Twitchell Case

This is going to be a brief, blunt post because to be frank, I hate the fact that I am writing about this scumbucket at all. During the time the trial was progressing I tried to know as little as possible about the entire thing; the whole notion disgusted me. I wish I could say I was happy that he had been sentenced to first degree murder, but considering I had hoped we would reinstate the death penalty to deal with him, it is small comfort.
Wow. Okay, heavy handed much?
A little, I suppose, but hey, at least it isn't election news. The recent scandal at Guelph, the back-and-forth of Helena Guergis, and the constant "Harper bad/Harper good" rhetoric is starting to fray my nerves. So on to the point.

Twitchell was found guilty of first degree murder and, we hope, will never see the light of day unencumbered until such time as he is decrepit. But was justice served in the right way? It is now coming to the public attention that there were pieces of evidence that were never brought to the jury's attention. When he attempted to claim that he had killed in self-defense, the victim's mother made a statement about how her son would never have become violent. Admittedly, it is hard to take a grieving mother at her word, but the reliability of a testimony should be left up to the jury - this should not have been left out. Also left out were some of Twitchell's facebook updates, made under the pseudonym "Dexter Morgan", a serial killer from a popular TV show, which stated he was pleased with how the weekend's kill went - a few days after the murder.  (Being familiar with the show I find Twitchell's interest in it especially grotesque, considering the bulk of the show deals with Dexter's strict moral code to never kill an innocent person . Ironically, Dexter would have derided what Twitchell had done). This evidence, of course, could be explained away by considering he could simply have been discussing the show, but still lends a little more evidence to the depravity of the man.

The final piece of evidence not submitted is a series of entries to his diary. The majority of which discuss the actual process of dismembering his victim, which were omitted because it was felt they were too prejudicial to allow the jury to accurately assess Twitchell's guilt. There is so much wrong with this notion, I can not even begin to discuss. The reason they are too prejudicial is because they are damning evidence, if we begin a precedent of disqualifying over-obvious evidence, we run the risk of losing other cases, cases that might not be a slam-dunk as this one was.

The other entry that was not included is one in which Twitchell describes why he thinks he is a psychopath. This evidence should have been brought up to demonstrate why Twitchell is NOT a psychopath. The tone alternates between floating loftily above the "human race" and acknowledging his position among them. Occasionally he even lies to himself - declaring he is fully capable and functional in one paragraph, then complaining how he barely gets by on menial jobs in another; describes how he never feels pity or remorse, then waxes poetic about experiencing all of life's emotions; discusses how to best mislead his wife, while putting women on a pedestal. He reminds himself to lie to his wife while preventing future slip-ups; not something a true psychopath ever forgets since lying is not a conscious act for them, it is done in the same fashion as you or I might swat at a mosquito - to achieve an end. As if all this was not compelling enough, he confesses he feels a great love for his daughter - something psychopaths are literally incapable of doing.


Even the very fact that he felt the need to sit down and write all this tripe out, in a self-aggrandizing, self-important, preposterous fashion, disqualifies him from being a genuine psychopath. They don't need reminding, or a pat on the back for how they are, they just know it, and if there's a label - whatever.

My friend, a graduate student in psychology, had a more accurate assessment for him - he is simply delusional. Maintaining delusions of grandeur, that he was some sort of mastermind, genius, or executioner, while operating on the lowest level of competence possible for living an independent existence. Given that he probably considers the resultant fame from this a "compliment" I shall speak no more on him, suffice to say this: the best revenge we can give him is to forget even his name.

Four Horsemen Appeared - Debate 2011

It can't be helped, my first thought on the debate was "Why is that not Rick Mercer?" Not that I think he would lend anything useful to the debate, but mostly because I like his face. The inaugeral question  is about how the Conservatives can justify corporate tax cuts when "ordinary people" are struggling for income. The man leading the debate states that the leaders know the rules of the debate and agree to stick to them, which is kind of hilarious considering I don't think they do, but how would we know? Much like parliament.

Harper: There are currently no corporate tax cuts in the budget, we did that years ago, but we do not plan on raising corporate taxes since it will just hurt our economy.
Duceppe: Congratulations on actually answering a citizen's question. You spent money needlessly and recklessly on the G8 summit. Can we have that report?
H: It's the Auditor General's report but, we stand by our expenditures.
D: In 2008 you didn't think there was going to be a recession, contrary to evidence. We saved Canada by ignoring your desire to cut corporate taxes. Why hasn't the forestry sector in Quebec been given as much money as the Automobile sector in Ontario?
H: In 2008 we pulled out a huge stimulus package. We are currently helping the forestry industry in Ontario; the auto industry is less interesting.
D: Was there a stimulus plan on November 14, of 2008?
H: That was a fiscal update, not the budget.
D: Lies! There was nothing about a stimulus plan.
H: It would have been good if you had supported it, but you voted it down.
D: It hung the forestry sector out to dry.
H: In Quebec, we were supporting the industry, you guys voted against it.
D: You gave NFLD/LAB money to build hydro industry, but we financed ours by ourselves, without a single penny from federal government.
H: We treat all provinces equitably, we've supported you elsewhere.
Ignatieff: Hey, let's kick this back to the real question: How can you justify $6 billion in corporate tax cuts and the G8 issue? That wasn't a 'stimulus plan', you wasted money then lied about it.
H: Again, the auditor general said that report was not reliable. We stand by our expenditure. (Ignatieff yells about how they were not approved by public officials) We are not lowering corporate taxes. If we raise their taxes they will raise prices.
L: You are approving corporate tax cuts, why are you lying? Plus, Ignatieff supported those cuts. You used to care. What changed? What day did the music die?
H: No, seriously, no tax cuts. For real, real. We're maintaining health care transfers and stuff.
D: Jim Flaherty went on record saying they had a list of programs that would be cut to reduce the deficit.
H: We don't need to cut programs. We're cool.We're going to find 5% in 'efficiency cuts'.
I: You are cutting, you have cut, you will cut. You caused the recession.
H: You picked on me, and now we have an unnecessary election. We're still doing okay. The jets really need replacing. In five years we'll spend money, then have them for twenty years. You can't promise to cancel them.
(Incomprehensible arguing at this point)
L: The billions you will spend will come from cuts to necessary programs. The policies are creating a horrible economy - we need to be more responsible.
H: We have balanced policies; remember how we are totally out of this recession?
D: "How much cost a plane?" We need proof for that. Come with facts, figures.
H: We've been clear about the plane budget. It's five years away - screw it. You can't pay for promises today by cancelling an expenditure five years away.
I: How could you favour the G8 summit when you could have done so much for programs with that money? If we raise corporate taxes to 18% we could educate everyone!
H: We can't raise the taxes, we have to grow the economy. It's a competitive tax rate. Now that we're in to corporate tax cuts, we're in it to win it. We are getting investment from this.
L: The businesses waste it though, and we have no say. Let's give money to small businesses that will do for certain what we want: Job creation.
H: We have cut rates for every business. That's why the Canadian Chamber of Commerce doesn't support any other party's tax plans.
L: Oh! They totally supported us!! Check your sources, k?

Question two from Mississauga, What is the leader's visions for Canada on the international stage? What will each of you do to resurrect our positive image on the national stage?
I: The summit sucked so bad that we were denied our security seat in the UN. Mr. Harper can't stand up for democracy or freedom.
L: The senate just blocked bill C-393. No wonder the rest of the world thinks we're douchebags. Our foreign aid budget is dead. We should be bringing our troops back from Afghanistan, but now we have 3 more years.
I: We're bringing back the combat troops; but we can't abandon the Afghani people. We've got to stay in as a training force.
L: You sound like Harper. We're focusing too much on our troops, and it's over-shadowing other concerns. I have a question for you now.
I:  So we should just ignore the sacrifices that were made?
L: We need a new approach. How can Canadians trust you when you say one thing, then do another. You supported tax cuts. Now you don't. You supported the HST. You are Mr. Harper's best friend.
I: Don't change the subject! We care deeply about Canada's foreign image.
L: So why did you freeze the Foreign aid budget?
I: I do want African aid solutions.

Harper: Obviously Afghanistan is important. We are engaged and contributing, we should be united in that belief.
D: When I see our foreign policy, I hate it - they are a strain to our Canadian history.
H: When you talk about our values, right now in Libya we have people lead by a Canadian protecting civilians from atrocities.
D: You wanted to go into Iraq.
I: You lost our seat, that was a lock and you lost it. The summit was stupid and you did it anyway. Why did you cut KAIROS funding? You shut everything down. You want too much control! You show too little respect for democracy.
H: I was just at an international meeting for foreign aid. the recession was because of the global economy, the summits helped with that, including helping the world out of debt. They are important.
L: Why are we being cited with contempt? Why are we so secretive? You are so closed off! Give us the G8 report!
H: Oh yah, I'd love to, but the Auditor General said no. (Many objections from the other leaders here) We are recovering so well, but this election might ruin it. We need to get back to work!
I: We're having an election because you hate democracy and we have no confidence in you. Minister Oda mislead the House of Commons. You lied and destroyed democracy.
H: That's simply not correct. We have independent confirmation. You guys ganged up on us. Canadians don't want this focus on squabbling, but we have it anyway.
D: When you were the opposition you said the PM should always respect the HoC, all else is immoral. So why, now that you are the Prime Minister, is it okay to mislead the House of Commons?
H: We've run the longest minority in history, we try to listen to everyone, but we're not always going to agree. Deal with it.
L: The HoC brings things up that you reject, like our climate bill. You killed it with the senate that is made up of your cronies. Why do you hate democracy?
H: We're opposed because it just sets targets with no plan. We're achieving the same ends with other , more effective policies.
L: You don't really want to stop climate change. You have buddies in the oilsands!
I: You shut down good organizations because you disagreed with them. You need to respect democracy. Our international image suffers because our domestic view on democracy is butt.
H: Our foreign aid is largely private and we aren't shutting them down. We have many that are doing good. We are making a difference,
D: *statistics* What is the explanation?
H: Are those foreign aid statistics? We haven't reduced foreign aid, we're just making it more efficient.
D: You wasted money on GM in Detroit!

Question three: Sam Diamond asks since the next government is likely to be a minority, how are you going to work with the other parties to work well and efficiently?
H: I hope it's a majority. This is stupid. We've tried to play nice.
I: Does anyone remember the contempt? Remember him shutting down the gov't twice? He just wants control! We have to rebuild our democracy now.
(There is a pause, filled with silence)
Steve: C'mon guys - stick it to each other!
H: Yah, thanks. Hey, we put in a budget, it had good stuff, and everybody liked it, but if you guys give me another minority, we'll go through more elections.
I: You haven't earned a majority. You don't trust us. You threw someone out of your meetings. You don't trust Canadians. Why are you afraid?
H: I've been everywhere, We've stayed connected to Canadians. This bickering isn't any good for Canada. We trust Canadians' judgements.
I: Nu-uh. You totally threw people out. Contempt. Shut down parliament.
H: Well you ganged up on us. Jeopardizing the economy.
I: You don't listen to parliament. Which is us, of course. You stiffed Parliament.
H: We have given you all the documents at all times. Opposition is not willing to take "yes" for an answer.
I: We aren't "bickering"; this is democracy. This is what democracy is.
Layton: Aren't these guys dumb? This is why Ottawa sucks right now. Sam's right, We should be able to work together. That can be a good thing.
H: We can work together. We have been for a while. You guys ganged up on us. We were doing fine. Also we totally had to carry Canada through the recession.
D: Well the Liberals didn't want an election so they took mercy on you. If a proposal is good, it's good. Back when Paul Martin was kicking around in 2004, if he lost confidence; Layton, you, and I had a letter for the Governor general of options other than an election. We supported you.
H: Hey, we signed a cooperation, but it wasn't a coalition. We weren't trying to replace the government; I wouldn't have done that. The Liberals won, you can't replace a winning government with a losing government. We respected that. Duceppe can't just pick the leader.
L: You were all set to be the PM. I left because I didn't want you to be.
D: I know what we did, I am the only one with no misconceptions.
L: You said there was no possibility of a coalition, Duceppe.
D: We agreed he would be the Prime Minister!
(Heated argument by all parties)
I: Coalition is out for me.
L: Oh I see, you are the only party available, eh? Well, we'll see what the Canadians want.
I: Of course, I would never presume to tell Canadians what they want. I respect everyone here, I'm just saying I don't want a coalition.
L: So why are you supporting him?
H: I'm just saying, I think if you get the seats, you get the government. Otherwise we had shadow councils deciding who runs the country.
I: Whoever gets the most votes get the chance to try for the confidence of the house.
H: Whoever gets the most seats gets the government. Not a chance to TRY for the house.
I: That's what I said!
H: Nu-uh. You think the house gets to decide with the public's recommendation.
D: You don't get a government with the most seats if don't have the confidence of the house.

H: The Tory party was not going to form a government when we lost the election in 2004 that makes no sense. We totally respect Canadians. I just really want a majority or else things are going to suck.
L: Harper could be happy with less than a majority of Canadians supporting him. There's something wrong there. We need to change our democratic system. Proportional representation. Also the senate should be abolished.
I: What really matters is if you can trust the leader. We cannot trust Harper. You haven't earned a majority because you don't respect our majority.
H: I don't believe the truth of what you are saying. We totally respect the process.
L: I gotta ask Ignatieff why he has the lowest attendance rate in parliament? If you don't show up you don't get a promotion. You missed 70% of the votes.
I: Because you don't respect the process, you haven't even earned a minority. Who is going to replace you? Liberals!

Question four From Montreal Quebec, how do you envision the global make-up of our country over the next thirty years?
D: We have to assimilate them, while respecting their differences. We are primarily French and English speaking; multi-culturalism is not a Quebec value. (He really shouldn't argue like this - we could use the same argument to assimilate Quebecois.) I'm a bloke who turned Bloc. (this is hilarious with his accent)
L: We are going to have continuing immigration because we don't have enough babies to grow our economy. Thank goodness we have a good immigration policy. Current policies don't let people bring over their families - meaning after working here, immigrants are leaving for back home.
D: Immigrants are good, but I'm tired of them being portrayed as criminals. (At this point I think he says they came from their home countries in "that kind of shit")
L: I agree, hopefully we won't have Harper. There's too much focus on the immigrant as a political/economic unit. They don't recognize credentials. We are trying to reverse that by mentoring people with someone in the field to gain the "Canadian" experience.
D: Would you agree that Quebec should be allowed to set its own immigration policies?
L: You do now, right? Yeah, that's important. That should apply.
D: What about Bill 101? That doesn't apply to transportation, telecommunications, or banks.
(Yes/no/yes/no)
I: Hey, I'm an immigrant too! The key to successful immigration policy is mastery of the language. Why did the Harper government cut settlement funding? We need to focus on equality of rights.
H: We tripled settlement funding. We understand about multiculturalism, those who leave other countries want to belong to this country.
(Harper is lucky in that he can play up how awesome Canada is, get the patriot vote, and take credit.)
L: The program was inadequate, but why did you cut settlement services? Currently they arrive and there is no support.
H: We didn't. We totally tripled it.
L: Why are there so many temporary foreign workers?
H: We have people coming in with jobs, then they stay. Work helps people adjust.
I: I think if Harper had been in power when my dad was coming over we wouldn't be here.

H: Stop making cheap shots to "get points"
D: Why do you guys hate Bill 101?
H: We respect the division of powers enshrined in our constitution. Hey, talk some more about how you can't be Quebec and multi-cultural. One can retain their culture and still integrate.
D:  We don't want to create ghettos.
H: Hey! We don't make ghettos!
L: We should be keeping families together. Let's make a pact to do that together.
H: There will always be more people wanting in than we can let in.  Somebody's got to be left out.
I: We should take the politics out of immigration. It's currently "ethnic" and "Very ethnic". If we start micro targeting communities, pitting them against each other, we're going to break up a multicultural society.
H: I've made it my goal to help immigrants, and then they vote for us so Ha.

Question five, from Gibsons B.C is concerned about public safety. What are you going to do to deal with criminals and their light sentences?
I: Well, we shouldn't import failed prison policies from the U.S. Huge prisons are stupid. To be tough on crime, we have to be tough on guns. Gang violence is a huge problem. The registry is awesome. We have to learn from America's failures. Oh, and better victim's services.
D: A lot of demaggery [sic] on being tough on crime, but it is not so. "The criminal rate is declining." I agree American politics are stupid; they revolve around big guns and big prisons, but eliminating the registry is dumb. Police think so, Quebec thinks so.
I: Let's learn from Quebec's policy on offenders. I like it. There has to be consequences for actions. We need police resources, registry. Most people in our prisons haven't finished high school.
D: Mr. Harper said you won't "come back" on abortion. I worry about making abortion illegal again.
I: Oh, That's just politics of fear. You can't exploit crime victim's irrational fear. Like Harper does.
L: We've got to focus on crime prevention, like support for young people who may be tempted by "bling".
I: We need balance in this, not like Harper. Crime prevention will tip the kid towards high school rather than gang life. You can lock people up forever, but it makes people worse.
H: We're making investments in crime prevention programs. We had it in the budget, but that's stalled because you guys suck. We need to make sure the punishment fits the crime.
D: Instead of debating and getting experts, you just put everything in the same bill. You aren't even consulting people.
H: There were two bills; we've ended the practice of having offenders only serving 1/6th of their sentence before applying for parole, but you guys didn't like that.
L: "Why do we need so many more prisons when the crooks seem so happy in the senate?" but seriously, violence against woman would stop if we had more women in parliament. We're doing that. First nations and Inuit women have the worst situation. We need education, houses, clean water. We need to focus on these issues.Have I mentioned corporate taxes suck lately?
I: Please remember the Polytechnique massacre. Obviously to help women we need gun control. Harper will gut the registry, ignoring that the police use it. We don't send anyone in w/o checking the registry.
L: I don't support the registry. Stop using it to divide Canadians, we need real, effective gun control.
H: You can have gun control without the registry.  You are just harming hunters and farmers.
I: Woman don't care what type of gun it is - long, short, they're DEAD.
H: The registry doesn't work like that.

Sixth question is about health care - In the last health accord between provinces and the federal government, provinces were made responsible for wait times. What is next to improve the health care system?
L: Who do you trust? You should trust NDP. Because the NDP in a minority parliament brought forth the program. We've got to ensure ongoing funding. We can't wait, we have to hire doctors and nurses now. Fund home care and additional care, buy more beds. Harper didn't care to do anything about health care. In your budget you mentioned some rural community doctor credit, but moving them isn't a solution.
H: The 6% increase in gov't transfers to the provinces has been in every budget. We included ending the cap on medical expense income tax exemption.
L: Previous parties you've been in didn't support health care, but did support privatization. Why should we trust that you've changed?
H: I'm changed, baby, I'm a new party-man! No one should be denied health care because they can't pay
L: So, why is there so much privatization?
H: Alternative service delivery isn't privatization. We aren't going to punish provinces for new delivery methods, we just want results.
L: You aren't helping families right now.
D: Stop interfering with Quebec. That's our jurisdiction. We have to make sure they have the money but then respect the fact that they have expertise.
I: The feds have a place in health care, assuming it's within their jurisdiction. Health care shouldn't be different from province to province. Either spend on tax breaks, jets, prisons, big gifts, or health care. We've committed to a 6% increase in funding, how do we get drive and change?
H: We want to keep the economy on track, you guys cut a bunch of funding to get stuff for tax cuts.
L: Nobody wants to do anything for health care right now.
I: That's so not true, we've got a family care policy. We need more health, not necessarily more health care. Prevention is worth pound of cure.
L: That's a promise you can't keep.
I: Hey, you can't even get elected.
D: There is too much money in Ottawa if we are negotiating between bureaucrats and stuff we need. We should figure out who will give what to whom.
Steve: You all are promising a lot...can you actually deliver? (Who would say no?)
H: Of course. We are going to continue and maintain these programs.
L: It's about making choices. Harper's promising too much.
I: We'll find the money from corporations and jets.
D: Stop giving corporations money.

Layton's final: Liberals Conservatives suck. give us the chance to fight for you.
Duceppe: Quebec must become a country. But while we're tethered to you, we'll support you.
Ignatieff: Choose a government that respects democracy. Harper sucks. Family.
Harper: We're focused on the economy. We need a strong, stable, conservative majority.

Well, I'm glad that's over. It was entertaining as hell, but draining.

A Portion of Thyself

 In honor of National Organ and Tissue Donor week, which runs April 18th to 25th, I figured I would draw attention to both the process of indicating a willingness to donate as well as some legislation that may help the whole process, considering the dire statistic that only 13 in a million Canadians donate.

A good site that is broken down into provinces is http://www.besthealthmag.ca/organ, which links to several other sites containing information about donations. Health link Alberta also included some "Donations for dummies" bullet points for those who wish to donate but aren't sure where it starts. For those who are too terrified after seeing the old Monty Python skit, I'm afraid you are on your own.



How can I become an organ or tissue donor?
While you are alive:

• discuss your wishes regarding organ and tissue donation with your family and give them clear directions about what you would like to see done in the event of your death
• sign the back of your Alberta Health Care card if you wish to be an organ and/or tissue donor
• If you want to be a living donor, (for kidney, bone marrow or a lobe of the liver only):
  
• contact your local Bone Marrow Registry or transplant program
• find out what your blood group is
• have your doctor do a medical check-up to ensure that you are healthy
• make sure that you are coming forward as a donor willingly
• be aware that the process of becoming a living donor requires about three months of testing, education and communication with your doctor(s)

 In the Alberta legislature Bill 201 is approaching it's third reading, making it mandatory to indicate your decision on organ donation on your health care card, but considering one can answer "yes", "no" or "undecided", I anticipate a large amount of people simply bothering to answer "undecided". The majority will likely answer "yes", likely, so it's still a win, and every life saved by forcing someone to answer about their organs is a win, but it still seems to defeat the purpose including an "undecided" option.

There's also some debate about which card to use, health care, should driver's license be valid, etc. but I agree with the MP's that say this is ridiculously delaying a necessary legislation.

Incidentally, deputy Government House Leader, vice-chair of the Cabinet Policy Committee on Resources and Environment, Rob Renner, went on record saying pursuant the the oil sands, that  "resource belongs to the people of Alberta, and it is Alberta that is responsible for developing that resource". It feels pretty good to have a house official stating it's our sandbox to play in.


The title is a quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson - "The only gift is a portion of thyself."

Silence may be Golden, but Truth is Diamond Plated

I have already made it clear that I disapprove of the Catholic school board being a publicly funded entity because it supports views I do not support, but am forced to finance anyway. Lately it seems we cannot open a paper without a new story of discrimination: The students suspended for wearing "Choice" stickers in Ontario, The students being disallowed from forming a GLBTQ awareness group (Again, Ontario), and Mrs. Hunter from Morinville who was dismissed for wanting secular education for her children (In the same board as this issue, the Greater St Albert Catholic School Board). Each time the school board would defend themselves by talking about their beliefs and their rights to act in this fashion.

Recently, however a substitute teacher who had recently undergone a sex change was fired; the official paperwork praised his skills but said his values were not in line with the school, he was directly told “gender change is not aligned with the teachings of the Church” and would bring about “confusions and complexity with students and parents as a model and witness to Catholic faith values.”

They attempted to pay him off with what has been officially considered a "generous offer", $78,000 or a one year teaching contract (There is some confusion about whether the offer was money "or" teaching, or money "and" teaching) , in exchange for his silence, but he refused. I don't mind saying I tear up a little when he speaks about refusing the money because he believed it would be selling his human rights. The precise right he is alleging violation is medical disability, physical disability and gender, since he was diagnosed with a gender identity medical condition (I like this so much better than the old phrase "gender identity disorder"). From that perspective, he has a rock solid case.

Now the board plans to wage a war of attrition. The Alberta Teacher's Association stated that since he was offered a substantial sum, he is not entitled to any financial compensation for his human rights complaint (and I thought MY union was bad...)Worse, since a "fair and reasonable" settlement was put on the table and rejected, there is speculation that the case will be dismissed. If the board genuinely believes that some cash is a fair substitute for the right of transgendered people to live and work as they choose, I don't think they should be in charge of education.

The strength of this man to continue on, turn down money and security, for the purpose of making things better for those who come after, is remarkable. After the stagnation of Bill C-389 in the senate, this is one more greatly needed step forward for GLBTQ rights. Even if this dies, we should not stop talking about it.

Tom Wolfe Approves

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Clingy Girlfriend's Bill

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

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

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

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

Slutwalk 2011: Taking Back the Right (to dress sexy)

Good Morning, my Darling Readers.
Have you been pissed off yet, today? Would you like some spite and vinegar to get you going this morning?
Needless to say if you don't feel like being uncomfortably angry all day, you should perhaps come back to this post when you have an hour to stew and rage.

When I had first read about a controversy where a Toronto Police Officer was being criticised for his advice to University students, I did not make a post about it, mostly because the controversy raging was something I was struggling with internally. The officer had suggested that to avoid being raped, the female students should not dress "like sluts".

On one hand, it seemed like sage advice; if I don't want to get frostbite, I dress warmly. The whole issue is about cause and effect, personal responsibility, it seemed to suggest.

But after focusing on the evidence, my own personal philosophy, and spurred by the sexist, misogynistic, disgusting comments on this website, I realized not only is this complete bullshit, but it is a 'gateway belief' to more disgusting beliefs that tend to manifest once the focus has been "properly centered" on the victim, rather than the rapist.

First off, the principle relies on the notion of "victim-blaming" whereby people think the woman could have "prevented" the rape, or that she "had it coming", ignoring the fact that only 2% of reported rapes are committed by strangers, which is, of course, what proponents of this theory think of when they think of rape: some young woman in a short skirt and low shirt walking around in high heels, when some seedy man catches sight and become so aroused that he assaults her. Not that a woman dressed attractively to go on a date where sex might even be a possibility, but when she decides it is not a possibility her date forces himself on her. The woman on Slutwalk (the response to the officer's comments - women marched in "slutty" clothes to reinforce sex-positive notions) had a saying, "A woman isn't raped because of what she is wearing, a woman is raped because a man raped her!" (True females occasionally rape, but 99% of cases are a male perpetrator)
When we focus on the victim and how they can 'prevent' rape, we encourage circumstances like the fact that a survey on date rape showed that 60% of Canadian college-aged males indicated that they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they would not get caught. (Helen Lenskyj, "An Analysis of Violence Against Women: A Manual for Educators and Administrators," Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1992)

This leads us to the next fallacy, that rape is about sexual gratification. If one takes a little while to peruse the avenues for various sexual outlets, it becomes obvious after only a short while that there are systems in place to acquire sex or sexual gratification. What rape is about, rather than the sex that could be obtained elsewhere, is about the power trip. The control over another person. The release of the frustration that comes when men believe that woman should 'give it up' or that woman are withholding sex because the man won't say/do the right thing,  which eventually leads to the idea that the man should just 'take it'.

I won't even get started on the effects of the 'sex negative' culture we have propagated on the notion that prostitutes are "dirty", "cheap", or "less than human" that often leads men to believe they "shouldn't have to resort" to hiring a professional - this tends to lead to the notion that sexual woman are 'not worthy', that woman shouldn't want sex. People that believe woman should dress conservatively to avoid being raped tend to ignore that a woman can want sex, and dress to entice that from someone, while not wanting it from every/anyone.

Continuing this ridiculous notion, if we are to assume that rape is committed because someone is dressed sluttily (I don't think that's a word, but deal with it) we run into problems when we consider child or elder sexual assault. Not to say the elderly can't dress attractively (Another aspect of sex-negative culture is that once you hit a certain age you no longer have the 'right' to have sex or be sexually aroused), but it certainly calls into question what exactly could be considered 'provocative' when we consider all these other victims, and saying the motivation was the person's appearance can cause us to throw our hands up and wonder what the hell we should look like, then, if anything can be considered sexually attractive.

Another ideal that seems to come hand-in-hand with this set of beliefs is that woman should feel lucky, or flattered that someone wants them. (I cannot make this up) Some comments from the website particularly reflects this:
"These women say they dress like that because it makes them feel good. Crap. They dress like that so that they will be noticed.. and hoping that ‘something’ might come out of it...Oh and by looking at the picture .. honestly who would want them anyway."

"WOW!!! somebody should have been throwing dollar bills at them to but their clothes back ON. Good lord that’s a scary crowd!" 

" some of those women could walk down the street stark naked and be in no danger of being raped whatsoever. This is because some women are ugly cunts and not all men are rapists." 

This notion then causes us to wonder, while we dress in the morning, what is considered "slutty"; what is too low, too plunging, too tight etc. It causes woman to wonder if they should wear shorts to the gym. If men 'can't' control themselves when they see short shorts, why would the gym make a difference? Worse, this focus then leads to the 'retroactive' set of criteria for clothing; if a woman was raped, it is obvious that what she was wearing was too slutty.When we focus on this aspect, we ignore must more useful, better advice: Tell someone where you are going and with whom when on a date, don't drink or do drugs to excess without a responsible sober buddy, and trust your gut. If something doesn't feel right, get out of that situations. The only effect your clothes should have is how fast you can get away in your heels.

The final argument against this type of 'advice' is the fact that rape is tragically under-reported in Canada, and when pressed, 64% of woman stated that they felt fear and shame . If we continue to tell woman that they can prevent rape, if it ever occurs, they will be less likely to get help because they think they could have prevented it. It is strange that people could put forth this notion, but we do not automatically assume that if one's car is the victim of a hit and run, one must have parked like a douche, and thus, "had it coming".

A good website, a movement against rape that I can actually support is available here: http://www.mystrength.org/, and it focuses on teaching men not to rape, rather than trying to teach woman not to be raped. My favorite poster is the one that says, "My strength is not for hurting so when I wasn't sure how she felt, I asked", since it reminds me of the "Yes means yes" movement.

Budgeting the Balance

I have finally figured out what the conservatives are offering this election. While other parties have offered fancy, exciting, subsidies and other programs, the Tories have put forth only hesitant, cautious programs that may or may not materialize in a few years, once they balance the books.
That, right there, is the main message of their campaign. Once more, in slow motion, for anyone who missed it: Once they balance the books.

Every program being introduced (except scrapping the long-gun registry - which I wish did not compel me as much as it did) comes with the rider that it can only happen after they balance the books. Only the conservatives can make the claim that they can balance the books, since they have the closest community with the budget and fiscal reality of our country right now, and it serves to underscore the attitude they present that they 'know what they're doing' and 'they have been in power for a while now.' If the conservative party could roll up its sleeves, I have no doubt they would be rolling right now.

Taking this tack ensures that every benefit brought up by other parties, any new programs, looks financially irresponsible because they are spending money while we are running a deficit. The hilarious benefit for this is that the stronger promise made by the other parties, the bigger the benefit for the conservatives; Especially considering some of the monetary promises being offered by the Liberals for this election. Even considering the hike in corporate tax rate, and the promise to lower the deficit to 1% of the GDP by the second year, the final bill looks daunting.

The solitary position the conservatives take (anyone who has seen the CBC voting compass should be aware how lonely the Conservative's position is - they look like the kid who farted during class photos) ensures that anyone who drifts their direction is going to be sucked into the gravity well of idealism that is the Conservative stance. Considering the recent panic over Canadian household debt, this means anyone with an predilection to 'save' is going to drift in the Conservative's direction, whether they like it or not (subconscious priming is very powerful).

All these factors add up to make a hell of a stealthily effective campaign. Except for the fighter jet issue. What the hell is with that?

The title is a quote I found online:

"After the government takes enough to balance the budget, the taxpayer has the job of budgeting the balance."

— Unknown

Wildcard Weekend: Tell me, have you seen her?

This video, to inspire awareness about a global health hazard, has apparently been broadcast since mid-March, but despite the fact that it is being promoted by Journalists, I have seen neither hide nor hair of it.

Now that we're all sad, here's something a little happier to cheer us up: a flash mob in the Beirut Airport.

Happy Weekend, everyone!

Post on the Run: Part 1

Sorry if this post seems hasty, It has been a long day already. We were awakened this morning by a brutal knocking on the door, someone really hammering in an overly authoritarian fashion, and we stumbled downstairs in housecoats and slippers to answer what we were sure was of critical importance. I assumed the worst - I am prone to fatalism - but Victor was sure it was some mundane mail issue. It was only when he noticed the cherry-blue lights outside that he began to sweat in the same way I did. I remember the officer doffed his hat slightly when we opened the door, but he didn't seem the slightest bit sorry or respectful.
"You've left your Christmas lights up, folks. I'm afraid I am authorized to give you a five hundred dollar fine for failure to remove Holiday paraphernalia before the city of Edmonton has deemed it necessary. New Christmas bylaw."
Victor and I blearily stared at each other, wondering if he was joking, before turning back to him.
"We don't really have a ladder, we just left them up from the last owners of the house and just turn them on during the season."
He didn't seem to care much, just said,
"I'm afraid that's not good enough, guys. If you are unable to remove the decorations in a timely fashion, I have the authority to take you in."
We protested but he waved over a large group of officers, and I realized they were serious. Victor and I negotiated to at least change out of our pajamas before we were arrested, and we invited the officers to relax in our newly renovated living room while we dressed.
Upstairs, we hatched a desperate plan. We grabbed the backpacks, conveniently left loaded for camping, quietly opened the window, and ditched out of the house.
We've been on the run for the greater part of the morning now, and already we've seen wanted pictures up - I look like an idiot though, little chance anyone will recognize us. Anyway, I can't disclose our location, but we wanted to let our families know we are safe, but have no intention of going down for this. Not us. Oh no.
Anyone wishing to leave us rations can leave them in the second dumpster by the T&T supermarket at West Edmonton mall until the second week of April. After that, we'll be out of state. We've got a man to see about a snow globe.

State of the City Address

Sometimes cities experience bad times - not only economically, but also crime rates, which can sometimes spike for no apparent reason. Edmonton, however, is experiencing a complete anomaly. Three times last year's homicide rate, two fatal police shootings in as many months, and a police service that has to go public just to find a suitable chief candidate when the previous chief quits for family reasons.

It is possible the lack of strong direction from the force is a motivating factor, especially at such a critical time in Edmonton's development. The only notable statement from the acting Police chief has been a public apology to the Somali community for complaining about the lack of helpful witnesses to a shooting, but a strong head, especially one taking over a force, should make a noticeable entrance to ensure the continuity of service. It was not long ago that Mayor Mandel felt compelled to post fliers denouncing the high level of violence in the city, and imploring people to feel more loyalty to the city, and stop being such idiots. This type of tactic occasionally works, but the city seems to rely on it too much (this was similar to their tactic on car idling, which failed) and the downside to the tactic is that it can be undermined if there is an external motivating factor provoking the behavior that people don't want, or if the "instigator" of the change loses face. It is possible the "stop violence" campaign worked while Mandel was a new Mayor, active enough to lead the city, but now that he is no longer a novelty, and we have no strong direction from the Police Chief, the progress that we enjoyed has been undone.

The Edmonton Police Service's annual police report indicates one of the main areas of attention this year is an emphasis on reduced crime and victimization, manifest by a 4% reduction in the eight major areas of crime (Assault; Homicide; Robbery; Sexual Assault; Break and Enter; Theft from Vehicle; Theft of Vehicle; Theft Over $5000) No numbers are available for the other areas since they are less publicized and reported, but the outrageous increase in homicide could effectively undermine any other drop in numbers. The chief of police is listed as the primary instigator for this initiative, but since he is listed as such for many of the initiatives, it is likely this is purely symbolic.

Some people might suggest that this increase in fatal police incidents is due to lack of training, but the police report for 2011 indicates that all officers were given a level of force training refresher (level one and two) during the months of January,February and March. It is possible this either led to a "priming effect", whereby violence is suggested in the minds of the officers through the training, and they misjudge situations to be more dangerous than they actually are, because of the preconditioning, or the use of force model itself needs to be re-evaluated. Since April, May, and June are earmarked for note-taking refreshers, it should be possible to check for priming effect.

One thing is for certain: Something has to change, preferably soon.

Wryagra: Curing your Electile Dysfunction

I am assuming the election fun has started, as evidenced by the massive conservative banner hanging out by the highway turn-off for my hometown, but other than paper signs, I can see no indication that a genuine struggle for the 'throne' is underway.

What do you mean? There's been dozens of talking points!
Nothing really serious though.
The conservatives started off with a promise to maybe introduce income splitting for families with kids, possibly, if they can balance the budget, but the very notion is designed to benefit the upper middle class society where one parent works for a very high wage, and the other stays at home and raises the kids - it's enough to make one wonder if we have a population drop in Canada. "C'mon Canadians! Reproduce for Harper!"

The Liberals, not to be outdone in treating voters like they are idiots, announced that, if elected, they would offer a $1000 non-repayable cash 'gift' to students, which sounds like a pretty good idea because, hell, I'd love a cool thousand! In order to do this, however, they would be cancelling the tuition and textbook tax credits, which lowers the overall actual financial gain dramatically. Not to forget the gift would come off the amount students would be allowed to take out as a student loan. Obviously it would be more profitable to simply transfer money from a loan to a gift, but considering the credit issue as well, it just means this boon has its serious downside.


The green party is starting at a minor disadvantage since their leader is a woman (Females are still showing a marked discrepancy in political activity), but they exacerbated the problem so fragrantly by having her promise 'greater civility in parliament' that she has been effectively hamstrung by her own good intentions. It's true parliament is nasty, brutish, and long, but a lot of people, maybe even the majority, associate that kind of 'can-do' attitude with success and ability. Her dithering about the second-class treatment she received for the debate has certainly not helped matters.

The Bloc Quebecois is fighting the current Canadian exasperation at Quebec's antics, but they'll still likely get a decent showing for their regional affinity. Probably no point to memorizing "Prime Minister Duceppe" though, rumors of his departure after this election is undermining the strongest point they have - his experience.

As for the NDP, well, I'll just leave this here:

Needless to say, I have been following the election in the same way a mother follows her small child who is carrying around their full potty. It's possible they're just proud of themselves for what they have produced, but it's more likely they are going to smear everything until we are all neck deep in shit.

Rejected: Political Satire

Many years ago I was introduced to perhaps the first Internet meme I had ever encountered: Don Herzfeldt's "Rejected"; a series of commercials he had produced for products that were "never aired", as the film tells us with the only written 'raised eyebrow' tone I have ever encountered as if to say, "isn't that interesting..." while further affixing its tinfoil hat. It has taken me almost a lifetime to unpack the heavy political implications of this piece, nearly driving me mad in the process, but now, for your perusal and approval, I submit: "Rejected: Political Satire".

The darkened introduction, somber tone, and grandiose music should have tipped us off to the ground-breaking work we were about to witness, but we had merely giggled in complacent ignorance. The first scene displays the homunculus of the common citizen plaintively outlining his struggle, as a small bowl of food lies at his feet, that "[his] spoon is too big". The discrepancy of resource to available transmission source is clearly evident by the exaggerated utensil and diminutive dish. One of the problems pervasive in current politics is finding the best way to deliver products and services to the masses, and this is clearly demonstrated in the man's situation. He repeats this exhortation, helpless in his plight, as the typical citizen is in situations of such structural disorder, until he is joined on the scene by a gigantic banana, who declares, "I am a banana", representing the typical citizens' groups who have taken NIMBY (not in my backyard) too far, and now use BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone). This scene mocks the conventional political groups' impotance to alleviate the average citizen's distress by their stubborn adherence to protocol.

The next scene shows two average people discussing daily schedules. One reminds another that "Tuesday" is coming, and inquires if he has brought his coat, which can be read to mean an election is forthcoming (Tuesdays are popular election days), and the man wishes to know if his compatriot will vote - to which he replies that he lives "in a giant bucket", symbolically asking the man why voting would matter in such a desolate situation. At this moment a hideous growth forms from the voter's head, spouting meaningless invective, symbolizing the dominant party's incomprehensible rhetoric and near strangle-hold on the typical voter's thought process. The non-voter cusses in response, which is the average non-partisan response to the typical garbage spouted by thoughtless party supporters, and a pig flies by, meaning the day the average citizen becomes cognizant of their greater obligations and powerlessness in the face of political parties will be a day the impossible happens.

Mr. Hertzfeldt continues his relentless criticism of political parties in the next scene, where a group of bored-looking individuals stand around doing nothing, while wearing ridiculous and extravagant hats underneath a sign that commands "Silly hats only", representing the arbitrary and preposterous rules assigned to party affiliation and the length of tomfoolery to which the average politicians will go simply to gain a vote. An average man, represented by his mundane head-wear, wanders onto the scene, to the astonishment of the present people.It appears, initially, that all is well, the man has penetrated the sacred hall of politicians, until we uncover the product logo to show the man being horrible beaten by the special-hat-wearing crowd; thus is the fate of uninitiated interlopers in the conventional political system.

The next scene begins when Mr. Hertzfeldt addresses us directly, telling us that we are watching the [PRODUCT REDACTED] Channel, and now "angry ticks fire out of [his] nipples", whereupon we observe a group of typical children being harassed by a large cloud of angry ticks that have flown out of the chest of a larger man. Again, even new, unsuspecting voters, are tyrannized by the passionately political majority, to their detriment and subsequent removal from the voting scene.

Political debates are examined in the next scene, which shows two average men discussing ordinary things, even though their voices clearly do not match their mouth movements; the real arguments and political struggles are hidden from the average viewer in favor of ridiculous discussion that are mentally accessible to the average person. The two then begin to scream horrifically at each other, and are drenched in one party's blood, suggesting that Don feels any obvious 'victor' in political debates must have been predetermined and a set-up to placate the masses while appealling to man's savage nature.

A common feature of political fear-mongering is the fear of 'foreigners' or 'strange ideas' which are represented by a literal alien in the next scene, who comes down simply to steal the eyeballs of an average man standing on the scene.  The average man then walks into the most mundane of objects, a yield sign, displaying the obvious ridiculousness in politician's suggestion we would become insensible to even the most normal of situations should we admit foreign people in. The rampant crime and murder that is often suggested as a side effect of immigration is displayed in the next scene as a man rips the stomach out of another and beats him to death with it, then declares he is the "Queen of France". Mr. Hertzfeldt seems to suggest we should confront these absurd beliefs about crime, immigration and political policy. Furthering his assessment of political policy (skip this one if you are sensitive to child endangerment) he displays the extent to which we are beholden to building regulations (and more generally, frivilous bylaws) that are insensitive to the average person's situation, and may even destroy precious moments, such as a child's first step, by showing a baby tumbling down a never-ending set of stairs.


Unfortunately the next scene is in some unfathomable language, showing a man speaking to his child and representing the incomprehensible system by which political power or ability is passed from parent to child, never allowing in other people, and the rampant nepotism present in our society.

The strain of this political environment is clearly too much, according to Mr. Hertzfeldt, as he shows the world beginning to descend into anarchy and chaos, with massive structures crumbling and the whole system dissolving into madness, which is obviously the fate of the man who gazed too plainly into the truths of the political reality facing us in modern times, as he himself, represented as a small rabbit-eared man, gazes sky-ward in horror, while the scene crumbles into nothing around him. We should pay tribute to the strength of a man who sought to bring us face to face with the horrible nature of the political system as it relates to our powerlessness. Bitter films, indeed.

Parliamentary Hot House

I sometimes run parlivu in the background while writing posts, and it is a plodding, soothing, sort of background murmuring, with the occasional heckle or thump, but today this could not possibly be pushed out of the limelight; people hollering, slamming desks, and generally getting their raucous fervor up so furiously that the government might need to pass a bill authorizing a bowl of heart medication to be passed around the house like popcorn. I even wish I was bilingual enough to not need to listen to the translators, since you tend to miss heckling that way (there was also one point where the screaming was so loud the translator simply said "Inaudible").

The situation? The government is so close to being found guilty of contempt that it keeps knocking it's elbow on it; the opposition has made a motion of non-confidence which is, as we speak, hotly debated in the house, and it's look like we should gear  up for an election in probably May, barring some form of Deus ex politicum machina. The fighter planes the conservatives desired have their first target of fire: the Conservative government. It may be their last target, however.

The conservatives are screaming to have their defense heard over the shouting, stomping, hollering, and what sounded at one point (I actually had to check) like a riot. The main defense they are hiding behind, like I did as a small child under my covers, is that Canadians purportedly do not want an election, conveniently ignoring the fact that they also don't want a shitty government.

The government takes a surprising tact, pointing out the fact that the Liberals, NDP, and bloc said they would not form a coalition, but are now working closely together.

Carson is being used as a talking point as well, "being investigated by the RCMP" is definitely not a good point for the Conservatives. But so far my favorite rhetorical question: "Can the Prime Minister take the oil sands out of his eyes?"

Rona Ambrose (her mouth looks so strange when she talks) placidly defends their decision to remove customs tariffs on importing ships, a move unfavorable in southern Ontario where a large part of the economy is based on shipyards.

The Prime Minister's decision not to attend today, with his previous decisions to prorogue government during times of hard questions, makes it seem like he is disposed towards  running away from problems.

This unscientific CBC survey seems to suggest people, or at least CBC readers, are 50/50 in favor of an election. Poll: Do you want there to be a federal election right now?



It was surprisingly closer than I had thought, but the vote of non-confidence in the Conservative government was passed (despite a "nay" Del Mastro / Dykstra fist-bump [now called "the fist bump heard 'round the world"]) at 12:22, March 25th, 2011. Quoth Rosie Barton: "This House is done."

You got Your Religion in my Education!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budgety Hands at Arm's Length

So you are running a country, and the next election might be a close one; you really have to make sure you get everyone out to vote because polls seem to suggest you have the majority, you just need to widen the lead.
What do you do?

Ramp up controversy and spin the "election" buzz for as long as possible.
The budget isn't anything special; just a variation on the same song and dance we've seen every year. More money here for this and that, growth, long-term assets, etc. The difference is just in the focus, not the strategy. The only object is one of location, rather than anything substantial. (To be honest, I would rather if they didn't focus so much on job creation; we were accustomed to the exciting job market of the years before the recession, but it's unlikely to get that way again, trying to force it to be so is just going to result in problems. I can at least appreciate the incentive to doctors out to rural areas, the tax breaks for firefighters, but I have yet to see the breakdown for the fighter jets, so no matter how hard we focus on the economy in the budget, we're still throwing money at an expenditure that will not, no matter how much we want them to, yield any sort of fiscal return.) Even Alberta's finance minister says it's a boring budget. The only purpose being served by the "excitement" is to help Canadians feel like they are more part of the political process (which, of course, we barely are), and rouse some nationalistic feeling that doesn't carry the heavy stink of cynicism.

Cynicism is something Canada is almost proud of. We look at the typical American's flag-waving political joy and sneer inside, even just a little, that we aren't so jingoistic or easily led. But it does mean we have set predictions for our politicians, and they have gladly obliged. The "hands in our pockets" joke has become so old hat that we expect a certain amount of pillaging, but we don't even get to live in New York. The Obama fervor that swept through the states would never get off the ground here; "Change? Now they want our pocket change?" we would chortle, while relegating the starry-eyed politician to the dustbin, "Hope? I hope no one gets elected."

The royal wedding was intended to spark some Royalist excitement, a bit of good feeling (we have a Queen; who doesn't love her?) but unfortunately, rather than reminding us of our noble roots and exciting heritage, it was treated like the latest celebrity scandal, and so evoked the sad distaste of "campy news".


The saddest aspect to this is that Canadians are beginning to value cold intellectualism (51%) more than decency (20%) or compassion (8%) in a national leader. While it is true a leader who stands there wringing his hands over the plight of every citizen is likely to drive us into the poor house, the gross favoring of understanding to empathy leads us to wonder if we have not adopted a "blood at arm's length" stance; if politicians' souls are already damned, why not let them make the unpleasant decisions we really want?

PROC part 4

I woke this morning like a little kid on Christmas, bright eyed to see what the committee had brought us Canadians for our political stockings, but after I was forced to shift my focus to my Anthropology midterm, I came back to what looked more like Hallowe'en when the only candy gathered by the ruddy-haired tots were raisins and those horrible peanut marshmallows.
I wish I could exaggerate the amount of word nitpicking that was enacted for a full four hours today, but I could not possibly do so, even if I used some, several, a minority, a number of examples. They were literally moving through, page by page, to approve every page as written. I can understand the why, it just seems ridiculous when every third page has a word or two that offends someone. The chair is maintaining good humor, but as they rounded page 35 (recall this was originally theorized to be two pages long), there was some debate about whether he had skipped pages.
This is all quite exciting, still, when considering it like a puzzle that one is putting together since we don't actually know what the report says, but in the same way as watching a blob of spit trail from your mouth, down the side of a building toward a busy doorway; there is the possibility of excitement at the end, but for now it's just gravity. 
It just occurred to me, listening to Mr. Scott Reid (CON) talk about the budget requirements for the second reading of bills, that without more stringent requirements for going over budget, few positive results will be garnered.

The end of the report outlines four options for the committee to consider:
Option A:  Find the government in contempt; many options
Option B:  Find the government delayed unnecessarily to provide documents; finance dept. investigates
Option C:  That the mid-week document dump constitutes compliance; there would be no further action taken
Option D:  Government was blameless; No further option taken.

I feel strangely elated to be 'present' for this moment. Option A held after a vote, it seems the committee recommends holding the government in contempt. The government will apparently be submitting a dissenting report. This must be what history feels like.

Here is an amended copy of the report they debated; the dissenting report from the government is at the very bottom, whiny accusations included. 

Wildcard Weekend: MS and Running

I followed a link on my facebook to this site: http://www.moresquirrel.blogspot.com/, and was tearing up by the end of the first paragraph. It is a blog written by a marathon runner with Multiple Sclerosis (some literature), and although you hear often about the run for MS, it rarely takes the same emotional root as it does when you hear someone's life story. Perhaps it affected me more deeply since I am the age he was when he was diagnosed  with this disease that slowly paralyzes him by eroding tiny holes in his brain and spinal column. His writing is very accessible, and occasionally poetic, but he approaches his medical challenges with good humor, grace, and strength.  

He lives in North Vancouver, and includes some details about running trails in that area, as well as reviews of running shoes, but I hope he inspires everyone to run, even just a little bit, since it really is a gift. I hope to include more running inspiration on the weekends, and perhaps run my own marathon sometime.

PROC part 3

Today is the unofficial roast of Bev Oda; this committee is brought to you by the word "Stipulate" and the number "0", which is precisely how many straight answers we garnered. I can't help but feel that if we had a much less patient chair, this would be much faster. Joe Preston is great, very fair it seems (Edit: had been prior to today), but also has a slightly disinterested air, as though answers are not that integral.

We have at least seen the face of the physical addition of the NOT, but she is now sitting with a different office. There are some pretty heavy questions about whether the decision to cut funding was provoked by a speech given by Jason Kenney that called KAIROS "anti-semitic", but Oda denies it and further proof is hard to come by.
I actually really hate the Bloc's line of questioning about why KAIROS was denied funding - whether she had the right to deny it's funding and the method she chose to indicate her denial are the issues at stake, her judgement, if it is her call to exercise it, should be examined in a separate committee. Either she has the right to determine it, or she does not; the nature of it's viability should not be in question.
When asked, she has no answer as to why she did not initial the NOT, which would have eliminated a lot of confusion.
Beverly Oda refuses to offer a suggestion about how often the auto-pen is used, i.e. if it is common practice to use it.The pen itself is stored in a small office where it is apparently locked and only two authorized public servants are able to use it, but the time limit interrupts the explanation of how it's use is put into practice.

There is some discussion about whether she misled the opposition through omission or commission, and Pat Martin raises and excellent point that she has "knee-capped" her senior officials, which is truly the case if she has taken the whole privilege of decision on herself. One would wonder why the requirements for funding should not be more strict, perhaps reducing these problems to an issue of "valid or not".

She closes by insisting that she has answered everything truthfully. She twiddles her fingers habitually.

Biggs from CIDA confirms at a question from Terence Young that the type of paper being discussed is often considered a memo for approval from the minister. He lobs her an easy question about what would happen if she approved every application- which no one really cares about, but this smells like a fillibuster. This idea was pretty well confirmed when someone raises a point of order that there is no time for additional questions with the time being taken up for conservative questions. Scott Armstrong follows the questions with some random flirting about how polite he is and how he plans on giving her ample time to answer - read, "Regurgitate the garbage you've been spewing". Bev Oda says her ministers are good but, "the buck stops here", indicating herself. You hear that, world? She is the DECIDER.
Armstrong: "Things are so hard for you, aren't they?"
Oda: "So hard!" *plaintive look*
She follows this up with the reasoning that there is no point to build a school in Haiti because it will just be destroyed anyway. I like when she later suggests that the government is made up of committees like a transformer.

Marcel Proulx says the chair is unfairly favoring the conservative. Preston seems to have been saved by the clock, since he was being pretty pointedly questioned about fairness, etc. Someone has objected that he was treating all the opposing parties like one big party, and I am inclined to agree with them. They gratefully break for an hour lunch.

Upon returning Mary Corkery, head of KAIROS, is being interviewed; Although I would rather if KAIROS was funded, no one cares that they have been funded in the past, or that they have a good relationship with CIDA. They have no obligation to fund them. It was a little heartless that KAIROS was informed over the phone that they were not being funded - they were cited that they did not meet CIDA priorities - but there are more gentile ways of breaking up with organizations.
KAIROS is made up of a gathering of smaller 'grassroots' organizations, but a minister wondered why the individual groups don't apply for funding; Mary's answer outlined that they are too small (lacking the administrative clout) to independently apply for funding. The committee noted how odd it was that they had only a few hours notice that they had been cut from funding, with no transition funding or such, but I am not sure if that is supposed to have higher ramifications or such.

A large amount of arguing about contempt and intention follows here, with the highlight being, in my opinion, that those who love and support parliament could never support diluting the word "contempt" with frivolous findings of such.
Pat Martin wonders if we should hold ministers to a higher level of truthfulness.
John McKay suggests that Bev Oda could have saved herself a lot of grief by holding herself to a higher standard and fully answering the questions, which just proves he hasn't read the rules of the game.

Harold Albrecht: received an apology from David McGuinty who was referencing Wikipedia for his information about Mr. Albrecht's relationships with members of churches.
Tom Lukiwski objects to yesterday's motion about the two page conclusion with no evidence. 

At the end they have carried the motion, a two-page draft report regarding the conclusion of the committee. Tommorrow shall see the decision about whether it will be made in camera or not, which if the report does not contain any evidence, as it is outlined to, will mean we, the people, get to open our mouths and shovel in whatever finding the committee horks up. 

PROC part 2

After some agressivly boring back and forth nattering ("You have to give us those!" "No we don't!" "Yes you do!"), the committee starts to heat up after lunch. The afternoon starts with a history lesson from professor Ned Franks who, in my opinion, is really the star of today's show, about the 8 previous cases of contempt in Canada, none of which involved cabinet members or the government itself, but this is kind of irrelevant fluff. The only part that I find myself disagreeing with the endearing Professor Franks is when he asserts that parliament should somehow 'constrain itself' by knowing which documents it can ask for or not. The notion itself seems ridiculous, but the alternative - the government saying what is too sensitive - is even more ludicrous. He reconfirms that the government does not have the right to say what it will and won't give the parliament.
To correct this problem from happening again, he suggests five points of reform, but when asked whether he thinks the government should be held in contempt or not he balks, saying it is for the committee to decide, but the best course of action is to prevent a similar problem from happening again.
The five (I didn't catch one) points being:
Parliament and government should work together to determine what is considered 'confidence' or not
All legislation should not pass first reading without a projected 5 year budget
Some official (that I didn't catch) should get their own interpretation of the finances
The House should undertake an inquiry into the House's ability to police papers
It is a pretty good assessment of how to prevent this from occurring again, and I respect his opinion, but I am not sure how quickly it could be instated.



Professor Franks believes that if parliament weighs a crime bill against an immigration program, cost must be considered; the house of commons must include a budget assessment at the second reading of any legislation, even considering the increased expected rate of expenses, which he feels an be accommodated for by skilled economists. When he outlines it so rationally, it makes me wonder why we have not included this idea before.

During the subsequent question period, it feels like the government is trying to undermine his authority by asking if he's written anything prior, but he asserts that he has dealt with similar circumstances before. The government continues on to say that just because papers are being hidden, doesn't mean they're anything bad, but the point is irrelevant; if I find my husband has a second bank account I don't care what it's for (Except for surprise vacations), I care that he's hiding things from me. The proceedings get bogged down at this point because the conservatives are really focusing on the dynamics of the budget estimates that would be attached to the second reading of every bill, which could be hashed out if and when the government ever decided to include them.
When asked what he, Ned Franks, thinks the government should do if the committee concludes the government is guilty, he replies: find them guilty, find them guilty and put them in jail, or just ignore it. He doesn't understand how, short of reading  all the submitted paperwork, the opposition can come to any conclusion, short of finding a way to ensure this doesn't happen again, a way to live with the government. The fact is, he says, that governments tends to keep information to themselves and this needs to be balanced by a higher power who can force them to be overseen and accountable.
McGuinty tries to act like the Liberals would be a happy, healthy, open government, but Franks functionally says, 'don't blow smoke up my ass, every government is the same - we should give parliament more power'. I really like him.

After dancing in and out of the room (camera, non-camera, camera)  for a bit, it seems a motion was put forth to make a draft that contains the conclusions of the committee in process, but with drafts not longer than two pages in both official languages. Everyone is losing their minds about it but I'm not sure why this is a big deal, or why the members think all Canadians should read it. It does require that no evidence be included in the draft, but it must still come to a specific conclusion, which is a waste of all those witnesses and scintillating debate. The motion is now to be distributed and they are adjorned. If you find yourself having trouble sleeping tonight, go grab a copy of the motion - it's not long, but it is boring.

PROC part 1

I'm just going to jot a quick update to hold this spot for when something exciting happens in the Government's contempt trial, which is scheduled to run for three days starting today, but with all the baying for conservative blood that has been happening, I won't be surprised if the proceedings grind to a halt after a day and a half when someone just goes for Harper's throat. Carpe Jugulum.

My initial thoughts, however? Bev Oda is not going to be held in contempt for her ridiculous bit of equivocation about the errant extraneous "NOT", but since the will fail in this arena, the committee may feel obligated to throw them a bone and hold the whole government in contempt for failure to disclose cost estimates for the tough-on-crime, fighter jets, and corporate tax cuts, which I personally feel we have a right to know. Even if they fail, which they are not expected to, a contempt court looks terrible on a party resume.

From the sound of it, the conservative strategy is to minimize and distract; Public Safety Minister Vic Toews apparently stated that the point of the committee was to discuss the cost of being 'tough-on-crime'. Close, Mr. Toews; but only in the same way that I get mad at my husband when I find lipstick on the collar of his shirt because I'm concerned about the stain. Then Justice Minister Rob Nicholson assured everyone present that some costs just couldn't be estimated, which is scary when it is coming form your kitchen contractor, and terrifying when it comes from your country contractor.  

Just for anyone keeping notes the total bill for the proposed changes, including the fighter jets, is $631 million. I think we might be getting low-balled. Where's the ref when we need him?

I feel so lucky to be present for this bit of preposterous-court history. If they are found guilty I am going to pretend to be a Liberal and rub this in Victor's face so hard...

The rest of the process runs thusly:
-Childish sniping about binder size and whether or not it matters (size does matter, but content matters more)
-It seems pretty conclusive that, despite the verbose nature of the binders they do not, in fact, provide the necessary information - there are threats about the government's fitness to withstand contempt.
-There is some debate as to whether the fighter jets were intended to be included in the budget or not.
-Apparently the two days process will not include any defense witnesses.
(Both these details are scuttled with the observation that  Laurie Hawn was intended to take the stand, and would be able to answer questions about the F-35's on the defense's behalf, but it is unclear whether he will attend or not.)
Finally everyone agrees how much of a bargain it is that this fun is apparently costing only $8900.
Can not wait to see what tomorrow brings.

Not a Drop to Drink

Back on March 8th of this year the government settled with a corporation, AbitibiBowater, to buy back its water permit, as though it was a complete asset, since the company was restructuring, closing the Ontario factory, and effectively moving  its focus further south to Delaware, where it was incorporated (their head office is in Montreal). It is on these grounds that it is claiming to be an American corporation and may therefore file a grievance under the NAFTA, since the government 'pushed through' a legislation that prohibited the company from taking the water permit with them. The original agreement with the mill from 1905 stipulated the permit was contingent on the company operating a factory in the province, and so when the company moved, the province seized the permits (water, timber, etc.)

The reason for the restructuring, closing, and all this hub-bub is a court-ordered directive to prevent the company filing for bankruptcy; the fall in the newspaper industry hit the company hard.  Therefore, I am inclined to be gentle on them, since they aren't just closing the factory to be dicks (like previous companies I have worked for) - they are doing what they need to survive and we set the society that values a corporation's survival over its employees (not that I'm bitter), we can't fault them for playing the game we built. When the Newfoundland government expropriated the permit, the company sought reimbursement.

The Newfoundland government denied them, but the company appealed the process and the government ruled that they were entitled to reimbursement for the lost permits to the tune of $130 million. Many Canadians are upset about this ruling, saying that it is setting a precedent for companies to regard natural resources as private firm's property, even petitioning the government to indicate their displeasure. Many people are pointing out that water in its natural state is exempt from the NAFTA, but that this ruling ignores that.  It has been suggested another reason for the payout is to maintain good will with the company, since they are also in a case in Northern Ontario, where the company is attempting to sell a few hydroelectric dams that supply cheap power to another factory (owned by AbitbiBowater as well), the closure of which would seriously hamper the local economy. The most hilarious part of this situation is where the government asks the company to "ensure the public interest is protected". The sheepherder will look after his flock's "interest" until it is no longer profitable to shear them, then the menu calls for mutton.

I  am not sure I agree with the public's assessment that this is damaging to Canada's control of its natural resources; the ruling is more contingent on the value of the permit, rather than the ownership of the water. Selling the permit back does not give the company the right to sell the permit (and certainly not the water) to anyone, or any company, other than the government from which it originated. To be honest, ensuring the water permit does not travel outside the country when permit-holding companies cease operations in Canada helps us keep our water closer to home; I would rather have less water permits in circulation than more.


On the other hand, if companies realize that the permit can be considered an asset that can be returned for its value at the end of the business transaction, it will encourage greater sales of permits, but also greater foreign business, so that might be a zero sum deal.

The final say is that this sets the precedent that we can no longer rescind permits without offering fair compensation for them - this could become a liability in cases where it is in the public interest to do so. To which I respond "Good". So our government will have to think harder before issuing permits to use our water and possibly leave it in a ruined state - I like that. Anything that keeps our water more under our control, or jacks up the price of permits, considering the higher risk of permit selling - is a good thing.

We'll revisit this issue on September 14th, when the board evaluating AbitbiBowater's financial fitness rules whether it is fiscally viable or not. If they rule otherwise, we're off the hook for the $130 million, so cross your fingers!

"People that are supposed to be counsellors"

Trigger warning for child abuse

Although I tend not to complain about court sentences, since I typically regard those involved as closer to the situation and able to better assess the whole dynamic (such as criminal's remorse, etc.) CBC has been covering a story lately that pissed me off intensely.

Jason Keough was found guilty of possessing child pornography, copying voyeuristic materials, and voyeurism early this January and sentencing is scheduled to occur on May 6th. Two aspects of this case caused me so much anger that I spat my cranberry juice all over my netbook.

How did Keough obtain the child pornography (Or child sex abuse material, as it is currently under review to be called)? Simple; he set up a camera, then recorded as underage children, who were apparently living with him, had sex in front of it. The court has ruled, however, that this is apparently not "making child pornography", despite the facts that: he was found guilty of possessing child pornography, the tapes were considered child porn, and he created the tapes. There were further cases where he coerced the underage kids to make the porn themselves, by threatening to put the girl into foster care. (Incidentally, perhaps we should look hard at a system of "helping kids" that is apparently so bad a girl would rather make porn than be part of it)

The other thing that bothers me is that the crown is seeking 15 to 18 months in prison, while the defense is asking for a 45 day sentence. Take a look at those numbers. This man exploited children, three young couples, repeatedly, over three years, while being in a position of authority as a child care worker, for his own base gratification, has been described as showing no remorse, and the courts believe a year and a bit will 'fix' him. It is my informal assessment that this man is a pedophile, that his voyeuristic taping could be considered "child molesting" and that this man should be scheduled for either intensive therapy or a needle. I hope his sentence includes a ban from pornography and video cameras, and registry on Canada's sex offender list. 

It is ridiculous to me that such blatant abuse as voyeurism is not classified as sexual abuse. This case makes me sick.