Council should be allowed to do its job

A recent blog post from Lee Cutforth suggests that Council should delay "major votes" until after the new Council is elected. This idea raises several questions:

1. How major is "major"?

2. How long before the election would this limitation come into effect?

3. If we don't let Council make decisions in the last, say, three months of their term, why have a three-year term at all? Why not a 33-month term?

4. Are Council decisions permanent or un-revisitable?

5. Given that the decisions of any elected Council will have dissenters, should any Council be allowed to make major decisions?

Separate from the practical shortcomings, I'm also left idly wondering which "supporters of the project have questioned the grandiosity of its scale". At the moment we are talking about new facilities to replace and enhance functionality of the Bowman Arts Centre. That building (a recycled school) was barely sufficient when it was re-purposed originally. The city has more than doubled in size since 1963.

Soon (I hope) we will be talking again about a Performing Arts Centre to increase public performing arts facilities beyond the what the Genevieve E. Yates Memorial Centre can provide. It was opened in 1966 and seats under 500 people (the addition of the Sterndale Bennett Theatre is a separate 180 seats). By the time that a new facility is built the population of Lethbridge will likely have TRIPLED. A 1500 seat theatre is not out of the question.

Perhaps we should put enhancement of our sports facilities on hold for 45 or 50 years?

I'm going to ask Mr. Cutforth to answer these questions and I will post his response when I get it.

Go vote.

People who want to get elected...

...seem pretty quick to boldly and publicly criticize the incumbents and the administration to make their platforms seem bold and critical.

...seem to position themselves as different from other candidates, often crafting their platforms to have a contrary or at least noticeably different opinion of how things should be.

...seem to forget that, if elected, each person is only one voice in a council of 9 and will have to compromise on something and that the next election is only 3 years away.

My Family and extremes

I never in a million years exaggerate about anything, ever.
My in-laws never take things to the extreme.
Take Heather, for example. One day she wanted to go on a little bike ride, now she is bicycling across Canada in support of Kids Cancer Research. http://heatherjager.snkcr.com/rss is her blog in case you want to follow her training and other progress.
Happy New Year

Elections in Canada, again!

As a somewhat firm believer in democracy, I am happy that there will be a federal election on October 14th, 2008. I will get to have my say in how the country is run. At least I will get my 1/52,000th of 1/308th of a say in how the country is run. Sort of.

If history is any indicator... even if everyone who doesn't vote Tory agrees to all back only one party, the Tory incumbent will still win. Mostly because he's a Tory. You know the old saying: I could paint my horse Tory blue and it would get elected. I think it was coined here.

I guess we'll watch and wait...

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.