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.

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!

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.

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.