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.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Friday, June 29, 2012
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!
Monday, June 25, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, June 1, 2012
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 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.
Friday, April 27, 2012
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) 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.
Monday, April 23, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)