Mr. Hagenaars made an unexpected proposal for the city’s libraries. He proposed replacing the existing OPL staff with 33 librarians (one at each branch) and a staff of volunteers:

In my opinion, what we truly need are small, local libraries, with one librarian [...] and volunteer staff from the community to keep them going. Let people vote with their feet if they want library services. If there are no volunteers [...], one full-time librarian is already too much.

His proposal didn’t explain who would maintain the OPL’s physical assets (lending materials, buildings, computer networks, website, bookmobile, and archives), nor did it explain the effect of cutting over 8,000 classes that have an annual enrollment of roughly 190,000. Perhaps worst of all, he proposes cuts without an indication of the savings they would provide.

This suggests that Mr. Hagenaars either:

1. knows about these services and didn’t bother to mention them in his proposal; or
   
2. made a policy proposal without understanding the issue.

My concern is that Mr. Hagenaars didn’t know what he was suggesting. My fear is supported by a question in his original letter “Where are the volunteers at the libraries, if people think they are that important?” Obvious answers aside: Ottawa has 555 library volunteers. It’s worrisome when a blogger with a couple of hours on his hands digs up more information about an election issue than a candidate.

Proposing a solution is easy. Proposing a useful solution is much harder.

In his response to my original post, Mr. Hagenaars seems more focused on the proposal for a new Main Branch rather than laying off 419.46 employees¹. This is good – Mr. Hagenaars doesn’t reiterate his call for a dismantling of the existing OPL and its programs.²

I hope that his original suggestion was nothing more than an overzealous cost-cutting proposal. If that’s the case, I would much rather that he said that, rather than continuing to avoid its mention.

Update: Cleaned up wording.

1. I can only assume that the .46 of an employee refers to .46 of a full time position, rather Eric the Half a Librarian.
2. Ironically, I agree that delaying the construction of a new Main Branch is a reasonable way to save money, given that the existing Main Branch is still functional.

what we truly need are small, local SNOW REMOVAL, with one SNOW REMOVAL PERSON (making less than six figures) and volunteer staff from the community to keep SNOW REMOVAL going. Let people vote with their SHOVELS if they want SNOW REMOVAL. If there are no volunteers (i.e. not enough interest), one SNOW REMOVAL PERSON is already too much.

Not to keep harping on Mr. Hagenaars, but I thought that was funny.

Proposed layout of commercial area of Lansdowne Park, provided by OSEG

The proposal for the commercial areas includes of blocks of multi-story glass residential buildings perched on seven blocks of retail, a cinema, and an office tower. The Aberdeen Pavilion and Horticulture building are furthest from Bank Street, tucked behind the rest of the development.

It’s bland. It looks like an uninspired corner of Carleton University: cement, glass, featureless facades, and lots of right angles. The two dominant thoroughfares are designed for cars, with pedestrians relegated to sidewalks partially-obstructed by cement planters. The plazas are cement blocks. If there’s any theme it would be “cement”. Meanwhile, the new buildings are three to seven stories in height, obstructing views of the Aberdeen Pavilion.

The view of Aberdeen Pavilion from Holmwood Avenue

OSEG's proposal features wide roads with sidewalks partially blocked by planters

I’d like to say that it isn’t all bad – that there are some highlights that redeem the plan. But there aren’t. The two features that caught my eye were the medians on Bank Street, and the “Lord Grey’s” building. The medians proved to be lipstick on a pig: the Bank Street entrance still looks like the asphalt afterthought it is today. Similarly, even though the dramatic overhang of Lord Grey’s looks interesting in the rendering, the detailed image makes it look more like a walled off gas bar.

Does it have to be so boring?

Another vision for Lansdowne?

Another alternative would be to go to the extreme: build an iconic structure that would dominate the commercial portion of the site and would contain all of the retail. Ottawa’s new convention centre is a striking example. Yes, it’s ugly, but it’s like a chihuahua – it’s so ugly that it goes beyond simple everyday ugliness to a weird kind of beauty.

Ugly and attractive at the same time

The thing that got me about it was Bloc MP Serge Ménard’s comments. That dude has something to say. He starts by pointing out that Quebec has had a youth crime rate half that of the rest of Canada, and then he goes on to describe how QC applies “the right measure at the right time.” As far as I can tell, it involves parents, psychologists, and specially trained judges. After saying his bit, he goes on to outline exactly the parts of bill C-4 that suck. With quotes. The only way this guy could be more excellent is if he spoke with footnotes and had X-ray vision.

The exchange between Ménard and Conservative Ed Fast is interesting. Ménard makes an argument based on experience, describing what has worked well in Quebec for the last 25 years. Ed Fast makes an argument based on aspirations – saying how their changes are intended to behave, but without any apparent evidence. Even the Liberals and NDPers (between verbally high-fiving each other) make arguments based on what has been shown to work.

I could draw conclusions about the relative merit of the arguments, but I’ll leave that up to you, dear reader.

Human Development and Sexual Health
C3.3 describe how visible differences (e.g., skin, hair, and eye colour, facial features, body size and shape, physical aids or different physical abilities, clothing, possessions) and invisible differences (e.g., learning abilities, skills and talents, personal or cultural values and beliefs, gender identity, sexual orientation, family background, personal preferences, allergies and sensitivities) make each person unique, and identify ways of showing respect for differences in others

Teacher prompt: “Sometimes we are different in ways you can see. Sometimes we are different in ways you cannot see – such as how we learn, what we think, and what we are able to do. Give me some examples of things that make each person unique.”

Student: “We all come from different families. Some students live with two parents. Some live with one parent. Some have two mothers or two fathers. Some live with grandparents or with caregivers. We may come from different cultures. We also have different talents and abilities and different things that we find difficult to do.”

Teacher: “How can you be a role model and show respect for differences in other people?”

Student: “I can include others in what I am doing, invite them to join a group, be willing to be a partner with anyone for an activity, and be willing to learn about others.”

(Excerpted from the original proposal on the Government of Ontario’s website and mirrored here)

That’s it? Saying that some kids have two moms is “bordering on criminal”? According to the nutbars cited above: “To cause confusion in a young child’s mind about being male or female is evil.” O rly?

This argument strikes me as thinly veiled homophobia.

Instead of overt queer-bashing, the “family values” crowd is now saying that they want to hide homosexuality from their kids. Their homophobia is suddenly a parental right. They don’t want to openly dis queers, they just want to pretend that gays don’t exist. One gentleman from the Sault is quoted as saying “a child is taught to comply, answer the right questions in school, and at home he’s taught this is not right behaviour, [...] Is that fair to the kids?” That’s right. Teaching kids that homosexuality exists is unfair to them. Presumably because they’ll have to rectify their parents’ bigotry with society’s openness.

I’d like to say that this issue does matter. But it does. Some of the “family values” types will have gay kids. And those kids are going to have a rough time growing up. I can’t help but think that a brief admission that homosexuality is okay in Grade 3 might save those kids a measure of hurt growing up.

(Edit: Changed the title)

Why has Quebec suddenly decided that niqabs are bad? To “protect equality between women and men”¹ and to “stress the values that unite [Quebecers]“²

In other words:

• Quebec has decided to bar women from language training to protect their equality with men.
• Quebec is targeting immigrants and minorities to promote inclusiveness.

I agree with the premise that niqabs are ambulatory prisons that can be used to drive a wedge between women and society.

But saying “you musn’t wear a niqab” is pretty close to saying “you must wear a niqab.” It removes a woman’s right to self determination. In both cases she’s not quite as equal as the man who gets to choose his own duds.

If I were to draft my own Bill 94, it would look something like:

1. The only time someone’s face needs to be shown is when they are being authenticated. Women will have to show their faces to bankers, police, doctors, and pharmacists. If a woman can complete her studies with her face covered, then the only time she need show her face at a school is when she’s taking a test or examination.
2. Make school uniforms mandatory. Adults have already formed habits and ingrained behaviours that many Quebecers find distasteful. Let them be and concentrate on the next generation. If niqabs are as onerous as their critics suggest, children should jump at the freedom afforded by their uniforms.

“Reasonable accommodation” is a two way street: immigrants will have to adjust to showing their face when necessary and Quebecers will have to adjust to seeing people with different customs. It’s reasonable to expect immigrants to respect our laws and other codified norms, but we can’t expect them to entirely discard their native culture. Similarly, recent immigrants should be able to expect that they will be treated in the same manner as other citizens, as a society we realize that their history is part of who they are and we accept that. Even if have decided we don’t like its origins.

Image by leeno.

1. That’s according to Chrstiane Pelchat, president of the Quebec Council on the Status of Women.
2. So says Jean Charest.

But I don’t get the “turn off their lights” part.

If we’re trying to convince Canada’s population that we should do something about climate change, we aren’t going to win any converts by telling them they have to reduce their quality of life. People associate lighting with being modern. In our society, you only sit in the dark if there’s something wrong with you. If we want to actually do something, we should try to show how easy it is to live green. We should point out that we waste a crap-load of energy on inefficiency. We should point out that our energy consumption has risen by 10% between 1990 and 2003¹, but our standard of living hasn’t changed (while our real incomes have fallen).

If I got to design a replacement for Earth Hour, it would go something like this: A bunch of my fellow hippies would gather on Parliament Hill on Saturday morning with batteries and generators. We’d build a stage, and invite a bunch of acts to come out an play. Come 8:30 we’d start the show. It would be powered by generators running on non-food sourced biomass (such as agricultural waste) and batteries charged from renewable sources. Everyone who could produce a valid bus transfer, or a piece of ID with an address within two kilometers of the event would get a free drink. Everyone who brought their own drink container would get $1 off booze ($2 if the container still had the skanky remains of their morning coffee). Anyone who drove would have to stare into Fat Cat’s unblinking eye for ten minutes.

And now for a numbers rant: the bizarre part about Earth Hour is that lighting really is the least of our problems. In 2003, Canada produced 10,477,207 terajoules (TJ) of energy from green house gas emitting sources. 15.3% of that was converted to electricity.² In 2003, we used 63,000 TJ of electricity for lighting. That’s 3.9% of our total green-house-gas emitting electricity use, or .6% of our total energy use.

1. According to public data, we consumed 7,539 kilograms of oil-equivalent fuel in 1990 and 8,278 in 2003.
2. Calculated by adding together the GHG emitting sources and dividing by total: (134019+337441+1138645)/10477207. This clearly doesn’t cover non-GHG emitting energy sources such as hydro, nuclear, and renewable energy. Those sources do, indirectly, emit GHGs, of course, but that makes the calculation harder.

Conservative types are holding this up as an affront to free speech. Last night’s “John Counsel” show on CFRA had the usual suspects: various flavours of little-”c” conservatives complaining that the Man is holding them down.[1] And, on the small scale, they’re right.

But I’m not so sure about the bigger picture. Anyone who wants to find out about Ann Coulter’s ideas can do so. You can find her on TV. You can find her in the library. You can find her on Youtube and on the Fox website. One could say that there’s a Coulter surplus in the mediasphere. Assuming she’s towing the Republican/Conservative party line, there are plenty of blogs and websites pushing the same ideas.

Now I’m going to embark on some speculation. I assume that the pitchfork wielding mob protesters that shut down the talk last night were the people that Ms. Coulter allegedly bashes: Muslims, the educated, homosexuals, people who read, Jews, and political moderates. If I wanted to hear the counterpoint to Ms. Coulter’s tirades, I would have to do a lot more work, as there’s no single socially progressive media outlet on the scale of Fox news, and no think-tank with Fox’s reach.[2]

That doesn’t justify shutting down a talk. That doesn’t justify barring hundreds of people from hearing Ms. Coulter speak. But it’s worth remembering.

Image by Gage Skidmore.
—
1. I stopped listening to the show when John Counsel started shouting down a caller that said “I agree, but what Ann Coulter says isn’t true.” Apparently freedom of speech is only important when it echoes your opinion.

2. You could argue that the BBC or CBC would approach the scale of Fox’s reach, but neither conglomerate pushes a single viewpoint in quite the way that Fox News does.

The premise of the post seems to be that religion alters “traits” rather than current state, and that these altered states are a good thing.

I disagree with both of these assumptions.

Did good ol’ fashioned religions cause people to “radically re-think the social order”? Not really. When religions are adopted by the state, they preserve the social order. Think of Islam or Catholicism. Universal suffrage, the (US ethnic) civil rights movement, and abolitionism were artifacts of their time that were adopted by populist religious groups.

When religions are used as tools to change the social order, are the results necessarily positive? No. Just take a look at the crusades or Iran’s Basij (volunteer religious vice squad). We can toss Afghanistan’s Taliban or any number of other self appointed moral police forces throughout history.

The West’s move away from organized religion probably has more to do with the US anti-establishment backlash of the 60s and the Christian church’s failure to keep up with current morality (viz the Catholic church’s various sexual abuse cover ups, and the spasms of hate reacting against gay marriage and the ordination of women). At the same time, less and less of our lives need a mystical explanation, and people are finding it easier to operate without the small scale mutual aide that religion once provided.

Religion isn’t falling to mysticism, established religions are creaking under the weight of an open and accepting society. As time goes on, either religion will become more personal (meaning fewer organized religions) or organized religions will adapt to our progressive social landscape. Or we’ll fall into a spasm of social conservativism and the old-skool religions will suddenly be relevant again.

PS: Is the “the Market” a religion? No, not really. Fervent belief isn’t a religion any more than believing in Santa Claus or cheering on a sports team.