Musings

During the CFR [which was excellent to watch live, I'll have you know], Liberal leader Kevin Taft put in a private members bill [correction: motion] to make Rodeo the "Official Sport of Alberta". Now, I'm all about Rodeo - I did barrel racing, my father did calf roping - tie-down roping to the politically correct types, but I really did expect more from someone who has the position of leader of the official opposition. Yes, I know the Tories have an absolutely ridiculous majority, and anything productive would be quashed in a matter of hours. That does not give Taft the go-ahead to use a private members motion for Rodeo just because it will pass, and the liberals can then say they actually passed a significant pm motion during the next election. Fools. I really expect more from opposition forces. Maybe this is why I'm still against all that "unite the left" propaganda. Give me Rachel Notley or Brian Mason who will at least go after the Tories for big things - like ignoring troubles in the child-welfare system, or continuing to ignore the health-care system to the point where lives are at risk? It's probably just me, but come on Taft, it's your last term as leader - go out with a bang at least.

Unsurprisingly, Vladimir Putin just might get another chance to be Russia's President. Now, think about this, had the Democrats won all 60 senate seats, then Barack Obama would have just as much control in the USA as Putin would officially have as president in Russia. Thank-god for term limitations in the USA. [Sorry Obama, no one should have that much power for more than a few years - good or bad] Maybe the Duma will suddenly go rogue and act "mavericky" and vote against Medvedev's extension of term limitations . Or maybe Medvedev will get some gumption [more commonly known as "balls"] and suggest that term limitations are not "two terms" but the slightly less flexible "two terms in a row". *sigh* In my hopeful, prevent concentration of power for too long type of hope, this will be reality for Russia.

Now comes the section of this post I would like to call the "please don't shoot me for thinking this out loud" section. Sarah Palin. She's my favorite politician type to laugh about. Mostly because she is, well, inexperienced, not ready to face an almost global 24-7 coverage of the election she was in, she has an unshakable belief in God, and is - well - a woman. Oh, and she hunts. These are great reasons, right? Her ideological views do not give me any feelings of humour - more so a "chills-up-my-spine-how-do-we-stop-her" feeling. But back to what I laugh at her about. Perhaps - and I know this might sound odd - some of the things I laughed at her about didn't really warrant laughter - more so the "you poor lady, you are SO in over your head" type pity. The now famous Katie Couric interview is something that every running mate should have been able to get through without batting a well-made up eyelash. Blame the Republican Party for not picking someone who was - I don't know - ready for something like that? There is only so much you can cover in a media briefing, and a huge difference between politics in Wasilla and Washington. With the 24/7 media coverage, every gaff, any moment where she was not "on" was photographed, taped, or recorded - and used as fodder for her media/blogging/political opponents. Again, there is a difference between the media coverage in Wasilla and in Washington. These are clear, legitimate screw-ups by Palin and the Republican Party that are - in the end - laughable. After all, if all you can do is say "I'll have to get back to you on that one" to a question....what else is there for a viewer TOO do?

But now to the deep faith in God. Is this really something to laugh at someone else about? Aren't we all supposed to be super-tolerant of other people's beliefs? This may sound odd, but while Palin's faith in God may guide some of her uber-scary political stances [abortion comes to mind here], that faith in-and-of itself is nothing to be laughed at, or shamed. My grandma is "religious", does that means she is all "crazy". No, it means she goes to church on Sunday, volunteers at her local hospital, knits mittens for donation in the winter, and loves the Raging Grannies. But of course, this is only one example, I'm sure every other Christian is "crazy" [sarcasm, you don't say?]

This last bit is something I think we all laughed - or shamed - Sarah Palin about. Gosh darnit, she's a woman. Actually, I know a few people would have said that out loud, knowing precisely how sexist they sounded, but that's another argument altogether. First up, let's talk clothes. Remember that 24/7 media coverage I mentioned earlier? Part of her "prep" for that had to be that she looked the part of a vice president. That meant business suites and casual suits, and shoes matching these different outfits, appropriate and tasteful jewelry...etc. Her very casual wear from Wasilla would not be appropriate for a national campaign - I'm sure the first check-boxes on some Republican handlers "Before Sarah Palin goes outside, make sure that..." list was "burn all Alaska clothing...ewww". Now, she did make the mistake of taking her family shopping on campaign funds, and going to boutique's on 5th Ave in NYC. Seriously, that's asking for someone to make a story out of this. But does anyone know how much the suits for Mr. McCain cost? They weren't exactly "cheap" suits, I am sure. So why does this not get any attention? Because - as is expected of them - women in politics must always look fresh and new and wonderful. Actually, this isn't true just for politics; it is true for a workplace depending upon where you are in the corporate ladder. As I've seen with friends, promotions are always awesome, but they comes with a dress-code change, and another round of shopping to change from "casual" to "business casual" to "business". Not so much for the gents, a suit is a suit...perhaps just a change in shoes or tie is necessary with a promotion.

Lastly, Sarah Palin hunts. OMG. The world is going to end. Unless I missed something along the way, it's not like she used high-powered lights to stun the animals to make them more vulnerable, or did something else that would give her more of an advantage than a rifle already would. Somehow, I think ILO's would be a better target for animal rights activists - or people who think hunting is "disgusting". For those who have a problem with the whole "gun" thing, get over it. Seriously. I'm pretty far "left" on almost anything, but this one issue that I just do not understand from the so-called "leftist viewpoint". Perhaps it's the small-town, living on a farm, "holy crap that wolf is stealing a calf must run to unlock my separately stored ammunition and gun, load the gun, [conveniently located inside] in hopes that I can save that calf from being your next dinner" hell that made that view a little more clear.

Now, if you actually made it to the end of this post, I'd like to remind you that Sarah Palin freaks me out, and I'd do pretty much anything in my power to stop her if she does take a stab at 2012...but a few of the critique's against her were more than ridiculous. I guess this is what we get in a policy-empty, personality-dense type of campaign that is becoming more and more common in both American and Canadian politics. I hope this changes - I'd like to see the "news" provide more commentary on events than Colbert and Stewart.

Bringin' it in BC

Harper must be running scared. Really scared. After a desperate plea in BC to protect consumers from unsolicited text messages [where have I heard that before?], he is stopping in Edmonton to pull Rahim "I swear it was me" Jaffer out of the grave he's dug himself. Personally, I look forward to seeing Rahim attempt to schmooze his way into being the most-absent parliamentarian again.

But, back to British Columbia. Kudos to Layton for damning both the Campbell government's carbon tax AND Harper's refusal to address increasing gas prices - until September 7th, that is. Perhaps another sign of desperation - but, I suppose when one of your candidates was caught using her office in rather - erm - inappropriate ways, you have to save face. For those of you about to mention certain New Democrat candidates, their so-called indiscretions did not occur in their workplace as an elected official.

Screw You, Softwood!

And by that, I mean "screw-you softwood lumber sell-out". This morning in Kenora, Jack Layton announced plans to scrap the softwood lumber "deal" that was made to appease the United States lumber manufacturers.

Since the last election, the New Democrats have been fighting to ensure that softwood lumber was not just sold down the pipeline - that Harper's government actually take a stand against the White House. After all, if the WTO ruled in Canada's favour, you would think the United States would respect one of the international trade bodies it helped to create. Or, not.

I find it interesting reading the comments section on all CBC articles - one of my favourite's from this morning's announcement is:

"Since the US wouldn't even honor WTO and NAFTA judgements
against them regarding the softwood lumber dispute, what makes Mr. Layton think that pulling out of this deal will IMPROVE things for the Canadian lumber
industry? Especially when the US presidential candidates have been talking about
renegotiating or tearing up NAFTA."

Well, you see, while renegotiating NAFTA, the forestry, oil and gas, and even water can be renegotiated to be a "fair trade" agreement. Now, if Senator's Obama or McCain are all for renegotiating NAFTA, perhaps it would be wise to have someone in Canada who wants to renegotiate as well. You know, renegotiate for people in Canada, not for the business elite in the United States who are looking to develop the natural resources we are lucky enough to be sitting on.

Mr. Layton is right Canada - because we happen to be sitting on massive renewable [and not-so renewable] resources - has an ace in the hole, so to speak, and it is about time to use it. After all, if the situation were reversed, NAFTA would have been renegotiated [or scrapped] as soon as Clinton took office.

Harper is a Cylon

This is too perfect. Although...I am now afraid there are cylons lurking everywhere! The whole province is made up of cylons. My neighbour is certainly a cylon, after all they have a poster for this lower-level cylon in their window. Speaking of, don't you think the two cylons look virtually the same? Creepy.

Of course, the lead cylon is the worst, what with the $400.00 hair cut [meant to resemble human hair], that comes out looking like a hair-piece. Come on! Then there was that whole issue with the kittens who just looked like they wanted to run away. Don't animals have a sixth sense about things like this?

But, enough cylon-conservative comparisons - even if they are earned. Next time, I promise a post with substance and issues. Right now, this is too great to let go.

Olympics

I know, I know. It's been done to death. I will not waste your time repeating reasons to boycott, etc, etc. For a good analysis of the politics behind the Beijing games [not to mention the prevailing West/East global politics of why China got summer games, and Vancouver won the Winter games], check out by Mark Wells.

Personally, the games have disgusted me for the past few years. In the Athens games of 2004, there was the whole "Balco" scandal involving the American track and field team. In the 2006 games, the Austrian cross country skiing and biathlon teams' HQ were raided, and several athletes were given suspensions, or banned from the games altogether. Then, there was - to me - one of the more upsetting moments: Johann Muelegg positive test for Darbepoiten. Similar to EPO, this drug is generally used to help kidney patients who have a chronic hemoglobin deficiency. Why this one episode of doping, above all others? Frankly, because I had a naive hope that the brilliance Muelegg displayed on his skis was entirely from athletacism, and sheer will.

The continuous disrespect for sport, hyper-nationalism, and the HUGE emphasis on winning a medal have contributed to athletes looking for newer, better ways to "beat the system". Now, it is difficult to hear of an athlete excelling, or breaking records without something in the back of my mind saying "I wonder what designer drug they're on."

Frankly, sport is not about that. Neither are the Olympic games. Listening to the CBC morning show one morning, I heard Simon Whitfield and Becky Scott give their opinions on blood doping, and the measures taken in Canada to track and monitor our athletes, to ensure that they are not even considering going over to the dark side. They are tough regulations, including reporting your whereabouts if you are on vacation, to biweekly pee-tests. I once heard my father say "Ben Johnson was the best thing that happened to Canadian sports." Perhaps, this is true, after all, the collective shaming of this man, and anyone else caught doping in Canada was on par with the CBC commentator saying "how does it feel to have missed a medal by one centimeter". Heck, I remember medal winners in the 2002 Canadian biathlon championships having to do the pee test right after their race. [Let me tell you, when you are that exhausted, with that much adrenalin pumping, and your coach just wants you to recover for the next days race, peeing is rather difficult!]

So, why do I avoid the Olympic games whenever I can help it? Yes, it is partially for the reasons sited by many other bloggers. But, it is also because of the degeneration of the Olympics into a 'roid ridden gong show. Which, is really too bad: there are a lot of people out there who dedicate their lives to their sport and deserve a lot more credit than they currently receive.

Finding a Balance

The Agricultural Land Reserves of Southern British Columbia are quickly being eaten up by the drivers and interests of urbanization. This is a pattern visible in all urban and suburban areas, from Edmonton, and its surrounding areas, to the development of the Fraser Valley.

In the calendar year of 2007, 626.1 HA were lost, via exclusion applications, from the ALR. Particularly, as the population expands out of Vancouver, the Okanagan and Fraser Valley become vulnerable to exclusion for development. For example, since the ALR’s were created in 1974, the Central Okanagan has lost 7000 HA of to exclusion applications, mostly by private interests. While the Fraser Valley and Southern Okanagan each lost 5000 Ha of ALR land to exclusions.

These exclusions can limit the types of farming which occur on the land, or subdivide a larger piece of land to promote other aspects of urbanization. Recently, the phrase “community need” has come into applications for land exclusions. In particular, are cases in Richmond, Invermere, and Penticton.

Whatever the need of the community, it generally comes at the expense of quality farmland, and a lost local cottage industry. Not to mention the jobs lost on the farm due to the land becoming unusable from the "excluded" pieces of land. During a time when “eating local” and the “hundred mile diet” are praised by environmental and ecological gurus, it is surprising that these policies are allowed to continue. This is not to say that a city community has no rights, rather that we have to look at how this community came to need the ALR land.

The current model of “the city” within Canada is to accept sprawl, and encourage the creation and development of new suburbs. However, this usually happens at the expense of good agricultural land. To solve both urban pollution, and create food security, cities must be encouraged to plan up, not out. In the meantime, the ALR should be strictly maintained by the BC land commission.

Insight into In-Site

When originally created, Insite was a partnership between all levels of government to create a safe-injection site for intravenous [IV] drug users in Vancouver. By finding a loophole, if I may call it that, in-site was created as a pilot project, under the supervision of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, in partnership with the PHS community services group. The exemption from Health Canada came under Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act because it was presented as a pilot research project.

Now, after three years [plus a six month extension from the Government of Canada], Tory Health Minister Tony Clement has grown from saying the issue of another extension, or another three year exemption is "up for discussion" to calling Insite a "form of harm addiction".

However, the data from Insite would show a different story than the one of Mr. Clement and his cronies in Ottawa. Harm reduction - a main section of the "four pillars" strategy - would be eliminated, thus undoing all the effects of Insite; it's sanitary facilities, and on-site staff of nurses and psychologists. All Mr. Clement, and Harper, for that matter, are able to see is people using IV drugs - and that this is an illegal act. What they do not see is the thirty per-cent increase in the use of addiction treatment. [i.e. people are getting help], the slower spread of HIV/AIDS and Hep-C via contaminated needles.

The following is the City of Vancouver's "Four Pillars Drug Policy":

PREVENTION: Promoting healthy families and communities, protecting child and youth development, preventing or delaying the start of substance use among young people and reducing harm associated with substance use. Successful prevention efforts aim to improve the health of the general population and reduce differences in health between groups of people.

TREATMENT: Offering individuals access to services that help people come to terms with problem substance use and lead healthier lives, including outpatient and peer-based counseling, methadone programs, daytime and residential treatment, housing support and ongoing medical care.

HARM REDUCTION: Reducing the spread of deadly communicable diseases, preventing drug overdose deaths, increasing substance users' contact with health care services and drug treatment programs and reducing consumption of drugs in the street.

ENFORCEMENT: Recognizing the need for peace and quiet, public order and safety in the Downtown Eastside and other Vancouver neighbourhoods by targeting organized crime, drug dealing, drug houses, problem businesses involved in the drug trade, and improving coordination with health services and other agencies that link drug users to withdrawal management (detox), treatment, counseling and prevention services.

Now, by closing Insite, the Tories will be allowing the first three pillars to fall by the wayside, leaving nothing but cops chasing around petty dealers and busting a few small-timers. No more working with other Harm Reduction agencies [remember, Clement thinks this does not work], no more working with the neighbourhood to reduce issues of poverty, mental illness, and other contributions to addiction. The idea of Harm Reduction, in various forms, is mentioned in the above strategy, with measured, simple approaches to dealing with illness and associated addictions. There is no mention of individual users, rather "organized crime" is at the top of the list, as are dealers [not the small-time ones], and businesses that act in cooperation with, or as a front for, drug sales and entrance to Canada.

Insite is a necessary service, and should be seen in every major city in Canada - Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal - for starters. The proven harm-reduction, fewer needles on streets, and the supervision of medical officers can not only prevent the death of people using to narcotics, but help manage addictions.

To sign or not to sign

Ontario headlines have been humming about an NDP private members bill to change organ donation to an "opt-out", as opposed to an "opt-in" system. Already, this bill has failed twice, but these members seem unwilling to give up, despite the mixed up organ registry system within Canada.

And I say, good for them!

Obviously, there are restrictions and limitations that must be made in regard to which organs an individual wants to donate - perhaps they only wish to donate solid organs for transplantation. This would include - for example - the kidney. Or an individual does not want their skin or cornea's donated. Religious, moral, and "I just do not feel comfortable with that" reasons must be accepted without question, for fear of encroaching on individual freedoms. In addition, there must be provisions made to ensure that organs go directly to the individuals of highest need - with, as is current practice, priority to pediatric patients. After all, being a kid on dialysis, in need of an islet transplantation, or living with the liver of a sixty year-old alcoholic must just suck.

Despite what is being done in Ontario - which has the most fractured system of organ procurement and usage of all the provinces - there is still the issue raised by Dr. F. Delmonico. The necessity of a national organ donation strategy.

I will use kidney transplantation to illustrate my case. In Ontario, each of its five kidney transplant regions has its own transplant waiting list, while there is provincial disparity in regards to the requirements to be put on a wait-list. In BC and Ontario, patients are put on the wait-list when their organ function reaches a certain point - this point may well be AFTER the patients start dialysis treatment. However, in Alberta patients must only wait until they begin to receive dialysis treatment.

These provincial and sub-provincial databases, criteria, and transplant wait-lists add unnecessary confusion and bureaucracy to a system that should be of a federal matter. Those who need the organ the most should receive it first, regardless of location. This method has been touted by Dr. Delmonico, an ad-hoc medical director for the international "Transplantation Society". In addition to this support for a national organ strategy, is data from the work of Dr. Phillip Halloran, showing that on a per-capita basis, Canada performs only forty percent of the transplants our southern neighbours do. Say what you will about overall health indicators between the two countries, for those born with chronic conditions, these statistics are incredibly disenheartening.

Back to the Ontario private members bill, an opt-out system is a good first step to creating an equal system of organ procurement. However, without the nationalization of advocacy, standards of transplantation, data collection, and organ distribution, an opt-out system will not have the important impact onto the daily lives of wait-listed patients that it could.

And they're off!

Dave Taylor just announced his intention to run for the leadership of the Alberta Liberal party. Taylor is the sitting member for Calgary-Currie, and the Liberal "shadow minister" for Health and Wellness, Housing & Urban Affairs, and Advanced Education and Technology. Taylor was a radio personality prior to being first elected in 2004.

Current Alberta Liberal leader Kevin Taft had announced his upcoming retirement as leader on June 26th of 2008, after his party lost eight seats during the 2008 provincial election. More updates as the contenders creep out of the woodwork. Despite all the talk of energy going into the Alberta Liberals, it is hard to believe that a simple leadership change will bring this party any closer to their dream of forming government.
---
More updates as candidates are announced. Personally, I think it will end up going to Laurie Blakeman, if she decides to take a shot at the leadership.
---
UPDATE #1: Mo Elsalhy will announce on Friday his intention to run for the ALP leadership. Mr. Elsalhy is the former MLA for Edmonton-McClung, and you can read bits and pieces of his opinion here.

Where's the measuring tape?

One thing I must admire about politicians is the lengths they will go to in order to explain a blunder. You know, deny, deny, deny until there is absolutely irrefutable evidence. If this fails, blame the opposition, and if this fails, humbly apologize and promise to do better next time. Its really a very simple formula displayed in parliaments and legislatures across the country.

Not so in Quesnel. In this quaint, small town "It is an oops" was the response to the realization that residents palliative care beds will not fit into elevators at the Dunrovin Lodge expansion project. Really? Oops!, sorry we just kinda forgot? Sounds like an Alberta born eighteen year old who forgot the BC drinking age is nineteen. Oops.

And then the newspaper had this lovely below-the-fold headline "$20 million oops".

During construction of the lodge, immediate care was paid to whether or not an ambulance stretcher would be able to fit into an elevator, as these emergencies are, well, emergencies, and need absolute speed. The regular palliative care beds were thought of, just not really thought of during the planning process. When it was too late, a redesign of the facility was deemed not worth it.

Far be it from me to argue with the experts about this, but you have to wonder who was asleep at the switch and entirely forgot about this building being two stories high. Or forgot the possibility of non-emergency but necessary movement of residents between stories.