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.

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.

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.