1017 as of 3:20 pm this afternoon.
There have been 1017 people killed by another person with a gun, in the US since the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings. That's 1017 lives ended by a firearm, in a month and four days. Let that sink in for a minute. One thousand, seventeen dead people, who but for the easy access to a firearm, may be alive today. One thousand, seventeen people killed in gun-violence in 35 days - in one country. Divide 365/35 and then multiply by 1017 and you get a projection of 10,605 gun-deaths in the US this year.
By comparison, England and Wales had 39 gun-deaths in two years in 2008/2009.
You see there was a spate (actually two) mass shootings in England in the early 2000's and the UK response was to simply ban the private ownership of handguns, semi-automatic rifles, and automatic weapons of any kind. Any NRA gun-nut who tells you "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and that without guns, people will find other ways to kill people are completely out of touch. The takeaway message from the UK is crystal clear. Take away the guns and fewer people will die due to person-on-person violence. Period. There is no intelligent (or semi-intelligent) rebuttal to this fact. No guns = fewer violent deaths.
Ahh, says the NRA and the paranoid-tea-party-gun nuts, we have a constitutional right to bear arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Have you ever read the second amendment? It does not say you can have any gun you want, for any reason you want to have it. In fact, it doesn't really say that anybody in the States has the right to have a gun, under any circumstances.
Here's what it says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Most pro-gun-advocates gloss over the first 1/2 of that statement in the original wording of the amendment. The part about "A well regulated militia" is grossly underestimated.
Jim-Bob in his safehouse/barn/basement/armoury/delusional-state is not "A well regulated militia." He's a guy with a bunch of guns. That's it. This is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote "A well- regulated militia": The term militia (pron.: /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] or irregular army, is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as an army composed of ordinary citizens[2]rather than professional soldiers or the whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service to call for service in times of emergency.
The people whose right "to keep and bear arms", are the people who would be expected to be called upon for service in times of a state or national emergency. However, we live in different times now. It's not 1776 any more. The second amendment has itself been amended by the supreme court of the US to include wording that allows for the lawful possession of a firearm for legitimate purposes; such as home-defence. The individual states have expanded that definition to allow for the argument that people need things like Barrett .50 calibre sniper rifles "for home defence", or "hunting". This is a rifle that fires a bullet the size of your thumb, through a concrete block.
Furthermore, the "well regulated militias" themselves have morphed into groups like the Connecticut 51st Militia or the Illinois Sons of Liberty whose stated goals seem to be related to the idea that the Federal government is coming to get them and take away their freedom; their freedom being the right to stockpile as many firearms as humanly possible. These aren't the only militia groups out there, convinced that "The State" is planning a campaign of tyranny against them. Here's a list of group who feel that the US government has absolutely nothing better to do, than invade them and take away their oddly-perverted view of "freedom".
It's these groups and their followers, the NRA, and the unaffiliated so-called Patriots, that are preventing the US from having an actual adult conversation about guns and gun violence. See, they just don't care about the 10,000 or so annual gun deaths in America. To these people and groups, it's more important to adhere blindly to a 237 idea that the citizens should be protecting their country and to do that, they have the right to own a gun.
Guess what, in 237 years, the US has managed to create the most powerful armed forces on the planet. They don't need militia groups to help protect the State. Addressing the other issue, if the American government really did want to overturn American freedoms and values, do these militia groups really think they can stand up to a military that has tanks, fighter planes, the largest navy in the world etc...? Really?
I think it's safe to say that the American way of life is secure. They are free to go on watching inordinate amounts of TV, free to eat all the processed food they can cram into their statistically unhealthy bodies, frack all the natural gas from the aquifers, and consume all the consumer goods they can (and can't) afford. The government isn't going to get in the way of any of that. They can continue to drive more cars per capita than anybody else on the planet, travel to whatever county will let them enter, and troll the internet looking for pictures of cats doing funny things.
All the rest of the world wants, is for them to stop killing each other. We don't hate you America. If we did, we wouldn't hound you incessantly to rethink your antiquated gun laws. This is a plea from your concerned global community. Most of the rest of us have managed to get beyond the need to own and shoot guns at each other (at least domestically; we apparently have little trouble shooting people in other countries), and we want the same for you and your kids.
Have the discussion now. Asking you to give up guns that fire bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger, or to give up guns that can be hidden in a coat pocket, is not a sign that your freedom is under threat. Rather, it's a sign that the world thinks you are still too young to have the responsibility that your founding fathers gave you, those 237 years ago. You can't be trusted not to use your easily accessed, easily hidden firearms against each other, much like an alcoholic can't be trusted not to drink and drive. So, why not give up the most problematic guns? Call it FA, Firearms Anonymous. I'm sure the rest of us would help you write a 12 step program. The first step as always, is admitting you have a problem.
As of today there are already 1017 clues, that you have a problem to admit.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Friday, December 14, 2012
Killing In The Name Of... the second amendment?
That's it. I'm officially fed up with guns, the gun lobby, gun toting freaks that claim "the right to bear arms"... all of you. How can you claim the need for guns in urban society in the face of this? There are 18 dead kids and 7 dead adults at an elementary school in Connecticut. And, just like all the other dead kids in movie theatres, on remote islands in Norway, at American schools and universities, and on Toronto buses, they were killed with guns
.
The NRA, Sean Hannity, Fox News, Ted Nugent, Stephen Harper (and the entire Conservative Party) can all go screw themselves. If I hear one word about how "guns don't kill people, people kill people" I'm going to scream. You know who kills large numbers of people with ease and efficiency in this day and age? People with GUNS!
With the tragedy in Connecticut there have now been 31 school shootings in the US that have happened since Columbine. There are those who are already making the argument that these shootings are not gun-control issues. They are mental-health issues. Yes, they are. However a mentally-ill person with easy access to a firearm is a lot more dangerous to a school full of kids than an mentally-ill person without a gun.
Mental illness is one of the most pressing community-health issues we have in North America and we should be focussing more resources on it than we are. But to blame mental-health issues for these killings is only giving weight to 1/2 the problem. There is no way a mentally-ill - or any other person - would be able to kill 27 people, in one go, with a knife or a sword or a machete. They would not be able to strangle 27 people in short order.
Conservative pundit (and all around, small minded, cretinous troll) Matt Drudge tweeted today that 22 students had been slashed in China, in a classroom attack; as if to say "see people don't need guns to commit violent crime against kids". *Sigh. Yes Matt Drudge, people commit violent crime with other weapons. However, you will note that the children in the slashing attacks were not killed and the attacker was apprehended. The difference in the attacks is the gun, and the culture that glorifies easy access to guns and romanticizes gun violence.
The other argument I'll address, just to get it out of the way is this: "If there was an armed person in the school, fewer people would have been killed." First of all, suggesting that teachers, principals and janitors patrol the school with side arms, is beyond ridiculous. Secondly, let's assume that the armed staff member wasn't one of the people killed outright. Nobody outside of a soldier or police officer trained in stressful shooting situations, is going to pop up from behind a desk or from around a door frame, and get the shooter with one shot - just like the movies. More likely fear will take over - as it should - and they will run for cover with the rest of the masses. Or, more tragically, they'll stay to fight it out with the shooter and more people will die from poorly aimed, frantic shots. An armed society is not a safe society.
I'm now beyond wanting the gun registry reinstated. I just want them banned for the majority of the population. I think, and I've posted this in other places in the past, that if you want a gun, you should have to prove that you need a gun.
Do you live in the city and never venture into the woods to go hunting? You don't need a gun. You don't get one.
Does your job require you to carry a gun? ie/ Police, private security, conservation officer, prison guard, soldier? No? Then you don't need a gun. You don't get one.
Are you a competitive shooter that can leave the gun in a secure location like a gun safe at a range? No? You don't need a gun. You don't get one.
Now, please keep in mind that I'm writing this from a Canadian point of view. We do not have a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms. Did you get that Canada? This is not the USA. You have no guaranteed freedoms when it comes to keeping a firearm. In this country, that's not a valid argument.
Canada is country that - in the words of Will Fergusson - "was partied into existence . We have no tradition of using gun violence to settle out problems. We didn't secede from the British in a bloody confrontation. We haven't had our northern brothers fighting their southern brothers. Canada was created at a cocktail party in Charlottetown, PEI in July 1867. Canada was a behind-the-scenes deal, brokered over martinis.
If you have a problem with the idea of a gun registry - and I don't mean the cost because that's a whole other topic - ask yourself this question: "If I have to register my car, an object that while deadly, isn't designed to kill people, then why shouldn't I have to register my gun, which is specifically designed to kill people?"
I'm angry today. Angry and sad, and feeling like I want to wrap a big blanket around my own school-age kids and keep them indoors. I won't of course. Kids need to be free to run and play. They also have the right to live violence-free, and unencumbered by the threats of the modern world. Guns don't alleviate those threats. It has been shown time and time again that guns exacerbate them.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Opting Out
This is one time where the disclaimer at the top of the post is of critical importance. Please read this and understand that:
I am not taking sides on this issue of whether or not people should attend Remembrance Day ceremonies. Nor am I advocating that one should or should not attend Remembrance Day Ceremonies. Quite frankly, I feel that this is a personal decision - akin to decisions about religion and politics - that is best left to the individual. I am merely providing some context and some extra food for thought about the issue of opting-out of Remembrance Day.
One of the great things about living in Canada is that as long as we are not promoting hatred toward a group of people, we are free to believe what we want, say what we want and, within the bounds of the law, do what we want to do. Nobody in Canada whether it is a private citizen or the government can force you accept people from the LGBT community, to be fully accepting of people of colour, to choose one religion, or force you to be an unbeliever. Looking at it from the other side of the coin, nobody can stop you from embracing the LGBT community, people of colour, the religious or the atheists. While you cannot promote hate-speech or violence toward any of those groups, you are free to believe what you want to believe.
Me, I'm the accepting guy. I feel that our community is at it's best when we all live, work, play and contribute to social good, together. And not this is not regardless of our background, beliefs, culture-differences, sexual orientation, or political leanings, but because of those things that make us unique. I'd much rather have the most culturally-diverse, richly-textured, and nuanced community I could possibly create, than a boring existence of beige sameness and cultural porridge.
It can be argued - and it traditionally is - that we enjoy these freedoms because of the men and women who fought the wars so that you and I don't have to. It could also be argued that European wars and eastern Pacific wars, may have had little effect on us here on island North America, regardless of who won. North America is vast and the idea that a small foreign nation could - in the days before electronic mass media - take away our core freedoms seems pretty far-fetched. Put another way, did we have to send our people to fight and die in a foreign land?
Whatever you believe, the uproar around Edmonton Schools allowing their students to opt out of Remembrance Day ceremonies is certainly boiling over. Unfortunately, the rhetoric coming from the traditionalists is trending toward familiar xenophobic and intolerant tones. Comments have appeared on Facebook, on Twitter and in letters to the Editors of various papers, exhorting new comers to Canada to go home if they don't like the way we do things and that "It's OUR country..." so you'd better do what we do and say. Many comments are also full of the ultra-nationalistic, jingoistic themes that drag us into conflict in the first place. Unfortunately these short-sighted views don't reflect the reality of an diverse and fluid culture that is constantly shifting and trying to create a shared-values system.
Here's a few illustrations to show how that thinking can fall short:
If a pacifist family feels that their children shouldn't participate in an event that, to them, celebrates violence, then they should be free to opt out. You might not like it but you absolutely cannot call them unpatriotic or bully them because they are putting action to their belief system. This is analogous to a Jewish person demanding that Christians keep Shabbos from Friday evening to Saturday evening. Traditional Christians would be outraged to find that their beliefs were being suborned to those of another group. So it is with pacifists. One cannot denigrate them for practicing their beliefs; especially when that practice causes no harm to anybody. Allowing a pacifist family to opt out of Remembrance Day so that they can keep their beliefs intact must be reasonable; right?
What of a family of Japanese or German immigrants? Surely allowing people from the "losing side" or the "wrong side of history", to opt out would be reasonable. After all, it wasn't their families who fought and died for Canadian freedom. In fact, there's a better than average chance that someone in their family died, due to the actions of someone from "our" community.
What of a Yugoslavian family, refugees to Canada because their village was torn apart by bombs dropped from Canadian attack planes? Are they supposed to take off their hats and give thanks to the veterans who drove them from their homes?
I'll address the counter argument that says "if it weren't for our veterans, those immigrants wouldn't have this safe place to come to." Perhaps, depending on your feelings about the potential impacts of either losing or ignoring the two World Wars when they happened, and on your thoughts about whether we should have been involved in the modern conflicts, at all. But if someone puts a gun to your head, demands your money and then gives you your wallet back it's going to take a while before you feel gratitude to that person for allowing you to live. In a broader sense, that's what's at play for the refugees from war-torn countries, where we helped to create the problem. Canadian (under NATO) jets bombed the hell out of Bosnia Herzegovina and displaced hundreds of thousands of people. I think it's a little absurd to expect that those same people should give thanks to the veterans who displaced them.
Please don't misunderstand my motives here. I'm as grateful as the next person to our veterans. I have pictures in a trunk of my Step-Grandfather in uniform, heading to the trenches of WW1. I grew up with him often drifting away in his mind, to a place that clearly disturbed him and from which he probably never fully mentally recovered. The impact of witnessing that mental trauma made a huge impact on me as a child and I've never underestimated what he gave up in order to serve his country and his fellow Canadians.
I am not saying either way, that people should or should not support Remembrance Day. I am saying that it's not for a group of super-patriots to decide what is right or wrong for people to believe.
My family marks Remembrance by wearing poppies, talking about peace and having the kids attend and participate in the schools' Remembrance Day ceremonies. Would I allow them to opt-out? Probably not; because I think the lessons about avoiding conflict and finding peaceful solutions to problems are important lessons to learn. The schools have actively included these themes into their Remembrance Day curricula.
However I for one don't believe that anybody should be forced to participate in something they don't believe in. Period. Case in point. A few years ago our elementary school wanted the kids to wear red shirts on the last Friday of the month to honour the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. When my son (then in Grade 3) said that he didn't want to participate in red shirt days because he didn't believe in war, we supported that decision. We didn't announce it publicly, but we did give him the vocabulary to justify the action that he took, should he get questioned. You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it. I should point out that if he had wanted to wear a red shirt, we would have supported that decision as well.
I posted a quick note on Twitter today that said. "One of the hard parts of freedom, is accepting that people may not use it the way you want them to." One of the downsides of freedom is that you have to accept that not everybody thinks the way you do and not everybody believes the way you do; and that it's a good thing for society to work like that.
American conservatives might not like it that people burn a flag that soldiers fight and die for, but that's too damn bad. Flag burners have the right to burn the flag because people fight and die for the freedom of expression. Likewise in Canada, if you believe that soldiers went to war around the world so that you and your family can live free, then you have to accept that some people will display that freedom in a manner that you don't support. That includes opting out of the ceremonies that honour veterans. You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. But if you truly value all our freedoms, then you have to accept it. The knife in this case, cuts both ways. It's ironic, but accepting all that a truly free society allows for is difficult. It takes work, thought, openness, and understanding. Demanding that people bend to your version of freedom and not allowing them to give voice and/or action to their beliefs, diminishes the core values of the entire concept of freedom.
So go into this Remembrance Day knowing that you are doing what you believe to be the right thing to honour and respect veterans. But keep in mind that a truly free society has no right to force that belief and that action on those who for whatever reason, cannot support it.
I am not taking sides on this issue of whether or not people should attend Remembrance Day ceremonies. Nor am I advocating that one should or should not attend Remembrance Day Ceremonies. Quite frankly, I feel that this is a personal decision - akin to decisions about religion and politics - that is best left to the individual. I am merely providing some context and some extra food for thought about the issue of opting-out of Remembrance Day.
One of the great things about living in Canada is that as long as we are not promoting hatred toward a group of people, we are free to believe what we want, say what we want and, within the bounds of the law, do what we want to do. Nobody in Canada whether it is a private citizen or the government can force you accept people from the LGBT community, to be fully accepting of people of colour, to choose one religion, or force you to be an unbeliever. Looking at it from the other side of the coin, nobody can stop you from embracing the LGBT community, people of colour, the religious or the atheists. While you cannot promote hate-speech or violence toward any of those groups, you are free to believe what you want to believe.
Me, I'm the accepting guy. I feel that our community is at it's best when we all live, work, play and contribute to social good, together. And not this is not regardless of our background, beliefs, culture-differences, sexual orientation, or political leanings, but because of those things that make us unique. I'd much rather have the most culturally-diverse, richly-textured, and nuanced community I could possibly create, than a boring existence of beige sameness and cultural porridge.
It can be argued - and it traditionally is - that we enjoy these freedoms because of the men and women who fought the wars so that you and I don't have to. It could also be argued that European wars and eastern Pacific wars, may have had little effect on us here on island North America, regardless of who won. North America is vast and the idea that a small foreign nation could - in the days before electronic mass media - take away our core freedoms seems pretty far-fetched. Put another way, did we have to send our people to fight and die in a foreign land?
Whatever you believe, the uproar around Edmonton Schools allowing their students to opt out of Remembrance Day ceremonies is certainly boiling over. Unfortunately, the rhetoric coming from the traditionalists is trending toward familiar xenophobic and intolerant tones. Comments have appeared on Facebook, on Twitter and in letters to the Editors of various papers, exhorting new comers to Canada to go home if they don't like the way we do things and that "It's OUR country..." so you'd better do what we do and say. Many comments are also full of the ultra-nationalistic, jingoistic themes that drag us into conflict in the first place. Unfortunately these short-sighted views don't reflect the reality of an diverse and fluid culture that is constantly shifting and trying to create a shared-values system.
Here's a few illustrations to show how that thinking can fall short:
If a pacifist family feels that their children shouldn't participate in an event that, to them, celebrates violence, then they should be free to opt out. You might not like it but you absolutely cannot call them unpatriotic or bully them because they are putting action to their belief system. This is analogous to a Jewish person demanding that Christians keep Shabbos from Friday evening to Saturday evening. Traditional Christians would be outraged to find that their beliefs were being suborned to those of another group. So it is with pacifists. One cannot denigrate them for practicing their beliefs; especially when that practice causes no harm to anybody. Allowing a pacifist family to opt out of Remembrance Day so that they can keep their beliefs intact must be reasonable; right?
What of a family of Japanese or German immigrants? Surely allowing people from the "losing side" or the "wrong side of history", to opt out would be reasonable. After all, it wasn't their families who fought and died for Canadian freedom. In fact, there's a better than average chance that someone in their family died, due to the actions of someone from "our" community.
What of a Yugoslavian family, refugees to Canada because their village was torn apart by bombs dropped from Canadian attack planes? Are they supposed to take off their hats and give thanks to the veterans who drove them from their homes?
I'll address the counter argument that says "if it weren't for our veterans, those immigrants wouldn't have this safe place to come to." Perhaps, depending on your feelings about the potential impacts of either losing or ignoring the two World Wars when they happened, and on your thoughts about whether we should have been involved in the modern conflicts, at all. But if someone puts a gun to your head, demands your money and then gives you your wallet back it's going to take a while before you feel gratitude to that person for allowing you to live. In a broader sense, that's what's at play for the refugees from war-torn countries, where we helped to create the problem. Canadian (under NATO) jets bombed the hell out of Bosnia Herzegovina and displaced hundreds of thousands of people. I think it's a little absurd to expect that those same people should give thanks to the veterans who displaced them.
Please don't misunderstand my motives here. I'm as grateful as the next person to our veterans. I have pictures in a trunk of my Step-Grandfather in uniform, heading to the trenches of WW1. I grew up with him often drifting away in his mind, to a place that clearly disturbed him and from which he probably never fully mentally recovered. The impact of witnessing that mental trauma made a huge impact on me as a child and I've never underestimated what he gave up in order to serve his country and his fellow Canadians.
I am not saying either way, that people should or should not support Remembrance Day. I am saying that it's not for a group of super-patriots to decide what is right or wrong for people to believe.
My family marks Remembrance by wearing poppies, talking about peace and having the kids attend and participate in the schools' Remembrance Day ceremonies. Would I allow them to opt-out? Probably not; because I think the lessons about avoiding conflict and finding peaceful solutions to problems are important lessons to learn. The schools have actively included these themes into their Remembrance Day curricula.
However I for one don't believe that anybody should be forced to participate in something they don't believe in. Period. Case in point. A few years ago our elementary school wanted the kids to wear red shirts on the last Friday of the month to honour the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. When my son (then in Grade 3) said that he didn't want to participate in red shirt days because he didn't believe in war, we supported that decision. We didn't announce it publicly, but we did give him the vocabulary to justify the action that he took, should he get questioned. You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it. I should point out that if he had wanted to wear a red shirt, we would have supported that decision as well.
I posted a quick note on Twitter today that said. "One of the hard parts of freedom, is accepting that people may not use it the way you want them to." One of the downsides of freedom is that you have to accept that not everybody thinks the way you do and not everybody believes the way you do; and that it's a good thing for society to work like that.
American conservatives might not like it that people burn a flag that soldiers fight and die for, but that's too damn bad. Flag burners have the right to burn the flag because people fight and die for the freedom of expression. Likewise in Canada, if you believe that soldiers went to war around the world so that you and your family can live free, then you have to accept that some people will display that freedom in a manner that you don't support. That includes opting out of the ceremonies that honour veterans. You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. But if you truly value all our freedoms, then you have to accept it. The knife in this case, cuts both ways. It's ironic, but accepting all that a truly free society allows for is difficult. It takes work, thought, openness, and understanding. Demanding that people bend to your version of freedom and not allowing them to give voice and/or action to their beliefs, diminishes the core values of the entire concept of freedom.
So go into this Remembrance Day knowing that you are doing what you believe to be the right thing to honour and respect veterans. But keep in mind that a truly free society has no right to force that belief and that action on those who for whatever reason, cannot support it.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Snow. Hell Yeah
Full Disclosure: As usual my views are my own. Year-round cyclist, winter-lover, and one who likes re-orienting your personal windmill-tilting.
Let's get this party started.
If I hear one more person whine and complain about how much better snow removal is in Montreal or Toronto, or Ottawa or Winnipeg, or wherever you may have lived before that had great snow removal, I'm going to lose my freaking mind. Get over it, or get your priorities in order and decide what it is you want to complain about.
I'll lay bets that the same people complaining about snow removal are the same ones who forced the City to amend the bike lane trial prior to the end of the pilot period. But I digress...
The issue here today is the continual whining about snow removal and how hard you feel your life is because the City hasn't cleared every damn flake from your side street within a nanosecond of the snow leaving the clouds above. People just don't seem to understand that if the City spends more on snow removal, your taxes will have to go up, or you'll have to do with reduced service in some other area. Why is this the case?
Here's why: There are only 92,000 of us living in what is becoming a sprawling, sub-urban, residential warren of vinyl siding and big lots. We take up a lot of space. The math is frighteningly easy to comprehend:
Let's get this party started.
If I hear one more person whine and complain about how much better snow removal is in Montreal or Toronto, or Ottawa or Winnipeg, or wherever you may have lived before that had great snow removal, I'm going to lose my freaking mind. Get over it, or get your priorities in order and decide what it is you want to complain about.
I'll lay bets that the same people complaining about snow removal are the same ones who forced the City to amend the bike lane trial prior to the end of the pilot period. But I digress...
The issue here today is the continual whining about snow removal and how hard you feel your life is because the City hasn't cleared every damn flake from your side street within a nanosecond of the snow leaving the clouds above. People just don't seem to understand that if the City spends more on snow removal, your taxes will have to go up, or you'll have to do with reduced service in some other area. Why is this the case?
Here's why: There are only 92,000 of us living in what is becoming a sprawling, sub-urban, residential warren of vinyl siding and big lots. We take up a lot of space. The math is frighteningly easy to comprehend:
(Few people + lots of space + snow) / shared cost of removal = the speed at which snow is removed
There are only three ways to speed up snow removal in a city like Red Deer.
1. Pay more - but you don't want to do that
2. Take up less space by living more densely - you don't want to that either
3. Embrace climate change and wait for the end of snow - this one depends on how you feel about climate change.
There is no fourth option. The reason that Montreal has a great snow removal system is that there are 1.8 Million people there. The population density is 2205/km2. That's a lot of people who don't take up a lot of real-estate. There are fewer kilometres/person requiring snow removal. By comparison, Red Deer has a population density of 868 people/km2. Montreal is 2.5 times more densely populated than Red Deer. They have more people to pay for proportionally less space, from which snow needs to be removed.
So, complain about snow removal if you want. Maybe you'll even make it more efficient. However, don't complain when your 2013 tax increase is directly tied to a line-item in the budget for snow clearing.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Revealing Cowardice
Everyday people in the public eye put their opinions, decisions and actions on view for everybody to see. The things our elected officials and senior bureaucrats say, and do within the scope of their work, are a matter of public record. That's a given; a black and white reality of the life of someone working for the public good, on the public's dollar.
Less black and white, is the conduct of those elected officials and senior bureaucrats when they are not engaged in official duties. What they do and say on their own time is their own business. However, as we've seen locally in recent weeks and over the past 50 years with the rise of broadcast and new media, the public has a funny way of deciding what is and isn't their business.
Ask someone working on the public dollar and they'll tell you, nearly everything in their private and public lives is open for debate and discussion. The level of bravery required to put oneself in that position is incredible. To know that with every decision you make somebody is going to cry foul, call you names, question your intelligence, and question your morals; and to still put oneself out there, is an act of selflessness.
In order to ensure that there are checks and balances on governing bodies, there needs to be an effective critical social voice. That voice should include media professionals, opposition (or pseudo opposition) political critics, and an emboldened citizenry. Now, when a critic from any of those spheres writes a letter to the editor, pens a column, writes a blog, posts a critique on facebook (or other social media) they often do so under their own names. It's a requirement for columns and letters to include your real name, and really it's just honest and decent to do so on your blog or through your on-line missives. Why? Because it shows that you are willing to engage in open debate in the public forum, and that you are willing to stand behind your statements. You are essentially treating the person you are critiquing with a basic level of respect.
So what then do we make of anonymous bloggers who have nothing positive to add to the public debate? How then do we treat people who won't stand behind their statements, by posting their thoughts under their real name? Before answering that, I want to examine what would posses someone to make critiques from inside a virtual ghillie suit.
What can be the motivation for putting on a virtual mask, jumping up and down in the on-line world, and making a whole lot of noise?
I figure there are two reasons for making anonymous, on-line attacks on public officials:
Whatever the motivation, either cowardice or the need to hide under a protective shield of tinfoil, anonymous critics do need to be addressed. This is not to give them their due nor to give any credence to their arguments. Rather, we need to call out anonymous critics and make them accountable for their statements because their statements have a ripple effect. For example, if a person has an opinion about a piece of potentially contentious, public policy they have every right to voice that opinion. By placing their name to that opinion, they are forced to carefully choose their words and to temper their outrage. This creates a more balanced and reasoned discourse. Conversely the anonymous post is less likely to be subject to that tempering. The writer can hide behind the mask of anonymity and feel secure that any backlash will safely pass him/her by. The resulting ripples include an inflated sense of public outrage, and as we saw during the bike lanes "discussions", the devolution of the discourse into name-calling, threats and the potential for violence.
When an anonymous critic calls out a Councillor by name, and not only makes a poor argument against the ideas of that Councillor, but insists on calling into question that Councillor's reputation and intelligence, then the critic must be able to face a rebuttal from his accused. It's how public discourse works.
In the country of Burma the government's most outspoken critic (hell the most well-known political critic in the world) never hid behind a pseudonym or simple anonymity. Aung San Suu Kyi faced the threat of torture, execution and threats to her family members for openly critiquing the military junta in Burma. She was violently attacked in 1996 and spent 15 of the past 21 years under house arrest. And yet she has never wavered and never hidden from those she was criticizing.
Call him a lunatic if you want, but Paul Watson has driven his little Zodiac - and later his large ships - in front of Japanese whaling ships. He has given press conferences to rail against nuclear testing, chained himself to bridges, to nuclear power plants, and to old growth trees; and engaged in myriad other international acts of protest and critique - never once hiding his identity.
Here in Red Deer we see letters to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate, daily, calling for political change, public action or questioning the decisions of council. They all have a real name attributed to them. Even someone I disagree with, Ryan Handley, had the decency and the respect for public discourse to publish his comments and his anti-bike-lane petition under his own name.
Also here in Red Deer, Bill Berry, the gentleman assaulted by the RCMP, has been very outspoken with his criticism and call for action; under his own name. Bill is contributing to the public discourse, be calling for action on a very difficult-to-understand scenario, and he's doing it in his own name. To be the victim of an assault by the authorities and then to stand up publicly and vocally demand action takes courage.
All of these people - including the ones we disagree with - deserve our respect, our time and our reasoned response. They deserve it because they have the courage to stand behind their words and actions, under their own names.
Back to my original questions: "So what then do we make of anonymous bloggers who have nothing positive to add to the public debate? How then do we treat people who won't stand behind their statements by posting their thoughts under their real name?"
Well as I see it we have two options. We can ignore them for the conspiracy theorist and/or coward that they are or we can publicly call them out and demand they reveal their identity. Either way, the level of respect currently being shown to both Council and to you and me - the citizenry - by anonymous bloggers, under the guise of representing the opinion of "the average joe" in this city is repugnant, and needs to come to an end. Either ignoring anonymous critics or insisting they show a basic level of respect for the rest of us by revealing their identities, will take the wind out of their sails.
Now I know that some people will be crying foul over this, saying that there is a great tradition of anonymity in public discourse. They are of course, correct. Without anonymous sources we wouldn't have had the revelations of Nixon's malfeasance, the wikileaks-released video footage of US Army helicopter pilots shooting civilians in Iraq, or the myriad other instances of stories attributed to "an un-named source". The responsibility of protecting a source is a right that journalists have long invoked as a necessary defence of free speech.
Let's be crystal clear here. When a journalist quotes a source they are doing so because the source has information that the journalist could not otherwise access. When the source asks for anonymity, they do so because they fear for their jobs, their personal safety or the safety of family. When dealing with large government cover-up or massive corporate wrongdoings, these may be valid concerns.
However, and this is the critical "however", the journalist writing the story, offering opinion and making conclusions based on the testimony of the source, always publishes under their own name. Julian Assange, Woodward and Bernstein, Jill Abramson, and the rest of the legitimate media - hell even the idiocracy at Fox News - all publish and broadcast under their own names; sometimes at their peril.
Journalists are not protected by whistleblower legislation - because they themselves are not the whistleblowers - nor are they afforded any personal or professional protection outside of the guarantees of free speech - as a result of simply doing their jobs.
So, local anonymous critics, bent on creating public discord, you don't get to cut it both ways. If you are portraying yourselves as pseudo-journalists - and there is ample evidence for this, including court cases in the States where first amendment challenges to bloggers have been supported by traditional media - then you are bound by decency to publish under your own names. You might take heat, or get called names, or perish the thought, someone might think poorly of you. Well guess what? That's too damn bad. Every time you call out a Council member or denigrate an opinion, or sew the seeds of public discord - such as during the bike lane discussions - you aren't acting as a source, you're acting as a journalist and anonymity is not guaranteed.
It's just cowardly.
Todd Nivens
Less black and white, is the conduct of those elected officials and senior bureaucrats when they are not engaged in official duties. What they do and say on their own time is their own business. However, as we've seen locally in recent weeks and over the past 50 years with the rise of broadcast and new media, the public has a funny way of deciding what is and isn't their business.
Ask someone working on the public dollar and they'll tell you, nearly everything in their private and public lives is open for debate and discussion. The level of bravery required to put oneself in that position is incredible. To know that with every decision you make somebody is going to cry foul, call you names, question your intelligence, and question your morals; and to still put oneself out there, is an act of selflessness.
In order to ensure that there are checks and balances on governing bodies, there needs to be an effective critical social voice. That voice should include media professionals, opposition (or pseudo opposition) political critics, and an emboldened citizenry. Now, when a critic from any of those spheres writes a letter to the editor, pens a column, writes a blog, posts a critique on facebook (or other social media) they often do so under their own names. It's a requirement for columns and letters to include your real name, and really it's just honest and decent to do so on your blog or through your on-line missives. Why? Because it shows that you are willing to engage in open debate in the public forum, and that you are willing to stand behind your statements. You are essentially treating the person you are critiquing with a basic level of respect.
So what then do we make of anonymous bloggers who have nothing positive to add to the public debate? How then do we treat people who won't stand behind their statements, by posting their thoughts under their real name? Before answering that, I want to examine what would posses someone to make critiques from inside a virtual ghillie suit.
What can be the motivation for putting on a virtual mask, jumping up and down in the on-line world, and making a whole lot of noise?
I figure there are two reasons for making anonymous, on-line attacks on public officials:
- Cowardice. You're just a big, scaredy-cat chicken. Sure it's an immature counter-point but I don't know how to put it any more bluntly. Whether you're protecting your job, your reputation or you're just afraid of people finding out who you are, the act of posting critique from behind an anonymous screen isn't an act of public service; it's the act of coward.
- Conspiracy. Perhaps you think that somehow, if you post under your real name that "The Man" will be out to get you. Maybe your property taxes will go up - but just yours. Maybe all the traffic lights will mysteriously turn red when you get to them - but just in your lane. Maybe the By-law officer will fine you for parking 11 minutes in a 10-minute zone - but just you. Let's be clear here, City governments don't work like that. The governing body has way too many pressing issues to deal with to be distracted by "getting even" with a critic.
Whatever the motivation, either cowardice or the need to hide under a protective shield of tinfoil, anonymous critics do need to be addressed. This is not to give them their due nor to give any credence to their arguments. Rather, we need to call out anonymous critics and make them accountable for their statements because their statements have a ripple effect. For example, if a person has an opinion about a piece of potentially contentious, public policy they have every right to voice that opinion. By placing their name to that opinion, they are forced to carefully choose their words and to temper their outrage. This creates a more balanced and reasoned discourse. Conversely the anonymous post is less likely to be subject to that tempering. The writer can hide behind the mask of anonymity and feel secure that any backlash will safely pass him/her by. The resulting ripples include an inflated sense of public outrage, and as we saw during the bike lanes "discussions", the devolution of the discourse into name-calling, threats and the potential for violence.
When an anonymous critic calls out a Councillor by name, and not only makes a poor argument against the ideas of that Councillor, but insists on calling into question that Councillor's reputation and intelligence, then the critic must be able to face a rebuttal from his accused. It's how public discourse works.
In the country of Burma the government's most outspoken critic (hell the most well-known political critic in the world) never hid behind a pseudonym or simple anonymity. Aung San Suu Kyi faced the threat of torture, execution and threats to her family members for openly critiquing the military junta in Burma. She was violently attacked in 1996 and spent 15 of the past 21 years under house arrest. And yet she has never wavered and never hidden from those she was criticizing.
Call him a lunatic if you want, but Paul Watson has driven his little Zodiac - and later his large ships - in front of Japanese whaling ships. He has given press conferences to rail against nuclear testing, chained himself to bridges, to nuclear power plants, and to old growth trees; and engaged in myriad other international acts of protest and critique - never once hiding his identity.
Here in Red Deer we see letters to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate, daily, calling for political change, public action or questioning the decisions of council. They all have a real name attributed to them. Even someone I disagree with, Ryan Handley, had the decency and the respect for public discourse to publish his comments and his anti-bike-lane petition under his own name.
Also here in Red Deer, Bill Berry, the gentleman assaulted by the RCMP, has been very outspoken with his criticism and call for action; under his own name. Bill is contributing to the public discourse, be calling for action on a very difficult-to-understand scenario, and he's doing it in his own name. To be the victim of an assault by the authorities and then to stand up publicly and vocally demand action takes courage.
All of these people - including the ones we disagree with - deserve our respect, our time and our reasoned response. They deserve it because they have the courage to stand behind their words and actions, under their own names.
Back to my original questions: "So what then do we make of anonymous bloggers who have nothing positive to add to the public debate? How then do we treat people who won't stand behind their statements by posting their thoughts under their real name?"
Well as I see it we have two options. We can ignore them for the conspiracy theorist and/or coward that they are or we can publicly call them out and demand they reveal their identity. Either way, the level of respect currently being shown to both Council and to you and me - the citizenry - by anonymous bloggers, under the guise of representing the opinion of "the average joe" in this city is repugnant, and needs to come to an end. Either ignoring anonymous critics or insisting they show a basic level of respect for the rest of us by revealing their identities, will take the wind out of their sails.
Now I know that some people will be crying foul over this, saying that there is a great tradition of anonymity in public discourse. They are of course, correct. Without anonymous sources we wouldn't have had the revelations of Nixon's malfeasance, the wikileaks-released video footage of US Army helicopter pilots shooting civilians in Iraq, or the myriad other instances of stories attributed to "an un-named source". The responsibility of protecting a source is a right that journalists have long invoked as a necessary defence of free speech.
Let's be crystal clear here. When a journalist quotes a source they are doing so because the source has information that the journalist could not otherwise access. When the source asks for anonymity, they do so because they fear for their jobs, their personal safety or the safety of family. When dealing with large government cover-up or massive corporate wrongdoings, these may be valid concerns.
However, and this is the critical "however", the journalist writing the story, offering opinion and making conclusions based on the testimony of the source, always publishes under their own name. Julian Assange, Woodward and Bernstein, Jill Abramson, and the rest of the legitimate media - hell even the idiocracy at Fox News - all publish and broadcast under their own names; sometimes at their peril.
Journalists are not protected by whistleblower legislation - because they themselves are not the whistleblowers - nor are they afforded any personal or professional protection outside of the guarantees of free speech - as a result of simply doing their jobs.
So, local anonymous critics, bent on creating public discord, you don't get to cut it both ways. If you are portraying yourselves as pseudo-journalists - and there is ample evidence for this, including court cases in the States where first amendment challenges to bloggers have been supported by traditional media - then you are bound by decency to publish under your own names. You might take heat, or get called names, or perish the thought, someone might think poorly of you. Well guess what? That's too damn bad. Every time you call out a Council member or denigrate an opinion, or sew the seeds of public discord - such as during the bike lane discussions - you aren't acting as a source, you're acting as a journalist and anonymity is not guaranteed.
It's just cowardly.
Todd Nivens
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Might These be My Final Public Thoughts On Bike Lanes?
Well, after reading the latest round of hurtful comments directed at a few of our City Councillors, after having gum thrown at me while riding home yesterday, and after watching one Councillor shamefully try to spin the bike lane issue to his political gain, I'm done.
I'm done arguing.
I'm done being nice.
I'm done.
Which in all honesty, pains me to say.
Here's a little background about me. I'm a husband and father, a citizen of Red Deer, a believer in the overwhelming power of the planet, and a person dedicated to helping bring about effective change for a sustainable future. I'm a professional Environmental Educator with nearly 20 years experience. I teach my kids to think critically, to discuss issues rather than shouting about them, and to live with as little impact on the earth as possible. We as family bike, walk and bus to work and school - year round, try to do most of our errands without resorting to using the truck and spend as much time playing outside as we possibly can.
One of the things for which I am incredibly proud of myself, is the completion of my Masters of Arts degree (in Environmental Education and Communications) last year. In the course of my thesis research I found that there is a huge loss of hope, or more correctly, a major sense of hopelessness amongst Environmental Educators. It seems counter-intuitive that the people most directly involved in creating change among the citizenry, would feel that their efforts were failing. I had personally never felt that hopelessness and helplessness. Every time I deliver a program or take someone for hike, snowshoe, interpretive bike ride or give a talk to large or small groups, I come away feeling energized. I feel that I'm truly making a difference in my community and in by extension, in the world.
And then came along the bike lane issue. Or rather, along came a group of people who want to argue, name call, abuse and generally fight against bike lanes in the most base, banal manner possible. And the sad thing is, it's not a huge group of people. Many of the concerns about bike lanes have been well-thought-out and well-reasoned. I myself had initial misgivings about one of the routes (you can read about them further down). Council doesn't need people fawning over them and stroking their egos. What they need is intelligent feedback. Just as there are some cyclists who give the bulk of us a bad reputation, this group of zealots is overshadowing the reasoned arguments and giving the balanced people a bad name.
This small, outrageous, rude and tactless group of people has created a culture of antagonism, fear-mongering, and divisiveness around the bike lanes, that is usually reserved for American attack-style politics. They have turned what should be slightly uncomfortable growing pains that can be worked through by reasonable people, into calls for firings of City bureaucrats and demands for the heads of elected officials.
What's really sad though, is the the lack of imagination that this group has; the inability to see a future where we don't have as many cars on the road. This group of people is so married to the status quo and to an ideal that says you have to drive everywhere and that car culture has supremacy, that the mere thought of having to wait for an extra traffic light sends them over the bend. And, best of luck to the cyclist who ends up in front of them on a city street because they're on a route with no bike lane. I would bet heavily, that the most hateful comments are written and uttered by the same people who attack bicycle commuters for merely trying to get to work and school.
So, I'm finished with the issue. I'm not writing about it, talking about it or generally opening myself up to the kinds of attacks being suffered by Paul Harris, Cindy Jefferies, Craig Curtis and others. I'm climbing on my bike, putting my head down and riding.
Please don't throw anything heavier than chewed gum at me.
I'm done arguing.
I'm done being nice.
I'm done.
Which in all honesty, pains me to say.
Here's a little background about me. I'm a husband and father, a citizen of Red Deer, a believer in the overwhelming power of the planet, and a person dedicated to helping bring about effective change for a sustainable future. I'm a professional Environmental Educator with nearly 20 years experience. I teach my kids to think critically, to discuss issues rather than shouting about them, and to live with as little impact on the earth as possible. We as family bike, walk and bus to work and school - year round, try to do most of our errands without resorting to using the truck and spend as much time playing outside as we possibly can.
One of the things for which I am incredibly proud of myself, is the completion of my Masters of Arts degree (in Environmental Education and Communications) last year. In the course of my thesis research I found that there is a huge loss of hope, or more correctly, a major sense of hopelessness amongst Environmental Educators. It seems counter-intuitive that the people most directly involved in creating change among the citizenry, would feel that their efforts were failing. I had personally never felt that hopelessness and helplessness. Every time I deliver a program or take someone for hike, snowshoe, interpretive bike ride or give a talk to large or small groups, I come away feeling energized. I feel that I'm truly making a difference in my community and in by extension, in the world.
And then came along the bike lane issue. Or rather, along came a group of people who want to argue, name call, abuse and generally fight against bike lanes in the most base, banal manner possible. And the sad thing is, it's not a huge group of people. Many of the concerns about bike lanes have been well-thought-out and well-reasoned. I myself had initial misgivings about one of the routes (you can read about them further down). Council doesn't need people fawning over them and stroking their egos. What they need is intelligent feedback. Just as there are some cyclists who give the bulk of us a bad reputation, this group of zealots is overshadowing the reasoned arguments and giving the balanced people a bad name.
This small, outrageous, rude and tactless group of people has created a culture of antagonism, fear-mongering, and divisiveness around the bike lanes, that is usually reserved for American attack-style politics. They have turned what should be slightly uncomfortable growing pains that can be worked through by reasonable people, into calls for firings of City bureaucrats and demands for the heads of elected officials.
What's really sad though, is the the lack of imagination that this group has; the inability to see a future where we don't have as many cars on the road. This group of people is so married to the status quo and to an ideal that says you have to drive everywhere and that car culture has supremacy, that the mere thought of having to wait for an extra traffic light sends them over the bend. And, best of luck to the cyclist who ends up in front of them on a city street because they're on a route with no bike lane. I would bet heavily, that the most hateful comments are written and uttered by the same people who attack bicycle commuters for merely trying to get to work and school.
So, I'm finished with the issue. I'm not writing about it, talking about it or generally opening myself up to the kinds of attacks being suffered by Paul Harris, Cindy Jefferies, Craig Curtis and others. I'm climbing on my bike, putting my head down and riding.
Please don't throw anything heavier than chewed gum at me.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Keeping Safe, One Lane at a Time
There have been lots of comments about "why cyclists can't commute on the City Trail system?". Well, here's why:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/09/06/calgary-hospital-bike-jogger-woman-head-injury.html
I posted about the potential for this situation on one of my recent blog posts, just prior to this unfortunate accident. I'll say it again for those people who think we're just out for a daily jaunt, with nothing better to do: Bike commuting is NOT a recreational activity. It's transportation. We move along at 25 - 30km/h, which are speeds that are far too quick for meandering trails and for sidewalks. While this story focuses on the cyclist, it should be noted that the jogger was also sent to the hospital for stitches.
Putting bicycle commuters in bike lanes is the safest option for everyone involved.
While a car driver may be slightly inconvenienced by an extra wait for one turn at the stop light, the benefit to all of us in the potential to reduce human casualties is huge. Bike lanes can lead to reduced health-care costs as A)more people choose to leave their cars at home and go to work in a manner that promotes healthy living and B) reducing the number of ambulance trips and hospital visits by injured cyclists and pedestrians.
Will you as a driver take a little longer to get around on a road that has a bike lane? Possibly, in the short term, yes you will. However the wait won't be onerous - it won't make you late for supper and family time at the end of the day - and, you'll have participated in a movement that is pushing us toward a more sustainable, more healthy society.
We cyclist-commuters will do our part to educate those riders who don't know or don't understand the rules of the road and the protocols for bike-lane routes. I think that by and large, we'd welcome any driver out to experience the commute from the perspective of a cyclist and to see first hand, how the bike lanes are making things better.
All, the anti-bike-lane crowd has to do, is be a little patient and be willing to engage and to try something new.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)