I found these pictures on Pundit Kitchen, and when I began tearing up I knew I had to pass them on. As the blurb before the pictures points out, they are real people; staged, but doing what they would on an ordinary day. It is these efforts that help us remember and honour our past more clearly. Sometimes it can seem a million years away, or a storybook, but these make it as real as yesterday.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Friday, August 12, 2011
The Epic Saga of Gary Mar: Part two
It was with a certain amount of dread that I approached the second half of this endeavor, but the response has been so positive that I feel the phrase "Well begun is half done" should be a new mantra, and so, press forward.
Fiscal policy
Despite his earlier plan to use 'resource revenues', Gary Mar feels that government has become addicted to using oil and gas money to pay for day to day spending and so intends to restructure the Sustainability Fund so it is not used as “mad money” for government. He even requires a growing portion of annual budgeted natural resource revenues to be allocated to the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, to cover our butts, but only for short-term issues. More on that plan in a bit.
Hilariously he pledges to reduce the number of ministries and ministers. Remember those positions he talked about yesterday; The rep in Ottawa and three new boards? Cutting ministers is not a bonus if you turn around and hire other people. Keep this plan in mind as you read the rest of the post - it gets funnier.
His plans for the sustainability fund include:
-Restructure the mandate of the Sustainability Fund so that it is used solely to protect the fiscal plan against short-term revenue downturns. Once the $4.5 billion threshold is established, the Sustainability Fund will be required to have an opening balance of $4.5 billion at the start of any fiscal year. If it does not, the annual budget plan will allocate cash to the Fund to ensure the $4.5 billion reserve is in place before any allocations to operating or capital spending in the budget. However, how we are supposed to determine between short and long term issues is fairly tricky, but repaying any emergencies within a year is a hefty task. Besides, there is no point to a financial backup jar if we can't use it as a soft buffer for long-term.
-All annual spending will be done within the framework of the budget plan. (This is different from the other candidates who plan to operate wildly over budget) In-year operating or in-year capital spending would be prohibited. The only exclusion to this would be revenues dedicated to specific expenses, such as increases to federal health transfers, as an example, and any unbugeted disasters and emergencies. A budget for disasters and emergencies will be provided for in a contingency reserve. Although where this reserve will come from is unclear.
-Publicly release a Long-term Fiscal Sustainability Report every two years [that no one will read].
-Commence a government-wide performance review of all provincial government operations (This seems to be a common first move for new heads in any area. and rarely leads to lasting changes)
When he speaks of evaluating programs he will evaluate them on three vectors:
1.Is it of measurable benefit to citizens? (Which I have reservations about; what about the immeasurable ones? [see: the Arts])
2. Is there a compelling reason for government to provide this service?
3. If the government did not, would there be a way for the private sector to provide it? (Not a cost-saving measure, except to consider expenses)
He mentions that it is a priority to refill the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, saying it had been taken from to cover losses, but then points out that it has grown; Only $1.4 billion in 25 years, but growing is not shrinking. Nevertheless he plans to balloon it to $40 billion in 10 years, a plan so foolhardy as to be almost reckless in these economically chaotic times. This will be pulled from the 'projected' budget surpluses. I have a similar plan for my 'projected' lottery win.
Last, he plans to 'speak more plainly' about the budget, showing the sustainability fund more obviously, but the problem with this plan is that most people don't understand the budget, and don't really care until prompted to. Not to mention the tricky problem of allowing people to figure out your salary - they are so going to resent you for it.
Health policy
Gary Mar is at least committed to reducing the hospital wait time, and I agree there is a problem when dealing with the elderly and mentally ill, but he doesn't outline how he plans to deal with these issues, other than saying it will be a 'common-sense' approach. He does say they should shift focus from care-based to preventative, but this is likely to manifest as a 'nanny' state result, haranguing citizens into eating better and walking more through the pocket of the Wellness Innovation fund, or WIN for short (no, seriously).
The most distressing notion he puts forth, however, is that "We must accelerate the reallocation of existing financial and human resources towards innovative delivery models, disease prevention and better access to care." If there is one notable feature about the health care system, it is that it does not move swiftly, or take to new ideas kindly, possibly to our benefit, since swift change breeds accidents, something we need to absolutely minimize in the health care industry.
With a slight nod to the Raj Sherman scandal, he obliquely refers to workers being frustrated that the government does not listen to them and people being intimidated. He makes it clear that he would address this issue, I assume this means a government review into the corruption that Dr. Sherman spoke of.
Research into health care is apparently also a priority for Gary, also a frank and open discussion about the health care industry. There are some numbers that seem to be pulled out of the air, (how do health care savings come about? The savings from people that attend hospitals for preventable diseases like obesity?) but look really good.
To revitalize the system he plans to spend more on Primary Care Networks, which seem to involve sending a person to specialists for treatment, rather than placing the burden completely on the doctor. But they use $50 per patient to do something I am sure better Internet access could accomplish. He also champions the use of a master wait list for specialist procedures, something that apparently worked with knee procedures, the 'aging in place' strategy for the elderly, which will heighten the need for long-term beds, and better community care for the mentally ill, an unpopular plan that I strongly support.
He also wants to move the Health Quality Council of Alberta to the Legislature, another reason why the staffing budget will only grow under his plans.
In a bid to encourage rural doctors he plans to excuse student loans for those who specialize in family care and contract to work in rural areas, a move echoed by Daryl Bonar in the municipal election last year, but it did not serve him well. He also wants to train doctors and other health care professionals side by side on occasion to build respect and teamwork, a move that leaves me scratching my head. If working together doesn't help build respect, why would learning together work?
Finally, to improve health care monitoring and trend-spotting, he plans to establish a system that reports statistics while maintaining the anonymity of the actual patients, while also allowing greater access to personal health records online, a risky move with Anonymous still hanging around. (They do have better things to do than lurk Alberta's health care system, but I would still rather not.)
K-12 Education policy
Again, Mr. Mar promises stable funding, but this is still perhaps too much to ask, especially considering the recent spats between the teacher's union and the government. He does plan to sort those out but I am unsure what promises he could offer that won't tie our hands, but still satisfy teachers.
He plans to single out 'at-risk' youths while young and focus on them, although in what fashion is unclear. The hazard of paying too much attention to 'at-risk' youths is that they begin to internalize their issues too quickly, begin to identify as a 'problem child', and it may further push students who would have recovered on their own.
He also supports better language instruction, evaluating the provincial achievement tests, and helping schools, community agencies and service providers work together to deliver services in a coordinated, “reach-around” approach, oh excuse me, "wrap-around" approach.
Municipal Funding Policy
Gary Mar plans to stop the municipal grant program and simply allow them access to the education tax revenues, in a move that blindly trusts municipal decisions. As if we needed further reason to doubt his plan to 'cut staff', he would establish another council to oversee this perilous financial move. Why he would not simply establish a council that would move quickly to address municipal desires is unclear. Considering 20% would come from Edmonton and 20% from Calgary, this would put small communities, like my own sweet hometown, in danger of being crushed by the larger cities who are unable to see (and should not have to accommodate for) the needs of smaller municipalities. This is further exacerbated by the problem of his proposed equality between how much money municipalities collect in education taxes and how much they are allocated in funds. He assures us, however, that it will not result in less or more money. I am unsure, then, what is supposed to change.
(Footnote - confidential to Gary Mar's writers: it is not okay to put all titles in caps. Stop it.)
Progressive Conservative Party Policy
This section seems entirely subsumed by the usual tripe: more open, more accountable, younger, grassroots (A phrase I have begun to hate. It means nothing), family first, international, business leadership, glorious natural resources, etc. and tells us no more than we did before, but it does feel nice to simply skim the last gargantuan section and gratefully close the browser window.
With this, I must confess, I have shovelled more than my fair share of buzz-words, but we have uncovered the secrets of the first candidate! Have a great weekend, I shall have more leadership garbage when I return on Monday.
Fiscal policy
Despite his earlier plan to use 'resource revenues', Gary Mar feels that government has become addicted to using oil and gas money to pay for day to day spending and so intends to restructure the Sustainability Fund so it is not used as “mad money” for government. He even requires a growing portion of annual budgeted natural resource revenues to be allocated to the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, to cover our butts, but only for short-term issues. More on that plan in a bit.
Hilariously he pledges to reduce the number of ministries and ministers. Remember those positions he talked about yesterday; The rep in Ottawa and three new boards? Cutting ministers is not a bonus if you turn around and hire other people. Keep this plan in mind as you read the rest of the post - it gets funnier.
His plans for the sustainability fund include:
-Restructure the mandate of the Sustainability Fund so that it is used solely to protect the fiscal plan against short-term revenue downturns. Once the $4.5 billion threshold is established, the Sustainability Fund will be required to have an opening balance of $4.5 billion at the start of any fiscal year. If it does not, the annual budget plan will allocate cash to the Fund to ensure the $4.5 billion reserve is in place before any allocations to operating or capital spending in the budget. However, how we are supposed to determine between short and long term issues is fairly tricky, but repaying any emergencies within a year is a hefty task. Besides, there is no point to a financial backup jar if we can't use it as a soft buffer for long-term.
-All annual spending will be done within the framework of the budget plan. (This is different from the other candidates who plan to operate wildly over budget) In-year operating or in-year capital spending would be prohibited. The only exclusion to this would be revenues dedicated to specific expenses, such as increases to federal health transfers, as an example, and any unbugeted disasters and emergencies. A budget for disasters and emergencies will be provided for in a contingency reserve. Although where this reserve will come from is unclear.
-Publicly release a Long-term Fiscal Sustainability Report every two years [that no one will read].
-Commence a government-wide performance review of all provincial government operations (This seems to be a common first move for new heads in any area. and rarely leads to lasting changes)
When he speaks of evaluating programs he will evaluate them on three vectors:
1.Is it of measurable benefit to citizens? (Which I have reservations about; what about the immeasurable ones? [see: the Arts])
2. Is there a compelling reason for government to provide this service?
3. If the government did not, would there be a way for the private sector to provide it? (Not a cost-saving measure, except to consider expenses)
He mentions that it is a priority to refill the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, saying it had been taken from to cover losses, but then points out that it has grown; Only $1.4 billion in 25 years, but growing is not shrinking. Nevertheless he plans to balloon it to $40 billion in 10 years, a plan so foolhardy as to be almost reckless in these economically chaotic times. This will be pulled from the 'projected' budget surpluses. I have a similar plan for my 'projected' lottery win.
Last, he plans to 'speak more plainly' about the budget, showing the sustainability fund more obviously, but the problem with this plan is that most people don't understand the budget, and don't really care until prompted to. Not to mention the tricky problem of allowing people to figure out your salary - they are so going to resent you for it.
Health policy
Gary Mar is at least committed to reducing the hospital wait time, and I agree there is a problem when dealing with the elderly and mentally ill, but he doesn't outline how he plans to deal with these issues, other than saying it will be a 'common-sense' approach. He does say they should shift focus from care-based to preventative, but this is likely to manifest as a 'nanny' state result, haranguing citizens into eating better and walking more through the pocket of the Wellness Innovation fund, or WIN for short (no, seriously).
The most distressing notion he puts forth, however, is that "We must accelerate the reallocation of existing financial and human resources towards innovative delivery models, disease prevention and better access to care." If there is one notable feature about the health care system, it is that it does not move swiftly, or take to new ideas kindly, possibly to our benefit, since swift change breeds accidents, something we need to absolutely minimize in the health care industry.
With a slight nod to the Raj Sherman scandal, he obliquely refers to workers being frustrated that the government does not listen to them and people being intimidated. He makes it clear that he would address this issue, I assume this means a government review into the corruption that Dr. Sherman spoke of.
Research into health care is apparently also a priority for Gary, also a frank and open discussion about the health care industry. There are some numbers that seem to be pulled out of the air, (how do health care savings come about? The savings from people that attend hospitals for preventable diseases like obesity?) but look really good.
To revitalize the system he plans to spend more on Primary Care Networks, which seem to involve sending a person to specialists for treatment, rather than placing the burden completely on the doctor. But they use $50 per patient to do something I am sure better Internet access could accomplish. He also champions the use of a master wait list for specialist procedures, something that apparently worked with knee procedures, the 'aging in place' strategy for the elderly, which will heighten the need for long-term beds, and better community care for the mentally ill, an unpopular plan that I strongly support.
He also wants to move the Health Quality Council of Alberta to the Legislature, another reason why the staffing budget will only grow under his plans.
In a bid to encourage rural doctors he plans to excuse student loans for those who specialize in family care and contract to work in rural areas, a move echoed by Daryl Bonar in the municipal election last year, but it did not serve him well. He also wants to train doctors and other health care professionals side by side on occasion to build respect and teamwork, a move that leaves me scratching my head. If working together doesn't help build respect, why would learning together work?
Finally, to improve health care monitoring and trend-spotting, he plans to establish a system that reports statistics while maintaining the anonymity of the actual patients, while also allowing greater access to personal health records online, a risky move with Anonymous still hanging around. (They do have better things to do than lurk Alberta's health care system, but I would still rather not.)
K-12 Education policy
Again, Mr. Mar promises stable funding, but this is still perhaps too much to ask, especially considering the recent spats between the teacher's union and the government. He does plan to sort those out but I am unsure what promises he could offer that won't tie our hands, but still satisfy teachers.
He plans to single out 'at-risk' youths while young and focus on them, although in what fashion is unclear. The hazard of paying too much attention to 'at-risk' youths is that they begin to internalize their issues too quickly, begin to identify as a 'problem child', and it may further push students who would have recovered on their own.
He also supports better language instruction, evaluating the provincial achievement tests, and helping schools, community agencies and service providers work together to deliver services in a coordinated, “reach-around” approach, oh excuse me, "wrap-around" approach.
Municipal Funding Policy
Gary Mar plans to stop the municipal grant program and simply allow them access to the education tax revenues, in a move that blindly trusts municipal decisions. As if we needed further reason to doubt his plan to 'cut staff', he would establish another council to oversee this perilous financial move. Why he would not simply establish a council that would move quickly to address municipal desires is unclear. Considering 20% would come from Edmonton and 20% from Calgary, this would put small communities, like my own sweet hometown, in danger of being crushed by the larger cities who are unable to see (and should not have to accommodate for) the needs of smaller municipalities. This is further exacerbated by the problem of his proposed equality between how much money municipalities collect in education taxes and how much they are allocated in funds. He assures us, however, that it will not result in less or more money. I am unsure, then, what is supposed to change.
(Footnote - confidential to Gary Mar's writers: it is not okay to put all titles in caps. Stop it.)
Progressive Conservative Party Policy
This section seems entirely subsumed by the usual tripe: more open, more accountable, younger, grassroots (A phrase I have begun to hate. It means nothing), family first, international, business leadership, glorious natural resources, etc. and tells us no more than we did before, but it does feel nice to simply skim the last gargantuan section and gratefully close the browser window.
With this, I must confess, I have shovelled more than my fair share of buzz-words, but we have uncovered the secrets of the first candidate! Have a great weekend, I shall have more leadership garbage when I return on Monday.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
The Epic Saga of Gary Mar: Part one
As promised, I have begun to look into the candidates for the Alberta premier position, and have arbitrarily chosen Gary Mar as the first lucky contestant. Now, as you all know, this position is not publicly elected, so if you feel very strongly about this race, you must buy a membership into the Progressive Conservative party (5$) and then vote on September 17th. You may buy a membership right up until the polls close that day, so if you have to search your couch cushions for change, you have the time. (Of course keep in mind you must be 16 and lived in Alberta for at least 6 months prior)
Without further ado, here are some of the highlights of the first four segments of Gary Mar's platform.
Advanced education and technology policy
All qualified Albertans who wish to attain post-secondary education must be able to do so. (Hilariously, if you include the qualification of being able to pay, this statement becomes deliciously tautological)
He supports funding of both basic and applied research, to ensure that society reaps the full benefit of the research enterprise of our post-secondary system, which bodes well, since basic research tends to be neglected for more lucrative prospects.
He promises to build on the past success of the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR) (A program that seduced back three scientists from the U.S and funded important spinal research) but also plans to create: The Alberta Heritage Foundation for Bio Research, The Alberta Heritage Foundation for Energy and the Environment,The Alberta Heritage Foundation for Technology Futures, which threaten to bog down the AHFMR's success with superfluous and expensive boards.
He attempts to win over students by talking about increasing positions in university, but then pledges to bring more immigrants in to fill those positions, (Mar will develop a multi-year provincial, national, and international recruitment strategy to ensure that Alberta’s post-secondary system is a destination of choice for the brightest minds in the world.) which would make whole process more competitive, thus denying positions to local students. (I'm not saying we need less immigration, just that he isn't going to win any students by threatening positions in Universities)
He says Gary Mar will work to create new endowment funds from resource revenues that will lay the foundation for economic life after oil. (This comes up more later). With this money, apparently, he will create a stable and predictable funding model, such as tuition caps, for all post-secondary institutions in the province, which actually sounds really good except for considering how volatile the market is. We can't promise money that we can't take back in case of emergency.
He also says he will "undertake a review [of] parental income thresholds and contribution amounts and work with the Canada Student Loan Program and the Federal Government to make appropriate changes." I am not really familiar with the reasoning behind this loan restriction, so I cannot speak to its effectiveness, but it has always struck me as odd.
I am not so adult that I would fail to point out that he refers to himself as "A Mar" at one point.
Alberta in Canada and the world
He starts by promising to establish an Alberta Representative in Ottawa to advocate on behalf of the province’s interests every day, which only leaves us asking why he can't do the job as Alberta Premier.But he is obviously gunning for the "bitter Albertan" vote when he talks about continuing to seek fair and equal treatment under the federal equalization transfer, a program designed to compensate less fortunate provinces for their fiscal disparities. This program has long been a source of grumbling contention in Alberta, but it makes no sense for him to support the payments, then expect to receive the money back elsewhere.
His stand on the environment becomes crystal clear when he says he will fight against any infringement on resource development through stealth environmental policies, regulations or Alberta- punishing new taxes or scheming wealth-transfer initiatives desired by some. We don't cotton to this "envir'mental" policies 'round these here parts. It almost seems like he is building his policies on anger towards the East. It could get him elected, but will we be proud of ourselves?
To combat the theorized upcoming labour shortage he believes we need to work to accelerate the process for foreign credential recognition, a principle I have supported for a while now.
Most of the time the writing switches between being spoken to about Gary Mar (third person) and a dialogue with Gary (first person), so the effect is somewhat like being witnessed to while Jesus stands off to one side and interjects occasionally ("Have you found Jesus?" "Tell him I died for his sins!" "Yeah, I will, Jesus, just hang on a second.")
He doesn't support the gun registry, but does support free-trade, securities regulation, a unified north, the Canadian Premier's Council of federation, and ending the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly.
In line with the new trade agreements with India and elsewhere, Gary promises to take the lead for Alberta in trading with key emerging markets like China, India, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia and the Middle East, where he estimates 50 per cent (Source: Export Development Canada) of all Canadian exports will go by 2025.
He talks about two key decisions in our immediate future: the building of pipelines to the U.S. Gulf Coast and the West Coast of Canada. He says he will advocate that the federal government designate these initiatives as a national economic priority for Canada and ensure they receive the needed support to get done, which sounds expensive. He promotes the idea of providing the world with the full facts of credible, science-based information that clearly demonstrates Alberta is protecting the environment today and for the future, but later mentions that
He supports the development of new transportation options, rail and pipeline, to west coast tidewater outlets as a means to diversify and grow new markets and will continue to support industry-driven initiatives and campaigns that sell Alberta as desirable tourism destination. (See the Alberta Tourism campaign fiasco)
Still with me? Just two more - you can do it!
Children and youth policy
Some of the problems he identifies in our child and youth policies are that funding and delivery of early childhood services remains fragmented, spread among many ministries, levels of government, and non-profit agencies. He feels we need to stop funding programs that don’t work very well (Huzzah.) and redirect dollars to expand programs that do and we need to track our progress according to a clear set of measurable outcomes. the issue here, of course, being the nebulous and contentious priorities of childhood development, and the long-term prognosis of even seeing any change at all.
He plans to co-ordinate and streamline the Alberta Government’s many existing early childhood programs and services, encourage the joining up of services at the local level and contain a set of key indicators and outcomes for children’s well-being that will be used to measure progress (again, see earlier issue)
The only one that is not a 'given, sound-good' issue is to focus on improving the availability of mental health services for expectant and new mothers, since everyone needs better mental healthy care, it seems bad taste to give expectant mothers better care.
Some other soundbites include:
A public awareness component to inform Albertans about the importance of early childhood development.
Strengthening the Family Enhancement focus of Alberta’s child intervention system
Ensuring families continue to have access to affordable, quality child care options
Expand the Mental Health Capacity Building for Children, Youth and Families in Schools initiative to more communities (I am concerned by what this means. More diagnosis? More treatment?)
Energy policy
His energy policy is largely copy-pasta'd from earlier policies, which made for easier skimming and I noticed the changed passages were more controversial.For example, "Concerns raised by our American neighbours about the carbon intensity of our energy products and the safety of our pipelines must be addressed.", which as long-time readers (Hi Mom!) know, I am not a fan of. In short it is our damn oil, they aren't going to stop buying it because some people think we smell funny. But he plans to implement the recommendations of the Alberta Environmental Panel Monitoring Report on environmental monitoring of the oil sands, anyway, presumably through the use of an Alberta Environmental Monitoring Authority, which will totally not be corrupt, and education programs to improve Albertan’s understanding of the resources they own and how those resources are being developed. (people barely give a crap now, why would they sit through a presentation?)
Stretching his bounds of offense he plans to work with Alberta’s First Nations and companies in the natural resource sector to develop an Aboriginal Workforce Strategy to enable greater aboriginal participation in resource development. From the sound of it the First Nations' peoples are not very keen on developing resources, since they believe it harms the environment, but good luck on this anyway. Also in the vein of this wishful dreaming policy is to establish an Alberta Heritage Foundation for Energy and the Environment. This Foundation will, allegedly, bring together key government, industry and academic stakeholders, with a focus on developing the next wave of clear conscience energy, because there are few better people to develop altruistic environmental policies than the stingy government and the profit-oriented industries. To develop this wave they will look at current and potential fiscal and regulatory systems to see how they might better encourage innovation and the adoption of new technologies. He says that current regulatory processes require companies to seek a new approval when it would like to upgrade to new, more efficient and technologies and he feels that these types of disincentives need to be understood and, where appropriate, removed, but this whole plan is pretty troubling - how else can we discover if a process IS more efficient?
This board will also ask Finance and Enterprise, Alberta Energy, Alberta Environment and the new Heritage Foundation to work with industry to restructure incentive systems so that they reward environmental innovation that goes above and beyond current standards, but this is unnecessary. Either the process will be more profitable for the company, in which case they will adopt it themselves, or it will be unprofitable enough that we will end up paying them off to 'do the right thing', which is a money sink.
The most hilarious plan of all is when he speaks of asking the AUC and AESO to work with all participants in the electricity market to look for innovative ways to enable lower costs for Alberta industry and consumers while maintaining reliability. I can see that conversation clearly: "Hey, guys? Can you get cheaper? Thanks." He can't even bribe them to work together since he intends to
promote icky competition within the electricity industry anyway, not a good selling point for the companies.
Finally, he is committed to ensuring stability in the current royalty regime for conventional oil, natural gas and the oil sands. but remember that earlier plan to use resource revenues? We can't use money we don't get, and we can't money while ensuring stability financially for those resources. Needless to say, these work at cross-purposes.
After all this I am still less than halfway through his policies. I can only hope that future candidates will be less verbose.
Lady told to put her shirt back on at Toronto's Beer Festival. Victor says they have the right to security enforcement at a private function, I say she has the right to wear what she likes at a publicly organized gathering. Where do you stand? Comment with your view!
Without further ado, here are some of the highlights of the first four segments of Gary Mar's platform.
Advanced education and technology policy
All qualified Albertans who wish to attain post-secondary education must be able to do so. (Hilariously, if you include the qualification of being able to pay, this statement becomes deliciously tautological)
He supports funding of both basic and applied research, to ensure that society reaps the full benefit of the research enterprise of our post-secondary system, which bodes well, since basic research tends to be neglected for more lucrative prospects.
He promises to build on the past success of the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR) (A program that seduced back three scientists from the U.S and funded important spinal research) but also plans to create: The Alberta Heritage Foundation for Bio Research, The Alberta Heritage Foundation for Energy and the Environment,The Alberta Heritage Foundation for Technology Futures, which threaten to bog down the AHFMR's success with superfluous and expensive boards.
He attempts to win over students by talking about increasing positions in university, but then pledges to bring more immigrants in to fill those positions, (Mar will develop a multi-year provincial, national, and international recruitment strategy to ensure that Alberta’s post-secondary system is a destination of choice for the brightest minds in the world.) which would make whole process more competitive, thus denying positions to local students. (I'm not saying we need less immigration, just that he isn't going to win any students by threatening positions in Universities)
He says Gary Mar will work to create new endowment funds from resource revenues that will lay the foundation for economic life after oil. (This comes up more later). With this money, apparently, he will create a stable and predictable funding model, such as tuition caps, for all post-secondary institutions in the province, which actually sounds really good except for considering how volatile the market is. We can't promise money that we can't take back in case of emergency.
He also says he will "undertake a review [of] parental income thresholds and contribution amounts and work with the Canada Student Loan Program and the Federal Government to make appropriate changes." I am not really familiar with the reasoning behind this loan restriction, so I cannot speak to its effectiveness, but it has always struck me as odd.
I am not so adult that I would fail to point out that he refers to himself as "A Mar" at one point.
Alberta in Canada and the world
He starts by promising to establish an Alberta Representative in Ottawa to advocate on behalf of the province’s interests every day, which only leaves us asking why he can't do the job as Alberta Premier.But he is obviously gunning for the "bitter Albertan" vote when he talks about continuing to seek fair and equal treatment under the federal equalization transfer, a program designed to compensate less fortunate provinces for their fiscal disparities. This program has long been a source of grumbling contention in Alberta, but it makes no sense for him to support the payments, then expect to receive the money back elsewhere.
His stand on the environment becomes crystal clear when he says he will fight against any infringement on resource development through stealth environmental policies, regulations or Alberta- punishing new taxes or scheming wealth-transfer initiatives desired by some. We don't cotton to this "envir'mental" policies 'round these here parts. It almost seems like he is building his policies on anger towards the East. It could get him elected, but will we be proud of ourselves?
To combat the theorized upcoming labour shortage he believes we need to work to accelerate the process for foreign credential recognition, a principle I have supported for a while now.
Most of the time the writing switches between being spoken to about Gary Mar (third person) and a dialogue with Gary (first person), so the effect is somewhat like being witnessed to while Jesus stands off to one side and interjects occasionally ("Have you found Jesus?" "Tell him I died for his sins!" "Yeah, I will, Jesus, just hang on a second.")
He doesn't support the gun registry, but does support free-trade, securities regulation, a unified north, the Canadian Premier's Council of federation, and ending the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly.
In line with the new trade agreements with India and elsewhere, Gary promises to take the lead for Alberta in trading with key emerging markets like China, India, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia and the Middle East, where he estimates 50 per cent (Source: Export Development Canada) of all Canadian exports will go by 2025.
He talks about two key decisions in our immediate future: the building of pipelines to the U.S. Gulf Coast and the West Coast of Canada. He says he will advocate that the federal government designate these initiatives as a national economic priority for Canada and ensure they receive the needed support to get done, which sounds expensive. He promotes the idea of providing the world with the full facts of credible, science-based information that clearly demonstrates Alberta is protecting the environment today and for the future, but later mentions that
He supports the development of new transportation options, rail and pipeline, to west coast tidewater outlets as a means to diversify and grow new markets and will continue to support industry-driven initiatives and campaigns that sell Alberta as desirable tourism destination. (See the Alberta Tourism campaign fiasco)
Still with me? Just two more - you can do it!
Children and youth policy
Some of the problems he identifies in our child and youth policies are that funding and delivery of early childhood services remains fragmented, spread among many ministries, levels of government, and non-profit agencies. He feels we need to stop funding programs that don’t work very well (Huzzah.) and redirect dollars to expand programs that do and we need to track our progress according to a clear set of measurable outcomes. the issue here, of course, being the nebulous and contentious priorities of childhood development, and the long-term prognosis of even seeing any change at all.
He plans to co-ordinate and streamline the Alberta Government’s many existing early childhood programs and services, encourage the joining up of services at the local level and contain a set of key indicators and outcomes for children’s well-being that will be used to measure progress (again, see earlier issue)
The only one that is not a 'given, sound-good' issue is to focus on improving the availability of mental health services for expectant and new mothers, since everyone needs better mental healthy care, it seems bad taste to give expectant mothers better care.
Some other soundbites include:
A public awareness component to inform Albertans about the importance of early childhood development.
Strengthening the Family Enhancement focus of Alberta’s child intervention system
Ensuring families continue to have access to affordable, quality child care options
Expand the Mental Health Capacity Building for Children, Youth and Families in Schools initiative to more communities (I am concerned by what this means. More diagnosis? More treatment?)
Energy policy
His energy policy is largely copy-pasta'd from earlier policies, which made for easier skimming and I noticed the changed passages were more controversial.For example, "Concerns raised by our American neighbours about the carbon intensity of our energy products and the safety of our pipelines must be addressed.", which as long-time readers (Hi Mom!) know, I am not a fan of. In short it is our damn oil, they aren't going to stop buying it because some people think we smell funny. But he plans to implement the recommendations of the Alberta Environmental Panel Monitoring Report on environmental monitoring of the oil sands, anyway, presumably through the use of an Alberta Environmental Monitoring Authority, which will totally not be corrupt, and education programs to improve Albertan’s understanding of the resources they own and how those resources are being developed. (people barely give a crap now, why would they sit through a presentation?)
Stretching his bounds of offense he plans to work with Alberta’s First Nations and companies in the natural resource sector to develop an Aboriginal Workforce Strategy to enable greater aboriginal participation in resource development. From the sound of it the First Nations' peoples are not very keen on developing resources, since they believe it harms the environment, but good luck on this anyway. Also in the vein of this wishful dreaming policy is to establish an Alberta Heritage Foundation for Energy and the Environment. This Foundation will, allegedly, bring together key government, industry and academic stakeholders, with a focus on developing the next wave of clear conscience energy, because there are few better people to develop altruistic environmental policies than the stingy government and the profit-oriented industries. To develop this wave they will look at current and potential fiscal and regulatory systems to see how they might better encourage innovation and the adoption of new technologies. He says that current regulatory processes require companies to seek a new approval when it would like to upgrade to new, more efficient and technologies and he feels that these types of disincentives need to be understood and, where appropriate, removed, but this whole plan is pretty troubling - how else can we discover if a process IS more efficient?
This board will also ask Finance and Enterprise, Alberta Energy, Alberta Environment and the new Heritage Foundation to work with industry to restructure incentive systems so that they reward environmental innovation that goes above and beyond current standards, but this is unnecessary. Either the process will be more profitable for the company, in which case they will adopt it themselves, or it will be unprofitable enough that we will end up paying them off to 'do the right thing', which is a money sink.
The most hilarious plan of all is when he speaks of asking the AUC and AESO to work with all participants in the electricity market to look for innovative ways to enable lower costs for Alberta industry and consumers while maintaining reliability. I can see that conversation clearly: "Hey, guys? Can you get cheaper? Thanks." He can't even bribe them to work together since he intends to
promote icky competition within the electricity industry anyway, not a good selling point for the companies.
Finally, he is committed to ensuring stability in the current royalty regime for conventional oil, natural gas and the oil sands. but remember that earlier plan to use resource revenues? We can't use money we don't get, and we can't money while ensuring stability financially for those resources. Needless to say, these work at cross-purposes.
After all this I am still less than halfway through his policies. I can only hope that future candidates will be less verbose.
Lady told to put her shirt back on at Toronto's Beer Festival. Victor says they have the right to security enforcement at a private function, I say she has the right to wear what she likes at a publicly organized gathering. Where do you stand? Comment with your view!
Monday, August 08, 2011
Flash Gordon: Just say "No"!
Apparantly, since I have not been paying attention to the states they have been experiencing new problems - a new cultural development, to be honest, since I don't see it going away - that has festered over into Canada this past week. Flash thefts have been documented in the States since early March, but the phenemenon of Flash mobs has been around since early facebook years.
A flash mob consists of a group of people that all travel to one location and do... something. Some examples include; wearing pyjamas and laying down for a little nap, doing a choreographed dance routine, or stealing hundreds of dollars worth of merchandise. The trend is remeniscent of "wilding", or "swarming", where a group would surround a hapless victim and strip them of possessions, but this trend is likely to be extinguished. The hassle of organizing friends into some semblance of event is obnoxious and tends to dry out any further activities with the ultimate cock-block: sober second thought.
The motivation behind this new activity is several-fold. First, the teamwork and group feeling that comes from breaking rules together is so compelling that people have formed whole sports around it (see: Rugby) this, combined with the modest positive reinforcement garnered from the reward, the loot, and the mild adrenaline rush, create an activaty that is certain to be plagueing us for many more years.
Unfortunately, as the poopulation rises the number that reflects even the smallest proportion of society will rise, and obscure desires that we would not consider 'mainstream' or acceptable, will rise accordingly. Not to say this desire is unusual, the urge seems almost primal - like hunting packs of old tribes, but we must begin to accomadate for such, whatever they are.
A flash mob consists of a group of people that all travel to one location and do... something. Some examples include; wearing pyjamas and laying down for a little nap, doing a choreographed dance routine, or stealing hundreds of dollars worth of merchandise. The trend is remeniscent of "wilding", or "swarming", where a group would surround a hapless victim and strip them of possessions, but this trend is likely to be extinguished. The hassle of organizing friends into some semblance of event is obnoxious and tends to dry out any further activities with the ultimate cock-block: sober second thought.
The motivation behind this new activity is several-fold. First, the teamwork and group feeling that comes from breaking rules together is so compelling that people have formed whole sports around it (see: Rugby) this, combined with the modest positive reinforcement garnered from the reward, the loot, and the mild adrenaline rush, create an activaty that is certain to be plagueing us for many more years.
Unfortunately, as the poopulation rises the number that reflects even the smallest proportion of society will rise, and obscure desires that we would not consider 'mainstream' or acceptable, will rise accordingly. Not to say this desire is unusual, the urge seems almost primal - like hunting packs of old tribes, but we must begin to accomadate for such, whatever they are.
Saturday, August 06, 2011
Monday, August 01, 2011
The Bell Curve circa 2011
In the scientific community there are primarily two types of research: Directed and non-directed. Directed research typically involves noticing a problem and working towards solving it, such as curing cancer or breeding a seedless watermelon (guess which one we've cracked?) Non-directed is simply research for research's sake, such as the last time you were fascinated by the contents of your own bellybutton [The nature of navel fluff. (Medical Hypotheses) This is real, BTW]. It is rare, however, to see the second form in conventional newspapers - often the jargon is impenetrable and drawing independent conclusions can be frustrating early in the morning. [Nonacyclo-docosane, a Bastard Tetramantane (Journal of the American Chemical Society)also real]
The Edmonton Journal, however, is boldly going where no one has cared to go before with a map of ethnicity in our fair city, just in case violent racists were having trouble deciding which streets to riot. "Got a beef with purple people? 50th and main!" (In a sad coincidence the map icons even resemble targets) Through census information from 2006 which asked people to identify their ethnicity, they formed maps of Edmonton, displaying where people settled. In case that dubious concept wasn't upsetting enough, they tried to expand on the premise with some uncomfortable conclusions positioned as interesting factual tidbits. "The maps show many Africans concentrated around 107 Avenue in Queen Mary Park, as well as Beverly Heights, Sifton Park near Clareview and in the northeast, Kilkenny and Evansdale, all neighbourhoods with lower than average median household incomes." They just put that there. 'What do you think of that?' it asks, one eyebrow raised and a supercilious smile worming its way onto the stage. "Lower than average median household incomes" it says, staring so hard its eyeballs water.
I can understand some hype for their little map, but it's just a point of interest not the Rosetta stone for housing: " Those patterns reflect the length of time since the first immigrants arrived, how they’ve adapted to the city, and what values they prioritize." I am unsure how the fact that people populated a certain region indicates much about their values, but I have a cup of tea leaves I would love the Journal to look at. In a crazy twist it looks like these neighbourhoods "shape large areas of the city." Freakish! Other large areas of the city are made of fluff and abstract concepts. I can not fathom how no one noticed that perhaps the people that perfer to live closely to others that match their ethnicity are also more likely to self-identify with that ethnicity on a survey.
The last failing in the map is that it confuses correlation with causation - a habit pernicious in common media. "Their preliminary data suggests that in some groups, the more immigrants participate in activities organized within their cultural community, the more they also participate in activities that bring them in contact with other Canadians, like a community sports team." Since we can't draw a causal relationship from this information (Correction: 'Shouldn't' draw a causal relationship; we can draw anything we want to - except ponies. Their legs are oddly shaped) functionally all they are saying is: the more immigrants participate in activities the more likely they are to participate in activities. Crazy.
I run into this sort of disillusioning article every so often when I open the paper and forget to disable my standards; undeveloped information that hides an ugly agenda under the guise of innocent fact-finding (See: all psychological research about race from the 70's). I totally support research for research's sake; I am a philosopher for heaven's sake, the same group who seriously considers the dynamics of a universe whose only occupant is a bucket of water on a string. When confronted with a direct goal for our musings we tend to shriek and melt like a witch with a water allergy, but sometimes we have to take a step back and wonder what the research is saying about ourselves.
The Edmonton Journal, however, is boldly going where no one has cared to go before with a map of ethnicity in our fair city, just in case violent racists were having trouble deciding which streets to riot. "Got a beef with purple people? 50th and main!" (In a sad coincidence the map icons even resemble targets) Through census information from 2006 which asked people to identify their ethnicity, they formed maps of Edmonton, displaying where people settled. In case that dubious concept wasn't upsetting enough, they tried to expand on the premise with some uncomfortable conclusions positioned as interesting factual tidbits. "The maps show many Africans concentrated around 107 Avenue in Queen Mary Park, as well as Beverly Heights, Sifton Park near Clareview and in the northeast, Kilkenny and Evansdale, all neighbourhoods with lower than average median household incomes." They just put that there. 'What do you think of that?' it asks, one eyebrow raised and a supercilious smile worming its way onto the stage. "Lower than average median household incomes" it says, staring so hard its eyeballs water.
I can understand some hype for their little map, but it's just a point of interest not the Rosetta stone for housing: " Those patterns reflect the length of time since the first immigrants arrived, how they’ve adapted to the city, and what values they prioritize." I am unsure how the fact that people populated a certain region indicates much about their values, but I have a cup of tea leaves I would love the Journal to look at. In a crazy twist it looks like these neighbourhoods "shape large areas of the city." Freakish! Other large areas of the city are made of fluff and abstract concepts. I can not fathom how no one noticed that perhaps the people that perfer to live closely to others that match their ethnicity are also more likely to self-identify with that ethnicity on a survey.
The last failing in the map is that it confuses correlation with causation - a habit pernicious in common media. "Their preliminary data suggests that in some groups, the more immigrants participate in activities organized within their cultural community, the more they also participate in activities that bring them in contact with other Canadians, like a community sports team." Since we can't draw a causal relationship from this information (Correction: 'Shouldn't' draw a causal relationship; we can draw anything we want to - except ponies. Their legs are oddly shaped) functionally all they are saying is: the more immigrants participate in activities the more likely they are to participate in activities. Crazy.
I run into this sort of disillusioning article every so often when I open the paper and forget to disable my standards; undeveloped information that hides an ugly agenda under the guise of innocent fact-finding (See: all psychological research about race from the 70's). I totally support research for research's sake; I am a philosopher for heaven's sake, the same group who seriously considers the dynamics of a universe whose only occupant is a bucket of water on a string. When confronted with a direct goal for our musings we tend to shriek and melt like a witch with a water allergy, but sometimes we have to take a step back and wonder what the research is saying about ourselves.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
All in All, It's just Another Brick in the Wall
Every time I read about this new arena, and the funding that the province is tentatively offering in the form of the Municipal Sustainability Initiative, the only thing I can focus on is the fact that 1000 teachers will be laid off this next September. Alberta's education budget is short $107 million, conveniently only $7 million away from the exact amount the province will be giving to build a new arena.
I have always been an advocate of proper borders; if money is intended to be allocated for one problem, we must maintain focus instead of just frivolously throwing money at whatever problem seems more dire. If we start considering our budget as a large pot of money to be used liberally (Har har.) eventually we lose sight of the bigger picture, and mired in debates like "Shelters or food banks? Roads or sewers?" This means that twenty years down the road we may have solved many problems, but we will be left with no future plans or projects.
In essence we should not simply shuffle the money over because we notice the imbalance, but the discrepancy is telling. It is true that we can not be held hostage to the whims and desires of the education system; if we hand over money whenever it is demanded of us we run the risk of losing the authoritative position we hold, but the shortfall is allegedly based on a previously negotiated contract that was not adequately budgeted for, and it doesn't look good to renege on previous agreements because of poor planning. At the end of the day, education tends to bear the brunt of budget cuts, and the MSI boasts a pool of $886 million this year alone, which is a pretty substantial pot to fix potholes.
The only question would be how long the education board is going to run a deficit. A $100 million investment in an arena, even considering Edmonton's history of going wildly over budget, would be over by the next year, and then self-sustaining. The education payment, however, would only worsen as time, and salaries, went on. Ultimately our province is challenging our teachers to do even more with less, and expecting it to work, but since education is not a business, with no quarterly reports, there is no way to show the damage to the system from funding cuts ("See this child? He is %3 dumber than he would have been.") until many years down the road, and sometimes never.
What I'm saying is that Edmonton should not turn down the money (even if I don't think we need a new arena), because it would just be used elsewhere in a similar fashion, but we should begin to take a closer look at the province's priorities, especially at the dawn of a new premier's reign.
I have always been an advocate of proper borders; if money is intended to be allocated for one problem, we must maintain focus instead of just frivolously throwing money at whatever problem seems more dire. If we start considering our budget as a large pot of money to be used liberally (Har har.) eventually we lose sight of the bigger picture, and mired in debates like "Shelters or food banks? Roads or sewers?" This means that twenty years down the road we may have solved many problems, but we will be left with no future plans or projects.
In essence we should not simply shuffle the money over because we notice the imbalance, but the discrepancy is telling. It is true that we can not be held hostage to the whims and desires of the education system; if we hand over money whenever it is demanded of us we run the risk of losing the authoritative position we hold, but the shortfall is allegedly based on a previously negotiated contract that was not adequately budgeted for, and it doesn't look good to renege on previous agreements because of poor planning. At the end of the day, education tends to bear the brunt of budget cuts, and the MSI boasts a pool of $886 million this year alone, which is a pretty substantial pot to fix potholes.
The only question would be how long the education board is going to run a deficit. A $100 million investment in an arena, even considering Edmonton's history of going wildly over budget, would be over by the next year, and then self-sustaining. The education payment, however, would only worsen as time, and salaries, went on. Ultimately our province is challenging our teachers to do even more with less, and expecting it to work, but since education is not a business, with no quarterly reports, there is no way to show the damage to the system from funding cuts ("See this child? He is %3 dumber than he would have been.") until many years down the road, and sometimes never.
What I'm saying is that Edmonton should not turn down the money (even if I don't think we need a new arena), because it would just be used elsewhere in a similar fashion, but we should begin to take a closer look at the province's priorities, especially at the dawn of a new premier's reign.
Monday, July 25, 2011
What's Mine is Mine
I had planned on commenting about the raging Canadian asbestos mine debate for the last week or so, but failed to come up with anything more compelling than, "Asbestos is bad, right? So... we shouldn't mine it then?" and despite how similar that sounds to my other posts, I deigned to withhold comment until I was actually motivated.
Needless to say, I found the motivation. Mostly from outrage, but honestly if didn't write from outrage I would have nothing to say. The government, in a "leaked" confidential document, has become aware the last asbestos mine in Canada is about to run dry, thereby solving the problem once and for all.
Imagine this, for me:
(Good grief we hate when you get all pandering like this.)
It's not pandering, it's perspective.
Someone discovers their significant other is cheating on them. The wronged party insists the cheater stop seeing the fling, to which the cheatee replies, "He/she is moving anyway! So obviously it doesn't matter!" As if the lack of ability to behave badly was the same as the desire to behave properly.
The real heart of the matter is whether we can count on our government to do The Right Thing (Dear lord that phrase stuck in my throat) as we see it. Perhaps the government is bowing to public pressure that supports the mines, it occasionally happens that the most vocal group is in the minority and the majority is just rolling it's eyes wishing the smaller group would shut up. But regardless of support, it is offensive to suggest that people who decry the mines will be satisfied with a shrugging indifference.
What this move most likely accomplishes, is 'put in jeopardy' an industry that is operating in the heavily NDP-voting Quebec to enable the ruling party to ride in and 'save the jobs', therefore laying the groundwork for a lucrative vote mine in future years.
Needless to say, I found the motivation. Mostly from outrage, but honestly if didn't write from outrage I would have nothing to say. The government, in a "leaked" confidential document, has become aware the last asbestos mine in Canada is about to run dry, thereby solving the problem once and for all.
Imagine this, for me:
(Good grief we hate when you get all pandering like this.)
It's not pandering, it's perspective.
Someone discovers their significant other is cheating on them. The wronged party insists the cheater stop seeing the fling, to which the cheatee replies, "He/she is moving anyway! So obviously it doesn't matter!" As if the lack of ability to behave badly was the same as the desire to behave properly.
The real heart of the matter is whether we can count on our government to do The Right Thing (Dear lord that phrase stuck in my throat) as we see it. Perhaps the government is bowing to public pressure that supports the mines, it occasionally happens that the most vocal group is in the minority and the majority is just rolling it's eyes wishing the smaller group would shut up. But regardless of support, it is offensive to suggest that people who decry the mines will be satisfied with a shrugging indifference.
What this move most likely accomplishes, is 'put in jeopardy' an industry that is operating in the heavily NDP-voting Quebec to enable the ruling party to ride in and 'save the jobs', therefore laying the groundwork for a lucrative vote mine in future years.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Possibilities as Far as the Eye can See
Just a short note today to get both you and myself out in the beautiful Alberta sun, where we belong.
The Toronto star reports that a cornea was transplanted into an 11-year old Kenyan girl while a woman in Scarborough waited to see again. The piece is delicately written, but it's hard to get behind the notion that this little girl should not have been given a cornea since she does not live in Canada and the other woman does, but the paper does its level best. I understand that Canada should use its resources on its people first, or we risk martyring ourselves trying to solve all the world's problems; but to draw attention to the fact is pretty gauche, especially at the expense of a young girl.
The reading makes it clear that the problem lies in the inflexibility of the system, the inability to cope with the lack of an operating room, that is leading us to reject viable donations, sending them overseas where the timeline (one week in Canada) is more forgiving (two weeks). However the corrective suggestion posed is ill thought out. One example mentions how a transplant was delayed because it was bumped for an emergency surgery, but we can't expect that donations will start to take precedence over all other surgeries. The problem with giving emergencies and donations unlimited priority is that mundane, but necessary, surgeries will be pushed back and back into non-existence. There are always emergencies.
The problem is, at heart, a geographic problem. For every viable tissue, there is a viable recipient. All that is required is a room. Considering the timeline is a full week, what should be happening is a coordination of all nation-wide forms of transportation. Over the course of a week it is likely that there is at least one operating room available somewhere, all we need to do is muster the resolve to match tissue, donor, and room in the same location.
The Toronto star reports that a cornea was transplanted into an 11-year old Kenyan girl while a woman in Scarborough waited to see again. The piece is delicately written, but it's hard to get behind the notion that this little girl should not have been given a cornea since she does not live in Canada and the other woman does, but the paper does its level best. I understand that Canada should use its resources on its people first, or we risk martyring ourselves trying to solve all the world's problems; but to draw attention to the fact is pretty gauche, especially at the expense of a young girl.
The reading makes it clear that the problem lies in the inflexibility of the system, the inability to cope with the lack of an operating room, that is leading us to reject viable donations, sending them overseas where the timeline (one week in Canada) is more forgiving (two weeks). However the corrective suggestion posed is ill thought out. One example mentions how a transplant was delayed because it was bumped for an emergency surgery, but we can't expect that donations will start to take precedence over all other surgeries. The problem with giving emergencies and donations unlimited priority is that mundane, but necessary, surgeries will be pushed back and back into non-existence. There are always emergencies.
The problem is, at heart, a geographic problem. For every viable tissue, there is a viable recipient. All that is required is a room. Considering the timeline is a full week, what should be happening is a coordination of all nation-wide forms of transportation. Over the course of a week it is likely that there is at least one operating room available somewhere, all we need to do is muster the resolve to match tissue, donor, and room in the same location.
Monday, July 18, 2011
A Real "CANDU" Attitude
While one article in the Journal spoke cryptically about squandering Canada's "biggest economic growth opportunity since confederation" without actually saying what it is or how we might, an article I can only assume was intended to reassure us about Canada's ability to exploit its growth raises some uncomfortable questions.
With many smiles and handshakes Canada brokered a deal to cooperate with India, coordinating our two civilian nuclear energy programs.
Nuclear? But aren't we worried about India's bombs already?
Yes we sure are, but don't worry, we are going to make sure they can not use the Uranium for military use, like they did in 1970 when we sold them a CANDU reactor that turned up later with a cowboy riding it. (Personally I would assume that setting up a monitoring program to ensure Canada was not step one of India's bomb - making process would be a key step in drafting the agreement, but since they already promised they would play nice, and this is an economic growth opportunity like the ones we are in danger of squandering, full steam ahead! Besides, that was just Cold War hijinks, and the demand for a nuclear bomb has faded now, as the desire to completely eradicate one's enemies is prone to doing. [Process pending in Afghanistan])
Anyway, the monitoring program only seeks to ensure the uranium is not diverted for military use; there is (there can be) no system to ensure the research that we are planning to engage in will not be used for military purposes. Short of constant personnel monitoring, or a KGB-like security staff, it would be effortless to simply supply scientists to both endeavors, and utilize the advances made.
India attempts to goad Canada into the deal by saying that we could jointly help third countries by supplying them with nuclear reactors, but given Canada's shiny, new, doesn't-give-a-shit foreign policy, this is mostly just a PR campaign. It is interesting to note that Canada is a member of the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation, which specifies non-proliferation, but India is not. There has even been some suggestion that the guidelines of this agreement will make us responsible for India's nuclear waste - not something I would like us on the hook for.
Despite the mindless pro-foreign cooperation tone inherent in the paper, it is apparent that the deal has only financial interests in mind without pausing to think perhaps we shouldn't leap into deals with countries that have used us in the past. Or at least not while bearing gifts.
My favorite part in the article is where India politely turns down Canada's CANDU reactors by saying, "We have our own technology." They don't need Canada's crappy little reactors - okay? They have a better one. They just need the stuff to run it. And someone to clean up afterwards.
With many smiles and handshakes Canada brokered a deal to cooperate with India, coordinating our two civilian nuclear energy programs.
Nuclear? But aren't we worried about India's bombs already?
Yes we sure are, but don't worry, we are going to make sure they can not use the Uranium for military use, like they did in 1970 when we sold them a CANDU reactor that turned up later with a cowboy riding it. (Personally I would assume that setting up a monitoring program to ensure Canada was not step one of India's bomb - making process would be a key step in drafting the agreement, but since they already promised they would play nice, and this is an economic growth opportunity like the ones we are in danger of squandering, full steam ahead! Besides, that was just Cold War hijinks, and the demand for a nuclear bomb has faded now, as the desire to completely eradicate one's enemies is prone to doing. [Process pending in Afghanistan])
Anyway, the monitoring program only seeks to ensure the uranium is not diverted for military use; there is (there can be) no system to ensure the research that we are planning to engage in will not be used for military purposes. Short of constant personnel monitoring, or a KGB-like security staff, it would be effortless to simply supply scientists to both endeavors, and utilize the advances made.
India attempts to goad Canada into the deal by saying that we could jointly help third countries by supplying them with nuclear reactors, but given Canada's shiny, new, doesn't-give-a-shit foreign policy, this is mostly just a PR campaign. It is interesting to note that Canada is a member of the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation, which specifies non-proliferation, but India is not. There has even been some suggestion that the guidelines of this agreement will make us responsible for India's nuclear waste - not something I would like us on the hook for.
Despite the mindless pro-foreign cooperation tone inherent in the paper, it is apparent that the deal has only financial interests in mind without pausing to think perhaps we shouldn't leap into deals with countries that have used us in the past. Or at least not while bearing gifts.
My favorite part in the article is where India politely turns down Canada's CANDU reactors by saying, "We have our own technology." They don't need Canada's crappy little reactors - okay? They have a better one. They just need the stuff to run it. And someone to clean up afterwards.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Dearth Of 60
Over the past years I have become more jaded about health programs put in place by any level of government; I just can't get past the notion that they would benefit from a less fit population, after all it is harder to riot if you can't walk down a street. But I was actually excited about the Air Quality Health index - especially since if I hope to keep running on a regular basis, it is easier without particulate in my lungs.
I came to a halt in my navigation, however, when I looked at the map available for air monitoring. There was a large void in the province where my hometown was; the community of High Level, which also has my vote for "Most Difficult Town Name to Constructively Google for" since every search includes any site with 'high levels' of anything. In fact, anything north of Grande Prairie or west of Fort McKay was blank.
When I spoke with High Level's mayor, he said the provincial index had not been mentioned to him in any capacity, but he remembered some air quality monitoring stations operating within the area in the past. For anyone not familiar with the area the dominant industry is forestry, which necessitates the existence of structure called a "Burner". These large, glowing, building - sized machines are the reason that, for the first fifteen years of my life, I believed snow came with black flecks on it, dusted on top like chocolate curls on a cake. The mayor also mentioned that High Prairie was the site of a Burner, and it, too, is missing on the Air Quality map.
My next call was to Bob Myrick from Alberta Environment, who politely acknowledged that there was a big gap in the monitoring, and even that they were likely to field some phone calls about it, but he said they only put them in major communities (Beaverlodge: pop. 2500, Bruderheim: pop. 1228, Lamont: pop.1700) that were close to major industries (not the Forestry industry, which is apparently pittance), since the stations cost around $50 000 annually to run. He suggested I should speak to my local political representative, the Mayor, which I already had, but with even my elementary understanding of provincial/municipal relationships, I realize it is unlikely the town could have any influence in the actions of Alberta Environment. I asked Mr. Myrick about the monitoring stations that were already there, but he believed they were run by the industry to report for legislation reasons, and mentioned that if they were run by Alberta Environment it would be convenient to add them onto the monitoring system. I elected not to mention that if the monitoring stations were run by the industry to report back for legislative reasons, they would likely be reporting to Alberta Environment, and could therefore provide the desired forecast that other communities enjoy. It seems the main reason to not do so would be to keep industry sensitive information away from the public.
The last reason Mr. Myrick gave for the deficiency was the lack of Airshed partnership in High Level; apparently a lot of the program is assisted by Airshed programs across the province, (Alberta capital airshed appears to focus on the capital, rather than the Alberta, not that I'm bitter) an idea that is certainly reinforced by the map of Airshed alliances, which almost mirrors the Air Quality maps exactly. But it is pretty uncomfortable to consider such a big part of our health/environment program would rely so heavily on non-profit organizations, but be presented as if the province was looking out for our well being. It might even seem as though the airshed programs were pestering the government into action.
Wow, you are verbose today. Making up for that week off?
You got me, Dear Reader, I do feel guilty, but there is a reason for the particular rearrangement of air monitoring. Two are, notably, flanking the Oil Sands, despite the low population (1000) in Fort McKay, but return pristine air quality assessments, a sure sign that this is just a covert attempt to raise the public perception of the Oil Sands. The fact that Fort Chipewyan, population 1000 but known for it's complaints about the Oil Sands causing cancer, merited a station (although they are within the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association's jurisdiction) only gives evidence to this idea. The air quality in forestry heavy places like High Level and High Prairie would be abysmal from the air particulates produced by the Burners, and so they just ignore those areas.
What we really need is an Airshed alliance up north, to start motivating the government to look into these areas. It can not continue to gloss over the experiences of those at the higher latitudes and hope they don't notice. The north won't stay marginalized for long.
The title plays off the name of an old show about life in Northern Canada, "North of 60", as in North of sixty degrees latitude.
I came to a halt in my navigation, however, when I looked at the map available for air monitoring. There was a large void in the province where my hometown was; the community of High Level, which also has my vote for "Most Difficult Town Name to Constructively Google for" since every search includes any site with 'high levels' of anything. In fact, anything north of Grande Prairie or west of Fort McKay was blank.
When I spoke with High Level's mayor, he said the provincial index had not been mentioned to him in any capacity, but he remembered some air quality monitoring stations operating within the area in the past. For anyone not familiar with the area the dominant industry is forestry, which necessitates the existence of structure called a "Burner". These large, glowing, building - sized machines are the reason that, for the first fifteen years of my life, I believed snow came with black flecks on it, dusted on top like chocolate curls on a cake. The mayor also mentioned that High Prairie was the site of a Burner, and it, too, is missing on the Air Quality map.
My next call was to Bob Myrick from Alberta Environment, who politely acknowledged that there was a big gap in the monitoring, and even that they were likely to field some phone calls about it, but he said they only put them in major communities (Beaverlodge: pop. 2500, Bruderheim: pop. 1228, Lamont: pop.1700) that were close to major industries (not the Forestry industry, which is apparently pittance), since the stations cost around $50 000 annually to run. He suggested I should speak to my local political representative, the Mayor, which I already had, but with even my elementary understanding of provincial/municipal relationships, I realize it is unlikely the town could have any influence in the actions of Alberta Environment. I asked Mr. Myrick about the monitoring stations that were already there, but he believed they were run by the industry to report for legislation reasons, and mentioned that if they were run by Alberta Environment it would be convenient to add them onto the monitoring system. I elected not to mention that if the monitoring stations were run by the industry to report back for legislative reasons, they would likely be reporting to Alberta Environment, and could therefore provide the desired forecast that other communities enjoy. It seems the main reason to not do so would be to keep industry sensitive information away from the public.
The last reason Mr. Myrick gave for the deficiency was the lack of Airshed partnership in High Level; apparently a lot of the program is assisted by Airshed programs across the province, (Alberta capital airshed appears to focus on the capital, rather than the Alberta, not that I'm bitter) an idea that is certainly reinforced by the map of Airshed alliances, which almost mirrors the Air Quality maps exactly. But it is pretty uncomfortable to consider such a big part of our health/environment program would rely so heavily on non-profit organizations, but be presented as if the province was looking out for our well being. It might even seem as though the airshed programs were pestering the government into action.
Wow, you are verbose today. Making up for that week off?
You got me, Dear Reader, I do feel guilty, but there is a reason for the particular rearrangement of air monitoring. Two are, notably, flanking the Oil Sands, despite the low population (1000) in Fort McKay, but return pristine air quality assessments, a sure sign that this is just a covert attempt to raise the public perception of the Oil Sands. The fact that Fort Chipewyan, population 1000 but known for it's complaints about the Oil Sands causing cancer, merited a station (although they are within the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association's jurisdiction) only gives evidence to this idea. The air quality in forestry heavy places like High Level and High Prairie would be abysmal from the air particulates produced by the Burners, and so they just ignore those areas.
What we really need is an Airshed alliance up north, to start motivating the government to look into these areas. It can not continue to gloss over the experiences of those at the higher latitudes and hope they don't notice. The north won't stay marginalized for long.
The title plays off the name of an old show about life in Northern Canada, "North of 60", as in North of sixty degrees latitude.
Monday, July 04, 2011
Free of Handsfree
A historic ruling drew little public attention today as the Prime Minister repealed all Handsfree legislation in a ceremony attended almost exclusively by journalists, interested only in reporting on the leader's choice of fashion.
Under the bright red banner of office, just after noon, the PM sat to sign away a legislation that had not technically been enforced in years since the advent of the MoveSafe technology, the system which coordinates all vehicles on the road. He was heartily applauded by the present ministers, and nodded to the press with a cheeky grin. Remarkably, the process took an entire ten minutes, all of which the Prime Minister remained present and seated for.
The prohibition against using phones or any other device that required hands to operate was put in place almost one hundred years ago in response to the primitive forms of steering vehicles used. Since they required both hands to steer, it was theorized that forcing drivers to keep both hands on the wheel would reduce accidents. The law was fundamentally flawed from the start, however, as subsequent years and testing demonstrated it was the lack of attention, rather than the physical reality of such devices, that caused the accidents.
The move still attracted some criticism, and even a protester who showed up with a hand-created sign. She remained for the lead up, but departed at the start of the meeting, leaving her sign in the trashcan.
Under the bright red banner of office, just after noon, the PM sat to sign away a legislation that had not technically been enforced in years since the advent of the MoveSafe technology, the system which coordinates all vehicles on the road. He was heartily applauded by the present ministers, and nodded to the press with a cheeky grin. Remarkably, the process took an entire ten minutes, all of which the Prime Minister remained present and seated for.
The prohibition against using phones or any other device that required hands to operate was put in place almost one hundred years ago in response to the primitive forms of steering vehicles used. Since they required both hands to steer, it was theorized that forcing drivers to keep both hands on the wheel would reduce accidents. The law was fundamentally flawed from the start, however, as subsequent years and testing demonstrated it was the lack of attention, rather than the physical reality of such devices, that caused the accidents.
The move still attracted some criticism, and even a protester who showed up with a hand-created sign. She remained for the lead up, but departed at the start of the meeting, leaving her sign in the trashcan.
Sunday, July 03, 2011
Wildcard Weekend: What a Drink For Me!
Considering today started at 0430, will span a 12 hour shift, 5 hours of driving, and a grocery shopping trip, discovering this little tribute to the Bean of Life seemed positively serendipitous.
Take it with a grain of salt, of course, and the humor gets a little dark, but all in all, a delightful watch over your morning cuppa.
Take it with a grain of salt, of course, and the humor gets a little dark, but all in all, a delightful watch over your morning cuppa.
Friday, July 01, 2011
Happy Canada Day!
It's a Happy Canada Day here, in the most self-conscious country on the planet. I'm just pleased as punch to have the day off, and a barbeque to go to, but when I thought about doing a post I realized the best way to show tribute to the country I love is by not criticizing it for a day! To get in the Canadian spirit, for my foreign readers, I suggest listening to some Stuart McLean's Vinyl Cafe, and watching the "A Part Of Our Heritage" moments; Everyone's Canadian on Canada day! So here is a webcam picture of parliament hill to stare at, just hit reload to update it whenever you like.
Monday, June 27, 2011
How to Look Hot and Fight Patriarchy
I have fallen in love again. I am afraid Vic may have to shuffle over to make some room in my heart for a sardonic, blonde muscle head who also happens to write academic theses.
She's an avid Big Sister, (with the Big Brothers, Big Sister foundation in Edmonton) and a self-proclaimed feminist, aiming to motivate girls and show them that they really can do anything - no seriously ANYthing. Cover yourself in mud and be a dude? Rock on. Cover yourself in sparkles and be a bodybuilder? Natch. If you want to put yourself through the pressure, strain, and struggle of a competition just to be judged, why the heck not? Even my own history has taught me that people are not as willing to accept a female that is serious about bodybuilding. In the world of feminism, accepting muscular women is still a tough sell. The dean at the University of Alberta plagiarizes a speech and achieves front page status; a professor undergoes a complete transformation into a sparkling, bikini-wearing, bodybuilder (admittedly not complete since she was already a 'gym rat') all in the name of science, and she merits one story in one paper.
The professor blogs about the experience at http://feministfiguregirl.com/ with wit, insight, and more dirty language than George Carlin with Tourettes. She will continue to write, she's even writing a novel about the challenge of bodybuilding and the figure industry, but says she will never compete again. After reading about her experience hollering "Oh God, I need to use your washroom!" at an unsuspecting drugstore attendant, while clutching a tube of hemorrhoid ointment (not just for hemorrhoids anymore!), I can't really blame her.
One of the most important lessons I learned from her story is that societies (feminism, veganism, activism, etc.) have to learn to grow and accept other people's connection with the society. When groups proselytize, it just drives otherwise interested people away. There should be more focus on the spirit, the intent, of a person's actions, rather than a blind adherence to preconceived notions of 'right' and 'wrong'.
She's an avid Big Sister, (with the Big Brothers, Big Sister foundation in Edmonton) and a self-proclaimed feminist, aiming to motivate girls and show them that they really can do anything - no seriously ANYthing. Cover yourself in mud and be a dude? Rock on. Cover yourself in sparkles and be a bodybuilder? Natch. If you want to put yourself through the pressure, strain, and struggle of a competition just to be judged, why the heck not? Even my own history has taught me that people are not as willing to accept a female that is serious about bodybuilding. In the world of feminism, accepting muscular women is still a tough sell. The dean at the University of Alberta plagiarizes a speech and achieves front page status; a professor undergoes a complete transformation into a sparkling, bikini-wearing, bodybuilder (admittedly not complete since she was already a 'gym rat') all in the name of science, and she merits one story in one paper.
The professor blogs about the experience at http://feministfiguregirl.com/ with wit, insight, and more dirty language than George Carlin with Tourettes. She will continue to write, she's even writing a novel about the challenge of bodybuilding and the figure industry, but says she will never compete again. After reading about her experience hollering "Oh God, I need to use your washroom!" at an unsuspecting drugstore attendant, while clutching a tube of hemorrhoid ointment (not just for hemorrhoids anymore!), I can't really blame her.
One of the most important lessons I learned from her story is that societies (feminism, veganism, activism, etc.) have to learn to grow and accept other people's connection with the society. When groups proselytize, it just drives otherwise interested people away. There should be more focus on the spirit, the intent, of a person's actions, rather than a blind adherence to preconceived notions of 'right' and 'wrong'.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Wildcard Weekend: Rock Out With Your Coda Out
I had saved one of these for the perfect moment, girls rocking out on their violins is just not to be wasted, and when I found the accompanying cello piece I knew it was Go Time.
("These girls are awesome!" Have some more metal ladies!)
("OMG, cute Croatians with cellos? More!" Yes, ma'am, here you are!)
The last one is a great combination of music that I like, song that I love, and keyboard dudes taking themselves very seriously in leather. I only wish I couldn't see the singers' faces - makes it that much cooler. ("Wow! That is cool!" I know, right?)
Go forth with this genteel, ass-kicking music and enjoy the summer!
Friday, June 24, 2011
Prime Minister's Gamble
The word of the day today is betrayal after the Proctor and Gamble regiment, more commonly known as the sixteenth, refused orders to invade the Island of Borneo, citing corporate complicity.
Brunei has been owned by the Braun company since 2031 when they were bought out for their control of crude oil, the world's hottest resource. The purchase was strongly opposed by the religious community, but the deal was eventually brokered with the condition that the Braun company maintain the country's decades old tradition of free universal health care.
World Wildlife Fund denounced Canada's invasion of Borneo, citing the delicate balance of the world's most diverse array of species and precious rain forest - the last in the world since the devastating Brazilian wildfires eradicated the bulk of the Amazon, a criminal act of arson which still remains unsolved, despite links to several top food companies.
The recent development has sparked a firestorm of controversy about whether the regiment, wholly owned and operated by Proctor and Gamble, will be charged with treason or allowed to refuse postings that may violate it's obligations to shareholders. This case is the first of its kind in precedent-setting corporate-military ventures. Pundits suggest prior examples will be drawn from cases such as the States' use of Blackwater through the early 1990's onwards, Canada's invasion of Sudan, and the disaster of 2035, when forces from an unknown European bank invaded Disney world, believing it to be a headquarters for McDonald's, who bought the debts for several European nations the previous year.
Considering the sixteenth comprises the bulk of Canada's fighting force, it is uncertain whether the Prime Minister will be forced to reinstate the draft to muster the troops to continue his invasion, or risk looking weak in the eyes of many other national forces, which could prove fatal, considering the attempted invasion by Michelin's Michigan last year.
Brunei has been owned by the Braun company since 2031 when they were bought out for their control of crude oil, the world's hottest resource. The purchase was strongly opposed by the religious community, but the deal was eventually brokered with the condition that the Braun company maintain the country's decades old tradition of free universal health care.
World Wildlife Fund denounced Canada's invasion of Borneo, citing the delicate balance of the world's most diverse array of species and precious rain forest - the last in the world since the devastating Brazilian wildfires eradicated the bulk of the Amazon, a criminal act of arson which still remains unsolved, despite links to several top food companies.
The recent development has sparked a firestorm of controversy about whether the regiment, wholly owned and operated by Proctor and Gamble, will be charged with treason or allowed to refuse postings that may violate it's obligations to shareholders. This case is the first of its kind in precedent-setting corporate-military ventures. Pundits suggest prior examples will be drawn from cases such as the States' use of Blackwater through the early 1990's onwards, Canada's invasion of Sudan, and the disaster of 2035, when forces from an unknown European bank invaded Disney world, believing it to be a headquarters for McDonald's, who bought the debts for several European nations the previous year.
Considering the sixteenth comprises the bulk of Canada's fighting force, it is uncertain whether the Prime Minister will be forced to reinstate the draft to muster the troops to continue his invasion, or risk looking weak in the eyes of many other national forces, which could prove fatal, considering the attempted invasion by Michelin's Michigan last year.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Common Coves Like Us: A Rebuttal
I was pleased with the post I wrote on Monday regarding the military's 'fit to serve' policy, but that means little since I am, by nature, heavily self-congratulatory; until Victor came back home for this 'weekend', and I happened to mention the post. I had assumed he would support my conclusion, but it seems he had a much different opinion from what I had expected. After a protracted lesson on military policy, I figured I would get a former soldier's opinion on the matter, but it comes with a heavy language warning. Vic can get pretty saucy about military matters. ("Well, I didn't realize you would be quoting me!")
"See this is what I don't like, when civilians try to give their opinion about stuff they don't know"
I asked whether he had any personal experience with the circumstances the news article had spoken of, soldiers who had been injured on the job and the army's response;
"They won't just kick you out. They'll try and help you first, but if you're an absolutely useless person...They should try, but the army can only do so much."
I was surprised to find he supported the military service policy, talking about the policy like a tool the military could use to get rid of people that were 'untrainable' or 'useless'.
"They won't just kick you out for no reason. I mean they should try to find a job for them, but if the guy's a useless fuck, you have to remember, people's lives are on the line in jobs like military intelligence. Giving the position to a retard could cost more lives."
We moved away from the notion of people that had been injured in the line of duty, and on to people that hid preexisting conditions, then exploited the military for medical support and a steady income.
He remembered a solider with a chit bag - medical chits excusing him from heavy service, etc. - that he would shuffle through to avoid doing work or other unpleasant taskings, and another that only worked until noon, but was paid the same full wage as other soldiers.
"Occasionally people get in, then go on permanent category." (This means permanently unfit to service) "The military has to wait out to the end of their contract. You have to remember we need capable people in important positions."
I asked if he remembered any specific soldiers and he spoke of Mcpl. Franklin, who lost both legs in Kandahar and was accommodated, but eventually left to further advocate for soldiers who had been injured in the service. He spoke of how valued the former Mcpl. was for lecturing while he had been in, and was certain that the departure had been his own choice. He was of the opinion that this was the norm, and that soldiers being forced out didn't relate the full story to the media.
As for soldiers that joined with pre-existing conditions?
"Personally, I think they should kick out every one of those useless fucks."
"See this is what I don't like, when civilians try to give their opinion about stuff they don't know"
I asked whether he had any personal experience with the circumstances the news article had spoken of, soldiers who had been injured on the job and the army's response;
"They won't just kick you out. They'll try and help you first, but if you're an absolutely useless person...They should try, but the army can only do so much."
I was surprised to find he supported the military service policy, talking about the policy like a tool the military could use to get rid of people that were 'untrainable' or 'useless'.
"They won't just kick you out for no reason. I mean they should try to find a job for them, but if the guy's a useless fuck, you have to remember, people's lives are on the line in jobs like military intelligence. Giving the position to a retard could cost more lives."
We moved away from the notion of people that had been injured in the line of duty, and on to people that hid preexisting conditions, then exploited the military for medical support and a steady income.
He remembered a solider with a chit bag - medical chits excusing him from heavy service, etc. - that he would shuffle through to avoid doing work or other unpleasant taskings, and another that only worked until noon, but was paid the same full wage as other soldiers.
"Occasionally people get in, then go on permanent category." (This means permanently unfit to service) "The military has to wait out to the end of their contract. You have to remember we need capable people in important positions."
I asked if he remembered any specific soldiers and he spoke of Mcpl. Franklin, who lost both legs in Kandahar and was accommodated, but eventually left to further advocate for soldiers who had been injured in the service. He spoke of how valued the former Mcpl. was for lecturing while he had been in, and was certain that the departure had been his own choice. He was of the opinion that this was the norm, and that soldiers being forced out didn't relate the full story to the media.
As for soldiers that joined with pre-existing conditions?
"Personally, I think they should kick out every one of those useless fucks."
Monday, June 20, 2011
Common Coves Like Us
An excellent piece in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday should cause Canada to pause and re-evaluate some of its policies in the near future, specifically that of the Universal Service principle, which states that all members of the military must be prepared for active deployed duty at any time, and encompasses basic training, fitness, and availability (speaking only of the regular forces, of course).
An ex-ombudsman who worked with the army, specifically overseeing troops sent to Afghanistan in 2002, spoke out against the policy, adding that there were overweight soldiers in Ottawa's military headquarters who could not pass the fitness standard, thus disqualifying them from active duty. He theorized that it was simply bureaucratic posturing that kept the standard in place, forcing out soldiers who were willing to work, but unfit by way of injury.
Setting aside the question of whether proximity would encourage more compassion, forcing out soldiers who wish to continue serving is fiscally irresponsible. Soldiers, especially those who have served overseas, represent a valuable resource that cost a substantial amount to train. Discharging this resource might create a more 'picturesque' army, but ignores the other benefits.
The other reason for the discharge could, of course, be the morale of the troops when confronted with the image of being trained by a person with a visible injury from duty. It can increase comfort with the fear of injury by showing that such a condition is not the end of the world, but also increase anxiety.
All in all, the policy could be beneficial if our army was smaller and could not afford finding positions for wounded servicemen, or if the number of wounded were higher (currently 40 soldiers' files are under dispute) and would put a strain on the other soldiers, but in this case, this is needlessly self-serving, representing either vanity or a misguided superstition about 'bad luck'.
In other news, I am debating adopting a Chinese Blogger, essentially giving them space to write their own blog without fear of censorship from their own government. Let me know Dear Reader's thoughts on this.
The title is from Robert Service's poem, "The Ordinary Man". Excellent Poem.
An ex-ombudsman who worked with the army, specifically overseeing troops sent to Afghanistan in 2002, spoke out against the policy, adding that there were overweight soldiers in Ottawa's military headquarters who could not pass the fitness standard, thus disqualifying them from active duty. He theorized that it was simply bureaucratic posturing that kept the standard in place, forcing out soldiers who were willing to work, but unfit by way of injury.
Setting aside the question of whether proximity would encourage more compassion, forcing out soldiers who wish to continue serving is fiscally irresponsible. Soldiers, especially those who have served overseas, represent a valuable resource that cost a substantial amount to train. Discharging this resource might create a more 'picturesque' army, but ignores the other benefits.
The other reason for the discharge could, of course, be the morale of the troops when confronted with the image of being trained by a person with a visible injury from duty. It can increase comfort with the fear of injury by showing that such a condition is not the end of the world, but also increase anxiety.
All in all, the policy could be beneficial if our army was smaller and could not afford finding positions for wounded servicemen, or if the number of wounded were higher (currently 40 soldiers' files are under dispute) and would put a strain on the other soldiers, but in this case, this is needlessly self-serving, representing either vanity or a misguided superstition about 'bad luck'.
In other news, I am debating adopting a Chinese Blogger, essentially giving them space to write their own blog without fear of censorship from their own government. Let me know Dear Reader's thoughts on this.
The title is from Robert Service's poem, "The Ordinary Man". Excellent Poem.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Wildcard Weekend: Tu Dae Fadda
Happy Father's day!
In honor of the daddies around the world, I present this video. It has a serious language warning attached to it, but I wanted to tell my dad how grateful I am that despite how often we may have provoked him to think about it, he only used this kind of language on the golf course.
In honor of the daddies around the world, I present this video. It has a serious language warning attached to it, but I wanted to tell my dad how grateful I am that despite how often we may have provoked him to think about it, he only used this kind of language on the golf course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)