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...

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.

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.

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.

Promises, Promises

So... Today I will focus my attention one little detail about the Alberta PCs.

Their campaign, for as long as I can remember, is based on "We've been doing well so you should vote for us." It has even been peppered with the occasional "We did what we said we were going to do!" but those are usually to distract us from other things.

In my research for this election, I was reading through old budgets and found this gem of a promise from April 7th, 2009.

"The Pharmaceutical Strategy will redesign drug coverage for seniors. When it is implemented on January 1, 2010, it will lower or completely eliminate prescription drug costs for about 60% of seniors." (FISCAL PLAN 2009 –12  SPENDING PLAN,  Page 31)

This is rapidly followed up by a press release on April 23rd, 2009 announcing details of the plan that will come into effect July 1, 2010.

Then there was a new budget passed in February 2010 that declared "Under the Alberta Pharmaceutical Strategy, drug coverage for seniors has been redesigned . When it is implemented on July 1, 2010, it will lower or completely eliminate prescription drug costs for about 60% of seniors." (FISCAL PLAN 2010 –13 G SPENDING PLAN, Page 31)

In a press release on March 31st, 2010 it was announced that "Proposed changes to Alberta's seniors' drug plan scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2010, have been delayed in order to address necessary legislative and regulatory changes and align with other government programs for seniors. Meanwhile, the existing seniors' drug program will remain available to all Albertans 65 years and older." (This coverage has not been updated since July 2010).

"In 20 years, Alberta's seniors' population will have doubled from 400,000 to more than 800,000 - an increase from 11 to 21 per cent of our population," said Gene Zwozdesky, Minister of Health and Wellness.  "As a result, a comprehensive approach is needed to address the needs of an aging and rapidly expanding population, and that simply requires more time to get it right."

How much time?

Budget 2011 Announces "The 2011-12 budget provides over $1 billion for these benefits, including
$595 million for prescription drug benefits for seniors." No mention of the redesigned drug coverage plan.

Budget 2012 Announces "There is over $1 billion budgeted for these benefits in 2012-13, including
$552 million for prescription drug benefits for seniors." Still no mention of the redesigned drug coverage plan and notice that prescription drug benefits for seniors is now decreasing despite the increasing number of seniors in Alberta.

This is just one example of "Look how well we (actually) did." There might be more examples. There might not. But, if we're not paying attention, we won't know what else is promised but not delivered.

Be informed. Do some reading. Ask some questions. Make up your own mind. Democracy works better that way.

I'm just saying.


p.s. I'm keeping copies of the platforms so that I can track the winners promises against performance. You should, too!

p.p.s. I was able to download PC, NDP, Lib, Alberta, & Evergreen (as PDF). I was able to download Separation Party, Alberta Social Credit, &  Communist Party of Alberta (by copy and paste),... but for some reason, WR won't let me download their policy documents... Maybe they don't want it thrown back in their faces?

EDIT APRIL 18, 2012
With some digging I found http://www.wildrosecaucus.ca/issues/  There are 14 issues there each with what looks like a policy PDF. I'll have to see if it matches their platform Scribd thing.

We need our Education to be fully funded.

I'm pretty sure that several someones in the Provincial budgeting process could use some remedial math and problem-solving lessons.

Pop Quiz:
1) An Education department is responsible for funding the operations of school boards with approximately 553,000 students and 36,000 teachers in the 2011-2012 fiscal year. In 2012-2013, the number of students is expected to increase by 1.5% and the salaries for teachers are expected to increase 5.0%. If the actual cost in 2011-2012 was $5,884,134,000 how much should be budgeted for 2012-2013 in order to maintain the same student-teacher ratio? (Choose the best/closest answer.)
   A- $6,082,000,000
   B- $6,270,000,000
   C- Some number that we can claim is a 3.4% increase in spending
   D- None of the above

I claim the answer is B: 5,884,134,000 * 1.015 * 1.05 = $6,270,000,000 (approx.) If you answered A or C then you are a Departmental Minister or someone involved in creating the budget.  (Source: 2012 AB Budget - pg. 26)

Obviously education IS important. It helps us balance our budgets. It helps us solve problems.

Considering this is just one example of bad budgeting, I dread to think how badly forecast the entire budget is!

I'm just saying.

   Recently, on the intertubes, a same-sex divorce case has got some knickers in some knots. A couple of views on the case are this: this and this. I recommend doing your own research and forming your own opinions. For what it's worth, here's what I think.

   Two people who desired and intended to be pair-bond partners vacationed from their homes to be married in a jurisdiction where it is generally permitted for same-sex couples to be married. Years later the same two people no longer want to be legally (civilly) recognized as pair-bond partners.
Enter the law. It turns out that if you live in Ontario, Canada and you want to get married to same-sex person, it is permissible. If you are from somewhere that it is not legal and you are not going to stay afterward, then it is not permissible. At it's heart... the people got their ceremony when they wanted it and years later when they don't want to be married they discover they aren't. Problem solved.

   Yeah... no. It seems now that folks are foaming at the mouth because this undermines a lot of forward progress. And if gay marriages are without legal standing if it is illegal in the homeland then Egyptians in Canada may not blog and Lower Slobbovian women may not drink Fresca on Tuesdays. These mouth-foamers seem to suggest that the solution is "Even if you may not do this in your own country, it is permissible in our culture so everything is fine!". Problem solved.

   Yeah... no. Consider the universal application of this. Suppose I have a hankering for a northern right whale (Eubalena glacialis) steak... I can't do that here that is an endangered species. IT IS ILLEGAL! So I fly over to Lower Slobbovia where it is legal, kill the whale, make a steak for myself and completely use every possible part to feed, clothe, heat, or whatever, the poor people of Lower Slobbovia. And no one should complain.

   You say, "But, Stephen, that is different! We were talking about people getting married."
So try this... Suppose I want to marry my brother in the Province of Alberta. I can't do that here, he is my brother, it is illegal! So we fly to Lower Slobbovia where it is legal to marry a sibling, tie the knot, etc. And no one should complain. Or suppose I want to have 3 wives... or marry a 12-year-old... or marry a corpse...

   In the true big world picture of things, I think we want other jurisdictions to respect our laws so we should respect theirs. In the specific case that started my rant... if they wanted to be married and the laws of the home jurisdiction were so prohibitive, perhaps they should have lobbied to change the law (like in Canada) or move to where the laws are more to their liking.

   Gay marriage, straight marriage, whatever marriage from where I sit should be so much more than the legal standing. It should be about love and mutual support and growth. And for the record... I don't want to marry my brother, a 12-year-old, a corpse, nor 2 more wives! I am exceedingly satisfied with the one spouse I have. I wish everyone could be as fortunate as I have been.

   I'm just saying.

A Hypothetical Workaround for Tracking a Canadian Election in "Real Time"

Imagine an open source application that has two functions:
1) Allows the user to make a post to Twitter with a hash-tag indicating how that user voted (like #VotedCPC #VotedLPC #VotedNDP #VotedGRN #VotedBLOC #VotedOTHER) , and
2) Aggregation, for personal use of that user, of the counts of all the hash-tags in the set for a period of time (for example Election Day).

Then the permitted action of "the transmission by an individual, on a non-commercial basis on what is commonly known as the Internet, of his or her personal political views." would be enabled and the aggregated, publically avaliable information, which is not an "opinion survey of how electors voted or will vote at an election or respecting an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated" could be viewed by an individual without being transmitted.

I'm not a lawyer, but this would seem to get around a number of restrictions. It would not be valid statistically, but it might be interesting.

Maybe for the next go around, if they don't change the law.

I'm just saying.

Education is Our Obligation

So, my daughters are embarking on a the exciting path of revolution. It makes me so proud to see them have at the Provincial Government and the School Board.

The Alberta Government in its wisdom, and on our behalf, have decided that it isn't necessary to pay for the current levels of teaching and support staff. The current budget for Education is insufficient to maintain the status quo.

Perhaps this is left-over from previous inadequate funding; poorly educated administrators and politicians at the departmental level. At least when it comes to math.

According to the recent budget release (http://education.alberta.ca/department/budget.aspx), there is a suggestion that education costs are spiralling out of control. "Over 10 years, funding to the education system has increased by 63 per cent while student enrolment has increased by three per cent." They even have graphs to prove it and on the surface it seems correct. Reality is, however, that if you look at the money spent in terms of the cost of inflation, it looks like about 4.5% per year (approximately). This number seems really close to the AWEI. In other words: this is what we would expect.

Or consider this: If we know that the cost for staffing will go up about 4.4% next year, the enrolment is estimated to go up 1.1%, and the forecast cost for operating support in 2010-2011 is 5,452,711,000 then the budget for 2011-2011 should be at least that much times 1.044 * 1.011 or 5,749,556,000.

It isn't. In fact, it is about 39,109,000 less than that (http://www.finance.alberta.ca/publications/budget/budget2011/education.pdf, the page numbered 48). This is equivalent to about 375 teachers.

Overall, the expenditure on Education is only going up about 2.8% over last year. If the cost of delivering education is going up, we need to pay that bill.

I'm just saying.

How Taxes Work: A primer for civic election.

I was reading through another raft of candidate questions this evening and I saw this socially relevant question: "...do you support existing social housing programs and initiatives to end homelessness?"

One mayoral candidate said: "These programs should not be a burden on tax payers, but a government responsibility."

And now, the short version of how taxation works.

Citizens pay taxes to some common pool. That common pool is managed by (in Canada) an elected government. That elected government spends the money on behalf of (and presumably to the benefit of) the citizens. The government is of the citizens; it IS the citizens. And the citizens are the taxpayers.

And that is the tidy little loop.

Even if that candidate meant "civic tax payers" and "another level of government's responsibility" the answer really doesn't show full comprehension of how taxes work. If another level of government is providing funding, it STILL come from our pockets!

Probably won't vote for that one, nor for anyone who doesn't understand the basic concept.

I'm just saying.

Ontario Court Strikes Down Anti-Prositution Laws

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100928/ontario-anti-prostitution-laws-struck-down-100928/

Hurray! I have argued for years that the laws surrounding prostitution in Canada were ridiculous!

These things are illegal (for now):

Soliciting for the purposes of prostitution

Soliciting to hire a prostitute

Operating a common bawdy house (where prostitution takes place)

Living off the avails of prostitution.

See anything missing? Yeah. Prostitution. That's right prostitution is legal in Canada. You just can't advertise it, ask for it, enable it, or spend any money you might make at it.

Politicians ask us to give them a job where they use their talents and abilities to satisfy one of our needs and we pay them to do it. We fund the place where they ply their trade. They spend their take-home pay.

What's the difference? Sex.

Although we frequently get screwed by politicians, too.

I'm just saying...