For The Artists

There are things that need nurturing and protecting because they are precious and beautiful, and life-affirming. There are things that hold an intrinsic value to society so critical, that removing them renders black voids in society. Often, we cannot quantify these things. We cannot place a hard dollar value on them

Music, dance, dramatic arts, visual arts; they are the bridges to the world and the window to our souls. The Arts reflect our humanity and our struggles. The Arts celebrate our highs and mourn our lows. The Arts tell our stories; historical and contemporary. The arts give life colour, depth, and meaning. Long after we have gone and future generations explore what we've left them, they may be amazed by our technical prowess, but they'll moved by our artistic contributions.

We make meaning through the Arts. We open ourselves to scorn, ridicule, praise, and encouragement through the Arts. We lay ourselves bare through the Arts. More important than any industrial process or financial transaction, the Arts let us show the world who we are, what we believe, what we tell each other. The Arts are anger and violence, joy and peace, meaningful reflection, humour and sadness,  writ large. We are, Our Arts.

-----

I grew up in a musical family. My mother trained for years as an opera-singer and as a girl, played the trumpet. My aunt played the clarinet. My brother and I grew up playing the piano, trumpet, trombone, ukulele, violin, guitar, and most recently for me, the mandolin. Our houses are still filled with music - ours' or others'. Our daughter is a ballet-dancer, currently at the Royal Winnipeg Ballet School. Our nephew is an accomplished vocalist and actor. When the Arts suffer a cut, we suffer a cut.

We know that arts funding is fragile. We know that in an ever-competitive economy the ability to turn a profit wins the day. But what of those things that that are precious, life-affirming, and beautiful? What of those things that sometimes - oftentimes - need to exist because they need to exist. They need to exist not to turn a profit. They need to exist because they simply need to exist.

Red Deer College has decided that precious, life-affirming, and beautiful is unimportant; that they don't need to exist. The College "leadership" has told the Arts community that they have no value. The College "leadership" has told society that the Arts are only important if they turn a profit.

Enrollment in the music program may very well have been low. The solution is not to decide that people don't want to be musicians and creators. The solution is to figure out how to get more people to study at this incredible facility, with these incredible artists, mentors, teachers, and creators.

Was there any creative problem-solving? Was there any license given to the faculty to allow them to brainstorm new ways to attract students or to create paths to viable music careers? Or, is it as it appears on the surface? Did the College take a short-sighted approach and simply cut? Rather than invest in the music program - as they have in rapid-prototyping, engineering, design, etc - did they simply look at low enrollment and decide "people don't want to be musicians"?

People want to be musicians. They want to be actors, and painters, and sculptors, and writers, and directors, and conductors, and singers, and set-designers and and and... and all of those professions that need protecting because creating and fostering artists doesn't necessarily turn a financial profit. The College's role is not to say that "It's too expensive to train a few musicians every year". It's the role of places of learning to take those who want to create and to help them grow and develop the skills they need to stand on the merits of their work and be supported by the community for their work.

We need the artists. We need the Arts. Without them we are monkeys who can do tricks with technology. With them, we are human.

Dear America - Again

Dear America,

It seems like every time you have an election I write one of these posts - mostly for my own edification - and get a few things off my chest. Usually I write them after the fact and vent my spleen about the terrible decisions you've just made. I wrote one after both of Dubya's wins, and after you decided to hobble Obama by stacking Congress and the Senate against him.

This time it's different.

First, I'm writing ahead of time. Second, I'm not venting this time. This time I'm looking for information and for someone to explain what the hell is happening in your country.

From outside the US border we in the rest of the world peer in and gaze upon all you've accomplished; and you've accomplished great things. You put people onto the moon, you've been running an amazing Mars mission for years, and you've given the world some of the greatest scientific minds of a generation. You've created art, evolved sport (especially the extreme ones), and championed athletics. At your best you tried to give your fellows health care, and your fellow global citizens shelter and comfort. You even recognised same-sex marriage last year. Granted, you were a little late to the party on that one and some folks burned their invitation, but you did it.

Lately though, we've been looking at you with a little less awe, reverence, indifferent interest and with more uh... panicked fear(?) maybe(?). We've been watching you with the same morbid fascination that made us watch - and then rewind - Steve Buscemi getting fed into a wood chipper in Fargo.

I have read many descriptors of the 2016 US election, on the internet. Dumpster fire, train wreck are the two most quoted, and most apt. And what I can't help but wonder is, why you all are putting up with it. To be perfectly clear: When we are not recoiling in horror at the potential outcome of this election, we are laughing our asses off at you.

I fully accept the fact that Hilary Clinton has made some terrible decisions in her life; staying with Bill and the email server debacle chief among them. However, Hilary's transgressions pale in comparison to those of the withering, dysfunctional, Oompa Loompa whom you've placed so tantalisingly close to actual power.

Why is a man who violated US sanctions against Cuba in order to do illegal business there, only 6 points behind on the BBC poll today? Why has that story not stuck to him? How did he shake that off?

Why is Hilary's email server all of a sudden (and again) more important than Donald's treatment of 1/2 the population of the USA?

Why does nearly 1/2 of the voting public support a man who would create an island of your country, and base his domestic policy on the most overtly racist speech we've heard since Alabama in the '60s. Why does nearly 1/2 of your country support a television personality who treats anybody he sees as being "less than him" like crap. Why does nearly 1/2 your country not understand that Donald doesn't speak for them, doesn't see himself as one of them, and doesn't really represent their values, yet will stand behind him and vote for him.

I get it. This is an election where nobody is voting for the person they want. Nobody aside from the most ardent supporters, really believes that either Donald or Hilary should run the country. But, when one of those candidates is an actual terrible person... how is he polling so high?

He steals from his own charity. He doesn't pay his bills. He invited the gun-toting yahoos to assassinate his rival. He advocated for the torture of suspected terrorists families (which is an actual war crime by the way). He literally takes a crap on a gold toilet. He. Is. Not. One. Of. You.

If any other person behaved like this, most normal people wouldn't put up with it. They'd be in jail for fraud, or sexual assault, or crimes against humanity, or uttering threats, or threatening a federal official. They'd have been attacked by jealous husbands. They'd have been sued by the ACLU. But not Trump. This human stain has been hoisted up on a pedestal instead of on his own petard.

And we beyond your borders, we don't understand. We don't understand how - to paraphrase Hilary - you are willing to put a man who can be baited by tweet, so close to the nuclear button.

And so we recoil in horror. And, we laugh... and laugh, and laugh, and laugh. Not with you. At you.

It's an Art

Dance is art. 

Art is how we reflect humanity; its successes, its failures, its triumphs, its challenges. Art is how we express joy, sadness, pleasure, and pain. To have dance reduced to a competitive event is to demean the art form. Competitive dance has taken a centuries-old art form, comprising thousands of disciplines, and reduced it to a series of athletic moves and tricks to be perfected.

Competitive dance gives no value to continued struggle, or continued improvement - the end is all that matters. To have dance reduced to an awards-based athletic event is so counter-intuitive to why humanity evolved arts, that it may as well be removed from the arts completely. Call it something else. Call it the sport that it is. Sanction it under a governing sport body. Rename it.

A dancer is an artist. And artists will struggle for a lifetime in search of those small moments that give voice to their expressions of humanity. While professional artists do what they do in order to make a living, they also do it because the need to do it, the need to express themselves, burns deep inside.

Competition is not part of the artist's ethos. Painters don't paint because they want to triumph over other painters and win a trophy. Painters paint because they need to give people a window into new perspectives on life.

The same can be said of sculptors, authors, performance artists, and - pop music and the Hollywood system aside - singers, songwriters, and actors. The reward for dedicating your life to the arts is not found in trophies. It's found in the soul. It's knowing that you are showing people a way forward, and potentially opening up new ways of knowing.

Competitive dance can never achieve this.

Dance Funding... Wait, You're How Old?

It would be easier if she were a hockey player; or a gymnast, a volleyball player, a skier, a handball player, ringette goalie; hell even if she were a fencer, it would be easier. If she had already graduated high school, it would be easier.

She, is Ainsley. She is a 12-year-old ballet dancer. She is - in her father's totally unbiased eyes - a talented artist. She, is racking up expenses like nobody's business. She has been accepted to The School of Alberta Ballet for three summers. She dances at two studios, five days a week. She performs in The Nutcracker (and oh, to be Clara one day, she dreams) each year. She has been accepted to The Professional Development Division at the Royal Winnipeg Ballet School this summer.

This is a huge time and lifestyle commitment for a young girl chasing the dream of becoming a professional ballet dancer. This has been a huge financial undertaking for us, her parents.

We are not complaining. She loves dance, she's apparently fairly good at it, and if she wanted to quit tomorrow, we would not stand in the way. It simply makes her happy to sweat, bleed, strain, stretch, bend, and inevitably injure herself, in the pursuit of artistic perfection. She is a perfectionist.

How then to support this dream? How to pay for ballet slippers and pointe shoes (don't ask the cost)? How to pay for expensive summer schools, year-round classes, transportation to auditions and master classes? How to front the cost of physiotherapy? How to tell her that no, a residency in New York won't happen, or that even if she's accepted, year-round school in Winnipeg just isn't in the cards because let's face it, Dad works for a non-profit?

For athletes and artists the answer often lies in the myriad granting programs out there. If you have a young athlete and need assistance with the costs associated with coaching, transportation, nutrition, therapy etc... there is help for you. Locally The Sutter Fund, The Red Deer Games Foundation, the Alberta Sports Recreation Parks and Wildlife Foundation, among others, all support young people in their pursuits. We were encouraged to apply through them. Dance - despite it's newly-found competitive nature - is not listed with the Alberta Sport Connection program and thus isn't eligible for support. The representative from The Red Deer Games Foundation was very nice and very sincere when he called to deliver the bad news.

On the artistic front, there are many corporate and public foundations that support The Arts. Musicians, visual artists, singers, songwriters, and dancers can all apply to be supported by these generous companies and foundations. There is a catch however. With the exception of the Alberta Foundation for the Arts, the artist must be at least 18-years-old, graduated from highschool, and/or enrolled in a post-secondary fine arts program. For every other artist this is a legitimate qualification to make; save for dancers.

At the age of 12, Ainsley knows that her performance career could be over by the age of 25. Dance is hard on a body. Hips, knees, shoulders, ankles, and spines all wear out and require therapy or surgery at a young age. Dancers are being selected for elite training programs as young as 10 years old. To a person, they know that if they want to continue a career in dance, beyond their mid-20s, it will be as an instructor, studio owner, choreographer, or artistic director. They will likely not be performing beyond their mid to late 20s.

Contrast that with every other artistic pursuit. Musicians have performance careers that last often into their golden years. Painters, sculptors, and carvers can produce works until arthritis takes their dexterity. Writers can generate stories, songs, poetry, prose until their minds are robbed by senility. Dancers perform until their bodies give out at comparatively young ages.

Ainsley is remarkable in that she "pays to play" and never complains about it. She holds multiple bottle drives each year and has raised close to $5000 over the past three summers. She received unsolicited support from a local business with a total of nearly $500. To say that we are grateful to them is an understatement. We are exceedingly grateful to everybody who shared Ainsley's RWB GoFundMe site and even more so to those who donated to it. However, it seems to me that funding our dancer's dream of making a meaningful contribution to The Arts (deliberately in capitals) in Canada, and of becoming a performing dancer with a known company, shouldn't be your problem.

The Arts make a community whole. The Arts are our expression of life. They give voice and image and movement to our passions, our dreams, our fears, our past, and our future. The Arts are not about competition or getting rich. The Arts are about us being better.

That ideal needs funding.

For a young dancer the path to making us better doesn't begin at age 18, or after highschool, or when they begin their BFA. By then, they have often studied with some of the best in the world. They have already achieved milestones that are yet to come to other artists. By the time they are eligible for the majority of funding opportunities, young dancers are already looking at the back 1/2 of their performance careers.

As I said. I am not complaining about costs here. Ainsley's instructors and their studios, artistic directors and performances have been worth every dollar that we as a family have invested. Miss Christine Slaymaker, Miss Kirsten Kowalchuck, Miss Tania Strader, and the too-many-to-mention dancers and instructors at Dance Magic in Red Deer, at The Penhold School of Dance, at Alberta Ballet, and on The Nutcracker team have all made such an incredible impact on Ainsley. They've been her teachers, and her mentors.

I am absolutely not looking for sympathy or a hand out. I'm just pointing out, that if she played hockey, or baseball... this would be easier.

At the very least, while I loathe the idea of competitive dance, having it listed with Alberta Sport Connection might open up some other funding, for other dancers in the future.

Evacuee vs Refugee?

Just a quick note to every single person I’ve seen on Facebook in the last few days, who decided to compare the Fort McMurray tragedy to the Syrian refugee crisis.

Please. Just. Stop. It.

Look, I get it. You hate Justin Trudeau and you're looking for a reason to make the Liberals look bad, and that you think he's a #traitor while you"re a #albertahero and a #realalbertan. Please, just shut your mouth and do even the slightest amount of research - from an actual news source and not The Rebel - before spouting your racist garbage. 

Here are the actual facts. I got them from Global News, the CBC, and from the Federal Government's Global Affairs website. They are, as they say, direct from the horses' mouths. 

• The Federal Government has committed to match, dollar-for-dollar, all donations to the Canadian Red Cross; with no spending limit. As of 1:30 this afternoon there had been $30 Million donated to the Red Cross, so $60 Million raised in the first few hours. So, about $690 for every single evacuee. There are also the costs associated with sending in the military to assist, to pay the public service employees who will process claims and provide assistance. Those costs will be unbudgeted but will be covered by the government.

•  A lot of Fort McMurray residents –especially home owners - will likely have insurance to cover their losses. More to the point, they will be able to go home and rebuild. There will also likely be Federal and Provincial disaster relief once the dust has settled.

• The Feds are absolutely not spending $1.1 Billion on the Syrians coming to Canada. The Federal government has committed to spending $1.1 billion¸ over the course of THREE YEARS, in the affected region as part of a funding package to help stabilise the greatest humanitarian crisis a generation. The resettlement of Syrian refugees to Canada makes up a very small portion of that funding.

• $1.1 Billion, divided amongst the 6 MILLION displaced Syrians = $168 person; which theoretically would have to last them three years.

• Refugees will likely never be able to return to their home country, let alone their homes; homes which are just as destroyed as those in Ft Mac.

Please also keep in mind that while they have lost their homes and their possessions, the residents of Ft Mac will be able to return to gainful employment, getting paid equal or near to what they were making prior to the tragedy. Businesses will be rebuilt, oil workers will go back to their jobs, health care workers, teachers, etc... will all be needed again. Syrian refugees on the other hand, have fled their livelihood. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, teachers, nurses, bakers, farmers, businesspeople, scientists are all now faced with the reality that many of their qualifications are not recognised in Canada, therefore they'll be trying to make a living - that will afford them a severely diminished quality of life compared to what they had pre-conflict - at Tim Hortons, 7/11, McDonalds etc.... all while you complain about foreigners taking Canadian jobs. 

Please, do not use the Ft Mac tragedy to fan the flames of racial intolerance. The refugee crisis and the Ft Mac tragedy are two completely separate issues, and the refugee crisis is affecting 68 times more people. Your real problem, is that you don’t want your tax dollars helping people with brown skin.

Dear America Redux

This is a revisit and update of an article I wrote after the 2006 US mid-term elections. After watching the Republicans gain total control of Congress last night, I felt it was worth another visit.

Dear America,

You voted.

You voted against poor people working hard to make a better life for themselves.
You voted against basic equal rights for all Americans to enjoy the benefits of marriage.
You voted against protecting women and against giving women a voice as to what they do with their own bodies.
You voted against keeping decent paying, union-protected, blue collar jobs in your own country, where they pay your fellow citizens.
You voted against giving every American child an equal piece of the educational pie.
You voted against protecting you fellow citizens from a health care crisis.
You voted against protecting your green spaces.
You voted against clean air.
You voted against alternative energy.

You looked at the will of the rest of the world desperately striving for a safe planet, stuck up your middle finger and voted against the rest of us.

You voted for fear.
You voted to tell gay people that they are not really equal; that they are worth less than straight people.
You voted to tell women that they have no say what happens to their bodies.
You voted to make sure that oil and gas companies have more say over the natural world, than do the people and animals who live there.
You voted to make sure that families can be financially bankrupted by a surgery, cancer treatment, or extended health issue.
You voted to give religion equal footing in our science classrooms.
You voted for rampant commercialization.
You voted to keep sending your sons and daughters to die in a desert for oil
You voted to fight a war against an enemy you don't know, in a political climate you don't understand.
You voted to make the world a more dangerous place.
You voted to allow the government to enter your home, call you a terrorist and hide you in a prison cell without charge – on no grounds.
You voted to condone the torture of innocent people.
You voted to ensure you keep the honor of having the highest gun-related homicide rate in the western world.
You voted for school shootings.
You voted to ignore international treaties regarding clean air, nuclear proliferation and land mines.
You voted to validate a corrupt CEO making (on average) 417 times the wage of his lowest earning employee.

Dear America. You Voted.

Why The Internet Blows - and Redeems

Remember that fun little thing we did last post where we answered some questions that Creationists had about evolution? Remember how it was fun to denigrate them and make them look stupid? Guess what, we're doing it again! This time we're going to taunt an internet-based, rumour-mongering, conspiracy-theorist website - and one of its authors.

The story in this link would have you believe that a mere three(ish) days after the Malaysian airways flight disappeared, "they" are covering up what really happened. I'm not sure who "they" are, or what "their" motivation would be for not telling us every piece of information that "they" couldn't have possibly retrieved yet, might be. For what it's worth, neither does the author - Mike Adams.

BUT, that hasn't stopped intrepid Mike Adams from assembling six "facts" and presenting them to you as if they mean something. By "assembling facts", what I really mean to say is that Mike Adams has pulled a bunch of ideas out of his rear end, cobbled them together in some sort of delusional narrative, and then spewed it out onto the internet.

So, much as before I'll paste Mike's "facts" below in italics and then address them in normal text. Hint: my words will be the rational ones.

Let's begin shall we.

 Fact #1: All Boeing 777 commercial jets are equipped with black box recorders that can survive any on-board explosion

No explosion from the plane itself can destroy the black box recorders. They are bomb-proof structures that hold digital recordings of cockpit conversations as well as detailed flight data and control surface data.

This is true. It's really damned hard to destroy a flight data recorder (FDR), and a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) - like really hard. However this "fact" is moot at the moment because the aviation authorities don't have the damn things.

• Fact #2: All black box recorders transmit locator signals for at least 30 days after falling into the ocean

Yet the black box from this particular incident hasn’t been detected at all. That’s why investigators are having such trouble finding it. Normally, they only need to “home in” on the black box transmitter signal. But in this case, the absence of a signal means the black box itself — an object designed to survive powerful explosions — has either vanished, malfunctioned or been obliterated by some powerful force beyond the worst fears of aircraft design engineers.

 No. Emphatically, NO. The CVR and the FDR could be hundreds of feet deep in the middle of a very large body of water. The broadcast radius is about two miles. That means, you need to be in a two-mile bubble that includes the instrument, you, and the device you are using to receive the signal. See below on the amount of area that may potentially need searching. 

• Fact #3: Many parts of destroyed aircraft are naturally bouyant and will float in water

In past cases of aircraft destroyed over the ocean or crashing into the ocean, debris has always been spotted floating on the surface of the water. That’s because — as you may recall from the safety briefing you’ve learned to ignore — “your seat cushion may be used as a flotation device.”

Yes, seat cushions float. So do many other non-metallic aircraft parts. If Flight 370 was brought down by an explosion of some sort, there would be massive debris floating on the ocean, and that debris would not be difficult to spot. The fact that it has not yet been spotted only adds to the mystery of how Flight 370 appears to have literally vanished from the face of the Earth.

 Have you ever seen footage from a Search and Rescue operation? It is really difficult to find things on the surface of the vast ocean. Even large, orange life boats have been missed by SAR crews. The surface of the ocean is a dynamic environment. White fuselage panels can look like wave crests, seat cushions are tiny. The ocean is so vast, that an entire, intact, floating cruise ship has gone missing.  The short version of this answer is, give it time and realize, they might not find the plane. 

• Fact #4: If a missile destroyed Flight 370, the missile would have left a radar signature

One theory currently circulating on the ‘net is that a missile brought down the airliner, somehow blasting the aircraft and all its contents to “smithereens” — which means very tiny pieces of matter that are undetectable as debris.

The problem with this theory is that there exists no known ground-to-air or air-to-air missile with such a capability. All known missiles generate tremendous debris when they explode on target. Both the missile and the debris produce very large radar signatures which would be easily visible to both military vessels and air traffic authorities.

 This is assuming a lot of things, including the idea that there would be motivation for such an act - something Mike doesn't address. However, one of the things that should be cleared up is that "the missile would have left a radar signature". It would have. However, contrary to Mike Adams' belief, the entire world isn't being actively scanned by radar. One of the reasons that planes have transponders is so that ground-based controllers can pick them up and track them. These receivers are the ground aren't so much radar, as they are really specialised radio receivers. Real radar isn't used until the planes are close to land. Except for the US and other navies using it on ships, powerful search radar isn't in use over the ocean. 

• Fact #5: The location of the aircraft when it vanished is not a mystery

Air traffic controllers have full details of almost exactly where the aircraft was at the moment it vanished. They know the location, elevation and airspeed — three pieces of information which can readily be used to estimate the likely location of debris.

Remember: air safety investigators are not stupid people. They’ve seen mid-air explosions before, and they know how debris falls. There is already a substantial data set of airline explosions and crashes from which investigators can make well-educated guesses about where debris should be found. And yet, even armed with all this experience and information, they remain totally baffled on what happened to Flight 370.

 If you turn off, or lose the transponder through an electrical fault, the plane vanishes. It could have flown for a while not transmitting its location. If it was over the ocean, as I mentioned in the last answer, it wouldn't be "on radar". 

Let's assume that the plane was flying at 500 kph (probably a low estimate) at 20,000 feet. If the transponder failed, but the plane kept flying, the circle to search in expands by 500 kilometers - in every direction - for every hour the plane is in the air. Let's again assume that the plane remained airborne for 15 minutes. That means the potential search area would be something like 196,000 km2. This doesn't account for the potential of a mid-air failure and the wreckage continuing on under its momentum.  That's a huge amount of space that needs to be searched at a low enough altitude to be able to see debris. 

• Fact #6: If Flight 370 was hijacked, it would not have vanished from radar

Hijacking an airplane does not cause it to simply vanish from radar. Even if transponders are disabled on the aircraft, ground radar can still readily track the location of the aircraft using so-called “passive” radar (classic ground-based radar systems that emit a signal and monitor its reflection).

Thus, the theory that the flight was hijacked makes no sense whatsoever. When planes are hijacked, they do not magically vanish from radar.

Sure it could have. Read the part above where I talked about the transponder being turned off. 

So, the reality is that there is likely no conspiracy, that "they" aren't hiding anything from you, and that "mainstream media" is telling you everything you know.

While I was writing this post, Wired published this article that articulates much of what I said here. It's nice to be right once in a while. 

Why Is This Even a Thing

A lot of electrons have been spread around as people light up the internet to talk about the recent debate between Bill Nye (The Science Guy) and Ken Ham... he doesn't have a fancy title. Their debate lasted about two hours and they were discussing Evolution vs Creation. More broadly it once again thrust the escalating conflict between science and religion back into the public spotlight.

I have no wish to engage in what I believe is a zero-sum game. Neither side is going to be swayed by the other, no matter how persuasive the argument. Actually, to put a fine point on it, science-minded folk would be swayed if there is even one piece of testable, verifiable evidence to suggest the existence of a god or god-like figure. Creationists just won't accept scientific truths, even in the face of overwhelming, testable, verified evidence.

So, I'm not going to play out the he-said/she-said of the debate. You can watch if for yourself. Just do a google search for Bill Nye, Ken Ham, debate. Sit back and be prepared to cry at the willful ignorance of a huge section of the North American populace.

What I will do though, is respond to the placards and notes featured in this link. In the post author Matt Stopera got 22 self-identifying creationists to write down questions for people with a brain in their heads  who understand science and, in particular, evolution. The old saw about "There's no such thing as a stupid question" was just disproved 22 times.  However, in the interest of being an educator and in contributing to the public knowledge-base, I'll take on the challenge of answering these questions.

If you're a Creationist, I'll speak slow and use easy-to-understand words.

1. Bill Nye, are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way? Ok, I'm not Bill Nye so for me to offer his opinion would be pretty rude. However I think that if Bill is encouraging kids to think critically, to weigh evidence, and to make decisions based on rational thought, rather than on blind faith.... then yes. Yes he is.

2. Are you scared of a divine creator? How can I be afraid of something that doesn't exist. That's like being afraid of a healthy meal at McDonalds, or of a kitty without a sense of vengeance.  

3. Is it completely illogical that the earth was created mature, i.e. trees created with rings, Adam was created as an adult... I don't even know where to begin with this one. The earth wasn't created "mature". It wasn't "created" in the way that you are meaning. It began as a loosely consolidated mass of swirling dust and gas. Over time gravity compressed it into the earth we know today (about 4 billion years ago). As for trees... they grow a new pair of rings each year. That's just basic biology. I can't begin to give a rational answer about a fictional character like Adam.

4. Does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove Evolution. Ah your smarmy grin says "I've got you." But your basic lack of understanding about a law that you are trumpeting says "I'm an idiot." Read the second law carefully. It says - loosely - that "the entropy of an isolated system never decreases." More simply, isolated systems will trend toward a state of entropy (greater disorganization). Creationists like to hold this up as proof that evolution can't happen because the system - life on earth - is not trending toward less organization. Rather evolution would suggest a trend to a more ordered system.

Guess what: The earth isn't an isolated system. The sun provides energy that fuels all the natural processes. With the input of energy, an open system will not trend toward entropy. Come on, this is basic stuff.

5. How do you explain a sunset if there is no God?  What the hell? Now you're just being obtuse. Do I really have to explain that the earth is a sphere that spins on an axis making it appear that the sun rises and sets? Really? Your question begs a follow up question from me... Do you really believe that the hand of a mythical god lifts the sun up into the sky each day and then lowers it back at night? Really?

6. If Evolution is true.... oh screw it. I can't type this garbage out any longer. Click the above link open in a new tab. Read the questions yourself and follow along below.  For the record. the answer to number 6 is "see #4".

7. What about them?

8. I think you don't understand the meaning of the word "objective". Let's assume you mean "subjective". I have to answer your question with two questions: Why does there have to be a subjective view of life? Why does there have to be a reason? Life is life. End of story.

9. Yes. By chance. Well not really chance. There is some really cool math modelling that describes the probabilities of life. In our case life came from Amino acids, the primordial soup, and energy from the sun, and the mutations that allowed the creation of fuel through chemical processes. You do know that scientists have made this happen in labs, don't you? Just, do yourself a favour and go read "The Selfish Gene", or "Climbing Mount Improbable" both by Richard Dawkins. They're great primers to the subject and both make the math reasonably easy to understand.

10. Oh FFS. That's not a question.

11. Rational-thinking people don't do that. Rational thinking people may subscribe to a theory that says life on earth may have been seeded by biological material trapped in interstellar dust that settled on the surface of the earth, billions of years ago. I assure you, no rational person believes that we were "intelligently designed" by space men.

12. First of all, how many in-between steps would you require? Because I think that if we produced four, you'd want five. If we produced 100, you'd want 101. Secondly, please do even a little bit of research. Lots of  intermediates have been found; not just Lucy. They include: Ardipithecus (the intermediate between humans, modern apes and our common ancestor), Australopithecus aka Lucy (a genus comprised of a number of pre-homo species linking us to both our common ancestor and modern hominids), Homo habilus (a direct link to modern humans and the first documented tool makers), Homo erectus (the first hominids to be documented outside of Africa, the first to colonize non-African lands), Homo rhodensiensis (our direct ancestors. They displaced the Neanderthals and are the most recent link to Homo sapiens). So, how many more do you want. You Creationists have always said "Show us just one transitional fossil. I've just given you five.

13. That's the first reasonable question of the bunch. The answer is: Not really, not directly. Metamorphosis is the process by which a living creature changes its overall form in the course of its life. Caterpillar to butterfly, tadpole to frog etc... It doesn't directly support Evolution, but it is an evolved process.

14. Yes, Evolution is a theory. A theory is a testable idea that is supported by prior research and a body of scientific, verified knowledge. You've just completely mis-represented what a theory is. It is testable, verifiable, and observable. On the other hand, Creationism is an idea, a story, a myth. It's got all the validity of Goldilocks. It has no evidence to support it, and no experimentation can be done to prove or disprove it. Please do not lump Creationism (or its bastard-cousin, Intelligent Design) in with scientific theories, like evolution. Evolution isn't taught as fact. It's taught as scientific theory. The reason Evolution is taught in science class, is that it's science.

15. Part A - see the above answer. Part B, I don't object to Creationism or Intelligent Design being taught in school. I object to them being taught in a SCIENCE CLASS. Stick 'em in an optional religion or philosophy class. I don't care. Most scientists wouldn't care either. Just keep them out of science classrooms and make them options.

16. You don't need an increase in genetic information in order for an organism to evolve. What you need is for a genetic mutation to take advantage of a given situation so that it (the gene) becomes successful in being passed on to the organism's offspring. There is no correlation between the amount of genetic information and the "height" - for lack of a better term, to which a species has evolved.

17. Breeding and passing on genes, if there has to be a reason. But, why does there have to be a reason? Why can't life just be for life's sake?

18. Shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up.... and go read #12. I'm going to go bang my head into a wall to make all the stupid you're shoving in there, fall out.

19. Yes. Next.

20. Yes it is amazing. Why does that require an divine creator? Why not be impressed by the amazing natural processes that drive these phenomena?

21. It didn't. Big bang theory posits that an infinitesimally small, infinitesimally dense collection of matter exploded outward. There was no star.

22.  Just go away. Common ancestor, divergent evolution.... you know what.... just crawl back under your rock and leave the rest of us alone if you can't do so much as a simple on-line search.

Here's a bonus for you: I read a comment on one of the pages that featured the debate between Nye and Ham. The commenter asked (and I'm paraphrasing), how can you believe in science when scientists are constantly changing their minds and rewriting text books and theories... whereas the bible was written thousands of years ago and remains unchanged. This one really had me scratching my head. I understand that the scientifically illiterate may not get that the body of scientific knowledge evolves and changes based on research and experimentation. Scientists disprove theories and generate new ones all the time, based on their experimentation. That can be hard to grasp. However, for a creationist to display such a profound lack of understanding about the one book (really three books: Old Testament, New Testament, and the Apocrypha) upon which they are basing their entire world view is beyond astounding.

The bible as it's read today, is far from what its original authors intended. The version you read today - the King James Bible - was written in 1611. It was more of a political revision rather than a simple translation. James wanted the bible to reflect emerging ideas about eccelsiology (which apparently has nothing to do with tasty pastries). Ideas about the status of Mary changed not once, but at least six times in 1700 years. Even in Christianity, various sects can't agree on the basics of who she was. The basic ideas of heaven, hell, and purgatory are taken from Zoroastrian beliefs; not ascribed by the word of God, as modern Christians would have you believe.

So, where does that leave us? Well, I feel better just getting this off my chest because reading the questions, listening to Ken Ham, and knowing that there are people in the world like Michelle Bachmann, spewing out idiocy just makes my head hurt. Knowing that something like 48% of Americans believe in Biblical Creation and dismiss evolution makes me weep for future generations.

So, I do this. I sleep better knowing that I can add my voice to the masses raging at darkness and ignorance.

An Open Letter to Our Future Mayor and Council

There are now five days until we all head to the polls to cast our ballots. At the end of the day 26 out of 35 of you will be unhappy with the day's events and nine of you will be our representatives. You'll be charged with guiding the operations, growth, and future of Red Deer over the next four years, and for being a part of the planning that will chart the course for the next 30 - 50 years.

My words here are on behalf of the community of reasonably-minded people, who truly believe that our future lies in creating a thoughtful, environmentally and economically sustainable, multi-cultural community; one that encourages business, promotes kindness, fosters environmental stewardship and ensures that we watch out for and support our fellows.

In short. I am speaking for all the citizens who want you to "do-right" by the entire community, not just those who can afford new toys, complete meals, winter vacations, and who think "like you". 

We have been subjected to the worst electoral season I can remember. While many candidates have been trying to engage in critical thought, full discourse, and well-rounded conversation, many others have treated us like children. Nenshi refers to his philosophy as "politics in full sentences." This is an ideal that all candidates - and future Mayors and Councillors - should ascribe to. Yet, there has been an element this season, that is all too-willing to reduce discourse to baseless accusations, twisted information, deliberate obfuscation of information, and most disgustingly, personal attacks and character assassinations.

Stop it. 

Growth, planning, social programs, environmental stewardship, and economic progress cannot flourish in this climate. It just can't. Reducing everything to carefully-parsed data, and black/white arguments will bind Council and prevent anything from getting done. Careful thought, full sentences, and conciliation are the markers on the path forward.

I've chosen to address two of the biggest issues to come out of this rancid electoral season: Spending and accountability.

First, some thoughts about spending: Funding proposals for capital projects and pilots will appear in front of you. It will be all too easy to vote no, saying "the majority of the people won't use this." At the risk of being the guy who turns on the light in a dark room, I'll point out that most of these requests don't service "the majority of the population". The skateboard parks, the Collicut Centre, the Rec Centre, the bike lanes, any new subdivision... they all serve minorities. Sometimes they're regional minorities, such as the case with the Collicut Centre or a new subdivision. Sometimes they're demographic minorities, as with the skateparks. Sometimes they're tiny minorities, as with the bike lanes. But, they all contribute to our overall quality of life and they all contribute to our community's appeal to people looking to invest, move, and create wealth here. More importantly, while they may serve minorities, the minorities they serve need those services and facilities. 

Also, for those of you requiring an economics refresher, please learn the difference between debt (which is used to fund big expensive things) and deficit (which would be tied to an operational budget - and something that Red Deer doesn't have).

Secondly, some brief words on "accountability" (the quotes are deliberate): There will come a time when you'll need to move a discussion "in camera". Those of you running on accountability platforms are going to have to weigh your responsibilities. Are you going to hold up progress by refusing to go "in camera", or are you going to alienate your constituency and join the off-record conversation. You can't have it both ways. By campaigning on a myth of accountability, you'll have potentially painted yourself into a corner.

Sometime around April, via Facebook, I flippantly told one candidate, who shall remain nameless, that unless they could hold two divergent opinions at the same time, and see the merit in both of them, that they should back off and let the adults work. While this wasn't particularly eloquent, the point stands. Municipal politics isn't the forum for polarizing points of view. It is not the forum for absolutes.It certainly isn't the place for anybody who lacks empathy.

Part of your job over the next four years will be to empathize with all the citizens of Red Deer. Your job is to carefully weigh the information before you and to make the decisions that benefit current residents and future generations. Your job, is to be able to look a pie and realize that there is more than one way to carve and serve it. If you get your job wrong, the pie will go rancid and we'll all lose. Get it right and our community will thrive and evolve.

Submitted respectfully, to all candidates.

Todd Nivens

Simple Summer Saturday Mornings

The annual Red Deer Farmer's Market has come and gone. Six months ago we began our Saturday morning pilgrimages down the Spruce Drive bike lanes, into the free bike lockup, and off into the morass of human flesh; searching for lemonade, coffee, fish tacos, carrots, beans, hummus, cabbage, and any other locally-made, locally-grown food we could fit in our mouths and in our backpacks. Aside from food, we don't buy much at the market. We don't need weeders or pottery, carved furniture or lawn ornaments. We have our favourite vendors: Innisfail growers for Beck Farm's carrots, KJs for lemonade. Shan and I eat breakfast at the 'Stache trailer and the kids eat waffles from Victoria Waffles (local and scratch made is better than franchised and mix).

We have our route through the market and it rarely changes. The bikes go into the lockup and we wander down the first aisle, weaving our way up and down the rows, dodging wagons and baby strollers, mobility-chairs and wobbly toddlers. We aren't in a hurry. Our friends are there ready to stop, let the traffic flow around and through our group, and have a chat. There's coffee to get to down the driveway and Foui's banter to go along with his hummus.

Despite plans and promises to get together "one of these days" we only saw our friend Peter and his girls at the market; five times. Each time making plans that never really seemed to come together in the busyness of summer. If it wasn't for our Saturday morning routine, we'd have never seen him.

There was some evolution to our market mornings this year. Our son got his first job: Making and selling kettlecorn with the crew at KJs. Our daughter rode up all the hills on her bike, without needing to stop and walk. Toward the end of August the candidates for Mayor, Council, and the two school boards started staking out their spots. Some clinging to corners like a ship at anchor never wavering in their choice of space. Others like Cindy Jefferies, were more fluid. You never knew where Cindy was going to have her booth. The candidates brought new people into the market and new conversation.

That's the magic of the Red Deer Farmer's market. There are few other places in the City that I feel such a sense of connection to my fellow Red Deerians. Each weekend 20,000 of us wander in the cool morning air, and create a shared experience of what it means to be a community. For five and a half glorious hours, on 26 consecutive Saturdays we put our differences aside. We don't bicker about bike lanes and spending, accountability and development. We just "be". We light up when we see our friends, get a jolt from that first sip of coffee, get nourished by the food and conversation we take in, and make each others' Saturdays start off just right. Spontaneous plans for barbecues, firepits, parties, drinks, dates, are made at the market. Market mornings are loaded with the potential for weekend fun, unimagined the night before.

The Market is the manifestation of how I envision the future of Red Deer. It's dense yet happy. It's commerce but it's simple. It's conversation not accusation. It's multicultural and traditional. It's familiar and exotic. It's bikes and cars and transit and pedestrians and skate boards and strollers. It's got room for everybody. Nobody has ever been told "I'm sorry it's full", and been turned away from the market. At the market there's always room for one more; one more person, one more great idea, one more voice.

With winter on the horizon and snow already being made at the ski hill, my family will have other Saturday morning traditions; skiing, snowshoeing, and winter biking. However in a couple of weeks we'll have eaten the last of the kettle corn, and the carrot bag will be getting low. In a month or two the honey will be purchased from the store, and the only time we'll feel the push and pull of the human wave is the rare occasion when we venture into *shudder, the mall. And we'll grow wistful.

We'll miss our market community. No longer able to just bump into our fellows and friends, we'll need to make plans and do "things". Our winters become scheduled and our interactions become less fluid, more separate from the flow. Our community becomes a little more detached.

I've traveled all over Canada, and the States, and through east Africa. No place I've been in North America has a market like we do. Sure there are lots of other Farmers' Markets out there, but Red Deer's just feels special. It makes us one. It makes us whole.

So Much Love

When I was around four I got my first two wheeler bike. It was orange, had tiny 12" wheels, upright ape-hanger handle bars, a double crossbar, a small banana seat, solid rubber tires on metal rims, and spokes as thick as your baby finger. I vividly remember falling in love with that bike when it saved me from being stung by a wasp. I pedaled hard, and she raced me to safety.

My next bike was red with white fenders. Today it would be retro-cool with its curved crossbar and wide handlebars. I think my poor father replaced eight or nine back tires on it, and our street was streaked with long, black skid marks. To this day I get a charge out of coaster-brake skids. There's just something satisfying about jamming your foot back on the pedal and sending the back of the bike around in a long, screeching arc.

A black Raleigh Rampar BMX, a red 10 speed of unknown manufacture, a copper Apollo ten speed (which is still in my basement), a black Raleigh Ozark, and a stunningly-painted blue and white swirl GT Tequesta, all led me to my current bike, my beloved green Brodie.

When I was ten I got my first skateboard; a Hobie Weaver Woodie.

In an age where all the kids had yellow "banana" boards, and the world (outside of California) had not yet heard of Tony Alva, Stacey Peralta and the Z-boys, this thing was the bomb. This board led the way to a Tony Hawk board, a Skull Skates, and most recently it's led to me "borrowing" my son Kaden's longboard for errands.

Today I am a 42 year-old supposed adult. I have a job and responsibilities, a family, a mortgage; all the things that go along with being "grown up". I have a truck that gets us up and down the ski hill, pulls the tent trailer, and on days when I can't ride, I reluctantly use it to get to and from work.

I say reluctantly because I have never gotten the same joy from driving, as I have from riding and skating. There is something indescribably freeing about swinging your leg over the seat, standing on the pedals and making yourself move. Every single day I get a little reminder of what it was like to be eight-years-old and having the freedom to glide my way to school.

While there are challenges with commuting by bike - weather and traffic are at the top of the list - the payback you get from riding is immense. You cannot cycle to work and arrive in a bad mood. It's just not possible. You might be cold, wet, tired, or sweaty. Maybe you crashed along the way. But you'll still get off your bike, park and lock it up, give it a little backwards glance, and grin as you head through the door. You'll feel a great little rush of nostalgia mixed with anticipation every single morning when you arrive. I keep waiting for it to wear off, but after 38 years of riding a bike it never does. 

Maybe we're getting away with something. Maybe we've tapped into something that keeps us young at heart, as well as keeping us young in body. I do not know a single person who rides their bike on a regular basis, who wishes they were doing something different. 

My question for the night is this: How can something that universally makes people happy, create so much angst among non-cyclists? 

Granted, we're caught up in election fever right now and the collective brain of Red Deer is operating under the dual narcotics of power and manufactured outrage, but the amount of anger being directed at cyclists is astounding. Put the issue of our bike lanes aside and the anger is even harder to understand. 

People are demanding that cyclists ride on the sidewalk/off the sidewalk/only on Waskasoo Park trails. They are downright pissed that there are some folks in the world who choose to commute in some other way, than by driving a car.

I'll let you in on our little secret. Here's what cyclists think of people who drive their cars to and from work and school. NOTHING. We don't give them a second thought, beyond the normal attention paid to them in traffic. Riding a bike is fun. That's it. While drivers are getting fueled on their daily dose of crappy pop music, bad news, and road rage, we're having a ball. You see while drivers get in their cars and listen to the kids yell at each other, and deal with other slow moving cars, and peer through foggy windows, and look longingly for parking, and wait in line to buy gas, and generally arrive at work exhausted; we've had some fresh air, some exercise, and that daily reminder of how we felt when we were kids.

I love my bike. I love every bike and every skateboard I've ever owned. If choosing to grab a little bit of childhood each and every day on my way to work makes me somehow a bad person, I can safely ignore the accusers. And so can you. 

Give it a try. Pull your bike out of storage, strap on a helmet, remind yourself how to make the appropriate hand signals, and head out to work. The eight-year-old inside your brain will giggle with delight. And you know what, you just might as well.

From Evolution to the Mily Way

We have a sign on the back of one of the doors at work. It says "Science is a package deal. Don't believe in evolution? Then no airplanes, internet, or medicine for you."

The beautiful thing about science is that it doesn't require you to believe it. Its laws are immutable and its theories are supported by experimentation. You don't have to believe in gravity. We know how it works, why it manifests itself the way it does, and how it affects the objects in space because of science that went into creating its laws. Believe it or don't, it just doesn't matter; gravity still works. A lack of belief doesn't make an airplane fall out of the sky, it doesn't shut down the internet, it doesn't stop medicine from working, and it won't stop a cheetah from killing a gazelle.

Likewise believing in something won't make it true. You can believe, all you want, that the leaves on a poplar tree will come out purple next spring. The science of biology says that they'll be green, just like every year. Believe all you want that things will be different, but it just ain't so. You can believe with your heart of hearts that the earth is the centre of the universe. The science of cosmology proves otherwise. You can believe with all the fervency of a Sunday morning televangelist, that man walked with the dinosaurs. The sciences of palaeontology, geology, and archaeology show - definitively - why this isn't the case.  

I love science of all kinds. I love data and research. I love the history of science, and I love the bright places it can lead us in the future. I love the arcane verbiage of physics, and the long descriptive words of biology. I love that the evolution of fruit flies can turn on a single environmental variable. I love that science can be simple and mind-bogglingly complicated -at the same time. I love that science can get such a hold on a person, that they will spend their lives studying the minutia of the quantum packet so they can help the rest of us understand the universe and our place in it. I love that I've met scientists who know more about the mathematical relationship between the rings in a snail's shell, than they do about pop stars and celebrities. I love that they sacrifice time, money, personal safety all in the pursuit of the knowledge that makes us all better.

Is science perfect? Well, the process of science is pretty close to it. Is the application of science perfect? Definitely not. Science did not get us into the predicaments of global warming, deforestation, water contamination, pollution, desertification, and the other calamities that have befallen us. People created these problems. These are human-caused problems that sprang from our greed, our need to consume, and our manipulation of science to feed these base instincts.

The science of creating usable fuel from the sticky, black, remnants of prehistoric plants, is amazing. It's not science's fault that we ramped up production of fossil fuels and began to slowly toast the planet.

Does science have the answers to everything? Not yet. There are many wonders in the universe that we don't understand. There are animal adaptations we've seen, that we can't explain. There are phenomena that occur daily, that may confound us. What we do have, thanks to science and scientists, is a body of knowledge from which we can learn, and which we can evolve as we learn more. We also have a process - a method - for research, experimentation, and for the creation of new knowledge. This is where the true value of science lies, and I think it's the most important idea that grew out of the enlightenment.

Early scientists recognized and accepted with humility, that they didn't know everything. They looked at the belief structures and decided that there needed to be a different way. Knowledge, they understood, couldn't be controlled by a few powerful men, who would tell the people what to believe. The scientists of the enlightenment risked their lives to show the world that it was good to ask questions. They took enormous personal risk to try to understand living processes, the mechanics of the universe, atmospheric phenomena, and evolution; beyond the dogma of the top-down belief system.

If we want to believe in something or have faith in something, then let us have believe that we can continue to learn and grow. Let us have faith that our creativity and intelligence will apply the processes of science and that we'll eventually unravel all the mysteries.

To do anything else leaves us clouded in the myopathy of myth and blinded by the fear of the unknown.

Here's something to either end or start your day with.

And I Didn't Think I Had A Blog Post Tonight

This got posted on Facebook tonight. Please read it and then come back to this post

I started writing a comment and it kind of got away from me. I cut my comment out and pasted it here.

I'm tired of watching young men and women get sent to places to fight and die for a constructed ideal.
I'm tired of watching innocent children get bombs dropped on them.
I'm tired of watching world leaders choose who to defend based on the innocents' strategic important to those of us in the West.
I'm tired of having to listen to the same bullshit we've been hearing since we were kids, watching the Vietnam war unfold.
I'm tired of video games glorifying violence while society decries it when people of colour use it.
I'm tired of my tax dollars buying ammunition, guns, airplanes, and other tools of war, when our infrastructure is failing, our schools are underfunded, and while our health care system places no value on the most vulnerable in society because it can't afford to.

Mostly, I'm tired of wars being waged because too many people are too damn stupid, lazy, or pigheaded to figure out a way to think through a problem and find a solution.

Yes, many people are going to die. But instead of accepting this as an inevitable and marching off to war; being fed a lie that somehow our oh-so-comfortable way of life is being defended, let's perhaps ask our leaders to do better.

I'm tired of the jingoism that says "Our soldiers are fighting for our freedom." Because guess what. They're not. Whether or not the rebels or the gov't prevails in Syria will make not one bit of difference to your or my freedom. It didn't matter in Viet Nam, it didn't matter in Iraq (both times), and it sure as hell doesn't matter to your freedom (or mine) now.

If defending innocent people from war crimes, from dictators, from genocide, from human rights violations, from all the monsters in the world - as our leaders would have us believe - then we'd be sending soldiers to Nepal, to Yemen, to Guatemala, to the DRC, and to myriad other places around the world where people suffer at the hands of others. But we don't. We send our soldiers to the places that are strategically important. And we lie to them and tell them they're serving their country.

Maybe they are. But they're being done a huge disservice. These men and women who go off and fight and die under Canadian, British, American, and other flags, they aren't serving the people of their country. We don't want them to go to these places and we don't benefit from them being there. They go because governments and economies benefit. That innocent people get helped is a side benefit.

It is in these people that the soldier should find strenght. They are the lucky ones. They are the ones to be in the fortunate enough position of living in a hellhole that has something the west wants. They get saved because of our greed, and because our soldiers are willing to fight to preserve our sense of entitlement to the world's riches.

Let's stop lying to our soldiers, and to the desperate people in all corners of the globe - they're better, and smarter than that. So are we.

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.