Questions You Should Be Asking

Hello my fellow Red Deerians.

You may have noticed a change in the air this spring. As the snow has slowly melted and the draining waters have ebbed from our curbs and gutters, the air feels different. It's stiff, with a rancid, unseemly nose. The air cuts and burns as you wade through your day, and things this spring feel... fetid.

This is a rare air for Red Deer. The mountains to the west usually waft in the freshness of new growth as the wind rolls across the foothills and into our midst. The northern winds on the other hand, make things crisp and bright; cleaning our senses.

So why this year? Why has the freshness of spring and the crispness of the north foresaken us this year? Why has the air turned rank with the odious renderings of the contents from a thousand stagnant sewers?

Why, it's an election year of course. This is the time when metaphorical bright lights are shot out with BB gun-wielding thugs, bent on creating fear, sewing disdain, and championing false revolution. This is the time when the fringes of the population temporarily lose their minds - or perhaps they lost their minds long ago and simply choose this occasion to reveal that fact. Regardless, we have reached that tri-annual orgy of name-calling, hand-wringing, and the general demonstration of a lack of understanding of how work gets done in a municipality.

This year, I'm pleading with my fellow citizens to elevate the political discourse from the muck and mire that a new set of voices have dragged it down to. You see, the Gang of Eight is so bent on telling you what's wrong - as they perceive it - that they've neglected to tell you what they'll do right. They're so bent on wailing about bike lanes and their perception of what it means for a government to be "accountable" that they have forgotten to show what their vision of a future looks like.

I expect big things from my Council. I expect them to be articulate, intelligent, and honest. I expect them to have ideas for our future. I expect them to be big thinkers and to be the progenitors of concept-level ideas. I expect them to get work done, without stooping to the level of micro-managing the City bureaucracy. Mostly I expect them to be involved, and to have come from a background of civic engagement and involvement.

So, to that end here is my plea to my fellow citizens. Please ignore the  fear-mongering, the blame casting, and any party who is dividing issues into black/white, good vs bad sides. Ignore anybody who is incapable of having a nuanced, balanced, and dare I say reasoned conversation. Ignore anybody who cannot demonstrate an understanding of what the role of Council is, as defined by the Municipal Government Act.

Instead please ask these two questions of every candidate for council.  Ask the questions at election forums, in letters to the editors, in posts to their Facebook timelines, and on their Twitter feeds. The questions are as follows (one of them I asked last week, on Facebook):

1. Tell me your vision for our community. I don't want to hear negativity or blame-casting. I want to know how you picture Red Deer in the future. What will we become? How will the Nation see us? How will we as a community contribute to each others' well-being. 

I want to see what happens when you let your imagination run wild. Be bold.

2. Show me what you have done for our community. How have you contributed to Red Deer being a better place? What are your volunteer commitments? What civic committees have you sat on or contributed to? What service organizations do you belong to?

Any good candidate for Council will be able to give eloquent, complete, and concise answers to these questions. They will be able to demonstrate a past track record of direct-action work, aimed at making things better for the community at large; especially for those most in need.

If we all ask these questions. If we all listen to the answers. If we all steer away from rhetoric, blame, polarization, and easy answers, then we can truly make progress.

That's a Hell of A Milestone, Mile 2

Ok. This is the post that I've somewhat morbidly been waiting to write. It's been stirring around in my head for a long time and I want to make sure that I get it right.

At 2793 gun deaths since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, Americans living at home in the United States of America have now killed more of their fellow citizens, than died in the Twin Towers on 9/11. In World Trade Centre Towers 2606 people lost their lives, to outside forces.

Let that sink in for a moment.

On 9/11 2606 people rode the elevator to work, only to have their lives snuffed out, by foreigners - the "other" - in one fell swoop; in an act that many would say was unpreventable. At least unpreventable given the government of the day. There were nine hijackers on the planes that hit the towers. At a rate of 290:1 victims to killers, that's about as impersonal an act as you can get. And yes I'm saying it's impersonal even though the hijackers died, because there was little face-to-face contact between the killers and the victims.

In the three months since Sandy Hook 2793 people died at the direct hands of another individual. Even considering the multiple-death shooting, the rate of victims to killers is under 2:1. These are very, very personal acts.

In the wake of 9/11, strict controls were put in place governing how we were to fly. Strict controls were put in place to specify what we could and could not bring on an airplane. In the wake of 9/11 we have been told that we cannot bring liquids in quantities greater than 50 ml. We have been told that we must take off our shoes when passing through security. In America, they have been told to surrender any sense of dignity they might have to pass through a full-body scanner; a scanner that shows the operator an essentially naked human body. Since 9/11 I can't take a set of nail clippers on a plane because they create a security risk. In the most extreme cases, people have been denied access to flights because the t-shirt they were wearing was thought to be "dangerous". In the wake of 9/11 all of us sheeple stepped in line with the new security measures because we were told that it was "safer".

2606 dead, killed by anonymous strangers with a couple of airplanes, in the blink of an eye, mostly unknowing of their fate, due to a massive error in judgement by the Bush administration resulted in some of the most inconvenient, draconian travel rules the free-world has ever seen. And we were all largely ok with it.

2793 people, including 20 innocent children in an elementary school, killed in circumstances that are largely up-close and personal, full of fear, by  - conservatively - 2700 other people, each with a firearm. Yet Americans can't even have a conversation about gun control.

My question is simple. Restricting your (our) ability to travel became a national security issue. Why haven't guns in America become a national security issue?

Why is it ok to police people and restrict their ability to carry toothpaste, mouthwash, hair gel, nail clippers, cologne, and bottles of water onto an airplane, in the name of safety... and yet, it's not ok to talk about restricting access to certain types of guns? Forgive my incredulity but I really don't understand this dichotomy.

If you're going to take 100 ml of liquid x and mix it into 100 ml of liquid y, on an airplane, while it's flying someone is going to notice. It's complicated stuff that takes at least a little skill to bring to fruition. Hell the shoe-bomb guy brought the functioning device onto the plane, ready to go and he couldn't pull it off because someone noticed. Yes I know that the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters. However, with the cabin doors now being locked and barred, the plane is in little danger of being used as a weapon.

By comparison, how hard is it to get angry at your neighbour, pull out your unrestricted pistol, and shoot the guy? How much training does it take to load an assault rifle, walk into a crowded place and start firing? Almost none.

The really sad part, is that nobody who is ready to have a serious conversation about gun control, is saying "take away all the guns from all Americans". Nobody. Not even Gabby Giffords who, 13 months after being shot in the head, returned to the Senate to ask for a conversation on gun control; rather than gun bans.




The pitifully weak request from us, is to just have a conversation about limiting access to assault weapons, extended capacity magazines, and guns that can fire fully automatic. Yet to hear the NRA, the extreme right-wing tea party, Sarah Palin and crew, and Fox News tell it, you'd be forgiven if you thought the government was coming for all your guns so they can round you up and "take away your freedom."

I know it sounds crazy, but that is exactly the message that the aforementioned is sending out. They seem blissfully unaware that nobody has asked for all the guns, nobody will ask for all the guns, and most poignantly that the government doesn't need to take away the citizens guns. The US government has drones, fighter planes, tanks, amoured personnel carriers, ships, gun boats, the SEALS, helicopters with god-knows-what weaponry, Hummers with laser weapons... they don't need to take the guns from their people because they have more, bigger guns at their disposal.

In a previous post I wrote that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution needs to go. I covered how it's outdated today, and how lonely red-necks with AK-47s do not constitute a "well-regulated militia." I stand by those comments. And for those of you desperately clinging to your firearms up here in Canada, I stand by the assertion that you do not have a right to those guns, up here North of the 49th. We don't have an equivalent to the Second Amendment. But that's digressing a little. As I said above, nobody with a rational argument is saying "take away all the guns." We just want some controls on ownership that will actually contribute to saving innocent lives.

To quote Senator Giffords, "Too many children are dying... Be bold. Be courageous."

Touching Greatness?

Tonight my friend Ted was three rows from someone I know he admires greatly. Ted and his wife spent the night in the company of Gord Downie, and the rest of the Tragically Hip. Ted's written about Gord in at least one post in his blog and the quote at the top of his blogroll is from Gord. He's a good person to admire - actually they both are; Ted and Gord. Speaking specifically of Gord Downie though, a friend of mine once finished a book that he thought Gord would enjoy. So, Jason wrote a note, tucked it into an envelope and mailed it off to Kingston. Four months later, Jason got a package in the mail. It was the book he'd sent off, with a handwritten note: Jason, the book was great. Thanks. Gord Downie. That's class, right there. I can see why Ted would admire a guy like that.

My friend Charla spent this evening in the company of a mega star; spending copious dollars to go to Calgary to see Oprah. Like Ted with Gord, I think Charla sees an inspirational character in Oprah - something that is totally lost on me - and feel a connection to her at her live performances.

Suffice to say, I don't think that I'm stepping too far out of bounds when I say that both Ted and Charla would list meeting Gord and Oprah, respectively, as something they would like to do. They would both likely get something of tremendous value from a potential, intimate meeting; from the chance to sit and talk with someone they greatly admire.

Which got me thinking... who would I like to meet? Who in this world, living right now, would I give up my precious time, to sit down with and have a chat. Taking away all the unattainables - Darwin, Einstein, Marie Curie, P.E. Trudeau, Charles Schultz, and myriad other historically, scientifically, and socially important thinkers - who would I want to meet?

I don't know.

Maybe President Obama because he's such a polarizing figure, who's done more to try to actually lead his people than any other American President in recent memory. Possibly the band They Might Be Giants, to thank them for producing a kids album that encourages children to discover, to learn, and to value the empirical data of science. Perhaps Richard Louv, or as we call him somewhat tongue in cheek, "The Prophet Richard Louv". That's a tough one because on the one hand I'd like to pick his brain about the need to get kids out into nature and where he sees society headed. On the other hand, I'd like to smack him for reducing the issue to snappy catchphrases and idioms. Jon Stewart would likely make the list - one of the few celebrities who I have no reservations about.

But, as far as "popular" people go, I'm afraid that's my short list. A-list celebrities hold no interest for me. Oprah's glow doesn't extend this far, and current "popular" music (while entertaining) is contributing next to nothing in the way of social dialogue. Let's face it, from Michael Vick, to Tiger Woods; and from Manti Teo to Lance Armstrong; from the histrionics of the NHLPA, to the whining of pro tennis players, is there any sports figure worth listening to?

I think that's the problem with the question: What famous person do you want to meet? It can lead to a number of possible negative outcomes. Personally, I don't want to meet a famous person, because I don't care about fame. Part of why we want to meet famous people, can be seen manifested in our fascination with pop culture.

We demand acceptance. We thrive on familiarity. By meeting famous people, yes we may get some insight to them, but what we really gain is the perception of acceptance into their tribe, their clan, their world. Once that meeting takes place, there are a few possible outcomes: You may further identify with that person, potentially shaping your worldview so that it matches with theirs; you may become disillusioned when that person doesn't meet your expectations, forcing you to either reevaluate how you feel about that person, or alternatively, change your values to match theirs  (see Cognitive Dissonance); or you may come away feeling totally ambivalent about the meeting and the person - this may be the best possible outcome because in a way, it would totally validate you as a person.

I'm not knocking anybody for wanting to meet the rich and famous. I am saying that while it can be fun to play the game, be careful what you wish for, and be ready to have to do some serious rearranging of your psyche if things don't go well.

Let me use Oprah as an example here.. A few years ago Oprah decided to give voice to Jenny McCarthy and let her rant incessantly about vaccinations causing autism. Oprah nodded sagely and agreed with Jenny that parents should think long and hard about having their kids vaccinated. Between the two of them, they convinced thousands, tens of thousands of parents, not to vaccinate their kids. This despite there being no peer-reviewed evidence ever published, about a link between vaccinations and autism. They were basing their assertions off of one poorly written, poorly cited and ultimately discredited paper - and McCarthy's belief that her vaccinating her own child, was what caused that child's autism. When that study was finally discredited, Oprah was silent. There was no hauling Jenny back out to account for her actions, the way she just did with Lance. There was no call for an apology the way there had been with James Frey, the author who'd lied to Oprah, on her show.

At the end of the day, Oprah chose to remain silent on an issue that was of far greater importance than whether or not some super-star athlete stuck needles in his arm so that he could ride his bike faster. She was quiet as a dormouse about her part in perpetrating one of the most dangerous public-health unravellings of the 20th century. In the end, Oprah chose to do nothing - which is worse than doing the wrong thing. And so I have to ask myself "Why?". Why would Oprah, a woman beloved by millions, choose to hold Lance Armstrong to account, choose to demand an apology from James Frey, and choose not to bring back Jenny McCarthy for the same treatment.

All I can come up with is money, ratings, and self-identity.

The first two are easy. What are you going to tune in for? Lance Armstrong admits he took performance-enhancing drugs? It was the highest rated Oprah television event ever, I'm sure. Jenny McCarthy talking about being wrong, about medicine... boooorrrriiiiing. Nobody's watching that, so Oprah ignores it.

The self-identity part is trickier and slipperier for Oprah. See, in the case of Lance and James, she was one of us. She was taken in and can claim the same moral indignation as the rest of us. But with McCarthy, Oprah was a willing participant. She helped spread the gospel about the dangers of vaccinations, just much as she spreads the word about her favourite things. In the McCarthy case, if she brings Jenny back on the show, she herself has to admit her own complicity. And, for those of us with normal egos that's hard enough. When you're considered the Queen of television, that's damn near impossible.

And yet, that may be what she wants more than anything: To identify with us, "the normal people." If she doesn't make McCarthy apologize or at least rebut the actual science, then she (Oprah) gets to be a victim, just like you and me. She gets to identify with the rest of us and to be part of our tribe; one that is totally closed off to her because of her fame.

So, Oprah has spoiled me for meeting celebrities. I just don't know where the line between real and fake would lie. I'm not that good a detective. So, for the most part, I'll pass on the famous. I'll dream of meeting Jill Bolte Taylor, the brain researcher who documented her own stroke, while it was happening, Or maybe Alex Zanardi, the Formula One driver who lost both legs in an F1 race and then went on not only to drive competitively again, but to win Gold at the London Paralympics in handbiking (paralympic cycling). Perhaps Neil de Grasse Tyson, or Richard Dawkins has some time for me, to discuss where we've come from and where we're going.

Or maybe, I'll just drive to Canmore to hang out with my friend Colin. Colin ran across Canada last year to raise awareness about the plight of overweight, under-active, nature-deprived kids. He did it on his own with no corporate backing. He cashed in his life savings, quit his job, and put his grad school thesis on hold, because he believed that this needed to be done. He has a hell of a lot more credibility and class than Oprah ever will, and there's no doubt about his motivation, his commitment, or his depth of character.

And if Gord Downie ever want to drink a beer on my porch... Ted knows where to find both of us.

That's a Hell of a Milestone

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.

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.

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.

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:

(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.