In support of three year contracts

Source: http://sweet-tiramisu.deviantart.com/

Once again I feel alone in the world, unable to relate to others. What I think makes perfect sense is an evil practice that must be abolished to everybody else.

This time I'm talking about cell phone contracts. First, let me tell you how I shop for a cell phone. I walk into a store and I say: "what is the best phone you can give me for free?" If I agree to sign a 3 year contract I can get a better phone than if I sign a 1 or 2 year contract, so I lock in for 3 years and walk out with a pretty decent phone. I use that phone for 5 years or so, then I do it over again.

I'm not one of those people who suffers debilitating embarrassment and anxiety if my technology is more than 6 months old. I have been using my decent - and FREE - LG Android phone for a year and a half now. I am half way through my contract, and I have no real desire to upgrade the phone or bolt to a different carrier.

Of course, the phone is not really free. I pay for it each month. Part of my monthly contract fee goes towards covering the cost of the hardware that I'm using. If I lock in to a 3 year contract then my service provider can count on 36 months of fees and can therefore give me my hardware for less, or no, money. At the same time, if I break my contract I should pay a fine because I haven't finished paying for my phone.

Perhaps the contract termination fees are too high. Maybe more clarity is needed in cell phone contracts. Maybe service providers should provide unlocked phones and scale back obscene roaming charges and keep records of cell phone serial numbers to stop thefts and black market sales of iPhones.

I am not ruling out that there may be room for improved regulation in the cell phone industry, but to remove three year contracts is to remove choice. You would think that consumer groups would be advocates for more choice, but not in this industry.

Representatives of three consumer groups urged the national telecom regulator (CRTC) to do away with three-year terms in favour of capping contracts at two years.
...
"Consumers are sick of termination penalties designed to keep them locked into long-term contracts," said John Lawford of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

I have a bit of advice for consumers who don't like 3 year contracts: DON'T FUCKING SIGN A THREE YEAR CONTRACT!

"Oh, but the phones are soo expensive with a 2 year contract" whine the pale skinny-legged consumers without looking up from their phones because they're busy tweeting what stupid badge they unlocked on Fourfuckingsquare. Well you know what? The phones are expensive because you haven't shown enough of a commitment to the service provider to warrant a heavily subsidized phone.

That's simple market arithmetic. You get a cheaper phone with a longer contract, which happens to be perfect for people like me. But the cheap phones are dependent on people honouring their contracts.

"Honouring their contracts? Whaaaa?" said the skinny-legged consumer as she was uploading a 6 second Vine video of her cat yawning. Yes, contracts. Ask your Dad. He'll tell you.

The norm in some countries is that consumers pay full price for their phone -- say $600 or so -- and switch plans and providers at will. For some people this would be better. We are actually lucky in Canada in a way, because we have the option of getting a subsidized phone with longer term contracts. I stress "option" because nobody is forcing anybody to sign up for three years.

Our contract fees may still be high, but part of that is due to the high cost of covering our low-density but second largest country in the world with infrastructure. And we may still have less choice than we should have, but ultimately a lot of the problems that plague our industry could be solved with more competition instead of more regulation. This includes opening up our market to more foreign-owned service providers like Wind Mobile.

What we should not do is regulate an industry to cater to a specific class of consumer that signs long term contracts without knowing what those contracts are all about

Phil Sheegl: The right man for the job

Time and again City of Winnipeg CAO Phil Sheegl proves to us that he's the right man for the job.

Some people mistake his genius for something else, but geniuses are often misunderstood. Phil is very much misunderstood.

The latest evidence of this came when it was recently made known that Phil was using a loading zone at city hall to park his Benz. The reaction was not positive, but only because people got distracted by the whole "authorized vehicles only" thing and missed the bigger picture. It is all explained here:

Sheegl decided to use the space full-time following the Civic Centre Parkade closure, as a way to minimize the number of parking spots the city had to find elsewhere.

If most people lost their parking spot, they would look for another parking spot. In fact, that's what everyone else at city hall did, often parking a several minute walk away. Not Phil.

Phil realized the inefficiency of spending time looking for another parking spot, not to mention the wasted time, effort and money of parking in a parkade a few blocks away. It is so much more efficient to park right at City Hall at a loading dock, and efficiency is what Phil is all about. It courses through his veins and pulses through his neurons.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com

Phil Sheegl is simply incapable of making inefficient choices. That is why he parks in the loading dock and we should be thankful because those are exactly the qualities we need at City Hall ... especially at a time when the infrastructure deficit is growing and tax increases are straining us all. Maybe the way one person parks will not make a big difference, but that's not the point. The point is that Phil's special parking spot is indicative of his ability to think outside the box and find solutions that save time and money, and I for one wouldn't have it any other way.

Plus ... though one car may not make a difference, if we all parked where ever the hell we wanted, think about how much efficient this city would be.

Report on speed limits -- will they listen?

Well this was a nice surprise:

A new city report, released this morning, recommends Winnipeg not lower the residential speed limit to 40 km/h. The report said many studies conducted throughout North America have shown that driver speed is affected by the context of the road and not by speed limit signs.

When I wrote about the half-baked proposal at City Council to reduce speed limits (Speed limit proposal based on bad statistics) I had assumed it was a lost cause. Useless words floating off into space. We've seen time after time, like with the hand-held cell phone ban, how legislative bodies completely ignore facts and write their laws based optics or misguided impressions.

Oh I know my blog still won't make a difference, but there is a wee small chance that this new report will, given that, among other things, the report is not authored by a anonymous blogger.

More importantly, the report compiles data from a number of studies in other cities to draw it's conclusions, including the Edmonton study that was grievously misused to promote Harvey Smith's misguided proposal to lower speed limits.

I ended my other blog post by saying:

"What we need in this city is a common-sense approach to setting speed limits. Set speed limits at levels that reasonable according to industry standards and adjust as necessary for special cases like school zones. Let's not create misguided legislation based on inconclusive data and misinterpreted studies."

Perhaps with this new evidence that artificially slow speed limits don't work, our councilors will take heed and rethink their proposal, though that it still doubtful. Some people are simply immune to facts. I had a 15 or 20 minute conversation with Harvey Smith about this in September, and there is no budging him.

Good intentions should not trump good sense.

Speed limit proposal based on bad statistics.

Winnipeg City Council is discussing lowering speed limits to 40 km/h in residential areas. The justification for this includes a study conducted in Edmonton that appears to show a great benefit to lowering the speed limit. It's even baked right in to the proposal before council.

 The proposal includes the following:

AND WHEREAS the City of Edmonton recently reduced speed limits to 40 km/h in several residential neighbourhoods with a 25% drop in severe collisions;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council ask the Winnipeg Public Service to consider lowering the residential speed limit in Winnipeg to 40 km/h

Here's the problem: THE RESULTS ARE INSIGNIFICANT.

From the study:

However, these reductions were not significant, as the 95% confidence interval included zero, implying no change or no effect. Generally, when a confidence interval is very wide like this one, it is an indication of an inadequate sample size (i.e. short “After” period) and implies poor precision. Consequently, the results of the collision analysis were inconclusive and additional research will be required to substantiate the impact of the pilot project on the number and frequency of collisions.

(emphasis mine)

That's a big problem with research related to public policy. Give a politician a study that says "implying reductions in predicted collision counts of 25% with a 95% confidence interval of -81%, 77%" and the politician will read "blah blah blah 25% reduction in collisions! blah blah blah."

I read "95% confidence interval of -81%, 77%" and see "these results are as useful as a tampon dispenser in my garage".


Some may also point out that the study showed a statistically significant decrease in operating speed in the study areas with the 40 km/h speed limit, but the decrease only averaged 3.95 km/h. Assisting with the decrease were the following factors:

i) a pre- and postcommunication plan;
ii) installation of new speed limit signage and setting up speed display boards, dynamic messaging signs and school dollies;
iii) implementing community speed programs (i.e. Speed Watch, Neighbourhood Pace Cars and Safe Speed Community vans) and
iv) using covert photo-radar trucks.

It was the result of a full-out blitz to increase awareness and reduce speeds, with a modest result of 4 km/h.


Look, I don't want kids to get run over by cars any more than you do, but this isn't the answer. Most people already drive a reasonable speed in residential areas. This isn't going to change that. What this will do is lower speed limits on collector streets where 50 km/h is a reasonable speed, but are deemed "residential", providing more opportunity for the police to set up radar traps to ticket drivers who are driving in a responsible manner.

What we need in this city is a common-sense approach to setting speed limits. It is insane that Kenaston Blvd has the same speed limit as Valour Rd. Set speed limits at levels that reasonable according to industry standards (ie. 85% percentile) and adjust as necessary for special cases like school zones. Let's not create misguided legislation based on inconclusive data and misinterpreted studies. That never turns out well.

I've decided it's time for a change

I didn't want to put "electoral system" in the title because then nobody would click on the link, but
I've decided it's time for a change in how we elect our representatives.

Perhaps our current system makes sense federally, but I'm not sure it makes sense provincially or locally. This thought came to mind as I read a Metro article last week about the provincial by-election in Fort Whyte. In the article, the candidates were asked about the most important issues that came up as they campaigned door-to-door.

With the province increasingly mired in debt, billions being committed to Hydro projects of dubious benefit, and various problems with health care, family services, etc., the key issues, according to the candidates, are:

According to Brandy Schmidt, NDP ...

"the Waverly overpass request—that’s a big one," she said, adding an overpass at Waverly Street near Taylor Avenue would be something she’d look into if elected.

Bob Axworthy, Liberal ...

The most important issue, according to Axworthy, is having a representative in Fort Whyte who lives in the community.

Let me get this straight: the most important issue is not the provincial debt, or health care or increasing hydro rates or even infrastructure, but what street the candidate's house is on. Score one for Mr. Jetz TV, I guess.

Brian Pallister, PC ...

It varies from too-loud train whistles to the need for more elementary and a high school in the area, to traffic problems on Waverley Street.
...
While president of the Portage la Prairie Chamber of Commerce, helped find a resolution to train whistling — experience he hopes to bring to the Manitoba Legislature.

That's right: train whistles. Thankfully he is well-equipped to tackle the train whistle problem that plagues Manitoba, having worked on a similar problem in Portage La Prairie. He can leverage that valuable experience as MP and leader of the opposition.

Only Don Benham, Green Party, mentioned issues of province-wide significance: a proposed Honesty in Politics Act and recycling policy.

A common criticism of our 'first past the post' regional system is that it produces outcomes that are not consistent with the popular vote. This is true, but to add to that, you have these weird distortions where a person who will be governing on matters of provincial significance are campaigning on local issues that are significant only to a tiny fraction of the population. I don't know about you, but when a provincial election candidate knocks on my door and asks me what concerns I have with my riding, I have to wrack my brain to think of something that doesn't sound trivial. I'm not concerned about my riding ... I'm concerned about my province.

This preposterous state of affairs sometimes also results in something resembling bribery, as we saw in Southdale where residents voted NDP to get a fancy new community centre complex. Meanwhile, the candidate they elected to get their community center is voting on legislation that impacts everyone. It doesn't make sense.

The same arguments can be made of civic elections. I think we should elect a panel of councilors that have the best interests of the entire city in mind. I think most do, but if a councilor from Ward X continually makes poor decisions there is nothing that most people can do about it. Only a small percentage of people have a say in whether that individual gets re-elected, and because he has name recognition in that particular ward re-election is almost a certainty.

The recent Shindico land-swap craziness is evidence that there are massive systemic problems at Winnipeg City Hall that transcend ward boundaries. [By the way, Bart Kives has been doing a great job of covering this. See: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]. I'm not saying that council is directly to blame for this, but certainly some of them are complicit in allowing a culture to develop where grievous violations of process like this can be considered normal and acceptable.

It is my belief that if we moved to a system where all people in the city had a say in electing all councilors, there would be greater turn-over and more accountability.

I'm not prepared to come up with the details of how such a system would work, and I think it's highly unlikely anything will change anyhow since those in power have a vested interest in preserving the system that put them in power. I just think it can be better, is all.

Murder and mayhem in my neighbourhood!

I had to laugh while reading Ruthless, violent merlins launch gory enterprise from neighbours' roof in the FYI section of the Saturday paper. It was so over the top I wasn't sure if the author was trying to be humourous or if they were really that appalled at the behaviour of these "blasted raptors", and how the "carnage" continued "day by disastrous day."

Reading the column was good fun, but I had completely forgotten about it until this evening. We have merlins in our neighbourhood, and as I was making dinner (mmmmm, ramen noodles ...) I saw one of them darting into the apple tree behind my house, chasing a black bird. I couldn't see the action, but there was rustling of leaves and weird bird-like noises -- I presume the sound a bird makes as it's screaming for help -- and then the merlin flew off empty handed.

I now have an injured blackbird in the apple tree in my back yard. I would take a picture of it for you, but it looks pretty much like any other blackbird.

Am I disgusted? No. I find it surprising that somebody would be upset or disgusted by a wild predator attacking a fellow animal. Particularly since the violent merlins in question are close relatives to the adored peregrine falcons that make the Radisson Hotel home every summer. Thousands of people watch the web cam as the doting parents tend to the chicks and feed them food. The food, of course, is not take-out from Marcellos or the Green Leaf Café, but birds and small animals that have been torn to shreds by the "powerful, scythe-like talons and razor-sharp beak" of the falcons. It's always a big moment when the young birds are able to tear apart their own prey. "I was thrilled to see the parents bring food to the babies - twice! They are getting more independent every day; shredding the prey on their own in some instances", notes one commenter on the CBC web site.

Merlin. source: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu

Story time: I had an opportunity to visit the famed San Diego Zoo a while back. My favourite part was not the zebras or rhinos or strange Asian mammals that I didn't know existed, but an incident that occurred in the bird enclosure. At one point there was a low-hanging branch reaching out across the walking path, and right in the middle of this branch was a spectacular bird from someplace like Madagascar. This amazing and exotic bird, with vibrant red, blue and yellow feathers, had in it's beak a hairless baby rodent, and it was repeatedly beating the rodent against the branch. Over and over again. Thunk, thunk, thunk. I'm sure the thing was dead, but it just kept pummeling the crap out of the animal anyhow. This amazing, exotic, colourful bird. I think my wife almost threw up, but I thought it was hilarious.

Maybe I'm not normal, but my fascination was not so much a matter of blood lust or murderous tendencies, but my interest in nature. I grew up in a small town surrounded by forest and have a great interest and appreciation for all wild things. You don't often get to experience a lot of the nitty-gritty happenings of wild animals, so when you do see nature at work it is quite interesting. That, plus the bizarre juxtaposition of this glorious bird doing something so brutal, provided endless amusement for me. Much like what watching Queen Elizabeth in a hot dog eating contest might do.

Seeing nature at work is even less common when you live in the city. I'm not talking about joggers getting chased by ravenous racoons. That's not normal. I'm not sure what's going on there. I'm talking about the normal predatory animal behaviour that has been making the world tick for eons. I think rather than complaining about the slaughter in her back yard, the lady who wrote the Backyard Bullies article should appreciate her front row seat to this amazing spectacle.

UPDATE
********
I contacted the author of the Backyard Bullies article, who sent me this:

The Crescent Drive Affair

You should know that I make some tremendous sacrifices for you readers. Tonight for example I attended a community gathering hosted by OURS-Winnipeg co-chair Ron Mazur and Councillor Jenny Gerbasi regarding the future of the Crescent Drive Golf Course. And "Park" ... apparently.

Let me set the stage: There were no free cookies. The small meeting room at CanadInns south was packed with about 140 people, somewhat resembling a community gathering on The Simpsons. Person A: "It's like the City is setting the golf course up to fail." The rest of the room, all together: "Yup" "Setting up to fail" "She's right, it's a set up" "That's for sure". The median age was 60-70 years old and the general sentiment in the room was that Jenny Gerbasi was too pro-development.

During the meeting, Jenny took a lot of heat for voting for a nordic spa development on the site of the struggling golf course clubhouse and parking lot. The residents of the area were quite peeved that they were not consulted on the spa development ahead of time and therefore were not able to exercise their veto over such development matters, as enshrined in the unwritten Constitution Act of -insert person's name-'s Brain.

Ron Mazur was co-hosting as part of a new golf course-specific group called Crescent Park Rescue, in response to the City's request for expressions of interest in developing certain money-losing golf courses. If you haven't picked up on it yet, "park" and "golf course" were used interchangeably throughout the night. As far as I know Crescent Park is not in jeopardy and does not need to be rescued. In fact, at the meeting, Jenny announced that she will be putting forth a motion to pump $1 million into the park for repairs, and that Sam Katz was open to the idea.

Both Jenny and Ron mentioned that the vote of 2/3 of council is required to sell park land, and they were counting on certain votes to save this golf course. What they didn't seem to realize is that a golf course is not a park. I checked the City of Winnipeg web site just to make sure that the definition of a park is not "if it's green and doesn't have houses on it ..."  Sure enough, the definition is more traditional:

Park: Land that is privately or publicly held that has been developed for multiple recreational and leisure-time uses. This land benefits the entire community and balances the demands of the public for outdoor recreational facilities and other amenities, such as pathways, plazas, picnic areas, playgrounds, water features, spaces for free play and leisure.

A golf course does not fit this description at all. It is a single purpose development that does not have spaces for picnics and certainly not "free play"; although you may find water features. I asked Ron Mazur if he had checked the city's definition of "Park" and he had not. Somehow it was just assumed ...

Again, I want to point out that there were NO FREE COOKIES.

There was one guy wearing a Skeleton Canada t-shirt who attempted to be a voice of reason, and even dared to suggest that possibly one or two courses might need to be sold as an alternative to increasing taxes, but that did not go over well. (If you're reading this, Skeleton Canada guy, send me an email.)

There was a promise by Ron to keep fighting to save the park or golf course or whatever, and pleas from Jenny for people to show their support for her, and her lonely fight against the establishment at city hall. Other updates: apparently the nordic spa developer has applied for a development permit, which is good because the old clubhouse has already been torn down; and the golf course is in terrible condition.

Since the nordic spa developer is leveraging the golf course for it's business, I wonder if they bothered to respond to the city's call for expressions of interest in the golf course, to protect their .. you know .. interest? They do have a right of first refusal on the land, or something to that effect, but I'm not sure on the details of how that works. I did not get a chance to ask.

Almost two hours in and it was still dragging on. I had to leave. Next time I'm calling in advance to see if there will be cookies.

Barking dogs and squawking suburbanites

Sometimes I think maybe I'm just crazy. A story on CTV today, presented in a matter of fact manner by Caroline Barghout, makes absolutely no sense to me.

In the story, residents of an apartment block are complaining about barking bogs. The lady says she can't get any sleep. What makes this special is that the dogs are police dogs in a police compound, so apparently it's news worthy, because unlike dogs owned by individuals, police dogs aren't supposed to bark in public.

What makes this especially stupid is that the police dogs have been there for years, whereas the apartment building is so new that it's still under construction. So somebody moves into an apartment on the edge of an industrial park of the outskirts of the city one week ago, and they complain about barking dogs that were there long before they moved in? Somehow this makes sense to other people. I can't imagine the outcry when some industry tries to expand in the industrial park and makes some noise or smell or something.

What makes this especially especially stupid is that a new indoor compound is planned for the dogs and it is scheduled to begin construction this summer, therefore these residents of this apartment block built on cheap land on the edge of an industrial park will only have to endure this hardship with the barking dogs for maybe half a year. Yet that's not good enough. Something needs to be done now! After all, the problem is so acute that the people in the brand new apartments built on cheap land on the edge of an industrial park have to close their windows in the evening!!

City Councillor Russ Wyatt agrees, saying "those apartments will go to the dogs if they don't find a new location for the K9 unit." Wow, Russ. That pun was so fucking brilliant. I have no idea how your mind is able to produce such a spectacularly clever play on words. Clearly your intellect is so far superior to mine that your veiwpoint on this issue must be the correct one.

The police meanwhile are working on an interim solution until the new facility is ready. If they spend even a cent on this interim measure, it's a grievous waste of taxpayer money in my mind. I'm beginning to not trust my mind, however.

Is this lady crazy or am I?

If somebody came to me with this story -- "hey there's this lady who moved into an apartment in an industrial park one week ago and has to close her windows because of barking dogs" -- I, as an unpaid blogger who writes about fruit, windows, and how to draw a parrot, would have told them to screw off. It's not worth my time. I'm busy writing a post about how my corn chips break when I try to scoop salsa with them.

Yet this became a feature story on CTV news because a producer thought it was of such importance that it required an on-location report, and now I'm writing about it because I'm in a personal crisis situation. I've realized that my perspective on issues is completely distorted, and that my mind is therefore not functioning properly. I am frantically googling my symptoms to see if there are medications that can help. If anybody else out there has experienced symptoms like mine, please let me know! I'm looking for a support group -- anything -- that will help me cope with this mental disability I have suddenly discovered. Thank you.

The speed limit is too low. I have proof.

If you follow local Winnipeg news, you probably heard about the kerfuffle over a photo radar speed trap at Grant Ave. and Nathaniel St. where the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and anti-speed trap advocates Wise-Up Winnipeg are urging people not to pay their tickets because they believe the speeds aren't being measured properly.

Earlier in the year, Wise-Up Winnipeg also questioned whether the speed limit was properly posted on this stretch of road.

Here's the thing: even if the speed limit signage is posted correctly, and even if the radars are calibrated properly, these tickets should never have been issued. Why? Because the speed limit itself is incorrect.

This is not just my opinion. It is fact. I'll explain: In 2003 a report was submitted by the Winnipeg Public Works Department titled "SPEED LIMIT ON GRANT AVENUE AND ON KENASTON BOULEVARD". The report was conducted by traffic analysts and signed by J.A.Thomson, Director of Public Works. It has since been removed from the City of Winnipeg web site (at least I can't find it) but I happen to have a copy.

It's conclusion:

"The measured 85th percentile speeds on Grant Avenue between Stafford Street and Kenaston Boulevard and on Kenaston Boulevard between Grant Avenue and Academy Road range between 61 and 68 km/h. The collision rates ... are comparable to the city-wide average of 3.3 on regional streets with similar characteristics. Based on this information and on the widely accepted practice for setting speed limits using the 85th percentile speed, it is reasonable to set 60 km/hr speed limits on Grant Avenue between Stafford Street and Kenaston Boulevard and on Kenaston Boulevard between Grant Avenue and Academy Road. Furthermore, it is expected that making these changes ... will (i) result in more efficient transportation routes along these streets, (ii) reduce the incidence of short-cutting traffic on adjacent residential streets, and (iii) provide motorists travelling along these routes with a more consistent driving environment in terms of uniformity in speed limits."

When this study was brought before council it was rejected for unspecified reasons:

"The Standing Policy Committee on Public Works did not concur in the administrative recommendation and therefore did not increase the speed limit.
Further, the Standing Policy Committee on Public Works requested that in the future, consideration of speed limits be referred initially to the Ward Councillor and if necessary to the respective Community Committee." (soucre: Minutes - Standing Policy Committee on Public Works - January 13, 2003)

The traffic analysts collected all this data, did all that analysis, and council just tossed it into the garbage can without any apparent consideration. Even if the policy is good the optics are bad, therefore the elected councillors won't even touch it. Get the Community Committee to agree and maybe we'll consider it ... as if that will ever happen. That's leadership for you.

There is a permanent red light camera installed on Kenaston Boulevard between Grant Avenue and Academy Road at Corydon Ave., and this Nathaniel St. mobile speed trap is on Grant Avenue between Stafford Street and Kenaston Boulevard. In both cases tickets are being issued to drivers that are driving a safe speed according to traffic industry standards. It is immoral and objectionable and counter-productive to issue speeding tickets to people in areas where you KNOW the speed limits are too low.

The reason I found this study in the first place is because a few years ago I was nailed with a photo radar ticket on Kenaston Blvd. I challenged it in court. I presented this study as evidence to show that the speed I was driving was safe according to accepted standards and argued that enforcing this ticket violated the intent of the law, which ultimately is to make streets safer. In fact, enforcing an artificially low speed limit can make streets more dangerous because it causes speed differentials to increase (less consistency in the speeds people drive) which leads to increased accident rates.

Unfortunately the judge I got was completely incapable of comprehending this argument. "But .... you were going over the speed limit."

GAAAAAA! This is why you're almost at retirement and still stuck working traffic court! (I didn't say that out loud.)

Perhaps if I had appealed I would have got a judge with a capacity for independent thought and abstract concepts, but appealing takes time and money and I wasn't up for the challenge at the time. However, if one of you have recently been dinged with a ticket in one of these areas, I will gladly send you this study and I will give you my full support and encouragement as you attempt to fight your ticket.

Violence? Rebellion? What the hell is going on here?

This is depressing. The global economy is imploding, my city is bankrupt, and now I'm being told that my country is going to explode into a civil war between whites and Indians.

We all agree that the Indian Residential School system was a grievous mistake. If you can't turn back the clock and reverse the mistake, what can you do? I thought we were on the right track here: the PM formally apologized, the government has allocated $1.9 billion for compensation, and we put in place a forum to allow IRS survivors to share their stories and begin the healing process.

I guess I was mistaken, because the man in charge of the Truth and Reconcilliation Commision is predicting "great violence" if we don't pick up our game. Those quotes by Justice Sinclair in that article are remarkably inflamatory by somebody in his position. This man whom we entrusted with ecouraging the healing process is instead creating greater divisions, and giving tacit approval to violence by implying that such violence is understandable. This is highly irresponsible, in my opinion.

Douglas Bland expands on this in Saturday's paper, saying that there are no positive stories to tell and that there is no way to bring these issues to light in a non-violent way. The solution? A rebellion!

There is, of course, another way beyond aimless violence to convince Canadians to redress past wrongs... Paradoxically, a unified nationwide aboriginal rebellion may be the best way.

I makes me feel so much better that the "great violence" won't be aimless.

I couldn't help but think of Machiavelli's The Prince as he goes on to pragmatically explain the conditions and preconditions for a rebellion based on "current research". You know, there are some places where advocating a rebellion would be called treason, but I had better let that line of thinking go, as I sense that it won't lead me anywhere good.

So how do we avoid these dire consequences? Please explain in point form with clear understandable steps so we don't screw it up again. You first Sinclair:

You can contribute to that solution by understanding, supporting and engaging in those conversations, by encouraging society to do those things that need to be done and by acknowledging the validity of that state of respect.

Oh geeze. We're doomed. Please Bland, give us something to work with:

Work with the First Nations' community vigorously and immediately to reshape this young population into a positive, community-oriented work and leadership cohort. Finally, and again in co-operation with First Nations' leaders, we could launch a national campaign aimed at convincing these young people they are indeed prized citizens in our national community.

I think people are getting frustrated that we're spending billions of dollars and not achieving any of these nebulous objectives that are supposed to solve the problem. And maybe that's because it's impossible for the government to solve. The government creates laws and spends money. That's really what it does. It can attempt to do more, as it has with the Truth and Reconcilliation Commision, but if you're looking for pride and respect, well, that's a little more complicated, because those are things that start first within your own families and communities. Allowing private ownership of land on reserves might be a step in the right direction, but if you're expecting Canadians and the government to find some way to conjure up these things in a short time frame, well ... just first give me some time to fortify my house for the rebellion.

Waterfront hotel experiencing development hostility

What a glorious day it was yesterday. I stood outside as the sweet warm breeze ruffled my hair, and airplane vapor trails hung in the blue sky like scattered chopsticks. Yet here I was thinking about Gordon Sinclair. Damn you, Sinclair.

You see, I happened across Sinc's latest editorial atrocity while reading the Saturday Free Press this morning. But to give you a little background: a few years ago Gordon Sinclair was a key player in the effort to stop a residential development (something that everybody agrees is critical to the vitality of downtown Winnipeg) at the corner of Assiniboine and Fort St. in order to build an interpretive centre for Upper Fort Garry. He led the deceptive PR campaign with repeated "save the fort" columns in the Free Press, giving people the impression that a critical piece of our history would be destroyed, when in fact the only thing that would be destroyed was a deteriorating surface-level parking lot. Ultimately this PR campaign and a little backroom arm-twisting was successful in pushing out the developer in favour of a park that has yet to begin construction and has already ballooned in cost to $22 million, over twice the original estimate.

So it was with this as a mental backdrop that I read Sinclair's piece today, where he explains that an empty parking lot on Waterfront Drive is actually an irreplacable part of our history because somebody "contends" that Selkirk settlers once planted wheat there, and it was also a gathering place for people during the great strike. He goes on to accuse recent residential development (no, not that again) of "putting the boots to" this historic area, and finishes his ridiculous column in typically sappy fashion:

Now, apparently, a former premier of our province, and our mayor and city council are going to finish the job.

Play the pipes loudly, today boys.

And bang the drums slowly.

Fortunately, the "Friends of History" that are the would-be heros of Gordon's column do not have the clout of the Friends of Upper Fort Garry, so their campaign is much less likely to be successful. However, I happen to know somebody closely involved with the development, and it is not a sure thing at this point. In my conversation with him we didn't get into details about what the sticking points were, but it is conceivable that a coordinated opposition to the project could derail it.

There are great journalists and there are not so good journalists. Not everybody is gifted enough to be one of those great journalists, but at a minimum they should strive to at least be truthful and not do damage to the city in which they live.

****

I had a couple of replies on Twitter that suggested that our water front area should be preserved on principle, not because of some trumped up historical concern. I understand that viewpoint. I admire other cities that had the foresight to preserve their river front as green space. So why would I advocate a riverfront development in the middle of a relatively unbroken stretch of undeveloped shoreline greenspace? Well, first of all, I'm not advocating for the Sunstone development, but against idiotic newspaper columns. However I would also make the following points:

1. If this area deserved to be reclaimed as green space, the city should have acted long ago. The time to decide that an area should be a park is not at the 11th hour after a RFPs have been solicited, proposals submitted, and designs approved by a city hall committee. The Upper Fort Garry debacle was damaging, not just because a critical development had been stopped, but because it was stopped at the last minute after the developer had gone through all the hoops, had a contractual agreement to build and made additional compromises to appease opponents. Continual behaviour like this will drive developers away.
2. There is already a building on-site: the old brick Harbourmaster Building. We can either tear it down, leave it sitting vacant and deteriorating, or re-purpose it as part of a new development. Which option do you think is best?
3. The Sunstone development will link the greenspace on either side: "The plan also calls for pedestrian walkways to link up with existing riverfront pathways" -fp-
4. The development of the east Exchange is tenuous. Additional development is required to reach that critical mass that will turn it into a thriving community. A hotel and restaurant will help.

I can't think of a snazzy way to wrap up this blog post, so I'll leave you with a video of Wild Rumpus' Rock the Joint featuring Beardyman:

Free Press: Comments not allowed!

Now I know that commenters can be idiots some times, but four of the top 5 breaking stories on the Free Press web site at the moment of this writing are not accepting comments:


The Free Press recently changed its comment system. I really like the new comment features, but the moderation of the comments (if I recall John White's tweet correctly) has been farmed out to a third party. Since that happening, the web site seems to be pulling the trigger quicker on closing down the comments. I have to wonder if the comments are really that bad, or if the hired mods are just being "proactive" (ie. lazy).

I have noticed as well that some times a disproportionate number of comments (in stories that do allow comments) have been censored. Perhaps, instead of all that exhausting work of banning users and censoring comments, they decided it would be easier if they just disallowed comments on anything remotely contentious.

The Free Press has the right to accept comments or not, but one has to question the purpose of accepting comments if anything contentious or crime related is automatically off limits. Are we interested in people's views of law enforcement? Do we care what people think of the 2-for-1 credit for time served, or the fact that it's being taken away? Are people concerned about arson, bus safety and sentencing? Or is the only thing we want people's opinions on is whether Ashton Kutcher is a suitable replacement for Charlie Sheen on Two and a Half Men?

Rent Controls: Part II

You didn't know there was a part II, did you? Surprise!!

Sorry .. I know how you hate surprises. I have to warn you though: this is going to be boring. Dry whole-wheat toast boring. If you wish to flee to another blog I will not hold it against you, and I might suggest any of the fine choices in my right sidebar.

Okay. Last week's post on rent controls was not so much a critique of the government's commissioned study on the subject, so much as it was a contrast of what they were saying publicly versus what the numbers seemed to imply. This time, I will delve into the actual study. You know, many people might see that the study was written by a professor of economics, and therefore assume that it is full of wise insight, truthful, and incontrovertible. However, there are plenty of academics out there who publish crap from time to time so all work needs to be scrutinized. That's what the peer review process is for. Government commissioned studies are not subject to peer review, therefore I will do my best to fill a little bit of that gap, if I may be so bold. Just let me grab my pipe and put on my glasses here so I look all perfesserly. Alright, I've got my tweed jacket on .. I'm all set to go ..

An Analysis of Manitoba's Rent Regulation Program and the Impact on the Rental Housing Market, by Hugh Grant

Let me start by saying that Hugh does not come to any conclusions through a quantitative analysis of the data. The data is inadequate to do an econometric analysis, he says. Therefore, when he states that "there is no evidence that ..." he is really giving an opinion based on his observation of the data and what he believes is the theoretical effect of the rent control policies.

Some of those conclusions are suspect.

Conclusion 1: "there is no evidence that rent regulations have restricted rents below what would prevail in a perfectly competitive market under equilibrium conditions."

Okay, well first of all, there is no such thing as a perfectly competitive market. The point he's trying to make here is that through the rent control regulation itself and the mechanisms that allow a landlord to apply for increases in various circumstances, the net effect should be that rents increase at the long-run supply price. Not only that, but the author actually claims that by regulating rents, and putting in place additional regulations and controls to negate the original regulations, that this actually improves market efficiency. It's a stunning claim to make.

So this is essentially the goal: to ensure that a landlord doesn't lose money, but also doesn't make a profit. The author refers numerous times to "gouging" and "unwarranted price increases" when talking about rental prices higher that the cost of supplying a unit. I don't know too many people who would go into business to break even. If this is the objective of the program, than it's little wonder that developers stopped building new units.

But let's assume that he's right, and that prices are increasing as they would with the market. What's the point of spending $1.7M on regulating rent prices? The answer: stability. To remove those periods of profits and losses so that rents follow the long term trend without the short term fluctuations. Does it work?

Let's have a look at rental price fluctuations in comparison with a city that does not have rent controls, like Edmonton:

The standard deviation of rent growth in Edmonton is indeed larger than in Winnipeg, but if you exclude a 6-quarter period from 4Q 2001 to 1Q 2003, it's actually less volatile than Winnipeg. But that's a boom and bust economy. Since we are so proud of our stable economy here in Manitoba, perhaps a better comparison is a city like Halifax:

One has rent control, and one does not. At no point does Halifax have a higher rent increase than Manitoba, percentage wise, and its standard deviation is almost identical. So what's the point of all this regulation, red tape and financial cost for administering this program?

Further, there was a period of 6 consecutive years (2001-2006) where the rent guideline was lower than previous year’s rate of inflation. The following years the guideline was increased somewhat, leading the author to say 'see: prices are adjusting just as they would in a real market!'. It is a ridiculous statement to make. The only thing you can conclude is that prices went up because the government adjusted them up. There is no basis to say they are following the market when they are being manually set.

Conclusion numero dos: "There is no evidence that Manitoba’s rent regulation program has a negative impact on the supply of rental accommodation."

Mr. Grant quotes some general numbers for the country as a whole, refutes CMHC's measurement of "rental stock", and then pulls this conclusion out of the ether. Perhaps if he had actually looked at apartment construction in Winnipeg he would have come to a slightly different conclusion:


In the 1990's a pitiful number of rental units were being built each year. This only began to change after the government implemented a 15 year exemption for new construction in 2001, and increased it to 20 years in 2005. It clearly shows that the exemption was an incentive for new construction, which means therefore that the rent cap itself was an impediment to new construction.

Even still, construction lagged far behind what it once was, and failed to close the demand gap. In fact the vacancy rate continued to hover around 1% throughout the 00's. This static vacancy rate, in spite of the exemption on new construction, suggests that either a 20 year exemption is not enough, given the long-term nature of the capital investment, or that there are other barriers to building new apartments. Construction costs are sometimes sited as a factor, but these have not prevented condos and houses from being built. Perhaps the depressed prices in the existing base spill over into new construction.

Perhaps the author should have looked into these things a little more carefully. Instead he writes it off as disequilibrium, resulting from a sudden influx of immigrants:

The supply response has been slow relative to the increase in demand because of the time lag involved in the planning-to-completion of new rental projects and uncertainty regarding the likelihood that the relatively high rates of population growth in the province will persist.

However, immigration has grown steadily since 1998. That must be one heck of a lag. Further, if immigration is supported by a successful provincial program, then how much uncertainty is there really about that trend continuing?

Conclusion:

My conclusion is that Hugh Grant's conclusions were pre-determined based on the wishes of his client. It is also possibly that the author simply has a distorted view of the world. This latter option is corroborated by an absolutely astonishing statement that he makes on page 10 of his report:

In the long-run, the high profitability of existing rental units encourages the construction of new rental units with similar features which will eventually bid down rents to the long-run supply price consistent with a perfectly-competitive market. Rent regulations, therefore, play an important role in countervailing the market power exercised by landlords in the short-run by preventing them from advancing monthly rents above the marginal cost of supplying the unit.

The first part: "profitability of existing rental units encourages the construction of new rental units which will eventually bid down rents" is basic intro economics. That's how markets are supposed to work.

However, in the view of the author this is bad and must be stopped: "Rent regulations, therefore, play an important role in countervailing the market power exercised by landlords in the short-run by preventing them from advancing monthly rents above the marginal cost of supplying the unit." What he is saying is precisely: Rent regulations play an important role in preventing landlords from making a profit and in discouraging new construction.

In two simple sentences the author manages to summarize the root of the problem with rent controls, only what is a problem to most economists is actually a solution to Professor Grant.

CTV on Walmart / Russ Wyatt on Ski Doos

Well, let the knee-jerking begin. Somebody died, therefore we must change laws regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

Look, I'm not heartless. I actually have a bigger heart than most people, as I upgraded several years ago to a water buffalo heart on a visit to a Africa thinking it would make me better at golf. I'm not sure what this heart thing has to do with compassion, but I'm pretty sure I have that too. I also have logic. It's important to have both, otherwise you end up saying things like Russ Wyatt.

Wyatt today announced several things:
1) he wants to ban snomobiles in areas within city limits where they are currently allowed.
2) he wants to be able to seize the snomobiles if they are caught driving in said areas.
3) he wants to increase the minimum driving age to 16.

Let's discuss:

1) All we're doing is creating more law breakers for no apparent reason. People are going to do it anyhow, because there is really no reason not to except that, um, some guy who was driving in an area where it was prohibited hit somebody who was walking in the dark in the middle of a field near a Hydro right of way. Ya, that makes perfect sense. No logical fallacy there.
2) If you think it's hard to catch a car thief, try catching a snomobile driver that's afraid of having his $16,000 MX-Z 800R confiscated. Good luck. Maybe you can deploy the police helicopter to track snomobiles in a field instead of car thiefs in the middle of the city.
3) Makes sense, right? Older ... more responsible ... But is this really going to help? Driving a snomobile for 10 years before I got my drivers license helped make me a better driver. In fact, I would almost recommend that we make it mandatory.

Russ continues his silliness with this quote:

"10, 20, 30 years ago we didn't have snowmobiles that can go 160 miles per hour"

So, the reason for changing things now is because snomobiles can go faster? The olde power toboggans of yore didn't go fast enough to run somebody over? The old Jag 340 I used to drive could go 60 miles per hour, and that was probably one of the slowest snowmobiles in town. Russ is just grasping at straws. There is probably lots of straw in that field where Ken Stammers got run over. He can go there ... as long as he wears something reflective.

***

Another thing that I saw on CTV this evening was that Walmat was going to build "supercentres". They're like centres, only they're super!

This was one of the lead stories, and I thought to myself: why is this a lead story? Actually, why is this a story? Do other stores get news coverage when they expand their product line? The advertising execs at Walmart are no dummies. How do we let people know we're expanding our grocery area? Buy TV advertising? Buy billboard space? No .. just send an email to CTV. They'll broadcast it to the province for free.

I am left wondering if there was some sort of real local news that I missed. Wasn't there some kind of meeting at city hall? There must have been, because they mentioned in passing that the councillors voted to approve the 58 new cops. Is that all they did? Anything else I should know about?

I would dare to say that the things our elected officials decided today is a little more important than the fact that Walmart will start selling meat in 4 months. Mind you, after looking at the "most views" list on the Free Press web site, I might be mistaken there.

Censorship for nothing and bleeps for free

The little faggot with the earring and the makeup
Yeah buddy, that’s his own hair
That little faggot got his own jet airplane
That little faggot he’s a millionaire

... lyrics you will probably never hear again on the radio, now that they have been deemed "offensive".

They were deemed offensive because one individual, we'll call him Whiny-Pants McLooser to protect his identity, heard the word "faggot", ignored the context in which it is used, got offended, propagated his irrational offense to every other gay/bisexual/lesbian in the country, and complained to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council on behalf of all of them. The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, being staffed by politically correct zombies, ruled that it violates broadcast standards and cannot be played.

There will always be individuals out there that are hyper-sensitive, or lacking the intelligence required to put things in proper perspective. I don't blame Whiny-Pants for anything because it's not his fault. He has weaknesses, just as we all do. His shortcoming just happened to result in an externality that affects the rest of the country, albeit it in a small way; but that's only because the CBSC is full of idiots.

Organizations that have the capacity to infridge on personal freedoms and activities like the CBSC, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and so forth, need to have very specific mandates and need to have extraordinary adherance to those specific mandates. Those mandates should focus protecting us from words and actions that genuinely incite hatred or have tangible negative effects on society at large. Their job is not to coddle the weakest member of society ... to protect the feelings of the most thin-skinned individual at the expense of everybody else.

The song "Money for Nothing" has been played on the radio for 25 years without producing any tangible negative effects on society. It has not caused any gays to get bashed to my knowledge. It has not incited hatred. The term "faggot" in this song doesn't even refer to a homosexual -- it is a term used with jealousy in reference to a rock star who gets all the "chicks" he wants. The CBSC has far overstepped it's mandate in banning the unedited version of this song, and has actually made things worse. Thanks to their decision, the word "faggot" has not only appeared in this blog for the first time, but has appeared hundreds of times in newspaper articles all across the country. More importantly, it has created unnecessary animosity against the gay/lesbian/bisexual community: "Money for Nothing" is an all-time classic rock song with an epic guitar/drum intro that compels you to crank up the volume when it comes on the radio. But no more ... thanks to the gays you can't hear it any more.

Why create this animosity over something so trivial as a rock song? A rock song that doesn't even have anything to do with gays? It is total stupidity. Once again, I have to use the "Complete loss of perspective" tag for a blog post. Sigh....

***

A little piece of trivia for you: that other voice that you hear in the song -- the one singing "I want my MTV" -- is Sting. He was invited to collaborate on the song because that hook is the same as the hook from the Police's "Don't Stand So Close To Me". In fact, he got co-writing credit as a result of that one line.

related: Reed points out that membership in the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council is voluntary. While that may be the case, the fact that virtually every radio station in the country is a member tells me that there are consequences for not being a member. I don't know what those consequences are ... perhaps some companies will only advertise with members of the CBSC, perhaps there are implications related to royalties, or broadcast rights, or who knows what. The point is that their decisions have an impact. Not being a member is not an option for most stations.

What? Smoking is bad?

I need photographic proof. Large photographic proof, right there on my cigarette package, otherwise I will forget that it's bad.

Last week, Health Canada unveiled it's new larger warning labels for cigarette packages. Like this:


The new labels are 50% larger, now consuming a full 75% of the cigarette package. The current labels, that take up a hardly noticeable 50% of the package, "have reached their maximum potential" they say.

I don't smoke. I have never smoked as a habit -- never bought a package of cigarettes -- therefore these warning labels don't directly impact me, however I have to say that they make me uncomfortable. Not uncomfortable as in "ugg ... that is gross! I will never smoke!", but uncomfortable as in slightly embarassed.

I can't quite put my finger on it. I don't know if I'm embarassed because having these huge warnings on our cigarette packages is so uncool ... so un-James Dean. Or if I'm embarassed that Canadians are so stupid -- or the government thinks we're so stupid -- that the message will only penetrate our iron skulls if it takes up a full 75% of the package. It's like giving instructions to somebody who doesn't speak english. When they don't do anything, yell at them. When they still don't do anything, yell louder. Pretty soon you look like an idiot, screaming with your beet-red face as the other person stares at you like you're some kind of alien.

The obvious question is: what do we do when the current labels "have reached their maximum potential", (which will probably be in, oh ... immediately)? Make them fill 90% of the surface of the package? 100%, with a toll-free number on the side of the package that you can call to find out what brand of cigarette you're smoking?

"Alright, Mr. Smartypants", you might be saying. "What's your big idea for getting people to stop smoking?" Well, first of all, Mr. Snarky Reader, I didn't say I had a better idea, and further more, it's not my job to come up with one.

The anecdotal info that I have is that people quit because smoking is beginning to have a negative impact on their lives. They're sick of standing outside and freezing their ass off, or they're tired of losing their breath after walking up the stairs, or it's just too damned expensive.

I think that's the biggest factor right there -- money. Especially for young people. In 1994, the Chrétien government decided to combat cigarette smuggling -- not by cracking down on the smugglers, or by imposing manufacturing restrictions and export taxes on the cigarette producers -- but by reducing tobacco taxes.* In that one fell swoop, the government probably caused more smoking deaths than all of the tobacco advertising and music festival sponsorships ever did.

Smoking is on the decline anyhow. It is gradually becoming more socially unacceptable, and eventually it will become a niche vice rather than a mainstream one. You can credit this to the warning labels if you's like, although you'd be wrong. Shock advertising loses it's effectiveness pretty quickly, and making the pictures 50% bigger isn't going to help. Everybody knows the consequences of smoking by now, and they either choose to do it or not.


*see Smoke and Mirrors By Rob Cunningham

Drinking and driving and progressive penalties

A new bill was proposed on Dec 1 to make repeat sentences for DUI offences progressively harsher. Besides the parts about driving boats, planes and trains, the bill concerns those who are "mildly" impaired:

Currently, a 24-hour suspension is imposed for drivers caught with a blood-alcohol concentration of .05 per cent or higher. The new law when passed would bring in a 24-hour for a first offence, 15 days for a second violation, 30 days for a third and 60 days for a fourth and subsequent violation. -fp-

I am all for progressive penalties like this. I think we should do more of it. If you have been reading this blog for a while you may remember a post I did last year about logarithmic sentencing. The premise being that punishment will be most effective if it gets progressively harsher with each additional offence. Not marginally harsher. Dramatically harsher. Make people think really hard about re-committing an offence. "Nobody should ever be the fifth or sixth victim of a criminal."

So I think this proposal is a good idea in principle, however it sort of misses the mark. Why are we going through all this effort to target people who are only slightly impaired, when the biggest risk is from people who are truly impaired?

I did some internet searches for news stories of incidences where people have died because of drunk drivers. It is not comprehensive or scientific, but nor did I cherry pick stories. I simply started at the first story and went down the list, noting the descriptions of the drivers:

*****

"more than double the legal limit" -source-

"high-speed car crash" "her blood-alcohol level ranged between .128 and .153" "the car was travelling at 148 km/h .. on a stretch of road with an 80 km/h speed limit" -source-

"speeding north" "ran a red light" "blood-alcohol content was at least .159" -source-

"clearly highly intoxicated" -source-

"had two and a half times the legal level of alcohol in his body" -source-

"possibly during a drag race" "more than twice the legal limit of .08" -source-

"blood alcohol level was .137, or almost twice the legal limit, when he ran a red light" -source-

"a blood alcohol level of 0.139 and was travelling at 130km/h in an 80km/h zone" -source-

".189 blood alcohol content" "allegedly tore through downtown" -source-

... and my favourite:

"suffers from nerve condition Carcot-Maire-Tooth disease - got behind the wheel of his motability car despite having earlier been denied more alcohol in a pub because he was too drunk. The drug addict, who was almost three times the drink drive limit, then sped out of Montrose" -source-

*****

You may have noticed that none of them say "blood alcohol level of 0.05 and driving the speed limit." They all were either highly intoxicated, or speeding, or both.

Here's what I think we should do: 0.08 should be the limit for a criminal DUI offence as it is currently. However the punishment for the offence should be much greater if:

a) you are at twice the legal limit or more.

b) speeding while impaired, or

c) texting or talking on a cell phone while impaired.

... because it's those combinations of risk factors that is really the biggest risk. Maybe you've been drinking, but if you're driving below the speed limit and stopping at the red lights and obeying all of the rules of the road it is unlikely that you will get in an accident. It is when you're so impaired that you cannot do those things, or when you amplify your impairment with other risk factors, that you really become a menace.

Your average person who has had a couple of beers after the game is not a particularly serious threat if he's paying attention to what he's doing on the road. And after all, we as a society tolerate a certain level of impairment. We have to, otherwise almost nobody would be allowed to drive. People drive when they are tired or stressed, when they have noisy kids in the back seat, when they're drinking a venti steamer from Starbucks, when they're wearing Crocs -- all of it legal and all of it impairing your ability to drive. We even allow people to drive while talking on a hands-free cell phone, which, as I've pointed out before, is just as dangerous as criminal drinking and driving (0.08+) according to countless studies (and the Myth Busters).

On occasion, we even encourage people to drive with serious impairments. Who hasn't seen a story on TV about some poor sap who lost both his arms and the left half of his brain in a tragic cooking accident, but can still lead a "normal" life by driving around in a specially modified van. We're supposed to feel good about this. I don't know about you, but I would rather share the road with an able-bodied person who has a b.a.c. of 0.06, than a mentally handicapped person driving a van with his mouth.

footnote:
I started writing this almost three weeks ago and filed it away for a while, but finally decided to finish it off even though it will probably mean that I will never get friended by MADD on Facebook. I'm just trying to make the world a better place. Is that so wrong?

Free: F35 stealth fighters

alternate title: Foreign Policy: It's not really his thing

I had a "holy shit" moment reading The Economist on-line today during my coffee break. The story was one that initially appeared to be a good news story about Israel re-freezing development in the West Bank.

“I think it is promising,” Mr Obama told reporters aboard Air Force One. “I commend Prime Minister Netanyahu for taking, I think, a very constructive step. It’s not easy for him to do, but I think it’s a signal that he is serious.”

This is indeed very promising ... and surprising coming from Netanyahu. I wonder what motivated him to do this? Maybe he was visited by a ghost in his dreams that showed him the toll that unending conflict with the Palestinians would have on the Israeli people. Or maybe it was something else:

Under this new deal, Israel will agree to a 90-day re-freeze in return for a generous package of military and diplomatic goodies from America. These include an additional 20 F-35 stealth fighters, worth $3 billion, to be added at America's expense to the original 20 ordered by Israel.

(emphasis added by me, to indicate when the "holy shit" moment occurred.)

And here in Canada we have to pay for our F35s. With money. Hey ... if we build a settlement on Hans Island, do you suppose ....

3 billion dollars of jet fighters to freeze development for 90 days -- less than three months. Jet fighters.

The Economist says that it would be hard for Netanyahu "to backslide now that the president had publicly announced the accord." Uh. I guess not. Why would he want to? He's getting a fleet of brand new stealth fighters and a bunch of other stuff for free, and all he has to do is give the construction workers an extra long Hanukkah break. It's not the President's influence that is responsible for the freeze, but the billions of dollars in bribes.

American diplomats say "they hope that by then the two parties will have agreed on the borders of the future Palestinian state, so that further argument over the settlements will be unnecessary." I think Obama and his advisors have gone mad. The likelihood of that magically happening over the next three months after decades of failed attempts, is about the same as the chances of Hugo Chavez privatizing Venezuela postal delivery.

Obama, by gambling billions of dollars on this unlikely scenario (in spite of the massive fiscal deficit he faces at home) appears extremely desperate to live up to the quasi-success that some of his predecessors had in middle-east peace broking. If not that, then the desperation comes from trying to earn ex post facto the Nobel Peace Prize that he was awarded last year ... and he's trying to do it by giving away jet fighters.

Bucket full of something ... and it's not water.

Saturday's Free Press included another one of their impressive multi-page exposés. This one was about the appalling conditions in the Island Lake First Nations communities, centering around a lack of clean water. It contained compelling stories about hardship, and heart-breaking pictures of children living in squalid conditions -- all the sorts of things that the obscure journalism organizations look for when they give out awards. However it also contained a bunch of exaggerations and misleading information.

I wasn't planning on writing about this at all, but by chance I happened to meet up with an acquaintance this weekend who works up at Island Lake. It was this acquaintance who told me that the story was exaggerated. For example, we read about these families who have no choice but to haul water by hand in "a used oil or chemical bucket." Not likely, says my acquaintance. Nobody hauls water by hand, they haul it with their Ford F150s. You don't have to take my friend's word for it though. 40 seconds into the video on the Free Press website two ladies put on a show for the camera by hauling water up the hill with their Chevy Silverado in the background:

I don't want to minimize the importance of clean water, but the continual references to third world refugee camps are unreasonable. They refer to the "dirty lake water" as though it were a muddy slough in the savanna. Remember, this is the same land that is so "pristine" that the government is spending over $1 billion to route Bipole III around it. So pure and untouched is this land that it demands the protection of UNESCO heritage status.* A family in Buduburam Africa would kill for this kind of access to water.

I also don't deny that there are serious health issues at Island Lake and Red Sucker Lake. We have seen the reports of TB and H1N1 outbreaks, and the rampant diabetes. But is this really all just an inevitable result of not having running water? People have lived for centuries without running water, and it wasn't that long ago that it was common to have large families crammed into a small house here in the prairies, but yet somehow the floors got swept and hands got washed.

At one point as the author, Helen Fallding, was interviewing a resident, a very young child showed up drinking a can of Dr. Pepper. Helen, applying no critical thinking whatsoever, paints this and the diabetes that is sure to follow as an inevitable result of not having running water. Now I'm not a botanist, but I am pretty sure that the toddler didn't pick this can of pop off a tree in the back yard. That pop was purchased at a store. The same store that sells bottled water, juice, and any number of other beverages. Red Sucker Lake, Wasagamack, St.Theresa Point and Garden Hill all have Northern Stores. Northern Stores, in case you have never been in one, have a grocery section not unlike a Food Fare. Perhaps not as well stocked in these cases, but you can be damn sure that they sell bottled water. If your toddler is drinking Dr. Pepper, is it because of parental neglect, not necessity.

You can't help but wonder what else is due to neglect. One has to tread carefully when talking about these sorts of things, but it is hard to avoid the subject when you hear the same things from almost everybody who spends time on a northern reserve.

Another picture in the paper showed a guy, Gordie Rae, carrying water up his driveway with a presumably broken late 90s Dodge Stratus parked on one side and a late 90s Dodge Caravan or Plymouth Voyager on the other, the later with a missing wheel. What the hell happened? My car is late 90s and I'm planning on driving it for another 10 years. (It's not a Dodge, mind you).


Yet another picture shows Soloman McPherson dumping sewage in a sprawling garbage pile next to his house, with a circa 2004 Chevy Tracker in the background. Would it be possible, maybe, to use that vehicle to take your garbage to the dump? Garden Hill does have one. They all do. St. Theresa Point not only has a land fill, but a full time garbage truck that services all residences. Third world indeed.

Now suppose somebody doesn't have a vehicle to haul water -- which is unusual according to my friend -- but suppose. What about the neighbours? I attended a United Way event recently where the speaker was a very well spoken lady of aboriginal descent. She talked about how sharing everything you had was part of their culture, and about how it was necessary to survive in the past. Whatever happened to that? "Oh your Dodge broke down? Tough shit buddy." Is that the attitude now? When did selfishness become part of the culture? Perhaps around the same time that the chief and council started making six figure salaries? I don't know if that's the case, or if the author is only implying that it's everyman for himself. I don't know what to believe in this story.

What about the location of the houses? I have always wondered about that. The story points out that "No running water means that homes are built without bathtubs." In other words, homes are being not being built where the water is, but off in the bushes somewhere. Sometimes kilometers away. After the home is built they expect the government to pay tens of thousands of dollars to pipe water through the granite outcroppings and forest to these far flung residences. Who decides where these houses go? My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the individuals do not own any land. It is all reserve land, and is controlled by the band council. I'm making an assumption here, but could they perhaps do a better job of planning their community in such a way that access to water would be maximized?

If the names of these reserves sound familiar, it might be because of an event last year during the H1N1 outbreak when the government sent dozens of body bags to the Island Lakes First Nations. The chiefs were outraged. So much so that one of them flew himself and a small entourage down to Winnipeg to express their outrage in front of the TV cameras. (You may also remember would-be mayor Judy Wasylycia-Leis getting on board calling it "the ultimate expression of incompetence.") Of course as it turned out the reserves' own health care workers ordered the body bags, and in fact they were sent fewer than they asked for. Yet the cost of that one trip alone could have bought everybody in the community a clean pail to haul their water in ... assuming it were needed. But these are the kind of grandstanding buffoons that we're dealing with here. Judy was right about incompetence, but she was talking about the wrong people.

So here we are: people surrounded by pristine ... oh sorry: "dirty" for the purposes of article ... freshwater lakes, with grocery stores stocked with various beverages including water, yet nobody can wash their hands or clean their floors, and kids have to drink pop. That's how it is, apparently. Helen and her crew sought out the most appalling houses and woeful people of the 10 thousand or so that live in the four communities, exaggerated their hardships, and portrayed this as the victimization of a hard working people by a negligent government. I have no doubt that they will win awards for outstanding journalism for this masterpiece, but perhaps the Giller Prize would be more appropriate.

*These communities are not actually in the proposed UNESCO zone. They are to the north-east of it.