coffee. Going to the copier. Going to the loo. Lunch. Moving between classes. These are all things that I miss. These are the ephemeral opportunities to build community, solve problems, share successes (and failures), and generally engage in human interaction.

My area has done a fair job of trying to emulate that with the Centre Coffee chat on [another platform that is closely related to my operating system]. The few times that they have the meeting when I am available, it has been great to just hang out in the same "room" as my co-workers.

On the other hand we have back to back meetings--the bane of my online work experience. Everyone assumes that since there is no travel time required, we can always fill in all the time with a meeting. On the surface this seems like an efficiency-nut's dream-come-true! The sinister side is that a flurry of meetings does not leave time for any decompression or introspection before the next thing crashes in. I fear it encourages us to do "other work" during meetings. And that is bad because it takes us out of the moment.

My Personal Experience

I had opportunity to attend a networking/recruiting event a few nights ago, and I was pleasantly surprised by the platform that HackerX used to host. It provided a main stage, break-out rooms, networking, and the ability for one person to perform the technical support. I want to use this to bolster our business networking and experiential learning components of some courses in our program.

Games night is also a big thing for me. With one of my gaming groups, we meet every 2nd Wednesday online using [a search-engine related meeting platform] and play a selection of games on BoardGameArena.com. I also play Gloomhaven with another friend with the board and bits set up on my table and the [speedy] app sharing the visual. Not quite the same as being there (with the billion little things to do), but it beats NOT doing it.

We've had some shared meals with family (less successful since we all tend to talk at the same time). We've had some shared drinks with friends (more successful since we can drink while others are talking).

Not the same as "in person", but in some cases that is a blessing ;)

My Opinion

The technology is still lacking. 

Internet bandwidth and availability varies wildly around the world, across the country, and even across the city. So many problems might be reduced if we had consistent throughput. And if we didn't have to share with everyone else trying to cram video up and down congested "last-mile" loops.

Not everyone has a laptop. (Although I think the last stats I read suggested everyone has 1.75 phones...) Getting the compute power to crunch the video (and/or de-crunch the video) is crucial for this new meeting space to be seamless and appear real-time.

I wish we could have concurrent audio. Something that would pre-process incoming audio streams and present some kind of aggregate in real time. Conversation is already difficult: we use verbal and non-verbal cues to meter our conversations. When our apps choose to garble or mute overlapping conversations, we lose some of those cues. Our brains seem to be surprisingly good at differentiating speakers (from each other), so maybe the software could let us do that?

Ultimately, all of these experiences and opportunities are real. They happened to me, with me, near me. They affect my life and the lives of my friends, family, students, colleagues, and beyond. This is not "The real world gone virtual". This is just "the real world with some still-fledgling communication tools".

TLDR: This is reality. It isn't virtual.

Just sayin'.

Lethbridge Performing Arts Centre

Worshipful Mayor and Councillors,

Communities — whole and healthy communities— need a balance of culture and sports that include opportunities for all us. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in much needed sports facilities in the past decade. These crucial investments have been disproportionate, and performing arts investments have been continually pushed to the back-burner to accommodate them. It is beyond time to balance the scales.

There are many financial reasons to continue to move forward with a performing arts centre in Lethbridge. There is direct employment benefit in the construction, and lasting economic contribution from the space. StatsCan Provincial and Territorial Cultural Indicators, 2017, provides an estimate of the GDP of sports industries at $828 million, or 0.2% of the Alberta’s GDP. The contribution of culture at $5.3 billion is almost 6.5 times larger than the sports contribution. 

There are also important social reasons to continue moving forward. The impediment to building the performance arts center seems to be a misunderstanding of who it’s for. The argument tends to be along the lines of “hockey players need ice to play hockey”. That becomes dancers need a floor to dance. The problem is a hockey player goes out and plays hockey for the sake of playing hockey. They’re out there to do the thing they are doing. If someone’s watching them, that’s great. If they’re out there just playing hockey to play with their buddies, that’s also great. When a ballet company is out there to put on a ballet, it actually matters if there’s an audience or not. 

Unlike sports, performance of any kind is almost all about interacting with the audience. Performers need the right space, the right equipment, the right auditorium to interact with the audience. The spaces are not about the performers, they are about the interaction between the performers and the audience. The audience needs to be there for the performance to take place. If there is no audience, there is no performance.

The comparison between an athlete and a performer is strong to the extent that they both want to do well and be supported. A performance without an audience is NOT like a hockey player without a rink… it’s a hockey player without a team. 

The focus on performance arts spaces is often on those perceived as using them… the actors, the dancers, the singers, the bands, the orchestras, the performers. However, that’s NOT who the primary users of these spaces is… it’s the audiences who come to see the performances. That’s who we’re really cutting off every time any performance arts space in Lethbridge is postponed. There have been no additions of any dedicated performance-only spaces in Lethbridge since the Sterndale Bennett Theatre was added to the Genevieve E. Yates Memorial Centre…. nearly 30 years ago. 

I challenge you to think honestly and deeply about these points, and I urge you vote to maintain the drive and funding for a new performing arts centre in Lethbridge.

In earnest,

Stephen Graham

Lethbridge, Alberta

Edinburgh - 5 days in

I'm not yet a local, but I do have a bank account and an account with Scottish power (so I can have electricity and heat and such). Ah! the minutiae of foreign student life. If nothing else, it will give me some more appreciation of what my foreign students go through.

The city appears to be slowly returning to normal... about 10% of the foot traffic from Fringe, and I'm beginning to see the buildings behind the hoardings and the truss-work. 

Tomorrow is a big day for me. I will (probably) get my student card so I can use the library and go into buildings and meet people. For now, however it is a bit of boredom... maybe I will go get a few more things for the flat...

...like a coffee press...and some coffee.

Going to Scotland - Leaving Lethbridge

With about 26 hours to go before I leave, I'm having mini-panics. Do I have all my paperwork? Checked 4 times. Flights? 6 times. Clothes? Just twice. 

The restless sleep and waking to dreams of missed flights is not helping, either. 

I know it will be great, but it is also like the great unknown... Adventure awaits!

Responses from Council

So, in an effort to be fair, I decided to hold off on posting the responses I received until some time had passed. It is summer and people may have been busy with things. It has now been a week (or 5 business days) since I sent my email and I have now received responses from the Mayor and some council members.

I received responses from:

• Jeff Coffman - Immediately with an auto-responder promising response in 3 days.
• Jeff Carlson & Joe Mauro - Same day with answers!
• Rob Miyashiro - Next day with indicating a thoughtful response would follow.
• Mayor - response by e-mail. Arranged a face-to-face.
• Rob Miyashiro - A thoughtful response.
• Mayor Spearman - Face-to-face meeting with answers.

I expect I have not heard from Jeff Coffman again (probably since he was just in the cc and it wasn't specifically addressed to him.)

In an effort to be concise I will present some excerpts from the answers. Where I have answers in writing, I will copy and paste them. Where the answers were from conversation Mayor Spearman, I will paraphrase as fairly as possible (sorry if I didn't catch the full meaning). I assume that all the answers provided were done so earnestly and honestly, and I feel that no one is intentionally trying to pull the wool over my eyes. Here goes...

Question:
How did the Leisure Centre build-out bypass the master plan requirement of a business plan?

Answers:
"I share your concerns about the CIP process, and how this project seemed to get unequal consideration.  I backed a motion to defer any debate until ALL unfunded projects could be considered, but that motion unfortunately was defeated. [...] Ultimately, I voted in favour of the project, which I believe will serve our community well into the future." (Carlson)

"I have many similar concerns.  Had I been at the meeting I would have voted NO because of the many unanswered questions but most important, it was done out of process, came back door and over the wall last minute.  This is a push for administration although they had no interest in this when we discussed fully all projects and voted to establish our 10 year CIP (capital improvement projects)." (Mauro)

"I would assert that the business plan requirement of the Master plan was not bypassed. A detailed business plan is required under “Resource Development” in the flow chart. I believe that the requirements listed in the flow chart have been met. In addition, the market feasibility and business case analyses were undertaken and completed in 2012 within Parts 4, 5 and 6 of the Lethbridge Leisure Centre Needs Assessment & Concept Design, which you can access at the following link: http://www.lethbridge.ca/Things-To-Do/Documents/LLC%20Funct%20Program%20Needs%20Assess%20Report_Final_2012_May_02.pdf" (Miyashiro)

The motion to amend the CIP now contains a provision to get the business plan before council. The urgency was expressed by city administration to avoid construction delays and maximize the advantage of a full build vs. a phased build. (Spearman - paraphrase)

Question:

What factors separate ready projects from un-ready projects?

Answers:

"[...] we can combine work already begun on the site with the newly approved work, which should save time, and design and construction costs." (Carlson)

"Major considerations of “what is ready vs. what is not” are site, funding and progress to date. [...] The argument about which projects to proceed with, begins and ends with the priorities set by the previous council. The Leisure Aquatic Centre was given the green light to be added to the Crossings ice complex (which was the first phase of the conceptualized full leisure centre) while the Performing Arts Centre and Convention Centre had financial conditions required to be met to trigger the City’s financial support. The full build of the Leisure Centre is possible due to capacity created by keeping the 2014 tax increase to the expected 2.8% rather than implementing a reduction. This allows for financing of the project with no new tax increases required. There is also some dollars available from the Alberta Community Partnership grant. " (Miyashiro)

This project is ready because there is already a part of the project underway and there is "no dissent" in the sport community about building the leisure centre. (Spearman - paraphrase)

My response: 

The leisure centre is already started BECAUSE it already received funding. Your funding argument is basically: we aren't funding other projects because we didn't fund them before.

The argument that other projects can't be funded because triggers were not met seems vacuous to me. Previous council absolutely said NO to a full leisure centre with no contingency for the field house in the most recent CIP. The same council provided for contingent funding for some other projects. If council can amend one project in the CIP it can amend any of them, but chose not to consider that option at this time.

Question:

Specifically what factors indicate the Field House expansion of the Leisure Centre is ready to proceed and what factors are missing from the Performing Arts Centre proposal and Lethbridge Exhibition proposals that have them classed as un-ready?

Answers:

"The Crossings ice centre is being built now, on land the City has designated for the Leisure Centre. A site for the Performing Arts Centre has not been selected. The Convention Centre proposed by the Exhibition Board will occur at Exhibition Park." (Miyashiro)

There is no common ground about location or size of a performing arts theatre. There is no proposed site. The sports community is completely behind the leisure centre and it was built based on a plan created and presented by a city committee. The sports community will be consulted about needs and configuration before construction. (Spearman - paraphrase)

My response:

The proposal for a performing arts theatre was proposed in a plan created and presented by a city committee. The performing arts community was consulted about needs and configuration before requesting funding. That proposal was doubly-reviewed to ensure accuracy and appropriateness for our community. A site was selected and was approved for contingent funding by council.

Question:

How can we know, or at least have a high level of confidence, that the new projected costs are correct?

Answers:

"Future costs are always difficult to define with any great degree of accuracy, but our administration has typically done a very good job in that regard. I have faith that over the last year, our staff was able to refine the costs, and that we will be able to complete the project within the budget." (Carlson)

"As with many sectors of our economy, the construction industry is market driven, based on supply versus demand. At the time of the previous cost estimate there were several competing projects in our province scheduled to begin last year or this year. A late 2015 start and late 2018/early 2019 completion would have fewer competitors for the specialized work required for projects of this nature." (Miyashiro)

Question:

"Will the city be able to finish Métis Trail in time for the opening of the Leisure Centre to avoid congestion? Further, and generally, why is the city not immediately working toward a 4 lane road to support the demand for such a civic hub?"

Answers:
"Metis Trail is high on our list of priorities.  Not only will it further support the new facilities, it will provide the West Side of our community with another much needed North-South connection." (Carlson)

"Metis Trail is scheduled for an expansion this year (Jerry Potts Blvd. to Garry Drive) at a cost of almost $10 million. The continuation of Metis Trail to Whoop Up Drive is expected in 2020." (Miyashiro)

I'm concerned about Metis trail as well. This will be a busy area. I also don't know why we aren't twinning Whoop-up Drive past the fire hall. I'm not an engineer, but I will be asking those questions. (Spearman - paraphase)

So... That is what I know so far. I am thankful to those who replied for their time and consideration. I am thankful to all of council for working, to the best of their abilities, for the betterment of our community.

I am also thankful for the support I have received for asking questions. It's our role as citizens in a democracy to choose leaders who we believe will make the choices we would have made and to understand the choices that those leaders make.

Ask questions. Get answers.

And as I tell my kids, "Make good choices, honey!"

I'm insisting...

Who actually decides what Lethbridge will build?

I have calmed down somewhat since the City Council meeting of August 4th wherein, after a presentation and lengthy Q&A session, our council did vote to amend the mostly immutable and sacrosanct CIP to add a field house to the already funded leisure centre (hockey ice, curling ice, and aquatic facilities). I believe this is ultimately a wonderful thing!

Firstly, the full-meal-deal leisure centre will be used by families and individuals in Lethbridge for 40 years to come (based on historical replacement of facilities). We want it and we got it!

Secondly, it demonstrates that council can make changes to the CIP when it is good for the city and as money becomes available.

Thirdly (and here my bias may show a bit), it checks off so many Recreation and Culture facilities on the community want list that the next round of CIP may actually green-light a Performing Arts Theatre!

On the bleak side, the railroad fashion in which the Leisure Aquatic Field House complex thingy has been pushed at council by administration causes me some concern. I did attempt to use Twitter to get quick answers to my questions, but it takes more than 140 characters to explain why this horse is getting backed.

It was also suggested by a councillor that people asking these questions on Twitter were "trolls" and we were invited to e-mail our questions directly.

So I did and I cc'd the Mayor and all the other councillors.

Councillor Miyashiro,

Further to my twitter questions and to your request for "trolls" to e-mail, I ask you to please consider and respond to these questions regarding the Leisure Centre full build-out and its funding.

The Recreation and Culture Master Plan states: "No major ($1M+) public investments in recreation or culture infrastructure should occur without undertaking market feasibility analysis and business planning. This applies not only to initiatives championed by the City, but also to those projects led by not-for-profit groups and associations wherein public funds are required for the capital and/or ongoing operations of facilities." When asked about the business plan for the Leisure Centre, you equated a business case to a business plan. I assert that they are different. The business case is a demonstration of how it has worked somewhere; a business plan is how we intend it to work here. How did the Leisure Centre build-out bypass the master plan requirement of a business plan? 

The city manager, and others, asserted that this project is "ready to proceed" and others are not. What factors separate ready projects from un-ready projects? Specifically what factors indicate the Field House expansion of the Leisure Centre is ready to proceed and what factors are missing from the Performing Arts Centre proposal and Lethbridge Exhibition proposals that have them classed as un-ready?

I have some difficulty reconciling some answers regarding project costs. The city manager asserted that costs for projects will go up over time, but after 16 months the projected cost of the full build is about 20% less expensive than the original proposal. The only answer I can recall about this difference is that more research was done and the facilities were going to be less expensive than originally estimated. This suggests that insufficient planning was done originally. How can we know, or at least have a high level of confidence, that the new projected costs are correct?

Given the assertion that the Leisure Centre is needed and will be extensively used, will the city be able to finish Métis Trail in time for the opening of the Leisure Centre to avoid congestion? Further, and generally, why is the city not immediately working toward a 4 lane road to support the demand for such a civic hub?

Thank you in advance for your responses.

Stephen Graham

I will post & discuss the replies I receive.

If I get any.

I'm just sayin...

Bawdy House of Commons

What is wrong with sex? Seriously! How is it magically different than other things we do?

Substitute any personally provided service for sexual service in the prostitution related criminal code and see if it still makes sense.

“advertisement of accounting services” means any material — including a photographic, film, video, audio or other recording, made by any means, a visual representation or any written material — that is used to advertise accounting services contrary to section 286.4.

286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the accounting services of a person is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and a minimum punishment of, [...]

That being said, some of it makes sense: we should not force or coercion people of any age to engage in accounting services. We should not entice or coerce persons under the age of 18 to engage in accounting services? 

We are talking about making it non-criminal to sell accounting services but criminal to purchase accounting services. Does that make sense? I don't think so.

Lastly, I suspect we would find it contrary to public standards of decency to suggest that adults should be denied freedom of the person to have sex accounting with whomever they choose, provided it is agreed, consensual, and free from coercion.  If my suspicion is confirmed, Bill C-36 would make the House of Commons into a common bawdy-house.

(2) The definition “common bawdy-house” in subsection 197(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

“common bawdy-house” means, for the practice of acts of indecency, a place that is kept or occupied or resorted to by one or more persons;

And considering some of the other legislation being passed, I'd say those are some indecent acts.

Just thinking.

Gender Equality? Yes, please!

Take Back the Night

City for All Women Initiative

Status of Women Canada

I totally support gender equality, but I think things like these have powerful language attached that suggest:

1. men have no idea how to be fair, and  
2. only women can advance women's issues. 

Given what I know of history I have little defence against the first claim, but I am taking issue with the second.

There is lots of research about human development that strongly suggests genetics determine how our reproduction related bits grow (or don't), and I can't help that. There is lots of research about how we relate to our own reproduction related bits and preferences regarding the reproduction related bits of others. Also not much I can do about those preferences.

I do know that if the reproduction related bits have nothing to do with the job you are doing, they should have NOTHING to do with the job you are doing, or the pay you are getting, or the parking spot, or job opportunity, or... well... anything.

I also know that if the preferences and identity regarding  reproduction related bits don't involve you (as subject or object), then they DO NOT involve you. If Bob likes Sally, the only two people who should really have a say about that is Bob and Sally. If Betty likes Sally, same deal goes. If all three of them like each other... sure. I don't tell you what to do in your bedroom, and we'll all thank you to do likewise!

In light of that, I'd be surprised if there should be any women's issues at all. They are people issues. Reproduction? That concerns people. Rape? Yeah, don't! And it also concerns all people. Go ahead! Tell me any issue that is exclusively a women's issue. Put one in the comments below and justify to me how it is exclusively a women's issue. I really want to know, because this really bothers me.

I think I heard in a psychology class once, that our brains don't handle negation well. In order to process "don't run" we need to visualize running. The process actually reinforces the action we want to avoid. Positive language that causes us to visualize the desired outcome is ultimately more powerful and more likely to get us there sooner.

But I guess there just isn't enough pizazz in:

Share the Night With Everyone

City for All People Initiative

Status of People Canada

I'm just saying.

While we're trampling civil liberties...

I was just thinking about Obama's press conference on August 9th, 2013, and I recall hearing a few things:

"I believe that those who have lawfully raised their voices on behalf of privacy and civil liberties are also patriots who love our country and want it to live up to our highest ideals."

"No, I don’t think Mr. Snowden was a patriot."

"So the fact is, is that Mr. Snowden has been charged with three felonies.  If, in fact, he believes that what he did was right, then, like every American citizen, he can come here, appear before the court with a lawyer and make his case."

I infer from these remarks (extracted from this transcript) that either the President of the United States presumes that Mr. Snowden is guilty of at least one of the felonies (and therefore did not lawfully raise his voice and is therefore not a patriot), or that the President has some other reason to publicly claim that Mr. Snowden is not (in the president's mind) a patriot.

If it is the former, what does it say about a country when its head of state makes such comments which seem to contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."). Or the the presumption of innocence notion in U.S. Law that was established by precedent in 1895. (Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895))

If it is the latter, mentioning it in this press conference implies it is the former.

Either way, I think it could be challenging to get a fair trial when the President announces you are unpatriotic.

Just thinking.

In favour of the skate park

02 August 2012

Members of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board,

My name is Stephen Graham and I live at 1410 Aspen Place South. I am in support of the development permit for the Henderson Lake Skatepark at 2599 Parkside Drive South (Permit number DEV04402). I believe that providing a venue for a relatively low-cost, all-ages, physical activity in a visible and accessible location is an excellent decision. 

I take exception to some of the objections raised by the appellants, namely the objections about policing, parking, traffic congestion, activity density, and noise.

Regarding policing, I believe that placing a public skate park in full public view of a primary artery will aid in deterring unwanted behaviours. LRPS and the public will be able to see the site and, together with the park users, we will be able to keep an eye on the park.

Regarding parking and traffic congestion, I believe that the majority of the skate park users will not drive to the park, but rather will use their boards. A few will be driven by parents and friends, but I believe that will be a very small minority. Certainly any overflow from the odd concurrent usage may spill onto public streets, but those times will likely be few and far between and not in excess of current on-street parking. For similar reasoning, there should not be any noticeable increase in traffic congestion.

Regarding objections to activity density, I think that creating a skate park in this area will move any skateboarding activity off the main park paths. This will improve safety and enjoyment for pedestrian, bicycle, and skateboard users of this park zone. I do object to some residents claiming ownership or provision of some activities in the Henderson Lake area, and more so for the seeming characterization of these community building events as a burden.

Finally, regarding noise. The sound of people enjoying a park is a good thing. As one document  from Herndon, VA notes, "Studies show that at 100 feet from a skate park, little noise rises above the surrounding ambient noise no matter what surface is used." Most of the appellants live more than 500m from the zoned site or about 16 times that distance. It would be akin to someone in London Road Neighbourhood being concerned about noise from Park Place Mall.

I think that skateboarding is not for me. I lack the coordination to do the tricks and I lack the stamina to use it as transportation. Skateboarding is exercise. It builds strength and coordination. It doesn't require a team or a lot of equipment. Kids and adults can participate solo or concurrently. It doesn't use electricity. It doesn't, to my knowledge, contribute to obesity or delinquency.

It does require some contiguous hard surfaces and some space. Like a sidewalk, rail, curb, quarter-roll, or other similar features. The features you'd find in a skate park. The thought of having a highly-visible, public, maintained, and endorsed place for my kids, and others in the city to conveniently exercise and play makes me happy. It is the kind of thing that taxes are for, yes?

In light of what I have said here, I urge the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board to deny the appeal and uphold the original permit for the benefit of our city.

Thank you,

Stephen Graham, B.Sc., I.S.P, ITCP

1410 Aspen Place South

Lethbridge, AB   T1K 3V4

smgraham@nucleus.com

A good use of tax dollars?

Two items surfaced in the news recently that have caused me to question how our money is being spent. $10M on an inquiry and $84K on a road trip. The PC's in Alberta promised, if elected, to 
"Invest in Families and Communities: we will support wellness, families and communities as an investment in Albertans and Alberta’s future."

So the $10M is to investigate whether or not there is queue-jumping happening in our health care system. My amateur analysis is this: If we have sufficient capacity to to provide quality health care in a timely fashion to everyone, there is no need for queue jumping. $10M hires 20 health care professionals (doctors, nurses, etc) for one year. Or 10 for two years. Or a few lawyers for a few months. I see an immediate value to spending on staff and facilities, but I am hard pressed to see the value of another expensive report that will tell us something we already know. Maybe the government forgot that they promised "Making healthcare more efficient and reallocating as much money as possible to frontline services continues to be our highest priority."

And $84K to go to the Olympics(tm) in London? This must be part of Premier Redford's commitment "to a re-evaluation and bolstering of Alberta’s international strategy, better positioning Alberta business and pro-actively, promote Alberta’s energetic, global focus in everything from tourism and trade, to arts and culture, education, research, innovation, and investment."

I get that we need to sell our brand. I get that, but where and how will the ROI be realized or even measured?  I bet there is no metric in place to gauge the success of this "investment". Will it be in tourism? That may be hard to handle given the previous years' cuts to Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation and Alberta Culture and Community Spirit.  

Maybe it is just a chance to see sports. If that's the case, perhaps the Premier and her ministers could have spent $84K to come to the Alberta Summer Games and invested in Alberta.

I'm just saying.

Coffee shops...

One of the best inventions ever.

I was sitting in a coffee shop and working on a programming problem when a woman with an interesting tattoo sat down at the table next to me. The tattoo was of three mathematical functions the Möbius function, the omega function representing distinct prime factors, and another function which escapes my recall. I asked her about it/them and she explained that, with the provided arguments, the three functions represented her date of birth. We proceeded to talk about number theory, math, and the lack of teachers with a math specialty. She is involved with some exciting research related to the Riemann Hypothesis. If that goes smoothly, she may have time for a second publication for her Masters.

Next, a business consultant friend of mine arrives and suddenly I'm embroiled in a conversation about customer service, and getting the customer to put a value on IT service. Keen insight gained.

I'm just saying: $1.87 well spent!

I can no longer hide...

I believe that in the last few days, I have created or reinforced so much of my social networking that I will never be able to hide from the web. Ever. (As if there was even a chance last week!)

My wife (@NancyLTG) introduced me to Klout.com, an influence ranking site. After some connect the dots and social networks, and after waiting for the engine to get caught up, I have now got an ego-stroking Klout score of 54/100 (or whatever the badge at the bottom says now). If anyone reads this, likes this, shares this, +1's this, tweets or retweets this, or links it on their blog, I will get a smidgen more Klout. (please?)

It may not mean much to me today, but according to an article in Wired magazine, "Klout—a three-year-old startup based in San Francisco—is on a mission to rank the influence of every person online." This could have implications on whether or not I (or you) get a job.

Until someone figures a way to hijack the algorithm, we probably had better scratch each other's backs and give each other K+

I'm just saying.

Schrödinger's soldiers?

Are soldiers heroes or not? Or both? Or does it depend when we observe them?

I've been seeing groups like Soldiers are Heroes and posts on various social media with the same message. Today I saw a post on Facebook looking for my support to shut down a group page called Soldiers are Not Heroes or some other pages like it.

I visited the pages and I find that I fall more toward the "not heroes" camp. Here's why.

Being a soldier doesn't make you a hero. Being admired for doing something courageous, outstanding or noble makes you a hero. Soldiers may be heroes to some, but it seems that hero-ness is relative. If we are forced to accept that "all soldiers are heroes", then we must accept Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, every German soldier in WWII who marched Jews to the death camps, and anyone who participated in the My Lai Massacre or the Somalia Affair as heroes. That seems like a very difficult stretch for me.

Furthermore, I think the declaration "All Soldiers are Heroes" is an example of a Moralistic Fallacy. The proponents would like to believe it should be true, so they assume it is true. If pressed, I'm pretty sure those proponents would concede that "All Soldiers" an overstatement. Some closer phrases might be: "All soldiers in the service of my country" or "Those soldiers in the service of my country who maintain the code of conduct and do nothing that I find morally intolerable", but those don't have a catch bandwagon ring. Saying a thing is true doesn't make it so.

I am a proponent of the Canadian Armed Forces. I think we in Canada have the history and the ability to raise and maintain an appropriate defence force that has the ability to help our and other nations in distress. If our armed forces are actually helping people in ways and places that are difficult and dangerous, and they are doing good in the world in a way that is above and beyond the call of duty, then those particular people might be heroes to me.

Do your own thinking. Pick your own heroes.

I'm just thinking.

Will I suddenly be 9 months older?

According to Hansard, MP Stephen Woodworth wants to know:
(i) what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth,
(ii) is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth,
(iii) what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth,
(iv) what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1).

Blogger Stephen Graham wants to know:

(i) what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a human being is or is not an adult before the moment of turning eighteen,
(ii) is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsections 2(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Canadian law that a human being becomes an adult at the moment of turning eighteen,
(iii) what are the legal impact and consequences of those sections of law on the fundamental human rights of a human being before the moment of turning eighteen,
(iv) what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court to affirm, amend, or replace definitions in Canadian law that restrict the rights of Canadians under eighteen.



Also, if a child is a human being at, say, the moment of conception, how will that affect the measurement of age under the law? Is this part of deferring OAS?

I know it's crazy to try and treat all law equally, but gooses and ganders.

I'm just saying.

I've not been shy about my love of the concept of parliamentary democracy. I love it. I think it has the potential to be the best flavour of democracy going. I frequently regret that there is insufficient altruism in politics to make it work.

It is a simple premise: The room is not big enough for everyone to sit in the legislature at once, so we elect someone to go sit there on our behalf. Those elected representatives go to Edmonton with their local biases to make good law for Alberta. A bunch of those people will be "The Government" and will propose laws. The rest will be "The Opposition" and they will oppose any flaws in the laws and propose changes to the laws in the hopes of making a better Alberta.

Note that the job of the Opposition is not to say, "The Government is wrong" it is to say "We believe this part of the law would better serve Alberta with these amendments."

Then, the coolness happens! Parliament.

It's why we read the bills 3 times and debate them. To talk about it. Not brag or nay-say, but to actually find and create the best law available.

Please, newly elected Government and Opposition, take our diverse and elected members and use them ALL to our best advantage. We live in a great province, so let's keep it that way.

I am emphatically saying.