A couple of months ago, I gave up the news because I went from being passionate about my opinions to being angry about the decisions the governments are making. MLA’s, MP’s, Aldermen and our “leaders” don't care about us. They’re very good at pretending but in the end, it's all about their legacy. The problem is the legacy they are leaving is not a good one. However feeling personally insulted by one particular minister has caused me to write again.
Since when has it become okay to bash the rich? It's been going on for a while, but since when is it okay? Really, that's not what's bothering me right now. The bashing has expanded beyond "the rich." The definition of "rich" is different for everyone anyway. My husband was called rich by a very nice man a little while ago, and it was a man my husband helped.
We're not yet rich but we are well off. I call people who have their homes, all of their debts paid off and are still expanding their wealth rich, as well as people who have TONNES of money, own big businesses and the list goes on. Others feel simply having a good "cushy" job makes you rich but I digress.
It seems now if you don't have a job that's "worth having" you are worth bashing. If you live in the wrong place, you're worth bashing. If you own the wrong vehicle, or OWN a vehicle, you're worth bashing. If you don't donate to the right charity or don't donate every cent you make to charity, well... you get the idea.
But what got me on this topic is Alberta's Minister of Municipal Affairs, the "Honourable" Doug Griffiths. His retort of "urban Albertans who sit in high-rise condos and don't necessarily contribute to the grassroots of this economy..." seems counter-intuitive. He of all people bashed those who choose to live in cities. Why? Because it's popular? He's out to lunch! Apparently us city dweller types who do in fact contribute a fair chunk to the economy of CANADA are no longer worthy and should pay more taxes. I beg HIS pardon?!?! He seems to have missed that part where it says Calgary contributed to 24% of Canada's economic growth with 3% of the population of Canada, or the entrepreneurship that comes out of the cities OR the sheer amount of taxes we unworthy city types do in fact pay.
My husband both runs a business and is an employee of another business... AT THE SAME TIME! He's doing this successfully. Sometimes it keeps him hopping but he enjoys it even though he acts as though his head is about to spin off his shoulders but in reality he wouldn't have it any other way. So, with the fact that he pays over 40% in taxes and owns a house in Calgary and an acreage north of Edmonton, is he unworthy? There are so many people like him, hell, he works for some of them!
Why does our own government feel it okay to spout this tripe off? The Minister of Municipal Affairs guarantees the provincial Tories will not get our vote again but Mr. Griffiths doesn't care, does he? We don't matter. We're only two - count them - 1, 2 votes.
Now, we are staunch conservatives, but our own conservative party isn't. They're big spenders and controllers of people. They have a poor opinion of us and don't care what we have to say. That is so obvious. If they cared, our Ministers would NEVER say things like this.
With this, my faith is lost in our government. My husband wrote a letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Read it, I think you'll like it. Please write your own. Our ministers MUST know how you feel or at least get the idea that we are paying attention and what they are doing and saying are unacceptable.
James McCullough, CGA
*** ********* ***** SW
Calgary, AB T2* ***
March 7th, 2013
Honourable Doug Griffiths
Minister of Municipal Affairs
#104 Legislature Building
10800 – 97 Ave.
Edmonton, AB T5K 2B6
Dear Sir:
It has been brought to my attention the comment that you made in the legislature yesterday about “…urban Albertans who sit in high-rise condos and don’t necessarily contribute to the grassroots of this economy.” I feel as a small business owner in Alberta who provides corporate-level accounting and controllership functions that this is meant as a personal insult to all working Albertans, not just the group you intended to single out.
The economy of this excellent province is driven by an entrepreneurial attitude undertaken by residents of all walks of life, from the gentleman I know who started a gutter cleaning business, to the gentleman who runs one of the top 50 fastest growing companies in Alberta. Both of these men – and their businesses – are clients of mine. Your comment, which appears to be based in the popular media notion of “rich-bashing” diminishes not only my own accomplishments, but since both of these people live in Calgary, you are tarring their accomplishments as well.
For a publicly elected official to fan the flames of economic discontent as you have is unacceptable. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs, you represent all municipalities, not merely the ones that you have selected for your own personal agenda.
Please approach your statements with more respect in mind for all Albertans.
Sincerely,
James McCullough, CGA
Please write your own letter. Here is some contact information. Put it on paper, sign your name to it. It’s hard to ignore us when our MLA’s are inundated by real mail instead of email.
Honourable Doug Griffiths
Legislature Office
#104 Legislature Building
10800-97 Avenue
Edmonton, AB
Canada T5K 2B6
Phone: 780-427-3744
Fax: 780-422-9550
To call toll-free within Alberta, please dial 310-0000.
Alberta Municipal Affairs
Communications Branch
18th floor, Commerce Place
10155-102 Street
Edmonton, AB
T5J 4L4
Canada
Constituency Office
#201, 1006 - 4 Avenue
Wainwright, AB
Canada T9W 2R3
Phone: (780) 842-6177
Fax: (780) 842-3171
Friday, March 15, 2013
Friday, January 25, 2013
Honour: What does it matter now?
What you’re about to read I didn’t write, a friend of mine did. Ken is a proud American who’s taught me a great deal about American politics and he’s VERY opinionated and passionate about his views. I think that’s great! I have a great deal of respect for him and what he has to say. Here’s why:
Honor: What does it matter now?
It has become painfully obvious to me that "Honor" is a concept all but lost on our nation's "leadership" and equally amiss amongst at least half of our nation's general population. When the Secretary of State, in an investigation involving the needless death of four good men and asks "What does it matter now?" we can be sure that honor has become nothing but an empty word.
So I thought I would take a moment to try and explain what honor is. Pardon my impertinence.
In the movie "Rob Roy" there is a scene where Rob is explaining to his son what honor is and he says "Honor is the gift a man gives himself." For a long time, I thought this was a very apt and poetic way of describing it. Poetic it is, but it is a flawed statement.
Self Respect is the gift a man gives himself. Honor is how he earns it.
Honor is doing right even when no one will ever know.
Honor is doing right even when it will hurt you to do it.
Honor is doing right even when doing otherwise would be more profitable or pleasing.
Honor is not a garment to be donned and discarded when you find it expedient to do so. Honor must be served with every breath you take.
Honor is not a "secret password" to be bandied about in order to gain entrance to the company of those who truly hold honor as their highest virtue.
Occasionally, because none of us are as perfect as Jesus Christ, we will err. We will do the less than honorable thing. Perhaps even the dishonorable thing. Those without honor will try at that time, to convince you that honor is lost, that you should abandon your high and mighty principles and admit you are as shiftless and double-dealing as they are. This is a lie, never believe it.
Honor is sometimes doing the wrong thing and then, when you realize your error, paying the price without flinching. Accepting the shame you have earned, realizing it is your debt to carry that shame for the rest of your life, and then going forth and making every effort in your power to undo the damage of your ill-conceived actions.
In short, admitting you have failed and beginning anew, with greater determination than ever before, to work and attempt to regain enough of that honor that one day, you may look in the mirror and view the one you see there with some quantity of Self Respect, even if that respect is somewhat dimmed. As long as you are willing to pay the price though
The one thing Honor will never allow you to do, is to give up. Honor requires your lifetime commitment. Honor requires your unflinching and steadfast effort. Honor offers the reward of Self Respect, but it also offers the punishment of great shame.
Sadly, our "leaders" have lost the capacity for shame. They have so muddied their souls they are beyond redemption. There is no honor within them and they know it well. Their failure burns within their heart forever and they will hate and despise any who possess the slightest shred of honor or self respect.
This is why you are their prey.
Do not abandon that which makes you their better. Regardless of what degradations they heap upon you, never, ever, let them take your honor from you. For if you do, you will be no better than they.
And that is truly, a fate worse than death.
Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Eric Holder, Bill Ayers, and all your cronies and sycophants, I am your better. I always will be. And you know it.
Death before Dishonor.
Semper Fidelis
Honor: What does it matter now?
It has become painfully obvious to me that "Honor" is a concept all but lost on our nation's "leadership" and equally amiss amongst at least half of our nation's general population. When the Secretary of State, in an investigation involving the needless death of four good men and asks "What does it matter now?" we can be sure that honor has become nothing but an empty word.
So I thought I would take a moment to try and explain what honor is. Pardon my impertinence.
In the movie "Rob Roy" there is a scene where Rob is explaining to his son what honor is and he says "Honor is the gift a man gives himself." For a long time, I thought this was a very apt and poetic way of describing it. Poetic it is, but it is a flawed statement.
Self Respect is the gift a man gives himself. Honor is how he earns it.
Honor is doing right even when no one will ever know.
Honor is doing right even when it will hurt you to do it.
Honor is doing right even when doing otherwise would be more profitable or pleasing.
Honor is not a garment to be donned and discarded when you find it expedient to do so. Honor must be served with every breath you take.
Honor is not a "secret password" to be bandied about in order to gain entrance to the company of those who truly hold honor as their highest virtue.
Occasionally, because none of us are as perfect as Jesus Christ, we will err. We will do the less than honorable thing. Perhaps even the dishonorable thing. Those without honor will try at that time, to convince you that honor is lost, that you should abandon your high and mighty principles and admit you are as shiftless and double-dealing as they are. This is a lie, never believe it.
Honor is sometimes doing the wrong thing and then, when you realize your error, paying the price without flinching. Accepting the shame you have earned, realizing it is your debt to carry that shame for the rest of your life, and then going forth and making every effort in your power to undo the damage of your ill-conceived actions.
In short, admitting you have failed and beginning anew, with greater determination than ever before, to work and attempt to regain enough of that honor that one day, you may look in the mirror and view the one you see there with some quantity of Self Respect, even if that respect is somewhat dimmed. As long as you are willing to pay the price though
The one thing Honor will never allow you to do, is to give up. Honor requires your lifetime commitment. Honor requires your unflinching and steadfast effort. Honor offers the reward of Self Respect, but it also offers the punishment of great shame.
Sadly, our "leaders" have lost the capacity for shame. They have so muddied their souls they are beyond redemption. There is no honor within them and they know it well. Their failure burns within their heart forever and they will hate and despise any who possess the slightest shred of honor or self respect.
This is why you are their prey.
Do not abandon that which makes you their better. Regardless of what degradations they heap upon you, never, ever, let them take your honor from you. For if you do, you will be no better than they.
And that is truly, a fate worse than death.
Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Eric Holder, Bill Ayers, and all your cronies and sycophants, I am your better. I always will be. And you know it.
Death before Dishonor.
Semper Fidelis
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Capitalists Are Not the Root of All Evil
Guilt makes for a good story but doesn't solve anything.
Christmas is here and it's been awhile since I've expressed myself. Like everyone else, I've been busy but not on Christmas shopping as I would have liked. My husband lost both his grandparents this year so I've been out on the coast helping his mother. I cleaned out a 3000 square foot house in November and I'm still tired. But, I digress.
It's no secret that I'm a capitalist. In so being, some of the news I've seen from the United States has made me shake my head. Watching a union activist punch a political commentator was eye opening. I know liberals and left wing activists can be... vocal, but this was insanity. It made me sit back and consider what's been going on over the last number of years. I've asked with other incidents, if a conservative did that, it would be called assault/racist/blame throwing. Why is it when a liberal does something like this, there isn't a witness in sight and the conservative is blamed or the incident is justified away, like Benghazi? I then asked the questions why the outrage about this union law change? Why the protests? Why the demands of eat the rich in general?
I begin to wonder about the mindset of so many of these people with an entitlement complex so big it doesn't fit into the average gymnasium. Why is it okay to demand money be taken from those who make it to be given to those who don't wish to work? What right do they have to say “you have more than that person therefore you should give more, pay more, lose more because you can?” I don't mind giving to those who truly need it, I resent being forced to give to those who simply want it, or those who feel I should have less just to have less.
From what I've experienced, so many of these demanding, self-entitled individuals feel the rich are exploiting them in some fashion and should be punished. Why on Earth would capitalists want to exploit the type of person who demands higher taxes for him for no other reason than he has more money? Why would a capitalist want to exploit someone who wants more for doing less? The feeling of exploitation is imaginary because this person would have nothing the capitalist wants.
A capitalist wants someone who is willing to work for their salary. A capitalist wants, shockingly, a budding capitalist in their employ, not someone who will do as little as possible to earn their way to their next paycheque then complain they didn't get a Christmas bonus.
Now don't get me wrong, my husband and I don't fall into the category of “rich” yet. We're still working on it. I wish to become a world famous photographer, the likes of Yousef Karsh... so I built my husband's website and did some of his simpler IT stuff. I also do the occasional bit of research for him. I go to business conferences and talk to people. Not one of them do I talk to about photography.
My husband works hard for his success. To achieve his success (present and future), he doesn’t take away from anyone, in fact, he’s increasing the wealth of those around him. Not only that, he's raised money for, and ridden in, the “Ride to Conquer Cancer” and I drove as his backup. Many years now, including the upcoming year, he's ridden in the MS Bike Tour. Much money and effort has been raised for the MS Society between my husband, his friends and his colleagues. He also shows newcomers how to raise money for their rides. How is this all a bad thing? It's his capitalistic mindset that have granted him these abilities and achievements. Wanton exploitation of the poor would do him no good, it would lose him time and money in the long run and he knows it. Any good capitalist knows this.
The irony here is, Adbusters exploited the poor when they began “Occupy Wallstreet.” With “We are the 99%” they used so many images of homeless people and the underprivileged, I was amazed. The only thought that came to me was “instead of using all this time to show me all of this destitution, why not do something about it?”
Then the occupiers tried using the poor as a way to force governments to change and to steal money from those who had it. The time and effort the occupiers put into it was wasted. What the occupy movement accomplished was millions of dollars in destruction, assault, and lots of crying about how the sky is falling. In Calgary, the Occupiers wanted access to free electricity to use their laptops! No change was made except to show me that activists, the poor, and unsuccessful would rather camp in the park and complain about how much their life sucked than do something about it. Guilt makes for a good story but doesn't solve anything. It seems easier to hate those who work for their happy lifestyles and try to have the government take it away from them, than to try to become one of them. The problem they faced was, the actual working class didn't want to give their stuff up, nor should they have to; they earned it.
There is a lot of complaining about how the poor get poorer as the rich get richer. I found a perfect quote to describe why. “The only difference between a rich person and a poor person is how they use their time.” Robert Kiyosaki said this and it's so true. My husband and I both spend a lot of time working on his company. He works with his clients, I do some of the administrative/IT bits. He has meetings, I put together marketing. We don't have time to protest the inequities of the world. When he's not making contacts/consulting/analyzing, we're on vacation. Even then, we find things that would work in his businesses. Our last vacation felt like 70% vacation, 30% “you know what I could do with that in development?”
Who knows, maybe the poor are getting poorer. I could be wrong about the whole thing. I just have a really hard time believing this sentiment, especially after I passed a beggar on the streets of downtown Calgary a couple of weeks ago who had a better smart phone than me.
Christmas is here and it's been awhile since I've expressed myself. Like everyone else, I've been busy but not on Christmas shopping as I would have liked. My husband lost both his grandparents this year so I've been out on the coast helping his mother. I cleaned out a 3000 square foot house in November and I'm still tired. But, I digress.
It's no secret that I'm a capitalist. In so being, some of the news I've seen from the United States has made me shake my head. Watching a union activist punch a political commentator was eye opening. I know liberals and left wing activists can be... vocal, but this was insanity. It made me sit back and consider what's been going on over the last number of years. I've asked with other incidents, if a conservative did that, it would be called assault/racist/blame throwing. Why is it when a liberal does something like this, there isn't a witness in sight and the conservative is blamed or the incident is justified away, like Benghazi? I then asked the questions why the outrage about this union law change? Why the protests? Why the demands of eat the rich in general?
UNEDITED UNION ASSAULT FOOTAGE! - I subscribe to Steven Crowder's YouTube channel. Go take a look.
I also saw a picture online that actually made me laugh. The picture shows a protester holding up a sign that says “you can still be rich, just not that rich.” So many questions came to mind with this one picture. How rich can I be? Who determines the limit? What happens to MY money if I make too much? And so forth. One more question did come to mind: has this person ever held a real job in her life?
I begin to wonder about the mindset of so many of these people with an entitlement complex so big it doesn't fit into the average gymnasium. Why is it okay to demand money be taken from those who make it to be given to those who don't wish to work? What right do they have to say “you have more than that person therefore you should give more, pay more, lose more because you can?” I don't mind giving to those who truly need it, I resent being forced to give to those who simply want it, or those who feel I should have less just to have less.
From what I've experienced, so many of these demanding, self-entitled individuals feel the rich are exploiting them in some fashion and should be punished. Why on Earth would capitalists want to exploit the type of person who demands higher taxes for him for no other reason than he has more money? Why would a capitalist want to exploit someone who wants more for doing less? The feeling of exploitation is imaginary because this person would have nothing the capitalist wants.
A capitalist wants someone who is willing to work for their salary. A capitalist wants, shockingly, a budding capitalist in their employ, not someone who will do as little as possible to earn their way to their next paycheque then complain they didn't get a Christmas bonus.
Now don't get me wrong, my husband and I don't fall into the category of “rich” yet. We're still working on it. I wish to become a world famous photographer, the likes of Yousef Karsh... so I built my husband's website and did some of his simpler IT stuff. I also do the occasional bit of research for him. I go to business conferences and talk to people. Not one of them do I talk to about photography.
My husband works hard for his success. To achieve his success (present and future), he doesn’t take away from anyone, in fact, he’s increasing the wealth of those around him. Not only that, he's raised money for, and ridden in, the “Ride to Conquer Cancer” and I drove as his backup. Many years now, including the upcoming year, he's ridden in the MS Bike Tour. Much money and effort has been raised for the MS Society between my husband, his friends and his colleagues. He also shows newcomers how to raise money for their rides. How is this all a bad thing? It's his capitalistic mindset that have granted him these abilities and achievements. Wanton exploitation of the poor would do him no good, it would lose him time and money in the long run and he knows it. Any good capitalist knows this.
The irony here is, Adbusters exploited the poor when they began “Occupy Wallstreet.” With “We are the 99%” they used so many images of homeless people and the underprivileged, I was amazed. The only thought that came to me was “instead of using all this time to show me all of this destitution, why not do something about it?”
Then the occupiers tried using the poor as a way to force governments to change and to steal money from those who had it. The time and effort the occupiers put into it was wasted. What the occupy movement accomplished was millions of dollars in destruction, assault, and lots of crying about how the sky is falling. In Calgary, the Occupiers wanted access to free electricity to use their laptops! No change was made except to show me that activists, the poor, and unsuccessful would rather camp in the park and complain about how much their life sucked than do something about it. Guilt makes for a good story but doesn't solve anything. It seems easier to hate those who work for their happy lifestyles and try to have the government take it away from them, than to try to become one of them. The problem they faced was, the actual working class didn't want to give their stuff up, nor should they have to; they earned it.
There is a lot of complaining about how the poor get poorer as the rich get richer. I found a perfect quote to describe why. “The only difference between a rich person and a poor person is how they use their time.” Robert Kiyosaki said this and it's so true. My husband and I both spend a lot of time working on his company. He works with his clients, I do some of the administrative/IT bits. He has meetings, I put together marketing. We don't have time to protest the inequities of the world. When he's not making contacts/consulting/analyzing, we're on vacation. Even then, we find things that would work in his businesses. Our last vacation felt like 70% vacation, 30% “you know what I could do with that in development?”
Who knows, maybe the poor are getting poorer. I could be wrong about the whole thing. I just have a really hard time believing this sentiment, especially after I passed a beggar on the streets of downtown Calgary a couple of weeks ago who had a better smart phone than me.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Socialist Country of Calgary
Our government has no respect for us. We are nothing but dollar signs in their eyes. That’s obvious when they talk about taxes and what they spend taxes on. Our representatives love to talk about respect for the taxpayer but in reality they’re only concerned with how much they can squeeze out of us. I wish I felt our representatives respected or felt some regard toward us but lately I’ve only been hearing “higher taxes” and “more taxation power.” It’s very disheartening.
Let's take the City of Calgary as an example. The city council loves to spend money but they don't like to ask Calgarians if we agree with their decisions on how the money is spent. Not only that, the council feels that since we elected them, we elected every single one of their ideas. It has become fifteen people speak for one million on all topics all the time. Because of this, projects are being approved that the majority of Calgarians may not want. We don't know, we haven't been asked - we’re being told.
In the last election, Naheed Nenshi was elected mayor and the Airport Tunnel was one of his promises. Fine, but it wasn’t his only promise and a great deal of Calgarians did not vote for him. Instead of taking this mega project to referendum, it was decided in council in an 8-7 vote. Now, let me point out a discrepancy with the Airport Tunnel. When Dave Bronconnier was mayor of Calgary, the tunnel was going to cost at least half a billion dollars with roadway extensions and other stuff, and in his opinion would be prohibitive. He also called it a “nice to have.” Now Mayor Nenshi says it'll be no more than $295 million and it's a must. Where did the $200 million go?
There's a problem with Mayor Nenshi's “no more than $295 million.” It's wrong. Once the interchanges, roadway extensions, insurance and other stuff are added in – $42 million + $3 million + ... carry the one, um... ya, double check... - $528 million, oh, the other $200 million. Well, that looks an awful lot like half a billion dollars. Why is half a billion dollars acceptable now? I don’t understand.
The city has also decided on a new central public library. The cost for this project is $250 million and they don't even have a design yet. I beg your pardon? More spending on what, for when, and why? Why can't they look at renovating the current Central Library? What are they going to do with the current Central Library when the new one is built? AND, I don't remember being asked. I've used the Central Library. I like it, the location rocks. So, city council is going to build this new shiny thing at the inconvenience of the people who use the current one (and who are paying for it.) Thanks, I appreciate it.
Then there are these four rec centres. I understand that new communities want or even need rec centres but what I don't want is for the city to go into debt to build anything. It's bad enough that money coming in from the province is spent for the next 6 years, but borrowing? Why is it we should have the ability to continue borrowing past a current council's term? I know the arguments for the rec centres, I know there aren't enough hockey rinks or soccer fields but I also know there aren't enough coaches. They'll be great for a couple of years and then will we face millions of dollars spent on maintenance when small amounts should have been spent on preventative maintenance all along? But wait, this city council doesn't think that way. They want a big new shiny legacy, forget about actually keeping this city running. By the way, these rec centres come at a cost of $480 million.
Hey, why don’t we talk about Calgary Transit. The West LRT, well, that was decided while I was living in BC so all I can say to that is *beeeeeeeep* but I can speak to public art. I have lived in Calgary most of my life, I just cheated on it for a short time. I'm sorry. Okay, first, I have an issue with the idea of public art. If an artist can't make it on their own, this in itself is a problem. I am a photographer so I can say that, actually, anyone with any business sense can say that.
Next, taxpayer paid for art... ARE YOU FREAKIN' KIDDING ME! There are better places for tax money to go. $8 million (looks like now capped at $3.5 million but still) could better be spent on road maintenance, police, firefighters, how about library renovations. There is a policy in this city that 1% of all capital projects must go towards public art. I'd be happier with zero. I've seen some very nice architecture, beautiful stuff that's art in and of itself. We don't need fish carvings on Glenmore Trail or anywhere else paid for by my money! I have art in my home, that I paid for or created myself. I would never, ever expect government paid for art in my home so why would I expect government mandated art on anything else?
I also have to ask how Calgary Transit runs (itself straight into the ground.) If a private company ran the way Calgary Transit runs, it would be out of business. Calgary Transit needs to get its house in order. It bothers me that part of my property taxes goes towards Calgary Transit. We already have to pay fares to ride and for a while, to park. Now, simply to live in my house, I have to pay for Calgary Transit, that's wrong. Even with a portion of our property taxes going to Calgary Transit, they still say they have a $2 billion shortfall? Guess what, they then have a spending problem, a budgeting problem or something. My husband is a professional accountant. If he were the financial controller for Calgary Transit, he'd never work again. No one would trust him - but he’s a competent accountant, his companies run well because he’s private sector. Oh, sorry, that was my out loud voice.
I’ve mentioned all of this outrageous misspending because Mayor Nenshi is demanding increased taxation powers within Calgary. For the municipality he wants a “penny” tax, tax on fuel, vehicle registration tax, a breathing tax. I really, desperately don’t want this. What I want is actual, honest fiscal responsibility and I don’t see this in city hall whatsoever. Mayor Nenshi at one time said on a radio show that Calgarians are not ATM’s, but he sure sees us as an infinite money supply.
I will never accept another tax as long as there is uncontrolled spending and spending on things I really don’t agree with, ESPECIALLY when these things were not voted on. We no longer live in a democracy. If we did, I would have had a choice, a voice, but I don’t. The government dictates to me and on more than one occasion I feel that Mayor Nenshi has demanded I like it. The last property increase was “just a few dollars a month” but that was MY few dollars and the next increase will be more of MY money walking out the door for what? More art, and a tunnel to nowhere?
The last thing the City of Calgary needs is more power, more ways to take money from Calgarians. First they need to learn real respect, actual fiscal responsibility and they need to involve us in the decision making. The way they’re running now isn’t working, I don’t like it, and I’m not alone. I’d rather hear about how city hall is lowering it’s spending, not shark fin soup bans, running golf courses or how cool it is to hang out with protesters.
Let's take the City of Calgary as an example. The city council loves to spend money but they don't like to ask Calgarians if we agree with their decisions on how the money is spent. Not only that, the council feels that since we elected them, we elected every single one of their ideas. It has become fifteen people speak for one million on all topics all the time. Because of this, projects are being approved that the majority of Calgarians may not want. We don't know, we haven't been asked - we’re being told.
In the last election, Naheed Nenshi was elected mayor and the Airport Tunnel was one of his promises. Fine, but it wasn’t his only promise and a great deal of Calgarians did not vote for him. Instead of taking this mega project to referendum, it was decided in council in an 8-7 vote. Now, let me point out a discrepancy with the Airport Tunnel. When Dave Bronconnier was mayor of Calgary, the tunnel was going to cost at least half a billion dollars with roadway extensions and other stuff, and in his opinion would be prohibitive. He also called it a “nice to have.” Now Mayor Nenshi says it'll be no more than $295 million and it's a must. Where did the $200 million go?
There's a problem with Mayor Nenshi's “no more than $295 million.” It's wrong. Once the interchanges, roadway extensions, insurance and other stuff are added in – $42 million + $3 million + ... carry the one, um... ya, double check... - $528 million, oh, the other $200 million. Well, that looks an awful lot like half a billion dollars. Why is half a billion dollars acceptable now? I don’t understand.
The city has also decided on a new central public library. The cost for this project is $250 million and they don't even have a design yet. I beg your pardon? More spending on what, for when, and why? Why can't they look at renovating the current Central Library? What are they going to do with the current Central Library when the new one is built? AND, I don't remember being asked. I've used the Central Library. I like it, the location rocks. So, city council is going to build this new shiny thing at the inconvenience of the people who use the current one (and who are paying for it.) Thanks, I appreciate it.
Then there are these four rec centres. I understand that new communities want or even need rec centres but what I don't want is for the city to go into debt to build anything. It's bad enough that money coming in from the province is spent for the next 6 years, but borrowing? Why is it we should have the ability to continue borrowing past a current council's term? I know the arguments for the rec centres, I know there aren't enough hockey rinks or soccer fields but I also know there aren't enough coaches. They'll be great for a couple of years and then will we face millions of dollars spent on maintenance when small amounts should have been spent on preventative maintenance all along? But wait, this city council doesn't think that way. They want a big new shiny legacy, forget about actually keeping this city running. By the way, these rec centres come at a cost of $480 million.
Hey, why don’t we talk about Calgary Transit. The West LRT, well, that was decided while I was living in BC so all I can say to that is *beeeeeeeep* but I can speak to public art. I have lived in Calgary most of my life, I just cheated on it for a short time. I'm sorry. Okay, first, I have an issue with the idea of public art. If an artist can't make it on their own, this in itself is a problem. I am a photographer so I can say that, actually, anyone with any business sense can say that.
Next, taxpayer paid for art... ARE YOU FREAKIN' KIDDING ME! There are better places for tax money to go. $8 million (looks like now capped at $3.5 million but still) could better be spent on road maintenance, police, firefighters, how about library renovations. There is a policy in this city that 1% of all capital projects must go towards public art. I'd be happier with zero. I've seen some very nice architecture, beautiful stuff that's art in and of itself. We don't need fish carvings on Glenmore Trail or anywhere else paid for by my money! I have art in my home, that I paid for or created myself. I would never, ever expect government paid for art in my home so why would I expect government mandated art on anything else?
I also have to ask how Calgary Transit runs (itself straight into the ground.) If a private company ran the way Calgary Transit runs, it would be out of business. Calgary Transit needs to get its house in order. It bothers me that part of my property taxes goes towards Calgary Transit. We already have to pay fares to ride and for a while, to park. Now, simply to live in my house, I have to pay for Calgary Transit, that's wrong. Even with a portion of our property taxes going to Calgary Transit, they still say they have a $2 billion shortfall? Guess what, they then have a spending problem, a budgeting problem or something. My husband is a professional accountant. If he were the financial controller for Calgary Transit, he'd never work again. No one would trust him - but he’s a competent accountant, his companies run well because he’s private sector. Oh, sorry, that was my out loud voice.
I’ve mentioned all of this outrageous misspending because Mayor Nenshi is demanding increased taxation powers within Calgary. For the municipality he wants a “penny” tax, tax on fuel, vehicle registration tax, a breathing tax. I really, desperately don’t want this. What I want is actual, honest fiscal responsibility and I don’t see this in city hall whatsoever. Mayor Nenshi at one time said on a radio show that Calgarians are not ATM’s, but he sure sees us as an infinite money supply.
I will never accept another tax as long as there is uncontrolled spending and spending on things I really don’t agree with, ESPECIALLY when these things were not voted on. We no longer live in a democracy. If we did, I would have had a choice, a voice, but I don’t. The government dictates to me and on more than one occasion I feel that Mayor Nenshi has demanded I like it. The last property increase was “just a few dollars a month” but that was MY few dollars and the next increase will be more of MY money walking out the door for what? More art, and a tunnel to nowhere?
The last thing the City of Calgary needs is more power, more ways to take money from Calgarians. First they need to learn real respect, actual fiscal responsibility and they need to involve us in the decision making. The way they’re running now isn’t working, I don’t like it, and I’m not alone. I’d rather hear about how city hall is lowering it’s spending, not shark fin soup bans, running golf courses or how cool it is to hang out with protesters.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Legal Firearms Ownership and It's Risks
The long gun registry has been in the news a lot in the last few years. We’ve heard bits of firearms law, and in some cases we’ve seen how firearms owners are perceived by police. Lots of information is now easily available for anyone to read. The problem is, not a lot of people are seeing it. I didn’t realize quite how bad it was until very recently. My husband has to renew his firearms license and his friend was confused about a few very basic things. His friend couldn’t believe I had to sign my husband’s application or it wouldn’t be processed, and a huge conversation ensued.
For anyone who’s never seen a Possession and Acquisition form (app or renewal), the spouse of the gun owner must sign it, in essence giving the gun owner permission to continue owning his firearms. A couple of things bother me about this. First, it makes the spouse an agent of the Federal Government. Second, after the gun owner goes through a course or two, has owned guns for so many years, has had previous police checks and has just gone through another, it simply takes the lack of a spouse’s signature to deny a PAL renewal. The gun owner loses his collection and may never be able to get it back. The sad thing is, this could happen because the spouse is angry and for no other reason. The stupid thing about me having to sign his PAL renewal is that I too have a PAL. Nowhere on the renewal form does it ask that. *I’m so pleased.*
Another topic that came up was warrantless searches. Of course, the person on the other side of the debate, the person that does not own guns immediately said police searching one’s home without a warrant goes against due process. Yes, in most cases it does - unless it’s under the Firearms Act. There are other cases where police conduct warrantless searches, but it seems the Firearms Act is a good excuse as any. Just ask Jesse Sansone. His daughter simply drew a figure holding what appeared to be a gun on a white board, and he was arrested and strip searched. His family was taken and separated from each other. No one but the teacher saw the drawing and heard his daughter say he shoots bad guys and monsters. The school and family services still feels they did nothing wrong, even when no gun was ever found. Correction, I’m wrong; a toy gun was found. The police have apologized for what they did to him and his family, but that doesn’t undo what the trauma they caused.
There are also a number of people that get charged under the firearms act for various reasons who are law abiding citizens, have never had a criminal record, but catch the attention of police for some reason. The people below are a tiny few whose rights are taken from them simply because they own guns.
Ian Thomson is a man from Port Colbourne, Ontario. He’d been having problems with some specific neighbours but there wasn’t much he could do about it since the closest police were about 30 minutes away. There were mostly yelling and bits of vandalism of his property until one unfortunate night. Some men decided to firebomb his home as he slept. Mr. Thomson defended himself accordingly. He flew out of bed, ran to his safe, got a revolver and ammunition and went outside. He let off a few shots but deliberately didn’t hit anyone. His intention was not to harm anyone but to scare them off his property. It worked so well he was arrested for defending himself and his home. Mr. Thomson even provided the police with evidence that these men were throwing molotov cocktails at his home. That didn’t seem to matter. They even heard one of the men yell “Are you ready to die?” Initially, Mr. Thomson was charged with dangerous use of a firearm and pointing a firearm but eventually these charges had been dropped. He’s still fighting the other charges, two counts of unsafe storage of a firearm. Part of the problem, though, is that safe storage laws are written such that interpretation can be different between jurisdictions, lawyers, cops, me and my husband. The fun part is that they were deliberately written in such a way that charges were easy to make, because no matter what a law abiding citizen did, they were wrong. There is one good thing that stems from law abiding citizens ending up in court for ridiculous reasons: the laws become easier to follow for all of us.
Lawrence Manzer is another one who got charged because of a self defense incident. He is another law abiding person with no charges to his name - at least until he decided to use his firearm to protect himself. The best part is, it was unloaded.
There had been vandalism problems in his neighbourhood and one night he got a phone call from his neighbour, Brian Fox, saying he’s spotted prowlers nearby. Mr. Manzer got out of bed, grabbed his shotgun, and headed outside when he heard yelling between the prowlers and Mr. Fox. Mr. Manzer stayed on his porch with the unloaded gun, because Mr. Fox got the teenagers sitting on the ground by himself. Police were called and charged the teens with underaged drinking. The next week, the police came back to the neighbourhood and arrested the two men that stopped the teens from vandalizing their property. Mr. Fox was charged with assault (charges later dropped) and Mr. Manzer was charged with possession of a weapon dangerous to public peace. It took quite awhile but the trial against Mr. Manzer ended in a mistrial. Paperwork was not filed properly and the courts decided not to retry him as it would have been a public relations nightmare. This, to me, still does not bode well for law abiding firearms owners. The decision to retry Mr. Manzer seems more like a coin toss than common sense. He was simply protecting himself and his friend (with an unloaded shotgun.) He’s not a menace to society.
In British Columbia, James Buck’s home was searched, and his firearms seized because of a non-issue of a domestic dispute that happened years before. Apparently his wife was drunk and accused him of threatening her but she dropped the charges... because she was drunk and angry. Then one day, RCMP arrived at his house with a warrant, arrested him, seized his guns and he ended up in court. Mr. Buck pled guilty but thankfully he appeared before a smart judge.
The judge basically said:
And it goes on! The judge was not being nice to the police, about how Mr. Buck’s rights were being stomped on, and how the police were making up their own rules. This is one of the few times I can say the courts worked quickly and in the best interest of the law abiding firearms owner.
There are many other examples of law abiding gun owners get trampled on by our court system and the police. I would figure that the police and courts would want to go after real criminals, not made up ones. The scary thing is, in a lot of cases, the charges are far reaching just to take their guns away. Now this is of great concern because there are collectors with thousands of dollars worth of guns in their collections. If the government seizes our property, there isn’t much we can do to get them back. I’ve heard people argue that this is okay. It seems as long as gun owners are the target, all is fair. But what if the government starts going after someone’s house or car just because they don’t like their opinion? I’m sure they can make up some charge to seize that property too.
I’m generalizing here, I did have some really good experiences with some RCMP officers regarding firearms issues. My husband’s father was a truly avid gun collector. He passed away a couple of years ago, and through one thing or another, the RCMP in Morinville stored the guns for us. They told us they’d keep them for as long as we needed (until we got all the paperwork in order and all that jazz) and they were not hostile about this issue at all. A few months later when we were finally ready to pick the firearms up, they helped us lock them up, put them in boxes, sort them out, pack them up AND they learned some stuff about the guns they were unfamiliar with. It was great fun! When we returned with a few firearms for destruction, that was kinda fun too. My husband actually brought a handgun frame to the station, double locked, in a locked case. They took pictures of that one before the locks came off. (That was - believe it or not - a legal requirement to have it double-locked. The law dictates that a restricted firearm - by which definition means the frame - must be transported double-locked. The firearm itself was missing the barrel, the receiver and the firing mechanism, yet it still had to be double locked.)
There are risks to owning firearms legally, it’s just become a matter of managing them. In most cases, firearms owners just don’t let people know they’ve got them. In my case, I keep them well out of sight. There seemed to be a time where we were not even permitted to speak against the firearms act, that seems to have changed. We’re at least allowed to have opinions as long as we follow the law. I’m hoping as time goes on, people will realize that vilifying law abiding firearms owners is the wrong way to deal with this situation. I don’t mind most of the current laws, I just don’t like the ones that make it almost impossible to breathe. We are not a dangerous bunch. Honest.
For anyone who’s never seen a Possession and Acquisition form (app or renewal), the spouse of the gun owner must sign it, in essence giving the gun owner permission to continue owning his firearms. A couple of things bother me about this. First, it makes the spouse an agent of the Federal Government. Second, after the gun owner goes through a course or two, has owned guns for so many years, has had previous police checks and has just gone through another, it simply takes the lack of a spouse’s signature to deny a PAL renewal. The gun owner loses his collection and may never be able to get it back. The sad thing is, this could happen because the spouse is angry and for no other reason. The stupid thing about me having to sign his PAL renewal is that I too have a PAL. Nowhere on the renewal form does it ask that. *I’m so pleased.*
Another topic that came up was warrantless searches. Of course, the person on the other side of the debate, the person that does not own guns immediately said police searching one’s home without a warrant goes against due process. Yes, in most cases it does - unless it’s under the Firearms Act. There are other cases where police conduct warrantless searches, but it seems the Firearms Act is a good excuse as any. Just ask Jesse Sansone. His daughter simply drew a figure holding what appeared to be a gun on a white board, and he was arrested and strip searched. His family was taken and separated from each other. No one but the teacher saw the drawing and heard his daughter say he shoots bad guys and monsters. The school and family services still feels they did nothing wrong, even when no gun was ever found. Correction, I’m wrong; a toy gun was found. The police have apologized for what they did to him and his family, but that doesn’t undo what the trauma they caused.
There are also a number of people that get charged under the firearms act for various reasons who are law abiding citizens, have never had a criminal record, but catch the attention of police for some reason. The people below are a tiny few whose rights are taken from them simply because they own guns.
Ian Thomson is a man from Port Colbourne, Ontario. He’d been having problems with some specific neighbours but there wasn’t much he could do about it since the closest police were about 30 minutes away. There were mostly yelling and bits of vandalism of his property until one unfortunate night. Some men decided to firebomb his home as he slept. Mr. Thomson defended himself accordingly. He flew out of bed, ran to his safe, got a revolver and ammunition and went outside. He let off a few shots but deliberately didn’t hit anyone. His intention was not to harm anyone but to scare them off his property. It worked so well he was arrested for defending himself and his home. Mr. Thomson even provided the police with evidence that these men were throwing molotov cocktails at his home. That didn’t seem to matter. They even heard one of the men yell “Are you ready to die?” Initially, Mr. Thomson was charged with dangerous use of a firearm and pointing a firearm but eventually these charges had been dropped. He’s still fighting the other charges, two counts of unsafe storage of a firearm. Part of the problem, though, is that safe storage laws are written such that interpretation can be different between jurisdictions, lawyers, cops, me and my husband. The fun part is that they were deliberately written in such a way that charges were easy to make, because no matter what a law abiding citizen did, they were wrong. There is one good thing that stems from law abiding citizens ending up in court for ridiculous reasons: the laws become easier to follow for all of us.
Lawrence Manzer is another one who got charged because of a self defense incident. He is another law abiding person with no charges to his name - at least until he decided to use his firearm to protect himself. The best part is, it was unloaded.
There had been vandalism problems in his neighbourhood and one night he got a phone call from his neighbour, Brian Fox, saying he’s spotted prowlers nearby. Mr. Manzer got out of bed, grabbed his shotgun, and headed outside when he heard yelling between the prowlers and Mr. Fox. Mr. Manzer stayed on his porch with the unloaded gun, because Mr. Fox got the teenagers sitting on the ground by himself. Police were called and charged the teens with underaged drinking. The next week, the police came back to the neighbourhood and arrested the two men that stopped the teens from vandalizing their property. Mr. Fox was charged with assault (charges later dropped) and Mr. Manzer was charged with possession of a weapon dangerous to public peace. It took quite awhile but the trial against Mr. Manzer ended in a mistrial. Paperwork was not filed properly and the courts decided not to retry him as it would have been a public relations nightmare. This, to me, still does not bode well for law abiding firearms owners. The decision to retry Mr. Manzer seems more like a coin toss than common sense. He was simply protecting himself and his friend (with an unloaded shotgun.) He’s not a menace to society.
In British Columbia, James Buck’s home was searched, and his firearms seized because of a non-issue of a domestic dispute that happened years before. Apparently his wife was drunk and accused him of threatening her but she dropped the charges... because she was drunk and angry. Then one day, RCMP arrived at his house with a warrant, arrested him, seized his guns and he ended up in court. Mr. Buck pled guilty but thankfully he appeared before a smart judge.
The judge basically said:
- the police didn’t provide anything that proved Mr. Buck to be a threat to public safety,
- is said to be inaccurate, incomplete and misleading,
- if the police did their job, they’d have known they arrested him for a non-issue,
- the police should have checked previous court records, they’d know the case had been dropped (“sloppy at best and deceitful at worst.”)
And it goes on! The judge was not being nice to the police, about how Mr. Buck’s rights were being stomped on, and how the police were making up their own rules. This is one of the few times I can say the courts worked quickly and in the best interest of the law abiding firearms owner.
There are many other examples of law abiding gun owners get trampled on by our court system and the police. I would figure that the police and courts would want to go after real criminals, not made up ones. The scary thing is, in a lot of cases, the charges are far reaching just to take their guns away. Now this is of great concern because there are collectors with thousands of dollars worth of guns in their collections. If the government seizes our property, there isn’t much we can do to get them back. I’ve heard people argue that this is okay. It seems as long as gun owners are the target, all is fair. But what if the government starts going after someone’s house or car just because they don’t like their opinion? I’m sure they can make up some charge to seize that property too.
I’m generalizing here, I did have some really good experiences with some RCMP officers regarding firearms issues. My husband’s father was a truly avid gun collector. He passed away a couple of years ago, and through one thing or another, the RCMP in Morinville stored the guns for us. They told us they’d keep them for as long as we needed (until we got all the paperwork in order and all that jazz) and they were not hostile about this issue at all. A few months later when we were finally ready to pick the firearms up, they helped us lock them up, put them in boxes, sort them out, pack them up AND they learned some stuff about the guns they were unfamiliar with. It was great fun! When we returned with a few firearms for destruction, that was kinda fun too. My husband actually brought a handgun frame to the station, double locked, in a locked case. They took pictures of that one before the locks came off. (That was - believe it or not - a legal requirement to have it double-locked. The law dictates that a restricted firearm - by which definition means the frame - must be transported double-locked. The firearm itself was missing the barrel, the receiver and the firing mechanism, yet it still had to be double locked.)
There are risks to owning firearms legally, it’s just become a matter of managing them. In most cases, firearms owners just don’t let people know they’ve got them. In my case, I keep them well out of sight. There seemed to be a time where we were not even permitted to speak against the firearms act, that seems to have changed. We’re at least allowed to have opinions as long as we follow the law. I’m hoping as time goes on, people will realize that vilifying law abiding firearms owners is the wrong way to deal with this situation. I don’t mind most of the current laws, I just don’t like the ones that make it almost impossible to breathe. We are not a dangerous bunch. Honest.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Gay Activism Makes Me Tired
This particular topic has been bothering me for some time. I chose not to say anything because I felt this topic - over others I’ve written about - might somehow make me or my husband a target of hate. I felt by expressing my opinion about this would trigger threats or attacks more than any other that I’ve made public to date. I was also worried it would harm my husband’s business or reputation, and then it occurred to me: I was falling for the same rhetoric that a lot of others were falling for. I stayed quiet out of fear; that meant the liberal side of this debate was winning. Well, I’m quiet no longer, I understand what I’m about to say is unpopular.
Every time I look at the news, the LGBT community is up in arms or trying to make front page news about something. Gay activism makes me tired, I don’t want to hear about it anymore. Fifteen years ago, I would have helped, I would have made the posters, I would have written my MP. But now, they’ve won their acceptance. Same sex marriage is legal, companies cannot discriminate against homosexuals, so I ask, what more do they want? Not everyone is going to be accepted for everything all the time. Being a vocal conservative woman, I get that.
I believe in freedom of speech, freedom of expression and equality but there is a limit. I am not for shoving ideologies down the throats of those who don’t agree with me. Make your point, make yourself heard, fight for the same rights as everyone else and accept the win gracefully. Don’t demand respect, don’t demand tolerance for your chosen lifestyle, not everyone is going to agree with it. Let me be clear, I have no issue with sane, rational, gay people who don't feel their sexuality is the focus of their identity. I do have a problem with people who throw their homosexuality in my face and expect me to respect them because of it.
There appears to be a group of people out there trying to change the definition of “normal.” It seems though when one does not live an alternative lifestyle (anything LGBT) that person is immediately wrong. If we dare speak against alternative lifestyles, we’re homophobic or transphobic. I find this to be a ludicrous concept. I like this word “debate.” It’s a good word. I also enjoy other words and phrases, like “personal opinion” but we’re not allowed to have those anymore unless they follow the party line. I’m finding my personal opinions don’t follow party line. At times I’m not sure where the party line is.
Most examples of this Liberal psychosis right now seems to be in the Toronto District School Board. Not only do they call themselves a gay straight alliance, they promote gender bending to elementary school children, as well as homosexual and polygamist lifestyles. What happened to public schools teaching things like reading, math, and science? Family values and morality, as far as I can remember, wasn’t in the curriculum. So many argue religion doesn’t belong in public schools, so why do LGBT initiatives or alternative family lifestyles? If one can argue for, one should be allowed to argue against but that simply isn’t the case.
There are also people that promote the idea of raising children as “gender neutral” stating gender is a stereotype. Gender is not a complex or stereotype, it is physiological. Women and men are built differently. We do different things, like, for example, women can get pregnant, men can’t. Men who “identify as female” should try PMS once or twice. They would never “identify as female” ever again!
The Ontario anti-bullying law is a confusing one to me. It says anti-bullying but somehow it’s become another win for the LGBT community. All schools, public, Catholic, whatever, must permit gay straight alliance clubs. How did an anti-bullying law turn into a political forum for homosexual lifestyles for teens? Apparently when this law was created, they missed the part that said sexuality was low on the list of why kids get bullied. Kids get bullied because of their looks, their weight, their grades. So, since looks are the top of the bullying list, why aren't uniforms mandatory in all schools? Then they need to create a fitness regimen so everyone weighs relatively the same, and so forth. Gay straight alliance clubs should be very far down on the list for methods to prevent bullying.
This liberal psychosis is not limited to Ontario. Earlier this year, the education minister in Alberta was trying to put through the Education Act. All teachers, including home school teachers, per the act, would have had to change their curriculums to conform to Alberta Human Rights. My issue with this is that human rights are very subjective. What this means to me and most others is Christians are no longer permitted to teach Christian values to their children. The easiest example to pick on is Christians would not be permitted to teach the biblical view that homosexual acts are wrong or sinful. Again, this was done in the name of diversity and tolerance... just not tolerance of Christians. This is a common, regularly occurring, disturbing view now. TOLERANCE FOR ALL (unless you’re a conservative, white, Christian, then keep your opinions to yourself, oh, and change.)
The Education Minister said it was not his intention, nor the intention of this bill, to limit what parents or teachers could teach with respect to religious morality. The same thing was said about section 13 of the human rights act and it became known as the “hurt feelings” law. The Education Act came scarily close to being law which would have become an issue in the long term. If the Education Act had passed, I could see parents getting sued by some liberal activist for teaching home schooled children intolerance or hate outside of school hours. It would be some innocuous thing like parents debating the daily news such as “Love has no gender” around the dinner table, and they end up in the Alberta Human Rights courts for indoctrinating children. It’s one of the many reasons I’m glad it didn’t make it through third reading.
In our new and interesting world, the trend has become disturbing. If something is changed in the name of diversity or tolerance, Christians, anyone with traditional values, or opposing views are told they are bigoted or phobic. Apparently only select diverse differences are tolerated; others are, well, wrong. Either one is tolerant of differing view and opinions, or they should man up and realize how truly intolerant they are. The hypocritical “if you disagree with me, you’re racist/homophobic/transphobic/bigoted” crap is as good an argument as “that’s offensive.”
Even strange changes like gender inclusive washrooms happen because of this so called “inclusive,” “tolerant” attitude. It happened at the University of Victoria. These washrooms were created for transgendered people who don’t know what washroom to use. Either gender can use these washrooms. If anyone speaks out against this, they’re simply told they’re missing the point. Forgive me but there are not so many “gender benders” out there that we need to start modifying public spaces for them. My personal thought is, if a person doesn’t know what washroom to use, they’ve got bigger problems.
What irritates me is that changes like this happen for such a tiny minority. People who fight for LGBT rights would like us to believe it's for a large percent of the population. Most reliable demographics models that I find show no more than 1%-4% of the population identify as homosexual or transgendered (two spirited?). So why do we bend over backwards for this group? It’s gotten bad enough that they want gender removed from our passports! Give me a break!
I don't think that these topics should be forced on children or anyone else for that matter. Why is this still an issue? Same sex couples have the same rights has male/female couples so what's the problem? Continuing this fight only causes resentment, which is exactly what's happened with me. I was for gay rights, I know a lot of gay people that are quite personable. None of them are “activists.” None of them make me feel like a second class citizen because I'm married to a man and none of them wear their sexuality on their sleeve for everyone to see.
Maybe the LGBT community and gay activists will regain my respect when they don’t expect tolerance from every corner of every household in the known universe. They need to give me a chance to forget they’re around and realize they’ve blended into society. Then the LGBT community has truly won. Right now, I find them to be a joke and bunch of self righteous bullies.
Every time I look at the news, the LGBT community is up in arms or trying to make front page news about something. Gay activism makes me tired, I don’t want to hear about it anymore. Fifteen years ago, I would have helped, I would have made the posters, I would have written my MP. But now, they’ve won their acceptance. Same sex marriage is legal, companies cannot discriminate against homosexuals, so I ask, what more do they want? Not everyone is going to be accepted for everything all the time. Being a vocal conservative woman, I get that.
I believe in freedom of speech, freedom of expression and equality but there is a limit. I am not for shoving ideologies down the throats of those who don’t agree with me. Make your point, make yourself heard, fight for the same rights as everyone else and accept the win gracefully. Don’t demand respect, don’t demand tolerance for your chosen lifestyle, not everyone is going to agree with it. Let me be clear, I have no issue with sane, rational, gay people who don't feel their sexuality is the focus of their identity. I do have a problem with people who throw their homosexuality in my face and expect me to respect them because of it.
There appears to be a group of people out there trying to change the definition of “normal.” It seems though when one does not live an alternative lifestyle (anything LGBT) that person is immediately wrong. If we dare speak against alternative lifestyles, we’re homophobic or transphobic. I find this to be a ludicrous concept. I like this word “debate.” It’s a good word. I also enjoy other words and phrases, like “personal opinion” but we’re not allowed to have those anymore unless they follow the party line. I’m finding my personal opinions don’t follow party line. At times I’m not sure where the party line is.
Most examples of this Liberal psychosis right now seems to be in the Toronto District School Board. Not only do they call themselves a gay straight alliance, they promote gender bending to elementary school children, as well as homosexual and polygamist lifestyles. What happened to public schools teaching things like reading, math, and science? Family values and morality, as far as I can remember, wasn’t in the curriculum. So many argue religion doesn’t belong in public schools, so why do LGBT initiatives or alternative family lifestyles? If one can argue for, one should be allowed to argue against but that simply isn’t the case.
There are also people that promote the idea of raising children as “gender neutral” stating gender is a stereotype. Gender is not a complex or stereotype, it is physiological. Women and men are built differently. We do different things, like, for example, women can get pregnant, men can’t. Men who “identify as female” should try PMS once or twice. They would never “identify as female” ever again!
The Ontario anti-bullying law is a confusing one to me. It says anti-bullying but somehow it’s become another win for the LGBT community. All schools, public, Catholic, whatever, must permit gay straight alliance clubs. How did an anti-bullying law turn into a political forum for homosexual lifestyles for teens? Apparently when this law was created, they missed the part that said sexuality was low on the list of why kids get bullied. Kids get bullied because of their looks, their weight, their grades. So, since looks are the top of the bullying list, why aren't uniforms mandatory in all schools? Then they need to create a fitness regimen so everyone weighs relatively the same, and so forth. Gay straight alliance clubs should be very far down on the list for methods to prevent bullying.
This liberal psychosis is not limited to Ontario. Earlier this year, the education minister in Alberta was trying to put through the Education Act. All teachers, including home school teachers, per the act, would have had to change their curriculums to conform to Alberta Human Rights. My issue with this is that human rights are very subjective. What this means to me and most others is Christians are no longer permitted to teach Christian values to their children. The easiest example to pick on is Christians would not be permitted to teach the biblical view that homosexual acts are wrong or sinful. Again, this was done in the name of diversity and tolerance... just not tolerance of Christians. This is a common, regularly occurring, disturbing view now. TOLERANCE FOR ALL (unless you’re a conservative, white, Christian, then keep your opinions to yourself, oh, and change.)
The Education Minister said it was not his intention, nor the intention of this bill, to limit what parents or teachers could teach with respect to religious morality. The same thing was said about section 13 of the human rights act and it became known as the “hurt feelings” law. The Education Act came scarily close to being law which would have become an issue in the long term. If the Education Act had passed, I could see parents getting sued by some liberal activist for teaching home schooled children intolerance or hate outside of school hours. It would be some innocuous thing like parents debating the daily news such as “Love has no gender” around the dinner table, and they end up in the Alberta Human Rights courts for indoctrinating children. It’s one of the many reasons I’m glad it didn’t make it through third reading.
In our new and interesting world, the trend has become disturbing. If something is changed in the name of diversity or tolerance, Christians, anyone with traditional values, or opposing views are told they are bigoted or phobic. Apparently only select diverse differences are tolerated; others are, well, wrong. Either one is tolerant of differing view and opinions, or they should man up and realize how truly intolerant they are. The hypocritical “if you disagree with me, you’re racist/homophobic/transphobic/bigoted” crap is as good an argument as “that’s offensive.”
Even strange changes like gender inclusive washrooms happen because of this so called “inclusive,” “tolerant” attitude. It happened at the University of Victoria. These washrooms were created for transgendered people who don’t know what washroom to use. Either gender can use these washrooms. If anyone speaks out against this, they’re simply told they’re missing the point. Forgive me but there are not so many “gender benders” out there that we need to start modifying public spaces for them. My personal thought is, if a person doesn’t know what washroom to use, they’ve got bigger problems.
What irritates me is that changes like this happen for such a tiny minority. People who fight for LGBT rights would like us to believe it's for a large percent of the population. Most reliable demographics models that I find show no more than 1%-4% of the population identify as homosexual or transgendered (two spirited?). So why do we bend over backwards for this group? It’s gotten bad enough that they want gender removed from our passports! Give me a break!
I don't think that these topics should be forced on children or anyone else for that matter. Why is this still an issue? Same sex couples have the same rights has male/female couples so what's the problem? Continuing this fight only causes resentment, which is exactly what's happened with me. I was for gay rights, I know a lot of gay people that are quite personable. None of them are “activists.” None of them make me feel like a second class citizen because I'm married to a man and none of them wear their sexuality on their sleeve for everyone to see.
Maybe the LGBT community and gay activists will regain my respect when they don’t expect tolerance from every corner of every household in the known universe. They need to give me a chance to forget they’re around and realize they’ve blended into society. Then the LGBT community has truly won. Right now, I find them to be a joke and bunch of self righteous bullies.
Monday, September 17, 2012
What's Wrong With Us?
It’s been awhile since I’ve written anything. Between having pneumonia in July and planning my awesome vacation to Chicago, I back burnered this for awhile. Now I’m ready again and it seems I’ve waited to long. I’ve been paying attention and various topics have been on my mind, stewing, boiling, waiting!
First however, I’d like to point out some differences between Calgary and Chicago in terms of service. I’ve been to the USA a number of times but I’ve never stayed in any one place for very long. Chicago is my first one-stop vacation south of the border so I got to experience these differences.
First, the service almost everywhere I went was better than almost anything I’ve received here in Canada. I was wondering about that until a friend of mine said it’s because we’re too polite to mention it. First I laughed, then I got serious. I was going to argue that point until I realized he was right. In most circumstances, we Canadians take the bad service, the bad attitudes, the mixed up orders with a smile and still tip the waiter. We rarely complain and may even go back. Even my husband and I are guilty of it.
For example, here in Calgary, my husband had us go back to the same White Spot over and over and every single time (I wish I was kidding) something went wrong. Either my chicken was underdone (I sent that back) or they gave him a beef patty instead of a veggie patty (again, sent back, he’s allergic to beef) or we got someone else’s order and the list goes on. It was to the point where we’d make bets over what would go wrong this time. The owner, shift managers and staff knew us very well, would even make an effort to get our order correct! The western divisional manager didn’t believe that our curse was true until he was in the restaurant at the same time as my husband and sure enough, something went wrong. My husband got his meal comped (again) and they tried to give him a $25 gift certificate as an apology. Why is it, when a restaurant messes up, the first thing they do is “hey, come back!” He said “keep it.” We don’t go there anymore. My question is, what’s up with us? Why did it take so many mix ups, screw ups, and mess ups before we finally said no more?
In most restaurants in Chicago, our water glass was never empty, I always had tea, our order was right every time, we never had to send it back (a regularity in almost any restaurant here) and service was fast. They had enough staff! Did you know places hire enough staff? I didn’t! The service everywhere we went was so exceptionally good that my husband actually said “and they call Canadians the land of the polite? We got nothing on these people!” In each of the restaurants we went to, the servers never asked us - my husband and I - if we were going to split the bill, another weird regularity here. The servers also expected him to pay the check, not me. We went to a varying degree of restaurants, from fast food to 4 star.
When we went to the Field Museum, we got there a few minutes early so the guard told us some history on the place. We were there with a few other early birds. When she found out this was our first time in Chicago, we got some Chicago history as well. The guard (nice lady) then gave us some advice on some good places to eat when she found out where we were staying.
In our hotel, we went to the restaurant only once. This was our exceptional bad experience. The server decided to judge us based on our clothes (a bad idea) made us wait (there was only one other table of people and they had their own server.) When we finally got our order in, we waited some more. My husband got spilled coffee and when we got our food, the server proceeded to dump half my plate into my lap. He didn’t even apologize for it. For the record, that was Lockwood Restaurant, I don’t recommend it, unless you like wearing your food. This experience was a little shocking considering every other restaurant put most Canadian restaurants, in terms of service, to shame.
Most of our cab drivers were fantastic, and we took a lot of cabs. I had to laugh at a T-shirt we saw that said “I survived a Chicago cab ride” but those guys can sure drive when they think you’re going to be late for a show. *ehem* Don’t believe the concierge when they say “no more than 12 minutes!” Scariest drive of my life but I survived a Chicago cab ride.
Calgary could really learn a thing or 117 about the cab industry from the Chicago model. I get that Chicago is much larger but there are issues with the Calgary model. We need a different one especially now with the our new .05 law. Obviously the current one doesn’t work. I’ve heard and read waiting for a cab in Calgary is no more than 15-30 minutes, which is a big lie. On a good day, I’ve waited upwards of 2 hours. Once it snows, waiting is more like 8-20 hours. Does that sound like enough taxis on the road?
The regulating of taxis is not entirely to blame, the companies are also to blame. When my husband pre-orders an Associated Taxi for a 4:30 am pick-up to go to the airport, I expect it to be at my home. I don’t expect my husband to miss his flight because it doesn’t show up. I don’t expect the answer of “we don’t have a taxi in the area” when I called the night before to arrange the pickup. I also don’t expect the cab company to phone his cell while he’s at the airport waiting for the next flight because they showed up at 8:00 am, and I don’t expect the cab company to feel put out when the fare isn’t there to be picked up three and a half hours late. But that’s what happened.
In Chicago, most of the time either the door man got our cab for us with nothing more than a blow of the whistle, or there were cabs outside of the various places we visited. The couple of times we needed to flag a cab down, we waited on the sidewalk for no more than 30 seconds. None of the drivers were ever on the cell phone and most of them recommended places to visit when they found out this was our first time in Chicago. Every cab had the same city plaque in the back that explained the fare as well as “for compliments or complaints call ###, your cab number is ####.” They encourage calling in a compliment, I like that. My husband lost our little camera in one of the cabs, even though it still hasn’t been found, the company called yesterday to tell us that they’re still looking for it. That impressed me. That one is Checker Cab in Chicago.
What I take from my experience in Chicago is:
So I have to ask again, what the hell is wrong with us?
First however, I’d like to point out some differences between Calgary and Chicago in terms of service. I’ve been to the USA a number of times but I’ve never stayed in any one place for very long. Chicago is my first one-stop vacation south of the border so I got to experience these differences.
First, the service almost everywhere I went was better than almost anything I’ve received here in Canada. I was wondering about that until a friend of mine said it’s because we’re too polite to mention it. First I laughed, then I got serious. I was going to argue that point until I realized he was right. In most circumstances, we Canadians take the bad service, the bad attitudes, the mixed up orders with a smile and still tip the waiter. We rarely complain and may even go back. Even my husband and I are guilty of it.
For example, here in Calgary, my husband had us go back to the same White Spot over and over and every single time (I wish I was kidding) something went wrong. Either my chicken was underdone (I sent that back) or they gave him a beef patty instead of a veggie patty (again, sent back, he’s allergic to beef) or we got someone else’s order and the list goes on. It was to the point where we’d make bets over what would go wrong this time. The owner, shift managers and staff knew us very well, would even make an effort to get our order correct! The western divisional manager didn’t believe that our curse was true until he was in the restaurant at the same time as my husband and sure enough, something went wrong. My husband got his meal comped (again) and they tried to give him a $25 gift certificate as an apology. Why is it, when a restaurant messes up, the first thing they do is “hey, come back!” He said “keep it.” We don’t go there anymore. My question is, what’s up with us? Why did it take so many mix ups, screw ups, and mess ups before we finally said no more?
In most restaurants in Chicago, our water glass was never empty, I always had tea, our order was right every time, we never had to send it back (a regularity in almost any restaurant here) and service was fast. They had enough staff! Did you know places hire enough staff? I didn’t! The service everywhere we went was so exceptionally good that my husband actually said “and they call Canadians the land of the polite? We got nothing on these people!” In each of the restaurants we went to, the servers never asked us - my husband and I - if we were going to split the bill, another weird regularity here. The servers also expected him to pay the check, not me. We went to a varying degree of restaurants, from fast food to 4 star.
When we went to the Field Museum, we got there a few minutes early so the guard told us some history on the place. We were there with a few other early birds. When she found out this was our first time in Chicago, we got some Chicago history as well. The guard (nice lady) then gave us some advice on some good places to eat when she found out where we were staying.
In our hotel, we went to the restaurant only once. This was our exceptional bad experience. The server decided to judge us based on our clothes (a bad idea) made us wait (there was only one other table of people and they had their own server.) When we finally got our order in, we waited some more. My husband got spilled coffee and when we got our food, the server proceeded to dump half my plate into my lap. He didn’t even apologize for it. For the record, that was Lockwood Restaurant, I don’t recommend it, unless you like wearing your food. This experience was a little shocking considering every other restaurant put most Canadian restaurants, in terms of service, to shame.
Most of our cab drivers were fantastic, and we took a lot of cabs. I had to laugh at a T-shirt we saw that said “I survived a Chicago cab ride” but those guys can sure drive when they think you’re going to be late for a show. *ehem* Don’t believe the concierge when they say “no more than 12 minutes!” Scariest drive of my life but I survived a Chicago cab ride.
Calgary could really learn a thing or 117 about the cab industry from the Chicago model. I get that Chicago is much larger but there are issues with the Calgary model. We need a different one especially now with the our new .05 law. Obviously the current one doesn’t work. I’ve heard and read waiting for a cab in Calgary is no more than 15-30 minutes, which is a big lie. On a good day, I’ve waited upwards of 2 hours. Once it snows, waiting is more like 8-20 hours. Does that sound like enough taxis on the road?
The regulating of taxis is not entirely to blame, the companies are also to blame. When my husband pre-orders an Associated Taxi for a 4:30 am pick-up to go to the airport, I expect it to be at my home. I don’t expect my husband to miss his flight because it doesn’t show up. I don’t expect the answer of “we don’t have a taxi in the area” when I called the night before to arrange the pickup. I also don’t expect the cab company to phone his cell while he’s at the airport waiting for the next flight because they showed up at 8:00 am, and I don’t expect the cab company to feel put out when the fare isn’t there to be picked up three and a half hours late. But that’s what happened.
In Chicago, most of the time either the door man got our cab for us with nothing more than a blow of the whistle, or there were cabs outside of the various places we visited. The couple of times we needed to flag a cab down, we waited on the sidewalk for no more than 30 seconds. None of the drivers were ever on the cell phone and most of them recommended places to visit when they found out this was our first time in Chicago. Every cab had the same city plaque in the back that explained the fare as well as “for compliments or complaints call ###, your cab number is ####.” They encourage calling in a compliment, I like that. My husband lost our little camera in one of the cabs, even though it still hasn’t been found, the company called yesterday to tell us that they’re still looking for it. That impressed me. That one is Checker Cab in Chicago.
What I take from my experience in Chicago is:
- the people who provide the service in the USA want to provide high quality service, give the best and have an excellent reputation
- Americans expect a higher quality of service so complain when they don’t receive it or don’t go back to the various places that provide poor service; this results in most places providing a high quality service, because everywhere wants everyone’s business
- the people who provide the service in Canada feel they are nothing more than service people, don’t really care about their job, and provide just enough service to keep their job; Canadians are pushovers and will accept the poor service, we may or may not complain, hope the service will get better, accepts status quo and go back anyway
So I have to ask again, what the hell is wrong with us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)