Tom Wolfe Approves

Although I shall shamefacedly admit I had not heard of him prior to this story breaking, it seems Alberta is in a tizzy over comments made by the Alberta Liberal candidate John Reilly. Mr. Reilly, who has previously served for over thirty years as a judge, said that he felt that mandatory sentences, specifically he was speaking in cases of sexual assault, were unnecessary and mitigated the discretion of the judge.  He made the mistake of downplaying a sexual assault which occurred at a party, saying he felt it was unnecessary for the offender to go to prison for three years.

The response has been varied, from suggesting he should be removed from election consideration to simply shrugging that "At least he's not as bad as that Forbes guy." He has since issued an apology and Ignatieff has said Reilly will continue to run in the Wild Rose district.

There are a lot of factors at play here, from the damage done to the Liberal party, already harmed for being known as 'soft on criminals', to the promotion of his career since, as they say, there is no bad publicity. One commenter on the site which held the transcript observed that the interviewer questioned Reilly's stance on sexual assault sentences by asking how Mr. Reilly would feel if it was "his daughter"; the commenter felt that the appeal to the emotion side of people was low, and noted that his own daughters hated being used as political pawns. It is true the victim needs to be considered in the justice system, probably more than they currently are, but simply holding them up as withering violets is an argumental straw man, and demeans victims by making us desensitized to the reality of their plight.

The biggest objection that I have, and I am pretty sure Mr. Reilly simply missed it because he had spent so many years making judgements, relying on his own tuition, and building a solid base of experience, is that we can not always count on the lucid, rational, sober thought of judges. People are fallible, and easily swayed by day to day events and subconscious mores. Moreover, the primary point of the minimum sentence is twofold: first, a safeguard to demonstrate what we will not tolerate in our society; second, a deterrent in our justice system to discourage people from engaging in the activity and thinking they can just 'play it off' later.

I am not sure if he should be removed from the running, but I am pretty sure that he should be made to observe many other judges holding court, preferably ones with ideals he may not agree with, before he is allowed to comment on the justice system again, especially when he hopes to further more "enlightened" solutions.

The Title refers to a quote from Tom Wolfe that "A liberal is a conservative who has been arrested"

The Clingy Girlfriend's Bill

Despite the excitement of the Slutwalk and the election, it is imperative that we remain attentive to the processes occurring in our fair province. We have been struggling recently with missing persons, the most prominent lately being the disappearance of Lyle and Marie McCann, an elderly couple whose burnt trailer was discovered a few days after their disappearance was noticed by family. In response, the Alberta legislature has proposed Bill 8, which a few defenders of the private domain have ruffled their feathers over, but has received almost no major news coverage; I assume because it just isn`t as interesting as the latest Oilers loss (Have I complained about the coverage of sports in my local papers yet?). The level of outrage has been nowhere near proportional to the incursions onto our rights that is perpetrated in this bill, so I had to dust off my Police State Panic Pants for some good, hard, freaking out. 

The bill defines a missing person as someone whose whereabouts are unknown despite reasonable effort to locate them and whose health and safety are under concern due to mental or physical capabilities. This seems perfectly reasonable, if it were not completely undone by the first clause, which allows police to consider anyone 'missing' who has not contacted someone who could reasonably expect contact. Proof positive that legislation is weirder than your imagination. I can picture some stereotypical mother in the police station, "But officer! He hasn`t phoned his mumsie in two days; he`s gotta be missing!"(Missing children are no laughing matter, but paranoid parents with capable adult children are)

Even less comfortable is the abilities that are given to officers in their pursuit of missing persons; if given a court order they have the ability to rifle through financial information, travel or employment histories, health information, phone or GPS logs, and even, if they suspect a missing person is at the location, to enter a location without invitation. Furthermore, they don't even have to justify the invasion of privacy with results, the order applies if it would assist in the investigation of the missing person. In cases where the health and safety of the person is at risk, not even the basic order requirement holds.

The media seem to be portraying this as an honourable bill that will somehow magically ensure every missing person is brought home, but the reality of the bill is too excessive for comfort. Its second reading has been delayed, and I hope this will provide enough time for people to familiarize themselves with this bill, and decide whether they want to allow this or not.

You got Your Religion in my Education!

Donna Hunter, from my very own town of Morinville, doesn't want her children to receive a catholic education. The problem is the only public school in town is catholic, and they ignored her requests for secular education. So she went to the school board, the supposedly impartial overseer of education, and they offered her (in their own words) 7 solutions; 5 of which involve something called a 4X4 (I have no idea how this would help), and the other two involve busing her children to a different school district in a different town so they could attend secular classes. She balked at the request, preferring to remain active in her children's education and let her children learn in the town they live in, so she went to the minister for education, Dave Hancock; his response was that she should continue to talk to the board, that they should "work it out".

When she asked for a census, to see if the demand is present for a separate school, they denied her that as well, although I can understand their rationale - a board can't jump at every request with a census, they are awfully expensive and occasionally ridiculous. But that just means it is up to us, people who actually care about the education their children will get, to write in to demand a census, once it is obvious there is a reasonable demand for it, the board should do further investigation

Their rational for offering only faith-based education is that 46% of  Morinville residents identify themselves as Catholic, and that 30% of students identify as such, so it makes sense to aim their education at the majority of attendants. 

She made the request in January and is only now, at the start of the school year registrations, being told that her request is denied, so she has no time to try anything else - it's another school or another year of religious education for her kids. If this bothers you like it bothers me:
Contact Dave Hancock, Minister of Education or Lauri-Ann Turnbull, chairwoman for the Greater St Albert Catholic School Board and ask them to at least look into providing secular education for this area. As someone who hopes to send her kids to school in Morinville one day, I would be awful upset if the school board ignored my wishes for my children.

Dear Dave Hancock;
As a resident of Morinville, and a citizen in the area of the Greater St Albert Catholic School District I would like to press upon you the growing need for secular education in this area. Please encourage the school board to recognize the needs of all of its constituents, not just the Catholic ones, with a census to determine the demand for a secular school.
Thank you for your time.

Dear Lauri-Ann Turnbull;
As a resident of Morinville that hopes to have children in the Greater St Albert Catholic School Division one day, I would like to press upon you the growing need for secular education in this area. The notion of continually busing the children of dissenting parents to other school divisions is unfeasible in the long term. Please conduct a census to determine the demand for a secular school in this area, and then act accordingly.
Thank you for your time.

Theory: Altabomber

Someone took the encouragement to "have a blast" this New Years too literally, I think. This might put me in danger of having my alarmist pants permanently epoxied to my legs, but I believe we have an Oil-field vigilante operating in Alberta. Take a look at these:

May 30, 1979 an explosion on the Trans-Canada pipeline caused evacuations in Englehart, Ontario

February 7, 1999, Alberta, natural gas pipeline explosion creates mushroom cloud seen 62 miles away.

July 11, 1999, Alaska, Whistleblowers report that the Alaskan Pipeline is in imminent danger of an explosion or other accident causing damage "much worse" than the Exxon Valdez incident.

July 26, 1999 Sibbald crude oil production valley, Arcadia Valley, Alberta, explosion and fire, one worker killed.

August 9, 1999 Calgary Oil recycling plant explosions and fire send three workers to the hospital.

1 December 2003, a rupture in the Trans-Canada pipeline occurred at approximately 120 km south of Grand Prairie, AB.14 hours later, another rupture and fire occurred 15 km downstream from the initial incident.

Oct 12, 16, 31, Jan 5, 2008, July 1, 4, 2009 Blasts on six days in the B.C-Alta border region rupture the EnCana pipeline, which are listed as being "deliberately set". Letters were sent prior to the attack demanding EnCana stop or "'we' would bomb [them]to hell". Weibo Ludwig had been arrested but was released early January, 2010.

September 13, 2009 a similar explosion to that of 1979 occurred, in Englehart, Ontario,leaving a 20-foot hole at the explosion site.

December 31, 2010 a pipe bomb with intact trip-wire is discovered in Merritt,  B.C.

January 1st, 2011, an explosion near Swan Hills, Alta of the Pengrowth pipeline.Interestingly, the RCMP delivered a Peace bond to the home of Weibo Ludwig on Dec30th, 2010, two days before the most recent explosion.

The most frustrating thing is that few of these, other than the aforementioned arrest and discharge of Mr. Ludwig (He appears to be on the "catch and release" program. Maybe they will keep him when he gets bigger, but for now they have to tag him.) have any arrests or mentions of persons of interest at all. One report briefly hinted at the third Dawson Creek bombing (An innocuous shed was destroyed) being staged to plant an RCMP informant, but the information is vague and sketchy as to who was planted where. I can imagine that briefing being fantastic, however.
"Officer Smith, we need you to blow up a privy."
"Right-o, Sir! Permission to wear a raincoat for the short shower?"
"Permission granted! God save the Queen!"
"Huzzah!"
(I am not sure when my Mounted Police became British, but this may be a sign I have been watching too much Fry and Laurie.)

The current news reports covering the New Years explosion mention that police are looking for the cause (they also mention the phrase "lit up the sky" so many times I had to take a puke break), and no one has linked this explosion to any others or any other anything, but we are not stupid. There are only so many "accidents" to go around, and the number of explosions has been increasing steadily since 1998. The climate in Alberta, which has been described as the "Texas of Canada" can easily breed the kind of contempt and seething rage that is necessary for such an aggressive but non-confrontational attack. The bomber obviously feels that he has limited other options to combat the problem, but I would be willing to guarantee he (or she) would have tried political options in the past and been stymied. So blocked, they turn their attention to more direct actions. The letters that were sent to EnCana specified that "we" would bomb them to hell. It is likely that this endeavor is planned or executed by several people. With the increased public inspection and disapproval surrounding the Oil-sands, I think it is likely we will see these types of incidents increase.

The sad fact is, however, they will likely be buried under other articles, or made to seem innocuous, so that the public does not panic. They need us terrorized in small, manageable doses. It is annoying that we are coddled in this fashion by the major media, but at least we can stick together.
I am craving blueberries quite bad.

A Little Sexual Frustration, Combined With Lack of Motivation

I can just see, a few years ago, several politicians wiping their brows and exclaiming how happy they were that the constitution had been translated onto these new-fangled VCR tapes so that it would be more modern and accessible in the new age. Perhaps I should explain how I got here.

The news lately has been tittering to itself that the Alberta health care code of diagnostics apparently regards the state of homosexuality (Next to Arizona) as a mental disorder. It's true in the hay-day of the American diagnostic manual homosexuality was regarded as a paraphilia, right up there with bestiality, but since I had learned about it's removal as such back when I was doing my Psychology degree, and textbooks are notoriously slow to adapt (2000-computers are added to economics manuals) I had assumed it was a non- issue.

The Provincial government's response has been largely red-faced stammering about how it's a slow process to keep the manual updated and such, implying that the whole thing is a mere oversight, whoops, but it appears that Doctors have been billing provincial health care as recently as 2004, which is pretty darn recent by my standards. What this means is that it was in use, not a simple red-tape error. It also does not imply that there have not been any more recently, just that we did not have access to that data (If they are using it in 2004, they are using it in 2010, I bet you a dollar).

My first reaction was to just wonder why the hell they didn't just make one big push to transfer legislation online to a huge archive making it more accessible, but I suppose they want to wait and see if this "Internet" thing is going to stick around. But the larger problem revealed is that we have Doctors in the system treating patients for their "disease" of homosexuality and no one in the higher system is bothering to let us all know about it.

Wildwhat A-who-now? Part 2

I am just about to hand in one of the most schizophrenic papers I have ever birthed and I have very little clue as to whether it satisfies the conditions that it needs to meet because I have only the vaguest notion of what those are. I've re-read the outline sheet a million times - I could still make the case for an "A" and an "F". Needless to say I'm cranky, irritable, and looking to start a fight; As Spider Jerusalem would say, I'm in the perfect mood for journalism. (Which is what I like to tell myself I am doing, no matter how much it feels like rolling in a tub of political margarine while hollering about semantics.)

But you aren't here to read about my personal irritants, are you, Dear Reader? Not unless it's Ed Stelmach exfoliating my heels, which I sent a letter regarding even using the phrase "Win-win-win" but so far I haven't heard anything. So I am back at them with fresh vigor and a whole new lease on life that only a freshly snorted turkey soup can bring. (No, that's not a euphemism. I fricken love turkey soup.)

I'll start off with some praise; the Wildrose Alliance is in favor of municipal government, which puts them ahead of the Sovereign Dictatorship (Or "Veiny Dic" party for short) by a wide margin. The flavor that their support takes is that they want to put the control for government financing back in the hands of the municipal governments, because they feel funding shouldn't be a popularity contest. I'm not sure I agree. The process has definitely turned into a matter of giving money to the metaphorically 'prettiest' whiner, but no matter what system you conceive, either you are going to bleeding money left and right to cities who are all of the opinion that their project is the most important one or you are going to have to *gasp* judge them. It's sad that the province must play the bad-guy and double-tap the occasional "bad idea" and we've seen that ugliness here in Edmonton because of our Expo bid but that's the nature of the system: not everyone can get all the money they want and someone who is disinterested in the results should be weighing the options. Plus, the leader slags on the provincial government's carbon capture program, saying "no one asked for [it]". Technically Kyoto is not a "someone" so she is correct, but I don't see her volunteering any carbon emission programs to replace this one. (Which really isn't a long-term solution, but at least it's something.) They really bring the whole issue together with a promise to conduct a massive inquiry of provincial tax revenues and required infrastructure projects, topped with a list of "funding criteria" that will apparently help allocate funding to where it needs to be and I think it sounds stellar, assuming it is needed. I am an optimist in that I find it hard to believe the province has no idea how much money they get from taxes, or where it is really needed, but this has been a complaint from many people, so if you find yourself in this camp, this might be your party.

I had not realized the last three sections I had postponed included health-care so this behemoth might become three posts, especially as I find myself drawn in to her description of the health-care crisis. It is damn hard to find a family doctor in Alberta. The fact that health-care spending is over 40% of the provincial budget, however, is trivial. That's just how it is; that's not unusual so don't hold it up like we're freaks. Their main plan is to encourage alternate forms of medical care. They want to encourage out-of-hospital care facilities, like old-folks homes etc, but the form that I am concerned about is alternative medicine. Their paradigm heavily suggests loosening the restrictions on "sanctioned health-care" methods, and although I support the idea, I have no health problems (and arrogantly assume that I never will. I am much like a teenager still.) But to people with dangerous conditions who are sometimes scared and looking for a miracle fix, this can be dangerous. Just think of the young man who underwent a controversial treatment to open his veins to relieve his MS symptoms, but when he returned and suffered complications he could not find a doctor who was willing to see him and he died.
The other portion is they plan to encourage a surge of medical staff by forgiving students loans, etc, but this is counter-productive to the plan to loosen health-care restrictions. It is risky for medical staff to treat people who have been treated with methods they may not be familiar with or trust. Few doctors will be willing to risk their malpractice premiums just to waive some loans, and live here.
The party says others will try to convince us that we should not listen to the naysayers who label their plan as scary, but I will be honest, it  is scary. Despite the fact that our health-care is sick, we should not be pushed into exploring alternative medicine because we are scared; we should explore it because we want to. But to do so we must have a functioning, healthy system in place first.

On the other hand, I do agree with their plan to set up tax-free medical savings plans and establish greater access to our personal health-care history (See When we Used to Play Bang Bang for my thoughts on government created file systems, however), but I think their plan to publish wait times and costs for various procedures is useless ("Oh I have to wait a year for chemo? Well, never mind then, I'll get it another time.")Worse, their plan to publish statistics (times and success rates for procedures) on various hospitals will just lead to a polarizing effect when successful hospitals are overemphasized, and under-represented hospitals are "ghettoized" and stigmatized. We don't need to make our health-care workers feel like losers for working at a  particular hospital. ("You work at Such'n'such Hospital? Maybe if you'd studied harder...")

Finally, for those who have been with me since the Edmonton Municipal Election, this dog and pony show is old hat but for the Newcomers; Welcome to the "Everyone Wants Democracy, so Shut Your Cake-Hole" Dance!
The leader is encouraging MLAs to form their own opinions, and I must admit, I was burned pretty badly when someone (Not naming names) forced their representatives to vote against scrapping the gun registry. I was pretty irked. But I am not convinced that they are advocating the best course of action. If people band together they can accomplish things that the majority desire. Imagine a million people all voting for different things: nothing gets done. A coherent message is sometimes better than five small ones. I can not believe I am going to draw this comparison, but in households where unorthodox, unusual, or strange values are taught, children have a better recovery rate if the message, however backwards, is consistent. If we're going to be screwed up, it is better if it's consistent. It's not the best system, but it might be the least bad for a massive government like Canada's.

They're also trying to push increased citizen involvement but again, those familiar with the Edmonton Municipal Election know what happens when you lean on "pleblecites" and citizen-initiated referendums - you don't get elected. Hell, we can barely pull in 50% of citizens to vote on major elections such as who is going to steer our little ship for the next term, let alone a vote on whether the ballots should be mauve or puce.

Good on them for backing MLA Sherman, who is alternately portrayed as a rebellious upstart or a maniac wild-dog depending on who you talk to, (I haven't made up my mind about Mr. Sherman yet, but I love any political scandals that might revolve around how "that bitch wore my colors to the latest party" and this certainly smells like potential) by invoking his name and advocating empowered government watchdogs, but their plan to publish MLA's expense accounts will be quietly ditched the first time someone actually looks at them, I am willing to guarantee, and the "independent review board" to determine MLA's wages would swiftly be either corrupted and vilified or vilified and ignored.

That, in a nutshell, seems to be the policies of the Wildrose party. I can't say whether or not anyone SHOULD vote for them, just that I won't be surprised if they don't win too many seats come next election whip round. We don't take kindly to strangers 'round these parts, especially if they come with a gold-wrapped feel-good basket that says they hear us and they understand why we've had such a tough go, poor us. It's too damn patronizing. If a party really wanted to gain ground here in the Texas of the north, they better come packing a steak the size of a smart car, promise a shot of whiskey if you agree to not clog up the emergency room with stupid crap (If you resist the urge to go when you have the sniffles, they just mail you a bottle) and vow to suck all the oil out of the earth into giant pools so it's environmentally friendly and profitable. Then we'll talk.

Wildwhat A-who-now?

I periodically embarrass myself. It's true; once I announced to an entire cafeteria packed with other women that the "first male in the lounge" had arrived (made a spectacle, really) just to discover that no, he hadn't, but a very pissed off short-haired women had arrived. Compare that with the fact that I deadpanned the belief that politician came from two words (Poli- meaning many and -ticks meaning blood-sucking creatures) to a completely unamused, dead-silent sociology class (That joke is classic, you losers!) I have a pretty wide penchant for humiliation.

It is with this chagrin and good humor however that I discover that I have precisely no idea about the nature of the party that is, according to the last political poll to come off the pipe, rivaling the conservatives so hard they might need to pick them as a wedgie once they are in privacy. For those who haven't seen it rest assured it isn't the Liberals, who probably couldn't get a good showing here in Alberta if they turned themselves into Nutria thongs for the Conservatives to wear on the political stage. (I'm not saying I'm Conservative or Liberal, just observing the climate out here.)

From just a brief viewing of them, however, I'm not convinced they're going to be a solid choice. I had vague flashbacks to my "TeenLife" magazine reading days just from perusing the front page which had a link so I could "Speak Out!" to share my "Health Care Horror Stories"  (OMG! Then, when I bent over to pick up my ultrasound, my stethoscope fell down! LAWL!)and they're really pushing the whole "By the people, For the people" schtick by insisting their policy is built from the ground up. This practically assures infighting and cliques; I'm willing to guarantee in five years their meeting room looks like the set of "Mean Girls". This plan is reflected quite solidly in their education policy,  which promises to return power to the parents and school boards. I had never seen (or even imagined I'd see) the complete opposite of the "No child left behind policy" but here it is: The first and most important step is to have educational funding follow the student. They acknowledge that this program would suck the life out of smaller schools and cause a "coagulating effect" on larger schools, but so be it. This almost seems like a continuation of the policy that was being bat around to merge the Catholic and Public school boards and systems. They're apparently also going to bring in a "tailored to the child's needs" policy of education, but it is almost too easy to point out how much additional strain this is going to put on our educational system, not to forget the friction this could potentially cause between students in Alberta to other provinces. "I'm in grade eleven!" "Really? I'm in grade flowering butterfly, just moved up from grade colostomy bag!"

Their environmental policy at least acknowledges the beatings we're taking in the global arena over our Oil Sands, but their three pronged attack makes me think of Satan's trident. The first one is clean air (which is apparently good? I was hoping we'd reach a state where I could chew my air while I breath it, but fine) they plan to address this issue by moving the provincial focus from our current sources of energy to natural gas. This will create demand and bolster a local industry while reducing emissions and save us money because it's cheaper! I don't want to point this out because they are so obviously pleased with this plan but points one and three are mutually exclusive; their "triple win" is on a crash course. If the demand rises, sure as I order desserts with dinner, the price is going to go up too (Hot damn, I'm all set for my Macroeconomics final!) I'd love to have an opinion on whether or not it will reduce all emissions but I know so little about the industry, I will have to leave it at a skeptical "Sure".
The second portion is clean water, which they are going to achieve through a bunch of regulation and standard enforcement. Not to mention praying really really hard for new technology that will Hail-Mary the tailings ponds away. I've never seen an official government policy that called for a Deus ex Mechina but I'm excited to be a part of it.
The third portion is clean land, which they plan to achieve by streamlining the process through which new ventures which might cause environmental damage can be approved faster because then they can get to the recover phase faster. Get it? Me neither. Then again, I'm not one of those people who like to whip band-aids off as fast as possible, so there might be some nuance I'm missing. They also plan to establish an environmental ombudsman board to address environmental concerns and such.
Want to hear the punchline?
They think there's too much government regulation!
I don't want to suggest that having a "ground-up, everyone-has-a-good-point" policy in place is leading to a schizophrenic campaign that works at cross-purposes, but it almost smells that way.

The final aspect I'll look into for today (I'll cover the last three tomorrow) is their view on post-secondary education. I am not childish enough to point out that in the Alliance leader's speech to the University of Calgary she refers to "less students", which typically means a measure of quality, so she is functionally saying that the students getting in are worth less, so I will have to find something of value to pick on. Their plan of attack is to reinstate tuition hike caps (Please note: tuition hike caps, not tuition caps) and crack down on institutions that charge non-instructional fees. You know, like health benefits, LRT, and other boring things institutions like to tuck into their student's goodie bags.

The last contradiction readily apparent in their education policy is that they point to Alberta's track record of advancements born from our Universities' research departments, but then says that we have nothing to show for the billions the PCs have poured into Post-Secondary. It's a minor point, hardly worth noticing, but again it just underlines the lack of cohesion present in this party, and the fact that they are just telling us what we want to hear. Then again, that's definitely par for the course when it comes to political parties so perhaps I am just being naive.

Part Two should hit the air tomorrow.

Don't you Wish your Doctor was Hot, Like Me?

If I catch whichever low-down, mud-wriggling, borderline-psychotic, ADHD individual it is that is leaving fliers for the LRT tucked under my windshield wipers while I am parked in the LRT parking lot, I will do things to them that will make bystanders uncomfortable, and possibly pull out their cellphones, fingers poised over the police complaint line.

Health care. You just haven't heard enough about Alberta's health care, have you? It might never be enough. The latest avenue for discussion is about how health-care workers are trained to tell us citizens how to live healthy, while many seem to not bother following their own advice with regards to stress, nutrition, sleep, and indulgences. Three things immediately leap to mind upon evaluating this reality:

One, our society seems obsessed with sussing out "hypocrites", or people that tell other people how to do something while not doing so themselves, the whole "do as I say, not as I do". I have long advocated that there isn't anything wrong with this lifestyle. Good advice is good advice regardless where it came from, and if it is from a person struggling with the same issue, perhaps it is good advice that is not tailored to the advice giver's particular situation. Perhaps they don't value the elimination of the problem in the same way the advice seeker does, or they feel that the advice-seeker is in a better position to implement the advice. There is nothing inherently bad in the fact of hypocrisy, it has just gotten a bum-rap. I think if we could harness its power, it would allow us to spread advice better without judging the source it came from.

Rebuttal: If the advice can't even work for the person giving it, even if the reason is because they cannot find the motivation, then there is obviously something flawed in the advice if it cannot even motivate the person who finds it useful enough to pass on. The "goodness" of things are usually assessed by their ability to perform their function (Thanks, Plato!) so if the advice offered is unachievable, it is then, by definition, not good advice. his raises larger questions about the fitness of our health-care paradigm, i.e. shouldn't good health be motivating enough?

Two, From my near-categorical knowledge of the study of Scrubs and House M.D, I feel qualified to point out that few other professions live the hectic, over-worked lives of health-care professionals, so advice that may be impractical for their own lives could still work for ours. A better examination would be into why the hell our system has gotten to a point where health-care people can't take better care of themselves because we're working them into the ground, but that doesn't carry the same schadenfreudic shiver to it.

Rebuttal: Again, it's about the quality of the advice and commitment of the individual. It doesn't take much to ensure good health, and it should really be a priority in everyone's life.

Three, The main problem with our health-care system is bigger than we can really imagine right now. The problem is rooted deeply in how ingrained capitalism is within our culture. The overarching "good", the highest right in capitalism is profit and over the years we've gotten really good at maximizing that. We've formed whole disciplines around the study of how people react to profit and incentive, motivation and manipulation. When it comes to the health-care system, however, we cannot run it like a business; the primary aim of hospitals and such should be the continuing good health and welfare of its patients, and that is just not fiscally feasible. We know so little about the health motivations of most people, they are so wild-card in their actions with regards to health, that any predictions we make are heavily dependent on the environment, situation and actors, which doesn't do us much good for establishing policies. All in all, we are not currently equipped to maintain the kind of paradigm necessary for a national health-care system where the main "product" is healthy people.

Rebuttal?
Shut your cake-hole.

There you have it. Why you should not care if the doctor telling you to cut down on cholesterol is larger than some "used-to-be-a-planet" objects whizzing around in space. Ultimately it comes down to the same thing everything does; personal responsibility. Yes, maybe the doctor is telling you to eat healthier while he waters the lawn of your face with crumbs from the Twinkies he just snagged, but don't you want the best for your body? Man up, and do what's right.

This is not the Bid you are Looking for...

I always assume that when politicians come to conclusions about public opinion, they use official polls and other important measures that probably involve electrodes to discourage deception. The recent incident involving the expo, however, may disillusion me of that notion. It seems that Prime Minister Harper believed Edmontonians did not support the bid because of a media survey he had seen. I shudder to think of which media survey he viewed (The one in the Sun asked how people "feel" about the fact that the federal government would help fund the bid: Happy 47%,  Sad 20%,  or Don't care 33%). If that was the main reason he decided to quash the bid, then I'm not sure he made the right step. It is notable that he says killing it was the right move for Albertan and Edmonton taxpayers (who knows what he feels is right for Canadian taxpayers?) he's just concerned that we might have to pay too much. Thanks for telling us what we want, Harper.

It's true, as our mayor points out, that it depends heavily on what questions a surveyor asks: The question "Do you support paying $2 billion on an Edmonton Expo?" is likely to garner negative approval, but the question, "Do you think Edmonton should be allowed to host the Expo?" is probably going to show support from respondents. This is just the nature of the beast; the only annoyance is that we have two of the most slanted newspapers I've ever had the misfortune to rely on for information. Even just the headlines reveal a deliberate slant towards the conservatives, at least within the Journal (the Sun recently asked "Are the Alberta Tories out to get Dr. Raj Sherman?" which produced an overwhelming "yes" response, which is no big surprise with wording like "out to get".) The question is whether this reflects public opinion, or creates it.

The other article of interest is that Alberta's Metis community lost a lawsuit in their battle to exercise their right to hunt and fish on public land in Alberta, the court turning  it down by citing that it was not traditional Metis territory (I remember the story about the leaking Tailings pond, and how that pond was next to traditional hunting grounds; no one made a stink that we were poisoning the animals we expected them to hunt...). From the comments and responses to this article it seems most people are in favor of "One country, One set of rules" but I am concerned that this may be doing a traditional culture a disservice. It's true there are abuses of the current regulations, even some Native advocates admit that, but it is hard to say then that we should clamp down on everyone. People hold up the notion that we should stop living like it's the 1800's and bring ourselves into the 2010's, but anyone who thinks the residual effects of the residential schools are not relevant, is sadly uninformed. To address both of theses issues I think legislation that would allow hunting, but also encourage the Native community to police themselves with regards to poaching, or hunting for "non-sustenance" reasons. This would encourage stronger community ties but also ensure over-hunting does not become a problem.  I also think the cause suffered a terrible loss with the death of Ron Jones, who died earlier this year, and was a passionate advocate for Metis hunting rights. 

Less The Situation; More The Situation Room, please.

Before anything else of import I feel a public service announcement is in order. When you are  frantically running for the LRT doors that are closing, and you achieve your stance right in front of them, there are precious microseconds left, don't push the "door open" button. They don't give a crap about you. Those buttons disable two seconds after the train pulls into port and disgorges its load. What you want to do, and yes it is a little scary, is stuff your hand in between the doors. Those suckers aren't going to close and drive off, severing your fingers or dragging you along like a little girl's errant stuffed wubbie. What it is going to do is lose the battle of chicken with your digits and open again. Too many times I have seen polite people run up with the doors about six inches apart, pushing the "open" button, while the doors merrily close and the person is left standing on the platform with a "last turkey in the shop" expression. Just this morning I sprinted for the train myself and the full compartment stared at me as I wedged my fingers into the absolutely minuscule inch left between the doors, and gawked when the doors opened to admit me. Let this be a rule for life, if you don't think you are going to make it, just wedge your fingers on in. (Advice not valid for all circumstances)

Now on to things that matter. (Ha ha, see what I did there? I implied politics matter. Hah.) I hear we're being shown a document that implies the conservatives (which as everyone know, Alberta tends to back that pony) are looking to move towards a two-tiered health care system. This document, tabled July 2010, mysteriously appeared under the Liberals' door in an unmarked brown envelope. Can anyone think of a former-conservative who would have seen the document who might now have reason to back-stab the conservatives with respect to the health care system? Personally I would be interested to see if MLA Raj Sherman moves to the liberal camp in the following weeks. I'm not sure what his division looks like, or if his voters would support him more as an independent or liberal but it is tough out here for an Indy. Especially when you consider this whole exchange in the Edmonton Journal where Sherman confronts the Tories about the documents and asks at what point after he left did they decide to not move forward with the plans? To which Mr. Zwozdesky responded that he didn't know what he was talking about, he wasn't there for that meeting. He also thanks Mr. Sherman for his input on the document. Whether it is on the leaked document or not is unclear. Let me translate this to reality show talk: "Guys you were totally making faces behind Alberta's back!" "Nuh-uh! No we weren't!" "Yes you were, I was there, I saw you!" "Yeah, well, you were making faces too!" and cue twenty minutes of back and forth nattering.

The document talks about finding alternative sources of payment for "non-essential services". No word on what that means but boy do I ever hope it means I can start trading banana bread for professional massages. "Hey if you chiropractor my back, I'll do your nails!" (Is chiropractor a verb? It sure is now!)
It mentions the possibility of limiting out of province or out of country services which I would not support at all. When I was involved in a violent car accident over in Ontario while on a road trip I didn't stop being covered by Alberta health care; I was still an Albertan so fix me, dammit. If they were going to, they should be providing better sources of travel insurance so those who can not afford a heavy financial loss because they decided to do the running of the bulls (So awesome!) can cover their collective butts. As it stands now I don't even have the faintest clue what type of regulations are surrounding providing travel insurance.

I assume the province could regulate this kind of thing but I think they're too busy regulating beer instead. Yes, it's true, Alberta has banned beer that has an alcohol content of over 11.9% which was stupid because any beer higher than that is usually around $10 a bottle, so it's not something every idiot picks up to get wrecked, it's just regulating high-end crafted beer. Thank goodness we have the government holding our hands to protect us from good beer (I use this term loosely, I have yet to meet a beer I like.)

One final note; the "How to Survive a Cookie Exchange" article on the Edmonton Journal's website is not actually about tips on how to talk to journalists, they are talking about exchanging cookies with coworkers. I was disappointed.

Copyright? More like Copy=wrong

Imagine this for a moment: that you are a baby, just a little tiny baby (Seasoned Readers can smell the emotional pandering coming from a mile away) and the federal government agency of copyright protection comes into your hospital room and says that you owe them a few hundred because you are probably, at some point in your life, going to violate some copyright laws by downloading something so you might as well pay them now. What would you say?
See this is a trick question because you are a baby so you are unlikely to do anything other than burble and soil yourself which is (full circle!) what most university students are going to do when the University of Alberta comes over to them to say that they have to fork over $45 a year because they might download a textbook at some point and the copyright hounds have decided we weren't paying them enough (current fee is around $4 and is allegedly paid by the university [the likelihood that they are flat-out paying it and not getting the money back by charging students for a "book fee" somewhere is so close to zero that they both get sick if one sneezes]).

For anyone who is not a student, the circle of textbooks looks like this: Pay an exorbitant fee to have the book, sell it back to the store for a grossly reduced amount (I have personally had over $200 worth of texts sell back for $7. I hate you too, English.) the store then turns around and sells that text for a disgustingly inflated figure to the next moron in line, and so the cycle continues, until the course spontaneously decides to stop using a text, thus leading to a "hot potato" sort of issue where you either find someone who is trying to save money by using the old edition of the text or try to convince yourself that you really wanted it as a reference thus filling your shelves with brightly colored heavy-ass books that look like they were puked on by an artistic geometric figure and are about as useful as geometric figure puke.

Sometimes, like in my sociology class, the prof will compile a bunch of journals and text excerpts, photo-copy them and distribute this bundle of fun to the students. There are two ways they can do this: one, informally, where the students literally just get a bunch of handouts, or two,  by having the copy-shop professionally produce a "course-pack" which is sold to students for roughly the same amount as a cheap text, but saves (theoretically) on the fees that the manufacturer pays the publisher and the writer. It's really this second option that the copyright puppies are heading after, insisting that the university is not paying enough for use of the materials within the book.

The textbook industry is sort of like Microsoft, except there isn't any organized Linux for cheap people to run to. They're offensively expensive and it's sort of confusing why. It cannot possible be that expensive to create them; for crying out loud the average cost of producing a hardcover seems to run around $2 (and that's from a self-publishing site. It seems pretty tough to get average costs of book production). Some students opt out of the circle of ridiculousness by finding the books in libraries and copying pertinent passages or, in the case of really dedicated students, the entire text, but employees tend to notice when you have to bring a packed lunch to the copy room, and tend to get quite annoyed... so here's the big change for now:

Effective Jan. 1, 2011, the required textbooks for a course can no longer be placed on reserve in the library or other resource room. Other required printed materials, such as journal articles, essays or chapters, may be placed on reserve but students may not copy them. These changes are a result of the fair dealing court decision and the fact that the university’s protection through Access Copyright will expire with the agreement. 

It's too early to tell how this will effect student's lives but given that I myself possess at least one journal article that I had to photocopy from a text in the library (paid over $1 a day for late fees before I noticed I could only have it for a week) it is not a stretch to say it's going to make life annoying for students who are strapped for cash. 

Worse, the copyright people are bringing up this kind of radical change now, a month before the current contract expires, so the University professors are scrambling to get copy-package orders in now before the price hikes. I'm not going to say it looks like the gas pumps during the oil crisis,but I did see a prof take a penknife with him to the copy store and I saw another one wearing a "Team Plato" shirt...

This whole issue is in direct opposition to things I have advocated earlier (the right to protect intellectual property) and I myself will likely argue the opposite point in later posts once I become a world-famous literati, beloved by millions, and sticking it to the un-learned masses in the form of exorbitant royalties, but it is almost starting to look like we are going to require some government regulation to keep textbook manufacturers from gouging us all.

Anyway, good luck finding out anything about this in the usual Edmonton newspapers. I heard about it on the radio and have been searching for the last hour online in the sad attempt to find anything about it. If I was doing a post on Fefe Dobson or how The Bieber doesn't want to date a female fan, I'd be all set, but about this issue that could actually effect people's lives? Hah. The only place it can be found is here on the University of Alberta's website.

Edmonton EX-PO 2017

We lost the expo bid. Edmonton went up against some pretty high-class European cities and we didn't fail against them, we failed because our government gave up before we started to fight.
Now, I don't care one way or the other. There was only a snowball's chance in hell I was going to spend my hard earned (sitting on my butt) money on something like an Expo, but maybe it would have brought in some more publicity, who knows? Grey cup has sure packed our city to damn-near the brim with people; I hear all our hotels are booked solid, which might also be due to the fact that there was a recent high-rise fire, forcing the tenants to move temporarily to hotel and motel lodgings. But the whole point is neither here nor there.

The thing that concerns me, that raises my eyebrows, was why we were denied. Budget, of course, was cited. Edmonton had planned on putting up several million dollars, but would have required the federal government to add around $700 million to complete the picture. The idea had been criticized by the Canadian taxpayer's association, but a survey taken of Albertans revealed around 80% supported the idea.

After a year of planning and organizing, Edmonton put forth the bid proposal to the federal government, who administered a quick double-tap to the back of the idea's head, while the majority of Edmontonians stood around, speechless. Except for Stephen Mandel, who proceeded to blow his Mayoral top all over MLA Rona Ambrose, saying that he felt she was responsible for the failed proposal. Bless him for being a politician who isn't afraid to speak his mind, which is mercifully not preoccupied with cookies.

The reason given is that it was too much money on too risky a proposal, given our chaotic financial times, especially focusing on the variable security costs, but in the canned speech we were spoon-fed, the fact that we have the oil-sands was brought up multiple times. I can see one of two reasons for this; feeling the economic pinch over in Ontario, the Federals are pissed because we're just doing better over here thanks to the oil-sand's revenue, so they aren't going to give us any money (especially when I hear rumors that the amount we have waived in royalties to keep the oil companies here is about equal to the money we requested for the Expo bid, not that we could hamstring ourselves permanently just to support a one-time party. I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying) or two, the security risk could be increased by the recent bad-karma and negative publicity that's been thrown around regarding the oil-sands, and with more radicals moving into Canada, like the Parliament-scaling Greenpeace, it's possible they don't have enough of a handle on the situation to know whether we should be bringing pepper-spray, guns, or tanks, which doesn't really look very positive from a security standpoint ("Hey, guys, should we be nervous?") Don't we have some form of  Canadian Rumsfeld? Somewhere?

Anyway, doesn't matter. We can have a super party and then not invite them.

Front Page Glitter

Canadians, we reap what we sow.

Low voter turnout, largely apathetic public, and a citizenry that seems more concerned about who is staying on "dancing with the stars" than genuine politicians have lead us to the end where politicians and other public figures are becoming clowns just to catch our attention and keep us involved in the process. I think the next step is jingling keys in our faces while making kissy faces.

A key health care board-member who earns $700,000 shoos off the reporters buzzing around him like flies saying he doesn't want to answer questions because he's eating a cookie.

A Crown prosecutor who is viewing a case in which a mother is accused of beating her toddler to death, is accused of distracting the jury by making weird faces, putting the case at risk of being declared a "mistrial".

An elected MLA is removed from his party's caucus because he wrote an angry email about the state of the health care system in Alberta.

A girl is charged with four counts of fraud after she bilked caring people out of their money by claiming she had cancer and even plucking her eyelashes so she could pretend she was going through chemotherapy.

A local newspaper prints comments from YouTube as serious public reactions to a political controversy.

We had a municipal election in Edmonton where the majority of candidates won less than 5000 votes.

Correctional Services for Canada has handled documents for four inmates who are requesting sex-change operation funding when most non-criminal citizens can not get funding approved.

Our fair city spent hundreds of thousands preparing for our Expo 2017 bid, when the federal government pulls the rug out from under us, insisting they can't afford to help fund us.

Our Country was denied a position on the United Nation's security council, and now the position is up for grabs by a country that can't even stamp out internal dowry killings.

Randy Milholland does not believe in eating peanut butter with your fingers. 

Europe is dismayed that our federal government made changes to our national census, and says we had always been held up as the benchmark for impartial statistics keeping. First our peacekeeper status, then our dignity, and now our scientific sovereignty.

The better business bureau in B.C (say that three times fast) is accused of biased numbers, even though they are where Canadians turn to when treated unfairly by businesses, and sometimes seems like the last refuge against unbridled capitalism.

Is there no sacred cow we won't slaughter?

The fight burns on

Hey everyone, go ahead and put down your protest signs! Europe has decided our oil-sands are okay so we can all go home and sleep soundly because we know we're not harming the earth! Thanks for coming out!

...wait, what?
It is true the European Union sent over a couple of high-ranking cronies to check out what was going on with the oil-sands, so we sat up nice, rolled over on cue, and spoke like neither of us were aware we had a vested interest in being the prettiest pony in the pumpkin patch. And it paid off.
Representatives are quoted as saying, "We were very impressed with the working together of the provincial government, the national government and the companies there."
 Oh goody.We can play nice in our Provincial sandbox. Where profit is involved, we can play very nicely together. Doesn't mean we're not collectively sticking it to the weird kid no-one wants to play with. But in case you didn't find that soundbite satisfying enough, here's another one:

"I think we were all satisfied that everything is being done that can be done to mitigate against any damage."

Look at that sentence. That, dirty, whorish, sentence. What it tries to imply is that no damage is being done and that the oil-sands are environmentally responsible and tra-la-la everything's good. 

What it really says is: nothing. It says that the companies involved are not being deliberately negligent ("They try to do their best"; So does the leech on my ass in the lake, doesn't mean it's not harming me). It says nothing about whether damage is being done, what is being done to negate damage, and whether there is any hope to undo or do less damage later. Personally, I think it is a pretty big oversight that they don't mention whether we should start making allowances for three-eyed fish (Or sauce recommendations. Rose or Alfredo?)

 

What you won't find any soundbites on is the actual crap they came to check up on. When they originally said they were coming over here, they were looking to reconcile some "discrepancies" they had noticed between the "official data" and statistics provided  by non-government organizations, as well as confirm or deny water quality reports (apparently it's bad). There is no mention about if they did travel to Fort Chipewyan, where cancer rates are allegedly rising as a result of toxins in the water. In fact, it appears that the visitors looked at official government paperwork regarding certain pollutants in the water which stated functionally that it was like that when we got here, which only goes to show government officials were never kids because that NEVER WORKS. It is also noticeable that Duck a la Oil-sands was not on the menu because the issue of hundreds of ducks being killed by tailing ponds(which were being operated within safety regulations!) was only raised to blame Mother Nature, as if freezing rain killed hundreds of ducks every year, so the tailing ponds are blameless. 

The final consideration is that the visitors were allotted a one hour presentation with the Pembina Institute to listen to the foremost research regarding the environmental impact of the oil-sands. One hour is pretty short, but not as short as the half-hour that the presentation was actually given, apparently because the delegates were running behind. At the very least, this represents a bad breech of taste, in neglecting a point of view that is held dearly by many people; at the most, it makes us all wonder about pay-offs and conspiracies, but gosh-darn-it, I'm running out of tinfoil. The best we can hope for is that the meeting with the First Nations people on Thursday may raise more concerns.

 

It is really hard to complain about people's conduct when our province benefits financially in a tremendous way; we really don't need any more negative publicity, and it is in everyone's best interest if legislation is formed in a non-discriminatory way (another one of the goals the group identified), but we cannot ignore the fact that there is a chance we are doing irreparable damage, and that is not good for our long-term. We need to figure this all out for ourselves.

What's this about an airport? What, what?

It was dead. We had killed it. It was over, but it is back like some sort of bad movie villain who is resurrected for the tearful final battle scene where it comes out he is really the pet alligator the protagonist flushed in the prologue.
But now the conservatives in the province are passing legislation that has some concerned about "pro-airport" sympathies and, whether it has or not, this perception has some serious repercussions.
Prior even to the election Council had made the decision, and Stephen Mandel weathered the consequences, of turning his back on the plebiscite petition so close to a municipal election that many wondered if it would be the knife in his back. As unpopular as it made him, it showed a strong council that came out largely intact from the election; Edmonton needs a united council above all else. If the new legislation does propose to backhandedly stick it's fingers in Edmonton's municipal affairs, we need to regard this as an attack on our sovereignty; we cannot allow them to treat us the way Ottawa has treated Alberta. To their credit, they've been pretty verbose in denying any interest or involvement in our protracted airport scuffle.


Critics of the resolution are calling it "redundant" and saying they don't understand why this new legislation is being debated if it only covers issues that are already on the table, and it seems a common trend in Canada, upon encountering confusing government policy, to assume that it's because "politicians are stupid" but I have always been mistrustful of this view; it blinds oneself to what might really be a piece of tricky political maneuvering.

On the other hand, I would caution our council against making statements such as, "Council faced this issue in the election, and we have been re-elected," councilwoman Kim Krushell who recently defended her seat against challenger Don Koziak (a Pro-airport ex-mayoral candidate who backed down after a discussion with Dorward, who then lost the Mayoral race). This implies that Edmontonians support their decision to close the airport, and this is the fallout from allowing the election to become a one-issue race; they believe, once they are elected, that we agree. This is not the case, necessarily. Just because we felt you were the most capable for the job does not mean that everything you do is good. It just means we think the other candidates were dribbling baboons.

Not only that, but sometimes they don't even fully represent what type of baboon they are.One of the newly appointed councilors to our city has vowed to hold a plebiscite about the airport, even though he never mentioned it during his campaign. Given that precisely none of Envision Edmonton's lackeys made it on to council, the fact that he hid his interest in the airport (he is not believed to be with Envision Edmonton) means nothing good for our view of who we have elected, i.e. can we ever claim to know who we elected if they are deceptive about their motives and at what point can we claim they have misled the voters? Although, considering his old job was an Edmonton Sun reporter, perhaps we should have seen this coming.

Damocles' Sponge

There's been an issue, quite recently in Alberta, regarding hospital wait times, specifically with respect to emergency rooms. A group of doctors penned a "letter of horrors" detailing some particularly unfortunate events that occurred as a result of overcrowded hospitals, and over-stressed emergency rooms. 
People who should otherwise be keeping a cool head about things, lost their shit and decided to focus on a few unfortunate circumstances, rather than the system as a whole, (which may or may not be lousy, this situation tells us nothing, and that's not what I'm assessing) and  proceeded to leap in, both barrels blazing.
The minister of health, Gene Zwozdesky, responded by putting limits, definable numerical limits, on wait times, such as 4 hours to be in and out, and 8 hours to a hospital bed. He's confidant enough to have pledged to bring about this new policy by December, or bureaucratic heads will roll!
Boy, that's sure cracking, Mr. Zwozdesky, how's that going to work?
The thing is, we don't know. Two months is not long enough to hire and train new people, a handful of beds are being opened up, but that's not going to get anyone seen any faster, and I don't believe that the slow-down is because medical staff are simply unmotivated, so haranguing them is not going to do any good. I'm all for mindless flogging, but I'm not keen on putting energy into "programs" without any sense of direction or plan. So far the plan that's been wheeled out is that we are going to start moving people out of beds, because we need them for new people, because then if someone dies needlessly at least they weren't under our care at the time, right?
This smacks of ridiculous posturing to me.
Loosening the restrictions on when people can or should remain in hospital is just going to result in people being discharged when they shouldn't be. Is it less of a tragedy because then we can say we did the best we could? 
Years later, when election times rolls around again, we might remember the abysmal wait times, but then we'll remember the guy who stood up and "took charge" of the situation, whether or not he did any damn good. Some people may be wondering why we don't offer better incentives to doctors and medical staff, but the answer is simple; that takes time. It takes time to set people up, to build new facilities to accommodate the staff, and to ensure the greater staff is positioned to maximum effect; all this would go past election time, meaning the current health advisor would not be able to reap the benefits of the outcome. That, right there, is what is wrong with politics, and why our health care system is lousy. At heart, no one wants to make the kind of deep-rooted changes that the system really needs, because the initial stage will be unpleasant (think higher taxes) and the outcome is "too far away". Politicians treat voters like toddlers; if we don't get a cookie right away, we're going to fling poop at them (or is that monkeys?). Either way, they believe we don't have the collective brain power to understand what sweeping reforms, that may feel lousy, are going to result in. I hope they're wrong. 

Two ducks walk into a tailings pond

One of them is worth $1,875,  and the other is worth a scathing criticism of our justice system.
Few people in  Alberta are unfamiliar with the case of Syncrude last year and this year; charges were pressed after 1,600 ducks landed in an open tailings pond and died there. This past week the company was ordered to pay $3 million to various organizations that support rehabilitation of the environment and wildlife.

The resulting soundbites were pithy:

 

"We've learned a lot and we made significant changes to our system and we're ready to move forward."

Syncrude representative Cheryl  Robb

 

"The company has taken responsibility, the laws have been enforced, and the penalty will hopefully prevent anything like this from ever happening again,"
Provincial Crown prosecutor Susan McRory

Yes, everyone's very contrite, humble, lesson-learned people; until today, when a flock of ducks landed on another tailings pond. 

It is not known whether any are dead, although apparently they are "heavily oiled", but this whole incident is a nightmare for Alberta, for the environment, for Syncrude, and most importantly for us, the people who are quite keen to live in a world with ducks,  please and thank you.

It's like a bad joke, and the punchline is a slap in the face.

 

 

A publically leashed private doggy

A recent probe into the 2007 death of a boy in a privately run drug treatment facility has caused many Canadians to become uncomfortably aware that there are no regulations (outside Quebec) restricting the accreditation of private drug facilities.
With drug treatment being such a volatile circumstance and so many factors, dangers, and various pitfalls included in the process of weaning someone off drugs, there really should be some sort of limit on the quality of the center. At first, I must admit I thought, "why couldn't the parents/guardians/individual check out the fitness of the center on their own?" but then I realized, I don't check out the kitchen of every restaurant I eat at, even though the consequences could be quite severe; I rely on the government for that, because they're bigger, meaner, and have access to smart people with lab coats and stuff.

What I disagree with is the instigating factor in this situation. The victim was left alone on his bedroom floor because he was staggering around and peeing on himself, the result of drinking anti-freeze found in "an unlocked garage" (where the garage was located is not specified). The federal government has decided the institution was at fault for the incident, citing that the man supervising the patient was "woefully unprepared to deal with anything out of the ordinary". Pardon me, but how the hell is staggering around, peeing on yourself "out of the ordinary" for a drug-treatment center? The parents were upset that the boy's life "meant so little to everybody" but there is no sign that the center acted callously or indeed any different than they would have treated any patient who entered the facility appearing to be drunk.

I agree that the center should be regulated, this is far too important of a process to be left to chance, but regulation is unlikely to ensure this incident does not repeat itself, and we need to guard against becoming so narrow sighted, trying to prevent this occurrence, that we miss out on other aspect that are critical. It is just the nature of the beast.

'av a tar

Say what you like about egotistical moral puffery, James Cameron is doing us Albertans a favour.
Some people are howling about his gall in coming down here to tell us hicks what we should do with our oil sands ("Golly gee willikers mister, thanks a lot!"), some people are annoyed that the whole issue is in the public spotlight at all, and some just think it's neat-o that James Cameron is here. Although he's touted as a Canadian filmmaker, he was originally born in Ontario, and we're just hypocritical enough to claim him as our own to the world, but bristle when he's on home turf acting like he owns a cowboy hat. (Priorities, man;  everybody in "Gangs of New York" may have rioted over the draft, but that doesn't mean they didn't try to knife each other later.)
So this all begs the question; why should we like the fact that he's down here like the cock of the walk, judging us under a veil of "proper management"? Two reasons: Alberta's been getting some stinking bad rap lately. Not that a huge part of our income comes from tourism, but there's no sense snubbing it if we can help it; the mall isn't cool enough to bring in everyone single-handedly. If we want a chance to shine on and act like we really give a damn about the rest of the world and the environment, this is a good start. We can shine our shoes and scrub our face, and curtsy to everybody saying, "We're a good girl, we are." He's our Henry Higgins.
Wow, that's a bit cold, don't you think?
It is, Dear Reader, so allow me to justify myself. Alberta's divided on the oil sands. We want it, we don't want it, we want it to change so we want it; we run the gamut. But there's one thing I can guarantee we all want: we want to decide what to do with it, on our own. It's our dirty oil, and we don't need other people making the calls for us, especially when they have a vested interest in one side of the coin, and no benefits from the other. How's James Cameron going to get this for us? Let me point something out for you; Once Jean Wyclef and every other pop/rap/hip-hop/actor/dancing/what-have-you star lost interest in supporting Haiti (check out Jean's speech about why he's not running for Haitian president anymore; he functionally says he's not good for the country), what happened? The money and attention dried up. Haiti didn't get better overnight; they're still desperate and ruined, but once the media spotlight dropped off, no one cared anymore. Once Mr. Cameron packs up and ships off to go produce a film about orange people in a big shrubbery that's sinking in the pacific, the majority of people are going to go to bed feeling righteous and assuming that the world is a better place. Then we, as a family of Albertans, can decide what the heck we're going to do with/about the oil sands.

Unwilling to stick our heads in the oil sands

Recently, I read in the Edmonton Sun, the Alberta government paid over $50,000 to a film group that produced a film called "Dirty Oil", which focuses on the Alberta Oil sands and its detrimental effect on the environment. This film has been shown in the U.K. and is apparently going to be screened at the Calgary Film festival, but not at the Edmonton film festival, which just underscores why we should not be the capital of Alberta, and why we will remain increasingly irrelevent as we trip into the future.

People are wringing their hands over this turn of events, and a prominent journalist published an article titled "Albertans don't want their hard-earned cash used for propaganda", but a deeper look (well, about eleven lines in) shows that the money is culled from the Alberta Lottery fund. That's not my money they're spending. Considering that lotteries have long been considered "A tax on stupidity", I can appreciate the irony that it is going to promote information.

That's what this is. Although I have yet to see the film, and cannot assess how biased or slanted it may be, the province does have money to advertise the "other side" on the debate, if we can find anyone to produce it. The best part is that all sides are being shown, we're getting the information. That's what albertan's want. We do love profit, and love to see our province doing well, but we'd be remiss if we didn't also point out that we love being healthy also. A survery given by the Edmonton Sun showed a full 71% of respondants felt that the province should be doing more to protect the environment around the oilsands.

Is that not the most important thing that we should be produing films about; issues that are important to Albertans? Even if it might be unpleasant or hard to hear. Because we care, and we want to know. Some people are calling for stricter guidelines regarding which films are given grants and which are not (nothing about Dirty Oil rendered it ineligable), but I disagree. Although it would not constitute censorship, as some allege, this money should go towards promote an informed population. If it was slanted, inaccurate, or just plain inciteful, then it should fall under a legal precident as being "slander" or "libel", but until then, keep calm and carry on.