Tag: apropos of nothing

Sufferfest

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

I signed up for a Sufferfest this year. A moment of weakness, a compelling (but probably very bad) idea, a challenge issued, and a handshake agreement. I’m committed.

A friend Andrew and some cycling buddies of his have an annual ritual. They meet up in some Interior BC city on the May Long Weekend, and spend three days riding bicycles long distances over high mountain passes. I saw pictures of last year’s cold and rainy event: it was a Sufferfest.

This year’s plan is no less suffer-worthy, but includes some roads I have never ridden, hence my being compelled to contemplate perhaps taking part. Then the shocking realization came in.

Day 1: (185km) Vernon to Merritt via Kelowna, 97C and the Pennask Summit.
Day 2: (165km) Merritt to Sorrento, via Kamloops, Highway 5 and the Surrey Lake Summit.
Day 3: (140km) Sorrento to Vernon, via Sicamous.

This will be done on bicycles, as fast as possible. Rain or shine, perhaps snow. Suffering encouraged.

The reason I bring this up is that it is creating a lot of discussion among my drinking buddies usual life advisers around techniques to reduce the level of suffering, and much of this discussion is getting very metaphysical. To wit:

Andrew’s advice is to “train”. Aside from the issue of whether I should take any more advice from the guy who got me into this in the first place, the idea of “training” is sort of antithetical to the way I ride bikes. Even in the old days when I used to race bikes, I didn’t train so much as I just went for a lot of long bike rides and more than a few fast bike rides. Intervals? Speed work? Spinning? Not so much. I love to ride, and training was just an excuse to ride more, why reduce the fun of the riding by introducing “training” to the mix? This is perhaps why I generally failed to win races.

I got to thinking, at the meta level, if to train is to suffer, then one has to decide if more suffering is the best approach to reducing suffering. You see, the Sufferfest is going to invoke suffering no matter what I do between then and now. The scale (both depth and breadth) of the suffering will be reduced by filling the intervening time with training, which is programmed lesser suffering to reduce the eventual event suffering.

But how much pre-suffering is necessary to meaningfully reduce the event suffering? Or more important, how does one reduce the net suffering. If one was to graph the suffering over time, you would get something like this:

Since the front part of the curve (training-induced suffering) effects the back part of the curve (Sufferfest suffering), I need some way to reduce the total suffering, which in this case is represented by the shaded area under the curve. I need to find the smallest possible value for that area. That way, I can assure I don’t waste early suffering that will not impact late suffering: I need to find the suffer-minima. I knew I should have paid more attention in college, because this is going to take some intregal calculus.

Then it occurred to me that this may not help me, because the person who has to worry about that is Future Pat. The suffering of Future Pat really shouldn’t be the concern of me, Present Pat. I am already dealing with all the bad decisions made by Past Pat, who not only got me into the terrible shape I am right now by blithely ignoring his bikes for a couple of months, then making some sort of deal with Andrew that has me in my current situation. Past Pat is a real jerk that way, never thinking of others.

This is the same Past Pat, I remind you, who constantly failed to study adequately for calculus exams, dooming Future Pat to marks not befitting the stress induced. I’m afraid he has left me with little choice. Already carrying the load of Past Pat, I’m in no position to be taking yet another Pat under my wing, Future Pat is on his own.

Future Pat is going to suffer the May Long Weekend, the poor bastard. Glad I’m not him.

On Assessments and Mil Rates

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 6 Comments.

Regular readers (Hi Mom!) know I like to define my terms. Almost to a fault. That is how a 300-word missive on the latest outrage can expand into a 1500-word explanation of some nuanced difference in language.

Here we go again.

With the BC Assessment Office returning this year’s assessment reports, and everyone able to look up their own house (and that of their neighbour) using the on-line tool, the Cities will now be able to set their “Mil rates” (or less correctly but more commonly, “Mill Rates”) and the Cities can all brag or their citizens can lament about being the highest or lowest taxes municipalities. Ironically, West Vancouver can claim both titles, and here is where defining our terms is so important.

Property taxes are calculated using a slightly complicated formula, based on three factors: the value of your property, the value of the other properties in your tax area (that is, across your municipality), and the Mil Rate established by the Municipal government. There are some other complicating factors, such as the multipliers used for non-residential properties (Commercial and Industrial properties pay 3-10x as much as residential properties for the same assessed value), and the Homeowners Grant which reduces the effective tax rate for lower-value properties, but really, it all circles around the Mil Rate.

How the Mil Rate is calculated is rather simple. The Municipality figures out in its annual budget how much money it needs from property taxes to operate over the upcoming year, we’ll call that “Taxation Income”. It is then told by the BC Assessment Authority what the “Total Assessed Value” is of all taxable properties in the City. The first number is divided by the second, multiplied by 1000 (hence the “Mil”) and the result is the Mil rate.

So if we imagine a City where there are 100 houses all worth $100,000, their Total Assessed Value is $10,000,000. If the City needs $30,000 to operate, the Mil rate will be 3. We can easily calculate from this that every homeowner will pay $300 in property tax ($30,000 / 100), or $3 per every $1000 of house value.

Now imagine a City where there are 100 houses, but 9 of them are worth $500,000, one of them is worth $100,000, and the remaining 90 are worth $60,000 each. Same number of houses, and the same cost to run the City, so the Mil rate will stay at 3. The Lucky Duckies in the mansions will pay $1500, the guy in the $100,000 house pays the same $300, but the median homeowner will pay $180. Mil rate is the same, the average tax is the same, but the median tax is lower.

Back to the first City. If the Council decided it needs to raise property taxes by 5% to maintain services demanded by its residents, they now need $31,500 in tax revenue. If no-one’s house value increases, the mill rate is 3.15, and they all pay $315. If their properties all go up in value by the same 5%, then they all have $105,000 properties, the Mil rate stays at 3, and they all pay $315.

Just for the fun of it, imagine a City that is similar to the first one, but due to a freak of geography, every house has a spectacular view of the sun setting over the ocean and cold beer springs from the back yard fountains. Because of this, all of the properties have values of $200,000. However, the sea-air and beer runoff erodes the roads, and the City needs $36,000 per year to operate. The mill rate would need to be 1.8, and each homeowner would pay $360. So does that City have higher or lower taxes than the first City?

These examples are ridiculously simple, of course, but they demonstrate the point, when comparing taxes between cities you need to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

The Mil Rate for residential property in New Westminster in 2012 was 3.5441. This compares to other municipalities across the Lower Mainland from 1.81 (West Vancouver) to 4.73 (Abbotsford ). Vancouver was 2.02. Across-the-board comparisons show New Westminster’s Mil Rate is higher than most, but certainly not the highest in the Lower Mainland.

But how do our actual taxes compare?

The average assessed value for residential property in West Vancouver is just under $2 Million. The average assessed value for property in New Westminster is about $550,000, so for the average homeowner, West Van taxes are $3,620; in New Westminster the same calculation is $1,949. Not even close.

Another way to estimate is to compare BC Assessment numbers with 2011 Canada Census data (different ways of counting and different estimates mean different numbers, but the trend/scale is the same):

New West:
Total value: $13 Billion,
Mil Rate: 3.5441
Tax Collected: ~$46 Million (not counting commercial/industrial).
Households: 30,585
Population: 65,976
Tax per Household: ~$1,500
Tax per Person: ~$700.

West Vancouver:
Total value: $30 Billion,
Mil Rate: 1.81
Tax Collected: ~$54 Million (not counting commercial/industrial).
Households: 17,070
Population: 42,694
Tax per Household: ~$3,160
Tax per Person: ~$1,250.

No matter how you cut it, West Vancouver people pay more in property taxes, despite their lowest-in-the-region Mil Rate.

For the City of Vancouver, their ~$1Million average assessed value and 2.02 Mill rate puts them somewhere between New West and West Van.

A friend recently asked me why they pay more for taxes on a $650,000 house in New West than their friends pay for their $900,000 house in East Van. This is a good question, and probably the real cause for the common (incorrect) complaint that New Westminster taxes are higher than anywhere else. The simple solution turns out to be a little complex. Again, let’s use the West Vancouver comparison. From Canada Census data, here is the distribution of housing types:

New West:
Single/ Semi detached (18.6%)
Townhouse (4.1%)
Highrise Apartment (30.5%)
Lowrise apartment (46.6%)

West Vancouver:
Single/Semi detached (61.0%)
Townhouse (2.1%)
Highrise Apartment (20.2%)
Lowrise apartment (16.8%)

Note the highlighted lines: almost half of New Westminster households are in apartments of less than 5 stories: the majority of them in those three-story walk-ups that pepper the Downtown and Brow of the Hill Neighbourhoods. Less than 20% of households are in single detached homes. Compare that to West Vancouver, where the vast majority are single detached.

Yet the things Cities pay for: roads, sidewalks, police, fire, parks, recreation, infrastructure, etc. are needed by all, whether they live in a two-bedroom apartment on the 2nd floor or a 5,000 square foot house on an acre lot. Those costs index to population, not property value. So in New West, we have more people in lower-value housing, and consequently paying less tax.

So my friend has a $650,000 house in Glenbrook North that may be similar to her friend’s $900,000 house on Renfrew Street, but the relative value of her house ($100,000 higher than the community average) is much higher than her friend’s ($100,000 below the community average), and therefore she carries more of the tax burden for the community.

It might not seem fair, but I cannot imagine the alternative. We could cut Property Taxes in New Westminster to the same Mil Rate as Vancouver, but that would reduce our City budget by more than a third, resulting in a catastrophic reduction in services and infrastructure, which would reduce our property values more, widening the Property Value gap between us and Vancouver, and further choking City Hall of money. That seems a vicious cycle to enter.

Another way to look at the problem, of course, is to recognize that you pay $650,000 for a house in Glenbrook North that would cost you $900,000 off of Renfrew. That $250,000 savings is about 200x the annual increase in taxes you pay in New Westminster, not to mention the savings in borrowing costs for the much less onerous mortgage required.

So do we pay too much property Tax in New Westminster? We don’t pay the most in the Lower Mainland (by any measure) or the least (by any measure). And you can always move to West Vancouver and enjoy paying both the lowest and highest property taxes in the region.

The second debate that happens this time of year is the “fairness” of the assessment process. When Real Estate sales are dropping off and everyone is confidently predicting the long-predicted bursting of the housing bubble- how is it possible that the Assessment Office calculated a modest rise in real estate value for New West?

For the fun of it, I entered my address into the BC Assessment search engine, and asked for all local “sales” in the previous year. It returned the 100 nearest properties (all detached homes) that sold in 2012, ranging from $383,000 to $2,500,000 in sale price. I don’t know how “local” they were, but they were all in New Westminster. Then I compared their sale price to the assessed value. The results were interesting.

NOTE: First off, I tossed one property out of the dataset, as it was both the most expensive sale ($2,550,000) and it sold for a shocking 56% premium over its assessed value ($1,631,700). This was a large property in Ewan Ave in Queensborough, with its single home no doubt about to be torn down and replaced with row-houses or an apartment building. It was so anomalous, I needed to remove it to fit the graph below.

For the remaining 99 properties, I plotted the assessed value on the x axis, and the percentage difference between the sale price and the assessed value on the y axis, and the result is informative, if not interesting, in that there is basically no pattern:

If the assessment authority was systematically underestimating property value, the cluster would be predominantly below the 0% line; if it was overestimating, the cluster would be above the 0% line. In reality, the centre of that cluster is just below the line- the Assessment Authority undervalues all property near my house (relative to the resale market) by about 1.4%. (I’m assuming this has to do with my playing Tom Waits loudly all hours of the day and night). Overall, there are 62 properties undervalued, 36 overvalued, and one exactly valued. However, the majority of properties are assessed within 4% of their market value.

Note, there is not much “slope” to the cluster, the authority does not unfairly value expensive properties relative to inexpensive values in any significant way. The average assessed value of every property below the line is $685,000, and the average assessed value of those above the line is $665,000. So although it is not visible in the data, there is a slight(1.5%) shift of assessed value from expensive homes to less-expensive ones.

All that said:  if I was to characterize the cluster, I would call it high accuracy, low precision. There are more than 20% of properties that are off (plus or minus side) by more than 10%. That means a large number of people are paying $200 a year more – or less – than they “should”. However, you should rest assured that you are more likely (ever so slightly) to be paying less in taxes than your share according to the BC Assessment Office.

The Language of Curling

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

Just for the fun of it, I am totally going to geek out on curling, because we had a great game at the Royal City club on Tuesday, and I can. None of this is going to make any sense to my friends that don’t curl, but part of what I love about the game is the language – because everything below makes perfect sense to anyone who has spent any time in a curling rink. The Roarin’ Game has its own Language.

1st end: We lost the flip, as per usual, but Byron put his first rock 6’ short on the line, and buried his second on the top of the 4, and we were set up. Then we let the end get away from us after they made a nice corner freeze on the counter and we failed to stick the freeze on the other side. They peeled to open it up, And it turned into a peel game. However, his last overturned to the nose and stuck around, forcing the point.

2nd end: He put his first draw top 12, and the hit game commenced. It was real Ryan vs. Lukowich time, trading rolls, making most. Ice was pretty straight for the outside-in game with hit weight, but turned an easy 3 feet off the line with anything around control weight: all predictable. He rolled his last shot out, and we decided to draw and take one instead of the strategic blank (it was an even end, and I needed to practice my draw after playing in Seattle all weekend).

3rd end: We put up a corner guard, then they put one up on centre, so we went behind the corner. They drew in the middle and we followed, but their down-weight hit and flop worked. With things building up behind the guard but in front of the T, we needed to switch up and open things. Our semi-peel perfectly caught one of the counters. After a few traded hits, we ended up sitting two and he was forced to take one facing two of ours.

4th end: With the hammer, we decided to plug it up a bit to see if we could get some action, and I think he had the same idea. When one of his guards came up heavy and almost froze his counter in the top of the 4, he was all of the sudden sitting 1st and 2nd in the 4, us sitting 3rd at the back of the 4, and him 4th at the back of the 12 (we had flob way over in the wings). Ward threw a great across-the face peel on the two counters- he needed to get across the face with pretty big weight to keep the drag from jamming on our 3rd rock, and he dragged it perfectly to pick out their third rock and preserve the shooter- a beauty triple, and all of the sudden we are sitting 3 with skips rocks to come. He hits and rolls, I hit and roll, his hit and roll ends up not frozen to our counter at the back of the 12, but overlapping enough that I need a delicate angle to pick him and stick for three. Even the jam miss still scores two. What doesn’t score three or two is me coming out inside and light, curling across the face, and jamming him into our back rock. We take one. Half way done, we are all tied up.

5th end: Rolls were definitely going our way here. They decided to push the matter and score this end, but we were making our draws. At some point he needed to clear off some front rocks to give himself a route in. By the time I threw my last, we had one just biting the top of the 4 half covered, and a couple of other counters in front of the T. The 4 foot was covered on the in turn side, all I had to do was jam up the port on the outturn side and he was going to have a hard time cutting us to 1. Being a greedy guy, I figured: put it in the 8 foot for a second counter, and he would have a hard time keeping us to 2. Of course, I was about a foot long in my guard, so the nose hit cut us to 1, and he made it. Still, it was a steal, which at this point is the first skin of the game.

6th end: Our first rock slid into the house, and they hit it, so off we go to the hit game again. We traded misses at one point, and we traded picks at one point (oh, oh- pebble is starting to go away) but it was a basic split-house draw and chase where I was never able to get the roll I needed to close the gap. They had an opportunity to hit and stick for two, but overturned on (previously) straight piece of ice, and couldn’t save the shooter. Another single, and tied again.

7th end: this is where the wheels fell off of our bus. Like the 5th where we were getting the draws and rolls, here in the 5th they got the rolls and skinny come-arounds, we got the racks and the wrecks. At one point we were looking at 4 of their rocks in the house, and none of ours. We managed to keep the guards off and had a control-weight nose hit on the counter to score single and get out of the end. Thank you Mr. Hammer.

8th end: We are one up without coming home, they of course are one down with. We need to steal, they need multiples, so the guards go up early. Ice is getting straighter as the pebble goes away, so the come-arounds aren’t burying. We managed to get Ward’s last rock biting the top corner of the button and ¾ buried, and their attempt to extract it with hack or backline just hung too long, actually pushing us over a foot- dead buried covering the pin. We had a counter at the side, so they need to remove it and stick around. They had two fairly long angle run-backs, I had to throw two guards. My guard of the outturn draw (which was probably just there) picked or overturned, and didn’t do much to make his life any more difficult. He threw the inturn run-back and missed wide, but taking off the guard, giving himself a route in to the button. My attempt to guard that port failed to turn enough to close the port, and he drew through it perfect, just pushing us off the button without a roll. Tied up.

Tie break is a turkey shoot: one rock each, closest to the button. Having just thrown the button draw, he did it again, stopping full 4. Having just missed two guards, I threw too deep, back 8, and we shook hands. We had three chances to take control of the game: my last shots in the 4th, 5th, and 8th. Those seem to overshadow his missed deuce in 6th or my game-saving hit and stick in 7th.

Thankless life of the skip.

Defining your terms

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.
I’m going a little more philosophical than I usually do here, but I have been attending some, for lack of a better term, “political” events recently, and they got me to thinking.
I am (I think) in a fortunate position that I don’t belong to a political party and don’t have strong political allegiances. I like the work that is done by our two local MPs, and I think they represent our community well, but that has little to do with the Party they belong to. I suspect Diana Dilworth would have also been a great representative, given the opportunity to do that. I also think we have two (sorry Mr. Forseth) very good candidates for MLA in the upcoming elections here in New West (although I have yet to challenge each of them on their weaknesses… and that’s between me and them and the ballot).
I have said it before, the issues I care the most about right now (environmental sustainability, municipal infrastructure and transportation, social responsibility, science-based policy development) are issues that every party should address in their platforms, and issues no single party “owns”. I also believe in pre-Chrétien/Harper representative democracy, where the local elected official represents the region to the  House of Commons, not where the local official stands only to bring missives from the PMO to their electorate. So I am kind of a socially-progressive, economically-moderate, environmentalist, policy-wonk rationalist Preston Manning style democrat, if that makes any sense.
With that extended caveat, I want to address two terms I have been hearing a lot recently. They were prominent during the recent USelection, and seem to be featured in assigned talking points for the upcoming BC Election. Both are so poorly defined as to be meaningless, and I cringe whenever I hear them used in discussion. So I am going to throw them out there right now and now you will hear them in every speech you hear between now and May. I may set up a drinking game around them.
They are “Free Enterprise” and “Socialism”.
Some people would have you believe that these are two separate things: two ends of a spectrum so far distant that we must choose which we to abolish and which we must embrace to summon forth a new land of prosperity. I call bullshit on the whole lot of it, starting with the lack of definition of the terms.
They both have definitions, of course, but the definitions you might find in the dictionary are far from the way they are bring applied in rhetoric in 2012.
As the BC Liberals and BC Conservatives clamour over each other to prove themselves the more “Free Enterprise” party, I’m not even sure what that means, and who (other than the Marxist-Leninist Party, I guess) is against “Free Enterprise”. We all believe that businesses should be free to operate within a fair and accountable regulatory regime. We also agree that business operates best when there are regulations around how they operate. As an extreme example, no-one wants a “Heroin-R-Us” store to open up next door, or for weapons to be sold in unregulated booths on street corners. Less extreme examples are the (relatively tight) regulations that protected Canada’s banks from making the risky bets that caused the recent global economic collapse.
“Free Enterprise” does not mean a complete lack or regulations. Actually, there can be no such thing as business unless there is something called “property”, and “property” is defined by the law – we need laws for business to prosper. What we don’t need are unfair or non-transparent laws.
Every Party (again, I might except the Marxist-Leninists and their pals the Libertarians) wants to have well regulated business regime where entrepreneurs can prosper and employ people. To not want that is not rational. We only differ about the process to get there.
“Socialist” has the opposite problem: every Party (again, possibly excepting Libertarians, who limit their socialist leanings to the armed forces) is socialist. I look out at that shiny new $3.3 Billion Port Mann bridge, at the $2 Billion South Fraser Perimeter Road under it, at every single school I pass on my bike ride to work, at the bike lane I ride that bike on, the cop pulling me over for running a stop sign on my bike and the court system where I could defend myself and I see socialism. They are all examples of citizens being forced through law and taxation to pool their “heard earned” money to set up a state-run enterprise for the greater good.
There is no front-line party now arguing that socialism will end under their rule: none are talking about dismantling the public school system, ending the collecting of royalties for natural resource extraction, privatizing the hospitals and fire departments, or turning the police department and the armed forces over to Haliburton. If someone runs “against the socialists” that is someone you should fear – they want to disassemble the very structure of society that separates Canadafrom place without a functioning government, like (alas) Mali.
But that’s not what they mean. They define “socialism” as some sort of vague combination of taxes and labour unions. I know that “Special interests groups” are involved as well, but I’m not sure if that includes the Chamber of Commerce.
Or maybe I just don’t get politics.

So as we enter the election season, (yes, it will be a painfully long campaign leading up to May 2013, such if fixed election dates) I hope that more people, when a candidate uses a term like “Free Enterprise”, “Socialist”, or even “Special Interest Group” or “Big Business”, you ask them to define their terms*. You might be thinking something different than they are.

*My favourite retort when someone asks “Do you believe in God?” is “You will have to define at least two of those words”. It usually allows me to avoid a conversation that will satisfy no-one. .    

on Plagiarism

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Plagiarism:, according to Wiktionary, the on-line crowd-sourced dictionary, it is defined as:

”the copying of another person’s ideas, text, or other creative work, and presenting it as one’s own, especially without permission.”

Now, I used someone else’s ideas and text right there, but that’s not plagiarism, because I did two things: I made it clear that those were not my words, but someone else I was quoting; and I provided a link or reference to the original source.

In today’s internet world, there is so much information out there from so many sources, that plagiarism is a serious issue. Just look at the hassles Margaret Wente went through recently – clearly cribbing another person’s work, and representing it as her own. When caught, her professional reputation suffered, as did the organization she represented (the Globe and Mail Newspaper).

But she is a journalist, in a unique position of public trust. Writing is her business, she should know better. This is a issue of much discussion in schools and universities: it is so easy to Cut & Paste another’s work and claim it as your own, that teachers have a real struggle keeping ahead of it. When caught, students in high school can expect a zero score on their paper. In University, a student is likely to fail the course, and (if the offence is repeated or flagrant) – to be kicked out of school for academic dishonesty.

But what of politicians? We had a bit of a plagiarism issue here in New West during the last municipal election, one likely more attributable to lazy campaigning than real malice. After all, copying definitions word-for-word from Wikipedia without attribution is to plagiarism what running your parking meter down is to theft- pretty predictable and low-impact in the grand scheme.

So it is somewhere between those two extremes when a person in the public eye- say a former (and potential future) elected official keeps a blog journal that is presumably their writing and thought, but ends up just being cut-and-paste phrases from other sources, jumbled up into a slightly-changed narrative, with nary a mention the sources.

This gets slightly more concerning when non-specific claims of authenticity go out on Twitter saying such things as “Understand what is HAMAS, to understand why people are dying. Read me at…” or “I finally said something about Gaza, read me”, with links to a long-form cut & paste master class in plagiarism without attributions.

Would any reasonable person just assume what you are going to read under an invitation “read me at...” to find out what “I finally said…” will be the original work of the author?

Unfortunately for Paul Foresth, it is a big internet, but not big enough. His two recent posts on the current Hamas-Israeli conflict (a strange topic for a Provincial candidate to spark up about, but whatever) are prefect examples of when borrowing ideas, using sources, or even forwarding others’ work veers off into out-and-out plagiarism.

First note that neither the post on “Rockets” or the one on “Hamas” ever provide citation or reference to other sources. Even the few “quoted” sections are generally without attribution. This is a bit of a concern, because just about every sentence written in those two blog posts can be found written elsewhere on the web, by different authors, and (this is important) in different contexts.

Compare the ”Rockets ” post to this story on the CTV News website:

Paul Forseth: “In Brussels, officials with the European Union have also weighed in on the conflict. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama have said that Israel has the right to defend itself. However, it is unclear how far that support will extend, if Israel considers another ground incursion into Gaza.”

CTV News: “ In Brussels, officials with the European Union have also weighed in on the conflict. Speaking to a gathering of foreign and defence ministers Monday, EU policy chief Catherine Ashton called for an end to rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel. Meanwhile, Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt urged an immediate ceasefire, and a subsequent review of wider issues between Israel and Gaza.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama have stated publicly that Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas-launched missiles. But it’s unclear how far that support will extend as Israel considers a ground incursion into Gaza.”

Or this Part, where Mr.Forseth both fails to cite CTV News, and fails to cite the person CTV News has the good sense to attribute the quote to:

Paul Forseth: “Four years ago, when there was a ground offensive, a ceasefire followed and there was the hope that calm and reason would prevail. Effectively what it yielded was an opportunity for perpetrators in Gaza to restock their arsenals by smuggling in stronger missiles from Iran.”

CTV News: “If he chooses to put troops on the ground, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu risks increasing military and civilian casualties and losing outside support, said Mackey Frayer. ‘Four years ago, when there was a ground offensive, a ceasefire followed and there was the promise that calm would prevail on both sides,” she noted. “Effectively what it yielded was an opportunity for militants in the Gaza Strip to restock their arsenals with stronger missiles.’”

Here is a pro tip to check if what you are doing is plagiarism: if you remove quotation marks from an article, and nothing else, then you are plagiarizing
.
I won’t go through that article paragraph-by-paragraph to point to all of the plagiarized points, but I will point out that the afrementioned 55-in-a-50-zone style of plagiarism is there as well: cribbing a definition, unattributed, from Wikipedia:

Paul Forseth: “Hamas (Arabic: حماس‎ Ḥamās, “enthusiasm”, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-Islāmiyyah, “Islamic Resistance Movement”) is the Palestinian Sunni Islamist political group that controls Gaza City.”

Wilkipedia: “Hamas (Arabic: حماس‎ Ḥamās, “enthusiasm”, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah, “Islamic Resistance Movement”) is the Palestinian Sunni Islamic or Islamist[5] political party[neutrality is disputed] that governs the Gaza Strip.”

The more recent  “Hamas” post at Forseth’s blog is on the same topic, but no less original. Almost all of the text is copy-and-pasted from this article. Not linearly, as Mr. Forseth took the time to break it up and re-arrange parts, but pretty much every sentence in the Forseth post is cribbed, uncited, from this single source. Compare:

Paul Forseth: ”The Hamas Covenant, states that the organization’s goal is to “raise the banner of God over every inch of Palestine,” i.e. to eliminate the State of Israel (and any secular Palestinian state which may be established), and to replace it with an Islamic Republic. The thirty-six articles of the Covenant detail the movement’s Islamist beliefs regarding the primacy of Islam in all aspects of life.

Hamas views the Arab-Israeli conflict as “a religious struggle between Islam and Judaism that can only be resolved by the destruction of the State of Israel.” Hamas uses both political activities and violence to pursue its goal of establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in place of Israel and the secular Palestinian Authority.

The 1988 Hamas Covenant states that the organization’s goal is to “raise the banner of God over every inch of Palestine,” i.e. to eliminate the State of Israel (and any secular Palestinian state which may be established), and to replace it with an Islamic Republic.”

Martin Frost (excerpts, in order they appear) : “According to the Washington Institute, Hamas views the Arab-Israeli conflict as “a religious struggle between Islam and Judaism that can only be resolved by the destruction of the State of Israel.” Hamas uses both political activities and violence to pursue its goal of establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in place of Israel and the secular Palestinian Authority. [Clip]

The Hamas Covenant, written in 1988, states that the organization’s goal is to “raise the banner of God over every inch of Palestine,” i.e. to eliminate the State of Israel (and any secular Palestinian state which may be established), and to replace it with an Islamic Republic.

The thirty-six articles of the Covenant detail the movement’s Islamist beliefs regarding the primacy of Islam in all aspects of life. The Covenant identifies Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and considers its members to be Muslims who “fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors.” Hamas describes resisting and quelling the enemy as the individual duty of every Muslim and prescribes revolutionary roles for all members of society; including men and women, professionals, scientists and students.”

The parts that were not written by Martin Frost were either extracted from this YnetNews story:

Paul Forseth: “What is this fighting all about; it is religion. It is about the struggle of Political Islam against anyone it decides is in its way. Hamas regards the territory of the present-day State of Israel — as well as the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — as an inalienable Islamic waqf or religious bequest, which can never be surrendered to non-Muslims. It asserts that struggle (jihad) to wrest control of the land from Israel is the religious duty of every Muslim (fard `ain).”

YnetNews: “Hamas combines Palestinian nationalism with Islamic fundamentalism: It regards the territory of present-day Israel – as well as the Gaza Strip and the West Bank – as an inalienable Islamic waqf or religious bequest, which can never be surrendered to non-Muslims.Furthermore, Hamas asserts that struggle (jihad) to regain control of the land from Israel is the religious duty of every Muslim.”

Or lifted from arcane Google books found on line:

Paul Forseth: “During the election campaign the organization toned down the criticism of Israel in their election manifest and only stated that they are prepared to use ‘armed resistance to end the occupation’.”

Compared to the last paragraph on page 194 of this book:

” During the election campaign the organization toned down the criticism of Israel in its election manifesto, stating only that it was prepared to use ‘armed resistance to end the occupation’.”

Lucky for Mr. Forseth, he is only running for office, because if he was a student in any decent school, he would at least be on academic probation by now, or would be taking the long bus ride home to explain to his parents why he wasn’t going to finish Law School after all.

Time to start Naming Names

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I’m going to stop apologizing for not writing more often. I’m freaking busy, OK? Get off my back! (Hi Mom!)

There are no less than three names that need naming in New West over the next year or two.

The School board is currently asking the public to propose names for the two new schools that are going to be built in the next couple of years – the Elementary School on the old St. Mary’s Hospital site, and the Middle school to be built on the John Robson school site. Also, the City is starting to throw around the idea of a proper name for the “Multi-Use Civic Facility” building downtown, as no-one sees “MUCF” as a keeper. The unique part of this is that the City is discussing options around selling the naming rights to the centre to cover some of the operational costs.

Since it is time-sensitive, let’s talk Schools first. The Board of Education wants your ideas and opinions, at least until October 31st. Both school sites present interesting opportunities to look at the past and look forward.

The School we have been calling the St. Mary’s Site, for example, could be called St. Mary’s Elementary, to honour the history of the hospital, although that may create both good and bad associations for people, depending on how you view the closing of the facility (I recommend Jaimie McEvoy’s book for a comprehensive history of the Hospital) or the use of Christian Symbols for naming public institutions. However, the Hospital could also be remembered by honoring the people who played an important role in the Hospital’s History (such as Esther Pariseau or Florence Hagarty… just as examples; I leave it to better historians than I to sift through the history of that site).

The first question I would have about the naming of the Middle School on the John Robson site, is who was John Robson, and is there any reason not to carry on his legacy with the new school on the same site? The guy was New Westminster founder, newspaper editor, early Town Councillor in New West and eventually Premier of the Province. He was also an outspoken advocate for public education. It would be a shame to lose that naming legacy.

However, what about New Westminster people who might fittingly be honoured with having a school named for them, and may create a more personal association for today an tomorrow’s Middle-School students? I have heard the name Eva Markvoort suggested, but maybe there are other important people in New Westminster’s more recent history the Board of Education may consider?

I guess I am of the type who feels Schools should be named after people, preferably local historical figures. Even if I shamefully still can’t tell you who Stanley Humphries actually was!

Meanwhile, The City was wondering if we should sell the name to the MUCF, but have now apparently taken that off the table. This will probably generate a healthy debate – the idea of selling the name of a publicly-financed and publicly-built community centre to a Corporation just rubs a lot of people the wrong way. However, some would suggest the City, already facing criticism over some financial risks taken on the MUCF/Office Tower, shouldn’t turn down the steady income stream from naming rights. There are some people in this town who will accuse the City of doing it wrong, no matter what they do, leaving us with the less desirable judgement call if the revenue generated will outweigh the controversy generated. Alas, Remember the quasi-controversy around the non-naming of BC Place?

So in the short-term we probably need to put the corporate naming issue aside, and concentrate on a good name for the centre, regardless of whether a corporation can attach their name to the side of it.

As this is a City facility, and it is an Arts and Culture facility (as opposed to a sports facility), you would think we cold find a name that represents the Arts and Culture of the City. Like many in this City, I could see this being part of the Hyack tradition in the City. I proffered, tongue somewhat in cheek: The Hyackulum. Sounds historic, monumental, eternal, and includes the Hyack tradition! The XL Meats Hyackulum! You heard it hear first.

But all that Hyack talk got me thinking about Muni Evers. He was the longest serving mayor of the City (13 years) and was Mayor when the City founded the Hyack Society. His reasoning at the time was that he thought the City needed some “spark”, which is a curious 1970s version of exactly what we are hoping the MUCF does for us now. Evers was a WW2 veteran, a pharmacist, and Member of the Order of Canada. When he left office in 1982, I was a 12-year not looking forward to my 4 years at Stanley Humphries, so I have no memory of Mayor Evers’ politics, personality, or profile. However, he served the City longer than any other mayor, and he helped build the institution that has been at the centre of almost every annual event that we, in New Westminster, call our own. Maybe having his name on the side of the MUCF – say the Muni Evers Cultural Centre – might be a nice way to honour the contribution. ?

Photo of a snappy Muni Every in his Air Force uniform in 1940,
Courtesy of stolen from The Jewish Historical Society of British Columbia website.

I even like the fact his name creates an interesting play on words, suggesting a permanent legacy for the community. Best part of all, you just can’t stick a Corporate Label on the front of that name. 

Reaping and Sowing

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I guess I never explained why I didn’t post for quite a while there the last couple of weeks. Mostly I was out of town for 4 days. Then I was 4 days behind on everything when I got back. Life is full of complications.

Luckily, the weather held out this weekend so I could finally get some long-neglected gardening done after RiverFest. Or, it being the end of the season, de-gardening. The days are sunny and warm, but the nights are getting longer and cooler, and the garden looks pretty much done for the year (see pictures below).

Last Sunday was all about putting planter soil in storage, putting dying plants in the compost, and harvesting the last of the crops.

Talking to friends and neighbours, I was not the only one who had a less-than-stellar gardening year. The wet cold spring meant everything was a little late starting, and the dry hot August meant keeping things irrigated was a constant battle.

Luckily(?) this year, I decided to not follow the “plant everything, see what sticks” gardening technique I have used the last couple of years, instead opting for fewer plants that I have had success with in the past. This means no radishes (which in my garden get bored through by worms before I could harvest them), free-range tomatoes (which always get the blight) or eggplants (that just don’t survive). Having absolutely no idea what I am doing the garden, anything edible that comes out of it is a bonus to me
As Ms.NWimby and I eat way too much salad for our own good, a mix of lettuce types is always on, and although the start was late and the bolt was quick once it got hot, we definitely had a variety this year, and kept ourselves saladed for several months.
I also installed my first semi-trellis in the front yard this year, to facilitate the growth of cucumbers and zucchini. We had great luck for the second year with lemon cucumbers. These yellow, round cukes are sweet and pretty hardy (I am still harvesting a few in early October), and provide a unique look in a salad. They seem less prone to drought trouble as my regular green field cukes, and produce a ton of fruit.
Cukes, still producing (kind of) in October.

The lone zucchini plant that survived the late cold spring seemed to like the trellising: stretching 8 feet across the top, and 8 feet back the other way. There was plentiful green vine and lots of flowers, but only a few actual zucchinis: Hand-pollination definitely helped, because once a gourd got going, they grew fast and huge. We ate the last of the season’s crop last night. We also had a pumpkin plant survive and produce one nice-sized round gourd. The vine has almost died off from the cold, so final ripening will happen indoors. I haven’t carved Jack-o’-lantern in a few years, this should be fun.

The cold has also spelled an end to growth of our peppers, another crop that was so late starting that the hot dry August and September were just enough for a semi-crop. We only grew jalapenos this year (we had grown red chillis and habanero in the past – we still have a jar of habaneros from two year ago that are potentially lethal). We harvested them this weekend and pickled them along with some fresh garlic.

This was a great year for the garlic, and our root cellar is – um – fragrant with hanging vines. We will not be buying those ubiquitous plastic socks of garlic from China any time soon. I also harvested the florettes from the garlic and have thousands of little bulbs. They will go in the ground this fall, and will produce “seed bulbs” next summer, which will in turn be harvested and re-planted. Garlic from seed like this is a two-year project, but this is one crop that loves my garden so much and produces so much, that I am willing to take the time.

While harvesting Garlic, I also ran into the few “volunteer” potatoes in the garden. This whole garden project began a few years ago when I tore the grass off of half of my front lawn and planted potatoes. The one thing about potatoes: once you plant them, they never really go away. I only had a half dozen or so this year, but they are like free surprise food when you find them.

I also had three “volunteer” sunflowers from last year’s crop. The birds got at the seeds of two of them long before I could harvest them, and spread them about the garden, so no doubt there will be more volunteers next year. The one I saved I will probably take to Saturna Island and spread the seeds on a small, sunny field of weeds to see if they prosper, or even out-compete the Scotch Broom and nettle. It’s a shot in the dark.

The only tomatoes we grew this year were a few planters worth of cherry varieties on our sunny back deck, and they are pretty much done now.

 A spring crop of beets grew quickly and got eaten almost as fast, and I just had no luck with my cabbage and broccoli starters.

The weather was good for one crop this year especially: berries. We replaced our hedge with about 10 blueberry plants a couple of years ago, and they pumped out a cup or two of blueberries a day for the better part of three months. Last year they were beaten pretty badly by aphids, and this year the hailstorm we had in May caused a lot of leaf damage, but the berries arrived and kept producing on all but one plant. I planted strawberries as groundcover under a lot of the plants this year, and they are –unbelievably for October- still producing a few berries.

Next year’s strategy is to reduce and concentrate. Instead of growing in the ground, I am going to install a couple of raised beds and take a more dedicated approach to rotating crops. The planters will hopefully allow me to better control water and nutrient levels, make weeding and pest control a little easier, and facilitate using plastic row cover in the spring. Winter construction project ahoy.

Still, above the work and the food and the learning, the best thing about my front yard garden is how it facilitates conversation. Digging, weeding, planting, watering, harvesting, whatever I am doing in the front yard, people walking by stop and chat. Complete strangers walking by stop, ask about the blueberries, the lettuce, or the soil. They talk about their gardens (past or present), they comment on the weather or the neighbourhood. They stop and talk. They never do that when I am mowing grass or raking leaves or sweeping my deck. Something about the garden grows curiosity and grows conversation.

That is the best part- because as I am a terrible, terrible gardener, but I am pretty good at talking. I’m not sure I am as good a listening, but (just like with the garden) I am finding the rewards in learning.

Upcoming things – Seeing into your Future

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

My schedule is stuffed full for the next little while, so let me just send a shout-out to these three upcoming events. I ask that you, instead of sitting there reading my tripe, go out and do something.

Or, more specifically, do these three things:

This Sunday is not just my Mom’s birthday (Hi Mom!), it is also the day of the Annual Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup- New Westminster edition. It will be a nice sunny morning, so get some friends and/or family together and spend an hour or two in the morning doing something good for the community while getting some fresh air and enjoying the unique Queensborough waterfront:

The Shoreline Cleanup is part of Fraser River Fest, as is the River Day Celebration the following Saturday (September 29th) . There will be screenings at the theatre in the Fraser River Discovery Centre, music on the outdoor stage, booths, displays, and other activities: all oriented towards getting the community connected to the River that Runs Through. As good a Saturday as any to hang around the River Market and Quayside Boardwalk.

Finally, (putting my Tony Antonius hat on) its time to start the music, its time to light the lights, its time to get things started for the New West Doc Fest next month. (That’s is why Tony is a Poet, and I’m a blogger – right there, folks. )

The second annual Documentary Film Fest will be building on last year’s success – with a great selection of movies, music and other entertainment. The Film List fits the overall theme of “sustainability”, but with an emphasis on Social issues, from an intriguing look at the lives of young Indian women facing different forms of “cultural indoctrination”, to a deep look into “gamer” culture, and controversial movie about the making of a controversial movie about a controversial topic, and the controversy that ensues.

Tickets aren’t available quite yet, nor is the complete list of shorts and other entertainment (although the guest speaker list is starting looking interesting!) but save the date – October 19th & 20th.

Signs of Protest

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.
I was driving along Highway 3 this past weekend, along one of my favourite roads. I have driven and cycled this road more than a hundred of times in my life, the 600km from my first Home to my adopted Home. It seems I know every curve, every hill, every summit (can name them off the top of my head, and picture each clearly: Allison, Sunday, Richter, Anarchist, Phoenix, Paulson), every place where the Police hand out tickets.

One of the spectacular stretches for a geologist is west of Richter Pass, as you drop into the wide, flat Similkameen Valley, bounded by the vertical wall of the Catherdal Range of the Okanagan Mountains. The valley floor has a classic underfit meandering river flanked by the shallow drapes of alluvial fans leading up to much steeper scree slopes of colluvium. Traditional ranching and hay fields on the slopes are increasingly being turned over to viniculture, while the orchards of Keremeos continue to pound out unreasonably good cherries, apples, and stone fruit.

Aside from the human uses, these grasslands represent a rare ecosystem in British Columbia: A sagebrush desert. With rapid development up the mountains in the adjacent Okanagan Valley, these ecosystems are under a lot of pressure. To call it a desert makes it sound, well, deserted, but this area has the highest concentration of threatened or endangered species of any similar-sized region in Canada; at least 23 different listed species, from Pacific rattlesnakes to Flammulated owls, and one-third of the red-listed species in the Province. Protection is spotty, development is encroaching, and the ecosystem is threatened.

With this in mind, the (Liberal) Federal Government signed a memorandum of understanding with the (Liberal) Provincial Government in 2003, to do the appropriate feasibility studies towards developing a National Park or National Reserve Lands (the first in the Okanagan). The MOU includes the statement:

“On February 11, 2003, the Government of British Columbia announced in its Speech from the Throne its interest in exploring the potential for establishing a new National Park Reserve in the Okanagan area, and its “Heartlands Economic Strategy” by which economic development plans will open up new opportunities for tourism, resort development and recreation, among other things, in the Province of British Columbia”
Sounds good; a Park plan which will balance out economic growth in an area of intense tourist interest and very unique geography and ecology (currently unprotected by any National Parks), to provide recreation opportunities while limiting impacts. In a region full of seasonal hotels, campsites, fruit stands, and tourists, who could possibly oppose?

People who like to shoot things and burn hydrocarbons for entertainment. That’s who.

A local “No National Park” movement began, led by a small but determined group of hunters and ATV enthusiasts out of Oliver, BC, who were offended that their chosen recreation activities may be even slightly encroached upon in the name of protecting ecological lands or endangered species.

Long story short, after 9 years of consultation, the Province caved. With her characteristic ability to solve problems, bring people together, and provide leadership you can believe in, our Premier was unable to voice support for a Park that had broad local and First Nations support, with backing from a broad range of people and groups across the country. Apparently recreational lead-shooters and gasoline-burners have a lot of voice in one of the last remaining BCLiberal strongholds in the Province. The Federal Conservative Government, citing a lack of interest on the part of the BC Liberals announced this spring that they would no longer explore the Park. Even while they announce a big park up North that will apparently feature spectacular mining expanses.

The fight may be over (or not…), but the signs are still up all through the Similkameen Valley. To me, this entire story has been about a 9-year sign war played out across the Cawston countryside. That small, organized group did a good job plastering Highway 3 with red-on-white signs, stating “No National Park”, confusing the hell out of thousands of RVs from Alberta and Germans in rental cars every year. Really, it does not present the most inviting message to passing drivers: “Wer ist gegen einen Nationalpark?!?”

It has only been the last year or so that a counter-protest sign campaign has started, using much more positive, if derivative, imagery:

And even some more creative approaches:

And now, with the entire thing in limbo, maybe the time was right for the ultimate modern slacktivist movement:

Now there is a protest I can believe in.

?

Personal Stuff

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I was in the West Kootenay last weekend: visiting family, hiking mountains, quick vacation. The primary reason for my visit, however, is a long story.

My parents grew up in Montreal, my Dad in Anglophone Lachine, my Mom originally in Verdun, but moving to Lachine as a school girl. My Dad tells the story of he and his 14-year-old pals hanging around in the neighbourhood one day when he noticed a cute, dark-haired girl wearing a bomber jacket. Soon enough, he was hanging out with that cute girl in the bomber jacket more than his pals.

Neither of my parents had easy traditional childhoods. My Maternal Grandfather came back from WW2 with scars that affected the entire family. My Paternal Grandmother raised a son and two daughters on a teacher’s salary after her marriage broke up. My parents talk of growing up without much luxury, but also growing up not needing or expecting much. They did seem to have some excess affection for each other, though.

Both were academically and athletically inclined. My father a track star winning significant running races on Quebec, but also playing football, baseball, and seemingly whatever came his way; my mom a gymnast and swimmer. She went on to study Phys-Ed at MacDonald college and he went on to and Engineering Degree with academic honours at McGill. Along with all this, he had two little sisters at home, and was “the man of the house”, so his Mother was reluctant to see him getting married until he grew up. To her, that meant being 21.

My parents were married, after a 7-year courtship, the very day after his 21st birthday. Nine months to the day after, they had a son, with three more kids to follow over the next 8 years. As my father built an engineering career, they bounced from town to town in Ontario and Quebec (La Tuque, Burlington, Timiskaming) until they decided to stake out west.

There are two, not necessarily contradictory, family legends about the move the Castlegar, both around the theme of my Father’s renowned dislike for cold weather. One was that Castlegar was meant to be a stopping point to work a few years before grander adventures in Australia. The other that the only thing my father knew about Castlegar before moving there is that it had a new state-of-the-art Kraft Pulp mill (where he would work), and that it was the “Warmest City in Canada”.

The story (as family legend goes) is that Castlegar, being the host of the regional airport, had a weather station in the 60s, long before places like Lytton or Cache Creek or even Osoyoos. Castlegar also has hot, dry summers, typically above 30 degrees for days or weeks on end, but the winters were comparatively mild, due to the open sunny valley, proximity to the US border, and the moderating effect of the Columbia River, which is virtually wrapped around the town. Therefore, when counting up annual averages through all the seasons, it was the “warmest” overall City in the Country.

Whether this is true or not, it didn’t change the fact that the winter my parents arrived, three kids in arms, will always e remembered as the snowiest in Castlegar history. That year it started snowing in December and didn’t stop until March. My father’s first winter in this “Warmest City” involved a lot of shovelling pathways through 6′ snow drifts to get his air-cooled Volkswagen started in the morning.

After that inglorious start, they stuck it out. Child #4 arrived the next winter, and Castlegar’s charms began to show. There was a better golf course than one would expect, a solid Curling Club, a good school system, and lots of sports for the kids, from figure skating to swimming to skiing. It was still the sort of small town where you opened your door in the morning and kicked the kids outside to play, telling them to be home for dinner. My mom did some substitute teaching, then as the kids got older and less attention-grubbing, they bought a sporting goods store. The Store was where my mom worked the customary retail-owner 60 hour weeks, with my dad commonly putting in an extra 20 over his 9-5 job at The Mill.

The Kids grew up, got educated, moved on, got good jobs: two accountants, a software tech expert, and whatever I am. There is a smattering of Grandkids to keep things interesting. Two of the kids even moved back to that “Warmest City in Canada” to raise their kids and advance their careers.

Parents stayed more or less athletically inclined, both coming down to Burnaby next week to compete in the Seniors games: he in track events, she in swimming (how many 70 year olds do you know who can still do 50m of butterfly?!) They have been fortunate with their health, and that their kids all turned out happy and healthy. After many years of hard work, they aren’t rich, but are financially comfortable enough that my Dad can avoid the worst of the cold weather, seeking sunnier climes in the winter (including, last year, finally getting to explore Australia!)

But mostly, they have been fortunate that they found each other in that Lachine neighbourhood in 1955, and fell in love some time over the next 7 years. This last weekend, they had close to 100 family and friends get together to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. Guests came from as far away as Alaska and Arizona, including 5 of the 8 members of their original wedding party, people from the Lachine neighbourhood, people who they met on that first snowy winter in Castlegar, and people they have more recently befriended.

It is hard to imagine for most of us, 50 years of marriage. A half century of joy and sorrow, arguments minor and major, successes and failures, dreams and disappointments, an entire lifetime shared. And they are still doing it, making each other laugh and making each other dinner. Marrying young and good health means they have many more years to prove the cynics wrong. Love can last a lifetime.

Happy Anniversary, Mom & Dad!