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...

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.

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.

Skepticism is healthy... Improve your health!

Recently (about 15 minutes ago) I saw a link in my Facebook(tm) newsfeed to promo page for "Adam and Eve after the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution" by Mary Eberstadt

FACT: The fact in the posted image is not a fact. It is a question.

OPINION: The fact alluded to in the question may only be one interpretation of the data available. Here is another set of conclusions from the data: http://www.in-gender.com/XYU/Gender-Preference/

OPINION: Gender selection of offspring is a bad idea and a bad practice.

OPINION: We should be skeptical of broad-sweeping, poorly-supported propagandizing statements purported as fact and relentlessly hold their authors and proponents to account for the veracity and validity of those statements.

I'm just saying.

Sex is abuse?

So I saw this picture "Real men don't buy girls". This is a bold tactic against human trafficking. I don't think that people should be property. I believe it is our personal and societal obligation to protect our young and to not abuse the vulnerable.

STOP HUMAN TRAFFICKING!

That being said, I found this picture in a promotion for the website sextrade101.com. You should read it. There are some real concerns here. People should not hurt other people. The founder of the site, Natasha Falle, said, "Prostitution is the abuse of women plain and simple."

I think it is neither plain nor simple.

What is wrong with exchanging services for money? Lawyers do it. Factory workers do it. Computer programmers do it. Teachers do it. If you have a job, you are trading your services for money. Prostitution is the exchange of sexual services for money.

If lawyering, building, programming, teaching, etc. is not abuse, then the difference must be sex. So then sex = abuse.

That is messed up. Sure there is sexual abuse, but not all sex is abuse and not all abuse is sex.

I do not understand what is so wrong about sex. Why should it be illegal to offer to exchange sex for money (or vice versa, no pun intended)? Why should it be illegal to live off the money earned in exchange for sex?

What if the sex trade were unionized? It worked for coal miners and steel workers... just look at how much better protected those workers are under the law than in pre-union times. Not perfect, but better. Think of the income tax implications of adding all that additional self-employment income. Think of the opportunities for better support, health, education, and training. Think how the trade would not be forced into the shadows where people look the other way.

I hope sextrade101.com will help to make everyone safer and happier. If it starts to demonize sex, then maybe what we need to do is make it illegal to live off the avails of special interest propagandizing...

I'm just saying ..

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.

So the criminal code of Canada states (in part) "202 (1) Everyone commits an offence who (d) records or registers bets or sells a pool" and that "(2) Every one who commits an offence under this section is guilty of an indictable offence and liable (a) for a first offence, to imprisonment for not more than two years"

It also states "213. (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view (c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."

Now why do we set up stings for summary conviction offences, but not prosecute indictable offences like football pools?

I'm just asking.

   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.

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...

Things Paul Harvey Didn't Say

Recently, I received FW:FW:FW: that was attributed to Paul Harvey, the essence of which is: in a country where there is freedom of religion, people of faith should be granted the time to pray without any legal repercussions. The story behind it is that someone was offended by a 30-second prayer and sued.

I appreciate and support the general sentiment that freedom of religion should be just that, and I am not offended if any faith wants to pray (or not).

From a practical perspective, how should we handle prayers at the start of a game if there are representatives of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist faiths together with Atheists. Should each be allowed 30s of devotional time? Should they pray or whatever simultaneously?

From a legal perspective, I think that distributing a document that was written (predominantly) by someone (Nick Gholson, Times Record News in Wichita Falls, Texas, September 1999) and attributing that text to someone else (Paul Harvey), may raise issues of plagiarism. Other copyright infringement issues would be related to the general reprinting and distribution without permission. (see http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/prayer.asp for my source)

Also, I don't like FW:FW:FW: chain letters so I try and complain and set the sender on the path to what is Truth, Fairness, Befriendment and Beneficence.

Faithfully yours,
Stephen

Order of Canada

Joseph Emmanuel Yvon Levaque has one, and he was founder and first President of the National Association of Principals and Administrators of Indian Residences
(Didn't the government apologize for Residential Schools because they were evil and wrong?)

Cardinal Paul Grégoire (October 24, 1911 – October 30, 1993) was a Canadian Archbishop of Montreal. In 1979, he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada.
(Wasn't he in charge of those Quebec priests who were inappropriate with children?)

Where is the righteous indignation against their OoC's? Just Asking

So who is the parent, again?

So far this week we have a Quebec court overturning the grounding of a 12-year-old girl and a new law that makes spanking illegal. The traditional tools of swift physical punishment and revocation of privileges are being removed.

As a some-time educator, I recognize that positive reinforcement of desired behaviour is a very strong teaching tool, but teaching consequence requires that an appropriate consequence must follow a behaviour. Let us encourage good behaviour, but do not force parents to ignore bad behaviour. These children who have been spared the rod hand and spoiled with no negative feedback for negative behaviour will likely become the miscreants and malcontents of the future. And we will blame the parents for not doing enough.

Maybe Macgyver has some way to make a punishment out of a spatula, some chewing gum, and a pile of bad legislation and judicial rulings. If employing literary devices and fictional characters isn't illegal, yet.

Random application of the Charter

The headline jumped out at me: "Random use of police sniffer dogs breach of Charter: top court"
(http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/25/school-search.html)

I read the article and find something vaguely disturbing about it. On one hand, I really enjoy the freedom to wander about and not have to wonder when the police will be searching me and my stuff. On the other hand, if buddy has enough cocaine and heroin in my kid's school to make it obvious she is never going to use it all herself, I don't mind if it gets found in a random search.

So are CheckStops now unconstitutional without a specific warrant?

If democracy is better than other government, why do we need to force people to choose it?

So, I was thinking, it wasn't too long ago that people were concerned with creeping communism and felt that we needed to convince wavering countries that democracy was way better. In fact, many democratic countries used various political, economic, and military means to persuade non-democratic countries to change. If democracy is so great, why do we have to shove it down people's throats?

ditto Communism

and most other -ism's for that matter

Citizenship and Oaths of Allegiance

Over beer last night a friend of mine mentioned that his wife was not so keen on the Canadian Oath of Citizenship which is required to become a naturalized citizen in Canada

"I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen."

Her objection seems to be the "bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II,..." part.

She is a citizen of the United States of America by birth and probably has re-asserted their Pledge of Allegiance:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

It should (theoretically) be possible to fulfill both pledges, unless Canada goes to war against the United States of America. There is so much common ground in Canadian and U.S.A. law(s) that by working within the laws of Canada (as pledged), you can still ally yourself with a symbolic piece of cloth and the nation for which it stands without violating a pledge of allegiance to the Canadian head of state.

This is hardly different than the position expressed by Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, on Muslims and the Canadian Oath of Allegiance[1]

Just a thought about allegiance to a republic: Since a republic is (more or less) a state where the government's political power depends solely on the consent, however nominal, of the people governed, then if the citizens choose to withdraw consent or otherwise disagree with those elected, anyone who would faithfully uphold the pledge should immediately seek to change the government.

That must be why the U.S. Government works so hard to keep all the citizens "on-side".

God Save the Queen.