Mr. Redekop certainly provided an interesting piece of evidence about the fact statistics can mislead without an understanding of the context of the statistics. His letter, with its blatant attempt to beguile the reader and obfuscate the underlying implications and reality of the income numbers, clearly demonstrates that without context statistics and numbers are meaningless.

Citing figures ”…not totally accurate but close enough”; comparing apples and oranges (the underlying economic realities of “some decades ago and of today); then choosing what incomes to include in the “statistics” in a manner guaranteed to generate the desired “proof” as to the high level of income in Abbotsford; Mr. Redekop’s argument would appear to have no other purpose than to “massage” the numbers into the form and level he wants them to be.

Why Mr. Redekop feels it necessary to be an apologist for those whose ideology requires the level of income in Abbotsford to be high and thus deny the true levels of poverty and economic hardship in the city I do not know. Perhaps denying the unacceptable, and rising, levels of poverty and economic hardship allows Ideologues to continue to turn a blind eye to the reality of life for our most vulnerable citizens. In not seeing, or at least refusing to acknowledge, the levels of suffering they can continue to live in denial of any need to redress this unfairness and pain.

I always recommend “How to Lie with Statistics”, Darrell Huff’s perennially best-selling introduction to statistics for the general reader to people.

One of the reasons I did not join Mr. Chapman, Judith Isaaks Sol et al and “pile on” Mr. Dimanno for his mathematical slip, was that without the detailed underlying data I could not definitely conclude any of his or their statements were wrong.

Mr. Dimanno may well have misstated what he meant to say, but his underlying point about the extreme folly and blindness of the economist’s statements contrasted with the realities of life for the poor was valid.

I would like to draw reader’s attention to the important second half off Mr. Chapman January 18^th letter citing the BC dieticians 2007 cost of eating report contrasted with the giving provincial government grants to those who own million dollar homes. I would like the reader to further consider this “’aid’ to the property wealthy (within government ideology) with the failure to adequately deliver needed support, services or aid the homeless (outside government ideology).

I leave you with one interesting statistic from the Cost of Eating in BC 2007. Paying for shelter plus food to meet the minimum Canada food guide levels (nothing else just food and shelter) requires that some pay 107% of their income.

Perhaps Mr. Campbell, his fellow ideologues and apologists would care to enlighten us as to how one spends 107% of your income. Assuming one is not a politician, ideologue, apologist or economist.

Severance pay: noun – A sum of money usually based on length of employment for which an employee is eligible upon termination.

I read that Abbotsford’s city manager Mr. Guthrie retired early. I do not recall reading anything about “dismissed” or “terminated”?

What is this golden handshake of a severance package? No employment contract has provisions for payment of any severance pay, much less such an extravagant amount, when an employee retires or quits. Just what is going on?

For the sake of transparency and giving taxpayers the whole story I think we need a great deal more information – without being forced to file Freedom of Information requests.

Did Mr. Guthrie retire or was he terminated? If he retired what is this so-called severance pay really about, since you are not entitled to severance pay if you retire or quit? If he was terminated, why was he terminated? More to the point, why the misleading public statements about retirement?

Does the timing of this sudden appearance of a “severance package” have anything to do with reports Mr. Guthrie was preparing to sue the city for wrongful dismissal? If in fact this “severance package” is to prevent or settle a potential lawsuit, why is it presented to the public as a severance pay?

What is really going on; what is the truth here? Taxpayers, as the ones paying for this “severance package” have a right to have these and any other questions they may have on this matter answered – fully and truthfully.