Everything we do is debatable? Correct? I've heard many comments regarding bloggers - cynical and often snide. Comments like: why would anyone record their thoughts and then post them? Who cares? Do they think their thoughts and ideas are important enough to share? You know the drill: criticize!
Since our world is transforming rapidly especially our modes of communication I think bloggers are providing a piece of history; in essence their entries are records of our social history. Before the internet people communicated with one another through letters, some made journal or diary entries as a way to channel thoughts and expression which is a valuable source of information. It doesn't matter that the documents are personal in nature or written with a personal opinion nor does it matter that the writings are not empirical or scientific because what they do provide is something to read long after we are gone. Evidence that we existed and hopefully the writings will reveal something about the life we are living now. WE learn to read and write for a reason: to communicate. Perhaps, we are hesitant to express our opinions because our thoughts will be criticized but I say: it's merely an opinion!
I fear that without this so much of our social history will be lost. When historians are looking back 100 to 200 years from now what will they conclude? So for those who are cynical about why we share our thoughts then my answer is simple: don't read.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Thursday, November 24, 2011
I cannot begin to explain how frustrating I find reading 'fleeting thoughts' on facebook. Why would anyone post: going to work, buying a coffee - the next thing you know someone will post breathing: exhale and inhale. Perhaps, that is what I will do just to be an ass.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Opinions
I am learning as I get older that an opinion is merely just an opinion: "a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on knowledge or fact." As long as I remember that, it is much easier to accept someone's opinion without drawing conclusions about their judgement because ideally their judgement is their own. The same could be said with respect to my own opinion. The other day, my daughter said, "The most popular phrase right now is "no offense", which essentially implies I am about to criticize or condemn you but if I preface my negative remark with no offense then by rights you must take no offense. So here it goes: you look fat and wretched today but no offense. None taken!
We live in an interesting time: we post on facebook, some twitter and some don't, some people think that we care that they got out of bed yet at the same we are so afraid to express our thoughts and opinions in the event that we offend someone. When the truth of the matter is that it is merely an opinion. I have noticed several posts on facebook that I would deem rather abrasive and unnecessary; it is to the point sometimes that I wish I hadn't read them but then I remember that it is just an opinion not based on knowledge or fact. I have agreed to react to facts and to those who I believe are knowledgeable and disregard the rest. It has made it much easier to read the newspaper and realize that for the most part everything we read is an opinion and it is our responsibility to weigh the facts. We should never assume anything or take anything for granted. Or if all else fails do some research and then form an opinion.
We live in an interesting time: we post on facebook, some twitter and some don't, some people think that we care that they got out of bed yet at the same we are so afraid to express our thoughts and opinions in the event that we offend someone. When the truth of the matter is that it is merely an opinion. I have noticed several posts on facebook that I would deem rather abrasive and unnecessary; it is to the point sometimes that I wish I hadn't read them but then I remember that it is just an opinion not based on knowledge or fact. I have agreed to react to facts and to those who I believe are knowledgeable and disregard the rest. It has made it much easier to read the newspaper and realize that for the most part everything we read is an opinion and it is our responsibility to weigh the facts. We should never assume anything or take anything for granted. Or if all else fails do some research and then form an opinion.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
The age old debate over who pays for dinner?
I laughed this morning when I read an article in the morning newspaper regarding the issue over who pays for dinner on the first date. The reason I laughed is because last week I had a similar conversation with my daughter who is 20 years old. I asked her, "Who pays for dinner?" Her response, "Well, the way it works for me is I offer to pay 3 times; after the third offer I don't offer again." I laughed, "When your father and I were dating one of two things happened: we split the bill or we took turns." She responded, "That is because you were friends before you started dating." My response, "No, it is because I don't believe that men have to pay. We want equal rights yet we are turning back the clock by expecting men to pay if they ask us out on a date?" For me it runs deeper than the simple matter of who pays because I cannot help but ask myself just what is it are they paying for?" I never wanted to be in a situation whereby I felt he was actually paying for something. My next question to her: "What would you do if your date took you up on your offer to pay?" She answered, "That would be the last date."
So I asked myself how is it that in this day and age women still expect men to pay when they go on a date. On most occasions both parties have limited funds because they are students so why is it that the man has to pay. I know that my daughter pays for her own ticket when they go to a concert, or she will attempt to pay for parking or ski passes but still the expectation to pay for dinner is still placed on him. Clearly, despite women's desire for an equal world who pays is something that is unchanged.
When I asked my son who pays? He answered, "I do, isn't that what I am supposed to do?" I answered, "Not necessarily." Of course, it is his prerogative but I was of the mind that it was a partnership. So much for the opinion of a middle-aged woman!
So I asked myself how is it that in this day and age women still expect men to pay when they go on a date. On most occasions both parties have limited funds because they are students so why is it that the man has to pay. I know that my daughter pays for her own ticket when they go to a concert, or she will attempt to pay for parking or ski passes but still the expectation to pay for dinner is still placed on him. Clearly, despite women's desire for an equal world who pays is something that is unchanged.
When I asked my son who pays? He answered, "I do, isn't that what I am supposed to do?" I answered, "Not necessarily." Of course, it is his prerogative but I was of the mind that it was a partnership. So much for the opinion of a middle-aged woman!
Monday, August 29, 2011
Is it age, my perception, or are the rules taking the fun and spontaneity out of public events? Jeff Bridges
Last night, Jeff Bridges performed at a winery near Seattle. The venue was perfect: small and very intimate if you could get close enough to the stage. My daughter and I arrived early because we weren't sure where we were going and we didn't want to be late or lost. When we arrived approximately a 100 people were lined up so we joined the line. It was an older crowd according to the friendly gentleman we met it was also an affluent neighbourhood all of which added to the subdued atmosphere. County Sheriffs checked our bags. We couldn't bring any cameras with detachable lenses or use anything other than a point and shoot: no flash photography. A designated smoking sections was cordoned off 1000 feet from the stage. The days of lighting up at concert are long gone. People sat in lawn chairs and on blankets to watch the concert. When Jeff came out on stage a few of the spectators got to their feet. On one occasion I was asked by security to sit down. It was impossible to dance to the music or celebrate the music. The days of interaction with the crowd are muted when we are instructed to sit. But we did what we were told until the last set. During the encore people finally got to their feet; the energy of the crowd was finally evident and for the last 15 minutes of the concert it was a celebration rather than a subdued cerebral moment. Whatever happened to us? When I was a kid it was general admission which meant first come first serve. If you were a dedicated fan and camped out for days before an event you secured the best seat in the house: front row. We would cling to the stage for dear life if anyone attempted to get in front we simply took them out. Survival of the fittest but it was fun; it was electric now we are told to sit down and sadly enough we do as we are told even when what we long to do is harmless: clean fun! Some day soon people are going to have to stand up.
It was a shame because it was one of the best concert I have ever attended and Jeff deserved an interactive, stand-up crowd.
It was a shame because it was one of the best concert I have ever attended and Jeff deserved an interactive, stand-up crowd.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Mediocrity
Despite the notion or assumption that Canadians are moderates being moderates does not indicate that we accept mediocrity. I believe wholeheartedly that we expect more from ourselves and our government. Yet, we live in a country whereby we are defined by mediocrity which has directly impacted political engagement. We are told that we are free yet every time we turn around the government has imposed an new rule or sanctioned new protocol. For what? We are a peaceful nation and for the most part a nation of law-abiding individuals yet we are consistently bombarded with new rules and guidelines. The most recent is the new drinking and driving rules in BC. I don't drink so it is not an issue. But the new hand held devices being used by the police malfunction. We have given the police too much power and despite the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling on the device the BC government has appealed the decision. Since when does the provincial government have the right to dismiss a Supreme Court ruling? This indicates to me as a citizen of this country that we are need to safeguards citizens from the abuses of government. There are reasons that we have various levels of government as well as different bodies of governance. The executive, legislative and judicial departments were created to ensure justice prevails - let this be.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Canadians - Who are we?
Who are we? How are we perceived in the world? It should be a simple exercise to determine our national identify yet for some reason it is difficult to define Canadians. We understand our roots: we are the creation of two clearly defined societies: the English and the French. The British being noted for their unflagging will with liberty, equality and fraternity being the foundations of France. As De Gaulle said to France, "to represent something beyond ourselves, to light up the world, to glow with the torch of civilization itself." This is what Canada must be: a beacon. A clearly defined beacon. The spirit and direction of a nation is founded upon and reflected in historic heritage. People are what they create and how they remember it.
What are Canadians? We draw from the British, French and American societies. All of which are democratic societies so we know we are democratic but what does that mean? Our government is democratic, our commitment to capitalism is tempered by social democracy, our rule of law, our liberalism, internationalism; we have both Common and Civil law, constitutional monarchy with our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the rule of parliament and the power of the courts, economy of public and private ownership - a mixture of US capitalism with British and French Socialism. We have social programs not as broad and encompassing as Britain and France or as limited as the US. We have two languages. We like peacekeeping and oppose capital punishment. A greater percentage of our work force is unionized, our income tax is higher than the US but lower than Britain and France. Our approach to immigration is similar to the US and Britain. WE ARE THE BEST OF ALL WORLDS. It is easy to define once we recognize that we have sculpted the best world by imitating and implementing the best practices of the societies that contributed to our birth. We are not a mirror image of Britain, France of America - we are Canada strong and free. Yes, our beginnings were based on compromise and we are still compromising because we are constantly driven to achieve excellence. Compromise has been the bane of our existence but by being open to change and influence from other worlds we have created the best of all worlds. That is what Canada is: the best of all worlds and that is what it means to be Canadian.
Yes, we struggle with national identity because our society is a copulation of converging cultures, our geography is boundless and tempered with regional diversity but rather than identify, ratify or promote our cultural and regional differences we need to remember the fact that we chose Canada. The reality is this: We chose and choose to be here. It may have been a decision made by our ancestors or it may have been a decision made by our parents or the individual for that matter but whether we are first, second, third or tenth generation Canadian it is crucial that we remember we are all Canadian. Period!
First and foremost we are Canadian. We must remove the hyphened Canadian from our dialogue.
In the 1960s, under the guidance of the Liberal Party of Canada we adopted universal health care, the Canada Pension Plan, replaced the Union Jack and found that we were a prosperous, safe, compassionate, orderly place to be; to the world we were noted for our peacekeeping abilities on the world's battlefields. Canada was the peacekeeper. We demonstrated peace through our inherent desire to compromise. Some would say that we are boring or we say we are sorry far too often but that is what we do: we compromise because we are always searching for the best of all worlds not just for Canadians but for citizens of the world. That is what we are citizens of the world with clearly defined objectives founded in liberty, democracy, productivity and compassion. (Andrew Cohen)
What are Canadians? We draw from the British, French and American societies. All of which are democratic societies so we know we are democratic but what does that mean? Our government is democratic, our commitment to capitalism is tempered by social democracy, our rule of law, our liberalism, internationalism; we have both Common and Civil law, constitutional monarchy with our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the rule of parliament and the power of the courts, economy of public and private ownership - a mixture of US capitalism with British and French Socialism. We have social programs not as broad and encompassing as Britain and France or as limited as the US. We have two languages. We like peacekeeping and oppose capital punishment. A greater percentage of our work force is unionized, our income tax is higher than the US but lower than Britain and France. Our approach to immigration is similar to the US and Britain. WE ARE THE BEST OF ALL WORLDS. It is easy to define once we recognize that we have sculpted the best world by imitating and implementing the best practices of the societies that contributed to our birth. We are not a mirror image of Britain, France of America - we are Canada strong and free. Yes, our beginnings were based on compromise and we are still compromising because we are constantly driven to achieve excellence. Compromise has been the bane of our existence but by being open to change and influence from other worlds we have created the best of all worlds. That is what Canada is: the best of all worlds and that is what it means to be Canadian.
Yes, we struggle with national identity because our society is a copulation of converging cultures, our geography is boundless and tempered with regional diversity but rather than identify, ratify or promote our cultural and regional differences we need to remember the fact that we chose Canada. The reality is this: We chose and choose to be here. It may have been a decision made by our ancestors or it may have been a decision made by our parents or the individual for that matter but whether we are first, second, third or tenth generation Canadian it is crucial that we remember we are all Canadian. Period!
First and foremost we are Canadian. We must remove the hyphened Canadian from our dialogue.
In the 1960s, under the guidance of the Liberal Party of Canada we adopted universal health care, the Canada Pension Plan, replaced the Union Jack and found that we were a prosperous, safe, compassionate, orderly place to be; to the world we were noted for our peacekeeping abilities on the world's battlefields. Canada was the peacekeeper. We demonstrated peace through our inherent desire to compromise. Some would say that we are boring or we say we are sorry far too often but that is what we do: we compromise because we are always searching for the best of all worlds not just for Canadians but for citizens of the world. That is what we are citizens of the world with clearly defined objectives founded in liberty, democracy, productivity and compassion. (Andrew Cohen)
Citizenship - defining expectations
We have the easiest citizenship to obtain in the world. We ask for nothing in return. Why? We need to table a clearer expectation of citizenship. Currently, citizenship is deemed a right not a privilege. For some reason, I am not certain, when this happened but there has been a shift from citizenship being a privilege to it being a 'right'. The Canadian Citizenship and Immigration website lists the roles and responsibilities of citizens. 1) Citizens have an obligation to vote in elections; 2) to help others in the community; 3) care for and protect our heritage and environment; 4) obey our laws; 5) express opinions freely while respecting the rights and freedoms of others; 6) eliminate discrimination and injustice. If we subscribed to this Canada would be a better place for everyone! But Canada is fragmented. We have a cavalier view of citizenship which fosters a sense of entitlement. What does it mean to be Canadian?
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Grassroots approach to politics
Essentially the term grassroots is used freely and broadly without a plan to implement the so-called grass roots approach! Quite often I hear someone utter the term without knowing exactly what it means: it is a tag-line, a coined phrase, but with no meaning. Grass roots means one thing to me it means reaching out and connecting with the individuals who will build the party from the ground up which is often a problem for political parties who would prefer to design the party from the top down.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Health care - the ongoing debate
"Canada's health system was ranked 30th overall by the World Health Organization, while the US ranked 37th. Countries like Austria, Holland, France, Switzerland and Germany rank in the top six, and deliver cost effective care to all without wait litst. Current BC legislation prevents us from adopting European models.
According to the Supreme Court of Canada, such laws are in violation of the Charter of Rights. Since this is playoff time, I will pose the question. "If we were the 30th-ranked hockey team, would we continually compare ourselves to the 37th ranked team? That seems to be the approach of the NDP in BC." Dr. Brian Day, an orthopedic surgeon, founder of the Cambie Surgery Centre.
Health care is a topic and everyone is a critic: the problems are clear and hotly debated but what are the solutions? We want and need health care. The current system available to us is compromised: we are told to wait despite the fact that we don't have options. Well I guess we do if we want to pay for it. But if that is the case then I want the option to opt-out. If the system cannot provide me with the care I think is necessary then I want to opt-out and I will pay for my own health insurance.
The problem is not the doctors or the nurses instead part of the problem is founded in the revenue wasted on administrators. Over the weekend I visited my brother who is a physician in Merritt. Several months ago, bureaucrats (4 or them) visited the hospital to test a computer program that would allow patients to enter information into a data base prior to admittance into the Emergency Room. It is a pilot project. While the four government administrators looked at the screen with pride the doctor on call and the nurse were hustling to meet the demands of the hospital. The administrators asked Dr. Simon to look at the 'new' system: a system they believed would reduce workload. Dr. Simon's comment, "Often, given this is an emergency room, it is not possible for a patient to fill out a form nor do we have the time to complete the form when there is a medical emergency. We quickly take down the patient's information and proceed with treatment." The comments did not deter the administrators. Dr. Simon returned to the group and stated, "Look around you. What do you see? One doctor and one nurse running around dealing with emergencies and the four of you sitting are in front of a screen telling us we can help you do your job. This system will not administer medicine or determine the prognosis and this is clearly the problem with our system. I would rather have another nurse on staff than an administrator who clearly has no idea what is needed to ensure this country has a viable health care system." This is the problem with our system.
Back to Dr. Day's point: legislation prevents us from adopting European models. What legislation? I don't think I could state this any clearer: we are paying for the system: taxpayers! This system exists because we pay for so if the system isn't working then we need to ensure that we have the proper individuals in place who will modify the system so that it works. If not I am opting-out! I am tired of hearing about the costs because it is irrelevant based on our contributions. We pay taxes in return for services: it cannot get any simpler than that yet our taxes go up and the services get cut.
According to the Supreme Court of Canada, such laws are in violation of the Charter of Rights. Since this is playoff time, I will pose the question. "If we were the 30th-ranked hockey team, would we continually compare ourselves to the 37th ranked team? That seems to be the approach of the NDP in BC." Dr. Brian Day, an orthopedic surgeon, founder of the Cambie Surgery Centre.
Health care is a topic and everyone is a critic: the problems are clear and hotly debated but what are the solutions? We want and need health care. The current system available to us is compromised: we are told to wait despite the fact that we don't have options. Well I guess we do if we want to pay for it. But if that is the case then I want the option to opt-out. If the system cannot provide me with the care I think is necessary then I want to opt-out and I will pay for my own health insurance.
The problem is not the doctors or the nurses instead part of the problem is founded in the revenue wasted on administrators. Over the weekend I visited my brother who is a physician in Merritt. Several months ago, bureaucrats (4 or them) visited the hospital to test a computer program that would allow patients to enter information into a data base prior to admittance into the Emergency Room. It is a pilot project. While the four government administrators looked at the screen with pride the doctor on call and the nurse were hustling to meet the demands of the hospital. The administrators asked Dr. Simon to look at the 'new' system: a system they believed would reduce workload. Dr. Simon's comment, "Often, given this is an emergency room, it is not possible for a patient to fill out a form nor do we have the time to complete the form when there is a medical emergency. We quickly take down the patient's information and proceed with treatment." The comments did not deter the administrators. Dr. Simon returned to the group and stated, "Look around you. What do you see? One doctor and one nurse running around dealing with emergencies and the four of you sitting are in front of a screen telling us we can help you do your job. This system will not administer medicine or determine the prognosis and this is clearly the problem with our system. I would rather have another nurse on staff than an administrator who clearly has no idea what is needed to ensure this country has a viable health care system." This is the problem with our system.
Back to Dr. Day's point: legislation prevents us from adopting European models. What legislation? I don't think I could state this any clearer: we are paying for the system: taxpayers! This system exists because we pay for so if the system isn't working then we need to ensure that we have the proper individuals in place who will modify the system so that it works. If not I am opting-out! I am tired of hearing about the costs because it is irrelevant based on our contributions. We pay taxes in return for services: it cannot get any simpler than that yet our taxes go up and the services get cut.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Equity
How far must we go before equality becomes inequality? Is it fair to assume that everyone must work and everyone must contribute? Or is it an option not to work? Does the individual have the right to choose not to work and expect to be taken care of by the taxpayer? Or is it fair to assume that everyone must work thereby creating a productive society reliant on the productivity of its citizens.
We've come along way from hunting and gathering. Our evolution of sorts has created a shift from survival to dependence. I believe that it is instinct to survive despite the obstacles we encounter. The creation of the modern state, organized societies and the safety nets designed to keep citizens from falling through the cracks has impacted our ability to be a highly productive society because incentives are lost because as we know: "we cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." Before I continue it must be stated that I believe it is essential to care and protect those who are incapable of caring for themselves whether it is the young, the old, the vulnerable or the sick. This essay is intended to address the matter of those who choose not to work despite the fact that they are able bodied individuals. Quite often I hear the expression: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer or the rich don't share their wealth. First, everyone shares in this country if they pay taxes. That's right. We share through taxation because the more we earn the more we pay. So much so that there is a point in which it becomes questionable as to how much is an acceptable level of taxation. Those who are 'less' fortunate receive subsidies and tax credits and so on and so forth but if you are in the 'fortunate' category subsidies and credit do not exist instead it is mandatory to give almost 50% of your earnings. But when do we reach the point of: enough! A prevailing negative attitude is directed at those who have more yet without those who have more there wouldn't be any money to give to those who have less. There is a taxation psychological benchmark; there is a point of saturation. This is a time for a reality check: we do not live in a communist country where everyone lives in the same house, receives the same education, drives the same car, wears the same clothes, achieves similar successes and failures, lives to be 84, receives a gold medal for effort, constantly gets a pat on the back for a 'job well done', has 2.2 children, is artistic, athletic and a gifted musician or a highly-skilled craftsmen instead we live in a country of individuals who excel in different areas and at different rates or sometimes not at all because the harsh reality is that we are not all the same. We are entitled to justice and individual rights and freedoms but at the end of the day it comes back to the individual. Our role as a society is to provide individuals with opportunities to education and training as well as other social safety nets to meet the basic needs of life but it comes down to the individual. Guarantees for a successful life are not promised or wagered.
We've come along way from hunting and gathering. Our evolution of sorts has created a shift from survival to dependence. I believe that it is instinct to survive despite the obstacles we encounter. The creation of the modern state, organized societies and the safety nets designed to keep citizens from falling through the cracks has impacted our ability to be a highly productive society because incentives are lost because as we know: "we cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." Before I continue it must be stated that I believe it is essential to care and protect those who are incapable of caring for themselves whether it is the young, the old, the vulnerable or the sick. This essay is intended to address the matter of those who choose not to work despite the fact that they are able bodied individuals. Quite often I hear the expression: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer or the rich don't share their wealth. First, everyone shares in this country if they pay taxes. That's right. We share through taxation because the more we earn the more we pay. So much so that there is a point in which it becomes questionable as to how much is an acceptable level of taxation. Those who are 'less' fortunate receive subsidies and tax credits and so on and so forth but if you are in the 'fortunate' category subsidies and credit do not exist instead it is mandatory to give almost 50% of your earnings. But when do we reach the point of: enough! A prevailing negative attitude is directed at those who have more yet without those who have more there wouldn't be any money to give to those who have less. There is a taxation psychological benchmark; there is a point of saturation. This is a time for a reality check: we do not live in a communist country where everyone lives in the same house, receives the same education, drives the same car, wears the same clothes, achieves similar successes and failures, lives to be 84, receives a gold medal for effort, constantly gets a pat on the back for a 'job well done', has 2.2 children, is artistic, athletic and a gifted musician or a highly-skilled craftsmen instead we live in a country of individuals who excel in different areas and at different rates or sometimes not at all because the harsh reality is that we are not all the same. We are entitled to justice and individual rights and freedoms but at the end of the day it comes back to the individual. Our role as a society is to provide individuals with opportunities to education and training as well as other social safety nets to meet the basic needs of life but it comes down to the individual. Guarantees for a successful life are not promised or wagered.
Little did I know: Conservative Majority
I don't think I could have even conjured the possibility logically, reasonably or emotionally of a Conservative majority. I simply could not let it cross my mind but what here we are: Conservative majority with the NDP as the official opposition. What has happened to Canada?
The Irony: an article I didn't post - written prior to the election
Lester Pearson would never be elected today but Matt Damon would! Campaigns have changed with technology: charisma motivates voters. What about substance or depth or character? In my lifetime I have never been so worried about the outcome of an election. The worst case scenario is a Conservative minority government with the NDP as the official opposition. What would be catastrophic is an NDP government.
Have we lost our way? Is debt irrelevant? Are we delusional to the degree that we ignore the reality that higher debt equals higher taxes.
Stephen Harper's disregard for democracy has created an opportunity for the NDP to gain momentum because "Union Jack" is making promises that he knows he won't have to keep. Empty promises! The solution to the problem is not to spend more money. This is the reality check: the only citizens impacted by tax increases are the those who are WORKING.
Have we lost our way? Is debt irrelevant? Are we delusional to the degree that we ignore the reality that higher debt equals higher taxes.
Stephen Harper's disregard for democracy has created an opportunity for the NDP to gain momentum because "Union Jack" is making promises that he knows he won't have to keep. Empty promises! The solution to the problem is not to spend more money. This is the reality check: the only citizens impacted by tax increases are the those who are WORKING.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Privileged
Being born into a 'privileged' family certainly enables the individual to propel themselves into a position of opportunity much quicker than those of us who were born into a family of those 'less' privileged however it does not guarantee personal success and achievement without dedication and devotion. In a race, in the beginning there is most certainly an advantage but in order to win the race it is essential to keep running.
Monday, May 2, 2011
More taxes - at what point will taxes impact productivity?
No more taxes! When I think about how much my husband and I have paid in taxes in our lifetime I am astounded that this country is in debt. What happens to all of our money? I remember being 7 years old listening to a conversation between my parents while preparing their tax return. The word income tax was mentioned. At that age I had no idea what income was so I asked my dad, "What is income?" He explained that is the money received for working. When he explained that income tax is the money workers pay to the government I was in shock. "You mean you have to pay the government money to go to work. When I'm an adult I am not going to do that!" He responded, "You have no choice because you don't have an option to pay the government because they take your money before your employer pays you." Still to this day I find the notion of income tax to be bizarre. Now I understand why we have to pay tax because we use the services provided for by the government but a psychological benchmark must exist whereby too much tax impacts the individual's productivity.
There must be a barrier of acceptance because I believe I have reached that barrier. I read an article today about a tax on miles traveled which is being considered by Translink as a means to generate revenue for transportation projects. Currently, Translink generates revenue from property taxes and a portion of fuel tax revenue but apparently that isn't enough to fund future projects so out of desperation they are looking to the taxpayer once again to finance projects but at what point does the taxpayer revolt? We pay tax to go to work, property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, death tax, everywhere we go we pay tax then we pay for licenses, permits, parking, and on and on it goes. To add insult to injury we are faced with a wait list if we are sick. The government worries about the aging population and rising health care costs but where will it stop? I think we should be able to expect something in return for the amount of tax we pay.
There must be a barrier of acceptance because I believe I have reached that barrier. I read an article today about a tax on miles traveled which is being considered by Translink as a means to generate revenue for transportation projects. Currently, Translink generates revenue from property taxes and a portion of fuel tax revenue but apparently that isn't enough to fund future projects so out of desperation they are looking to the taxpayer once again to finance projects but at what point does the taxpayer revolt? We pay tax to go to work, property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, death tax, everywhere we go we pay tax then we pay for licenses, permits, parking, and on and on it goes. To add insult to injury we are faced with a wait list if we are sick. The government worries about the aging population and rising health care costs but where will it stop? I think we should be able to expect something in return for the amount of tax we pay.
It will be necessary to make drastic changes in the future if we want to be viable and sustainable.
Change is never easy. We resist change because it is unpredictable. Often times we continue with the status quo because we know what to expect even when we are on a path of self-destruction. Perhaps, we are psychologically programmed to support certainty more than the uncertainty that is a result of change. Canada is in a precarious position because we have reached a point in our history where we must grow up. The period of adolescence is over. It has been over for a long time. We need to define who we are in the world. We have much to be proud of but where we are lacking is our national identity.
What do we need to do? First, we must address the issue of climate change not tomorrow but today. It is time for Canadians to take a stand despite the lack of environmental legislation that is adopted by our neighbours. Yes, we know that we share the atmosphere but that does not exempt of us from being responsible. Scientists have provided us with the research and data - they have done their job - now it is up to us to ensure that aggressive environmental legislation becomes constitutional. The reason environmental policy must be constitutional is to avoid deviations from the long-term strategies and objectives when political party leadership changes. Environmental legislation must be founded on the same principles as human rights.
We must find new forms of energy.
Second, we need to address the matter of our national debt. Clearly, we are spending beyond our means which is why our debt is $565 billion. The question is this: how do we ensure that we live within our means without implementing any changes to the system? The answer is: we change the system.
I have wracked my brain for months over the issue of fiscal responsibility. I simply do not understand how we managed to build this country long before the days of income tax yet now we cannot balance the budget? The first task is balancing the budget with no exceptions. The second task is developing a payment schedule to eliminate the debt. Currently, we are paying $84 million a day in interest which is a waste of taxpayers money. This number is staggering: $588 million a week, $2,352,000,000 billion a month and $30,576,000,000 billion annually. If the interest rates were to rise even marginally the cost to service the debt could potentially double which would increase the cost to $60 billion. Canada's GDP is approximately $1.4 trillion. So what do we do? The Liberal government reduced the national debt by $100 billion. If the policies implemented by the Liberal government were followed the debt would have been eliminated in 20 years but instead in 5 years Stephen Harper has reversed the process and our debt is once again on the rise: $566 billion to date. So how do we implement a strategy of debt reduction without cutting essential services? First, we implement efficiencies by reducing the number of public servants. The federal government employs $390,000 public servants, 190,000 work for the Canada Revenue Agency which is roughly 600,000 employees considering that retired government employees return to work as contract workers to avoid payroll budgetary restraints. These numbers do not include the military or the police. We as Canadians did not get ourselves into this situation. We have the government to thank for the mess we are in! To clean it up we must accept change!
Just imagine how rich this country would be if we eliminated the debt?
What do we need to do? First, we must address the issue of climate change not tomorrow but today. It is time for Canadians to take a stand despite the lack of environmental legislation that is adopted by our neighbours. Yes, we know that we share the atmosphere but that does not exempt of us from being responsible. Scientists have provided us with the research and data - they have done their job - now it is up to us to ensure that aggressive environmental legislation becomes constitutional. The reason environmental policy must be constitutional is to avoid deviations from the long-term strategies and objectives when political party leadership changes. Environmental legislation must be founded on the same principles as human rights.
We must find new forms of energy.
Second, we need to address the matter of our national debt. Clearly, we are spending beyond our means which is why our debt is $565 billion. The question is this: how do we ensure that we live within our means without implementing any changes to the system? The answer is: we change the system.
I have wracked my brain for months over the issue of fiscal responsibility. I simply do not understand how we managed to build this country long before the days of income tax yet now we cannot balance the budget? The first task is balancing the budget with no exceptions. The second task is developing a payment schedule to eliminate the debt. Currently, we are paying $84 million a day in interest which is a waste of taxpayers money. This number is staggering: $588 million a week, $2,352,000,000 billion a month and $30,576,000,000 billion annually. If the interest rates were to rise even marginally the cost to service the debt could potentially double which would increase the cost to $60 billion. Canada's GDP is approximately $1.4 trillion. So what do we do? The Liberal government reduced the national debt by $100 billion. If the policies implemented by the Liberal government were followed the debt would have been eliminated in 20 years but instead in 5 years Stephen Harper has reversed the process and our debt is once again on the rise: $566 billion to date. So how do we implement a strategy of debt reduction without cutting essential services? First, we implement efficiencies by reducing the number of public servants. The federal government employs $390,000 public servants, 190,000 work for the Canada Revenue Agency which is roughly 600,000 employees considering that retired government employees return to work as contract workers to avoid payroll budgetary restraints. These numbers do not include the military or the police. We as Canadians did not get ourselves into this situation. We have the government to thank for the mess we are in! To clean it up we must accept change!
Just imagine how rich this country would be if we eliminated the debt?
Monday, April 25, 2011
On Being Liberal
If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party nomination (14 September 1960)
Friday, April 15, 2011
Canada's national character
We need to address our national character and ask whether we can be a more united, ambitious people and, more fundamentally, if we have what it takes to carry us through the next hundred years and beyond.
These are a few questions: "Who are we? Where do we belong?"
Do we have an identity problem as Canadians? What does it mean to be Canadian? I laugh when we are perceived as polite, quick to apologize and quick to lend a hand. I guess the truth will be known if we are ever faced with a national disaster. The Japanese are an example of a society that's behaviour clearly depicts the national characteristics: the country is faced with a catastrophic disaster and the citizens of the country band together as a society. The society did not become fragmented and they proved to world how cohesive a nation can be in the face of adversity: no looting or increase in crime.
These are a few questions: "Who are we? Where do we belong?"
Do we have an identity problem as Canadians? What does it mean to be Canadian? I laugh when we are perceived as polite, quick to apologize and quick to lend a hand. I guess the truth will be known if we are ever faced with a national disaster. The Japanese are an example of a society that's behaviour clearly depicts the national characteristics: the country is faced with a catastrophic disaster and the citizens of the country band together as a society. The society did not become fragmented and they proved to world how cohesive a nation can be in the face of adversity: no looting or increase in crime.
I wonder if Canadians realize.
First, what we must remember is that the public is never the problem. The problem is the way politicians speak to the public. Politicians and elected officials must remember to treat the audience as the intelligent participants that they are!"
Our role as Canadians is to cast our vote. We fought for democracy yet in 2008 voter turn out was the lowest in Canadian history: 58%.
I support democracy. I will gladly accept the outcome of any election if Canadians come out to vote but when 5,209,069 votes gives a political party a minority government with a population of 34,417,261 and 23,677,639 eligible voters it simply isn't enough. Another astounding outcome from the last election is that the Conservative Party of Canada received 165,002 fewer votes from 2006 to 2008 yet they gained 19 seats: an increase from 124 to 143. The same anomaly is evident with the 8 seats the NDP gained: 74,309 fewer votes. In total 974,206 fewer voters turned out between 2006 and 2008. 835,230 fewer votes for the Liberal Party of Canada from 2006 to 2008 drastically altered the outcome. Yes, I am Liberal. Yes, I support Liberal ideals but I control one vote: mine! If you want a change in this country please vote.
Our role as Canadians is to cast our vote. We fought for democracy yet in 2008 voter turn out was the lowest in Canadian history: 58%.
I support democracy. I will gladly accept the outcome of any election if Canadians come out to vote but when 5,209,069 votes gives a political party a minority government with a population of 34,417,261 and 23,677,639 eligible voters it simply isn't enough. Another astounding outcome from the last election is that the Conservative Party of Canada received 165,002 fewer votes from 2006 to 2008 yet they gained 19 seats: an increase from 124 to 143. The same anomaly is evident with the 8 seats the NDP gained: 74,309 fewer votes. In total 974,206 fewer voters turned out between 2006 and 2008. 835,230 fewer votes for the Liberal Party of Canada from 2006 to 2008 drastically altered the outcome. Yes, I am Liberal. Yes, I support Liberal ideals but I control one vote: mine! If you want a change in this country please vote.
shit harper did
Devlin and Cameron Reed created a website: shitharperdid.com. The site received 2 million hits, enough to crash the site but now if you log onto the site there is no access to the video. All that comes up on You Tube is a video produced asking Canadians to vote.Where is the video? I have read that the site was removed. If this is a result of censorship then we are in big trouble in this country. Canada is not a dictatorship. Not now - not ever! If this is what our country has come to we must take it back. This is greater than shit Harper did this is directly in conflict with our constitution. We need to bring the video back. Freedom of expression is one of the foundations of this country. Please do your part to bring back freedom.
I never thought that this would be an issue in this country.
I never thought that this would be an issue in this country.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
The poor in Canada!
The Conservative Party's candidate: Chris Alexander claimed there is no poverty in Canada.
These are Mr. Alexander's words: "Anyone who thinks though, that poverty reduction, or poverty elimination, and I believe in poverty elimination in this country, we've eliminated it for the levels the World Bank recognizes. We don't have that kind of poverty in Canada. But we still have low income."
Unidentified woman: "You're lying, you're lying."
Crowd: groans
Alexander: two dollars a day? Two dollars a day? I would ask anyone in this room to stand up and tell me who's living on $2 a day?
Unidentified woman: I'm living on less. I'm the mother of 8 children and you guys took my unemployment away from because I got fired. Do you call that fair? And I have 8 children to feed and 3 grandchildren.
So what do we do. The Conservatives deny that 3.5 million Canadians are living in poverty - including more than 1 in 10 children in Canada. Canada is ranked near the bottom of all major developed countries when it comes to working-age poverty rates.
Is this the government we want? Do we want a government that sees what it wants to see or do we want a government that recognizes we need to do a better job by acknowledging those in need. Do they understand how difficult it is to ask for help? Do they understand the humility that one feels when they have to admit they cannot do it on their own? Do they understand what it feels like to be hungry or vulnerable? Drive down Hastings and Main Street any time of day and you will see that poverty exists in Canada for all of the world to see. How can they be so blind? The sad reality is that they are not blind they simply choose to ignore the facts. How can we turn our backs on the poor moreover how do we turn our backs on children? Who is he to decide what we as taxpayers do with 'OUR' money. What happened to our compassion?
These are Mr. Alexander's words: "Anyone who thinks though, that poverty reduction, or poverty elimination, and I believe in poverty elimination in this country, we've eliminated it for the levels the World Bank recognizes. We don't have that kind of poverty in Canada. But we still have low income."
Unidentified woman: "You're lying, you're lying."
Crowd: groans
Alexander: two dollars a day? Two dollars a day? I would ask anyone in this room to stand up and tell me who's living on $2 a day?
Unidentified woman: I'm living on less. I'm the mother of 8 children and you guys took my unemployment away from because I got fired. Do you call that fair? And I have 8 children to feed and 3 grandchildren.
So what do we do. The Conservatives deny that 3.5 million Canadians are living in poverty - including more than 1 in 10 children in Canada. Canada is ranked near the bottom of all major developed countries when it comes to working-age poverty rates.
Is this the government we want? Do we want a government that sees what it wants to see or do we want a government that recognizes we need to do a better job by acknowledging those in need. Do they understand how difficult it is to ask for help? Do they understand the humility that one feels when they have to admit they cannot do it on their own? Do they understand what it feels like to be hungry or vulnerable? Drive down Hastings and Main Street any time of day and you will see that poverty exists in Canada for all of the world to see. How can they be so blind? The sad reality is that they are not blind they simply choose to ignore the facts. How can we turn our backs on the poor moreover how do we turn our backs on children? Who is he to decide what we as taxpayers do with 'OUR' money. What happened to our compassion?
There is no excuse.
On Sunday, April 3 two students were 'removed' from a Conservative event because they had posted photographs of themselves with Michael Ignatieff. There is no excuse for the actions of the Conservative Party. When excuses are made to justify such an act it speaks volumes about the Conservative Party's disregard for the democratic, free society in which we live. There simply is not excuse. Anyone who justifies that behaviour must ask themselves just what it is they are justifying. Are they upholding their right to organize events that are exclusive in nature? If a political rally is exclusive to Conservative party members then the terms and conditions of the meetings should be advertised and promoted as a private, members only event. As citizens we are not questioning the right to organize a private event because private events are organized all the time. Private events are common place and are respected as such; we respect privacy and the freedom to organize a private event. Most of us wouldn't dream of crashing a party even though we love the movie 'the Wedding Crashers' however all we ask is that we are informed that the party is PRIVATE!
Now Harper has offered a photo-op to the two young women his party so mercifully humiliated as a means to make amends. This is just one more example of his disregard for the Canadian public. Regardless of your political affiliation simply ask yourself what harm would have come to the Conservative Party by welcoming the young women to the event?
This man frightens me. Yet for some reason he is our prime minister. Never before has Canada been ruled by a dictator. I feel like Winston Churchill. When are Canadians going to wake up and realize that he is a dangerous man. He has the characteristics of a dictator because he believes he knows what is best for Canadians. Moreover, he is conniving in his approach with his subtle attempts to undermine the political process: his failure to respect the democratic process, his contempt of parliament, his disregard for the parliamentary system and his non-secular views of political policy. It is time Canada to free ourselves while we can. Do not give this man a majority government. Do not re-elect him if you love this country.
Now Harper has offered a photo-op to the two young women his party so mercifully humiliated as a means to make amends. This is just one more example of his disregard for the Canadian public. Regardless of your political affiliation simply ask yourself what harm would have come to the Conservative Party by welcoming the young women to the event?
This man frightens me. Yet for some reason he is our prime minister. Never before has Canada been ruled by a dictator. I feel like Winston Churchill. When are Canadians going to wake up and realize that he is a dangerous man. He has the characteristics of a dictator because he believes he knows what is best for Canadians. Moreover, he is conniving in his approach with his subtle attempts to undermine the political process: his failure to respect the democratic process, his contempt of parliament, his disregard for the parliamentary system and his non-secular views of political policy. It is time Canada to free ourselves while we can. Do not give this man a majority government. Do not re-elect him if you love this country.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Why LIBERAL?
When the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance were building their parties they garnered support in the west based on a platform of accountability. At the time it was an easy task since the Parties were ideological in nature; it is easy to make bold statements when a Party has never been elected to represent the country. This is very much the story of the NDP. It is simple to sit at the back of the bus criticizing. So the two party joined forces and created the Conservative Party of Canada. Ironically, die-hard Progressive Conservatives seem to think that their party had been resurrected. I am certain that Defienbaker would roll over in his grave if he met the likes of Stephen Harper.
Here we are after 5 years with the Conservatives: we face the largest national debt in Canadian history. Our debt is $565 billion. We are paying $84 million a day in interest. There is nothing conservative about our burgeoning DEBT. If Canadians are wondering why wait-lists for surgeries are on the rise or why programs are being cut all they have to do is look at the debt. Just imagine what $84 million a day would generate? Funding is being cut because we are servicing our debt. Yet, the G-20 summit meeting cost $1 billion. What fool would support such excess and waste?
$84 million a day! What happens if interest rates rise marginally? What happens if they climb even one percent? The cost to service our debt will double immediately thereby further impacting our nation's viability. What happens when servicing the debt exceeds GDP? We've witnessed, first hand, what happened in Greece, Portugal and Spain yet for some reason we believe we are insulated from the same demise because we are a rich country.
How many times will we, as Canadians, allow this to happen?
The Conservatives, under the misguided direction of Brian Mulroney placed Canada in the same predicament. Our credit rating feel from Triple A. We were instructed to reduce our debt or else!
So how is it that Harper managed to destroy the hard work of the Liberal Party of Canada? The Conservative government inherited a $13 billion budget surplus in 2006 which was long gone before the economic downturn - the one Harper denied! Harper sabotaged the debt reduction program yet through it all he continues to talk about fiscal management. The Conservatives have balanced the budget once: 1913. So when will Canadians wake up?
The chance Canada has to be viable is with the Liberal Party of Canada.
We know that building prisons does not reduce crime. All we have to do is look to the United States to witness this first hand. What we need to do is invest in education to ensure that our youth have the opportunities necessary to excel. Education is the only way to be mobile. Where is the Canada I love? What has happened to our core values? Are we going to continue on this course of self-destruction or will we stand up for what is right? Will we stand up for Canada? This is a fight for Canada. Stephen Harper is dismantling this country piece by piece. It is time to take Canada back. Now! Today!
Here we are after 5 years with the Conservatives: we face the largest national debt in Canadian history. Our debt is $565 billion. We are paying $84 million a day in interest. There is nothing conservative about our burgeoning DEBT. If Canadians are wondering why wait-lists for surgeries are on the rise or why programs are being cut all they have to do is look at the debt. Just imagine what $84 million a day would generate? Funding is being cut because we are servicing our debt. Yet, the G-20 summit meeting cost $1 billion. What fool would support such excess and waste?
$84 million a day! What happens if interest rates rise marginally? What happens if they climb even one percent? The cost to service our debt will double immediately thereby further impacting our nation's viability. What happens when servicing the debt exceeds GDP? We've witnessed, first hand, what happened in Greece, Portugal and Spain yet for some reason we believe we are insulated from the same demise because we are a rich country.
How many times will we, as Canadians, allow this to happen?
The Conservatives, under the misguided direction of Brian Mulroney placed Canada in the same predicament. Our credit rating feel from Triple A. We were instructed to reduce our debt or else!
So how is it that Harper managed to destroy the hard work of the Liberal Party of Canada? The Conservative government inherited a $13 billion budget surplus in 2006 which was long gone before the economic downturn - the one Harper denied! Harper sabotaged the debt reduction program yet through it all he continues to talk about fiscal management. The Conservatives have balanced the budget once: 1913. So when will Canadians wake up?
The chance Canada has to be viable is with the Liberal Party of Canada.
We know that building prisons does not reduce crime. All we have to do is look to the United States to witness this first hand. What we need to do is invest in education to ensure that our youth have the opportunities necessary to excel. Education is the only way to be mobile. Where is the Canada I love? What has happened to our core values? Are we going to continue on this course of self-destruction or will we stand up for what is right? Will we stand up for Canada? This is a fight for Canada. Stephen Harper is dismantling this country piece by piece. It is time to take Canada back. Now! Today!
Stephen Harper - fired
If Stephen Harper was the Chief Executive Officer of any corporation he would be terminated based on his performance. As the PM, it is his job to be fiscally responsible. We live in a time whereby sustainability is the topic of conversation; balance is uttered incessantly: managing resources, allocation, distribution, conservation, accountability and responsibility yet our Prime Minister has failed miserably on all accounts! But for some reason he manages to maintain the support of the rural areas and in some of our urban areas. Why? There is clearly confusion regarding the word: conservative.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
I wonder if I am the only one who finds irony in today's newspaper
One article focuses on food packaging labels while the other is about "shrinking ice disrupting the Arctic ecosystem." Chances are the government will elect to concentrate on food labeling while the Arctic ice melts away. As the climate warms our ability to grow food will be impacted but yet we micromanage people on issues that are irrelevant. Citizens are not fools. We are capable of making our own decisions about what to eat and what not to eat. We are fortunate in this country, most of us, to have the luxury to decide. What we need from government is to focus on the bigger picture. We need effective environmental legislation and policy if we are going to successfully protect the environment. It is time the government had the courage to do what is right.
Monday, March 7, 2011
First of many.....
When I created this blog, actually this is not my first blog it is my 3rd blog but I forgot the password so I had to create another one not once but three times.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Carrie, Hannah & June
Clearly, I have mastered uploading photos of course after much frustration and criticism from my children ....
Friday, January 28, 2011
Liberal - JFK
If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad if that is what they mean by a "liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Bill Bryson, American writer living in England wrote "Notes from a Small Island'
What is striking to Bryson as he rambles about the island is how deep, how old and how varied the country is. "That is its glory, you see - that it manages at once to be intimate and small scale, and at the same time packed to bursting with incident and interest. I am constantly filled with admiration at this - at the way you can wander through a town like Oxford and in the space of a few hundred yards pass the home of Chrostopher Wren, the buildings where Hailey found his comet and Boyle his first law, the track where Roger Bannister ran the first sub-four-minute mile, the meadow where Lewis Carroll strolled; or how you can stand on Snow's HIll at Windsor and see, in a single sweep, Windsor Castle, the playing fields of Eton, the churchyard where Gray wrote his Elegy, the site where the Merry Wives of Windsor was first performed. Can there anywhere on earth be, in such a modest span, a landscape more packed with centuries of busy, productive attainment?"
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
JFK
"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."
Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961
Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961
Monday, January 17, 2011
It is time that the government
stopped dictating and began representing. Far too often we discover that new laws have been implemented without any direction from the citizens. Unfortunately, the only time it seems to be an issue is when the new law impacts the individual. Every time I turn around the government decides that as a body it deems itself supreme with regards to what is best for its citizens. Let the citizens decide! Go back to your office and deal with the bigger issues that plague the nation: democracy, poverty, health care, education, security and peace. Let the rest of us enjoy the luxury of deciding what we as individuals believe is best for us. Provide services and let it be!
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Dr. Adrian Rogers - You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for.... that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Where will it end?
"Health conscious standards proposed for new vendors in Vancouver." So here we go: as it is the Municipal Government of Vancouver has decided that it is not healthy to purchase or consume fish and chips or hot dogs from street vendors without a serving of fruit or vegetables. I find this to be rather pompous given the fact that strict guidelines have not been implemented to ensure that the homeless are adhering to their Master Plan. Moreover, what about the families who opt to buy a box of kraft dinner to feed their children rather than a bag of apples because it is all they can afford. Despite the issue of affordability life is about choices and the way it seems to be is that choice is being taken away from us in the name of consciousness. Who gave these elected officials the right to dictate and mandate what is best? This is not why they were elected? WE are NOT electing politicians to dictate what we should ingest? The decision to dictate, monitor and create policy is something for us, the citizens of this country to decide. How is it that a dozen individuals determine our fate? Andrea Remier sees nothing wrong with the city acting as "Big Mother"!
DEMOCRACY IS PARTICIPATION AND REPRESENTATION. IF THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT THEN LET THEM DECIDE!
I live in Burnaby and quite frankly Andrea I have an issue with the city acting as Big Mother. When you take on the role of mother you are opening yourself up to issues of accountability. Is that what you want because currently we are NOT equipped with the tools necessary to heal the world all we can do is look after ourselves in the best way we can; we provide care and nurturing to the best of our ability to our children and our family. In a perfect world hopefully we will be able to help others along the way but with legislation dictating to small businesses what they can or cannot sell is unconstitutional we fought for democracy and every time I turn around there is another rule that must be adhered which is apparently a rule to better my life. We don't need your guidance. Stick to issues that matters; try to resolve the issues that have plagued society from the beginning; try to unravel the mystery surrounding human nature and behaviour; cure the world of poverty and I am certain that you will be awarded the Pulitizer Prize. Do the job you are paid to do but leave individuals alone to make decisions in their lives because you see it is their life not yours: leave us alone. We don't need your high-principled dictatorship we are all capable of deciding for ourselves. Who are you to decide what is best. We all know that too much of anything isn't good for us but here is a little surprise for you: we are all going to die, guaranteed, but along the way we hope to find joy in the little things and sometimes their is immense joy in enjoying a hot dog or fish and chips but that does not imply that we don't eat fruit and vegetables at other times during the day. Even if all we ever do is consume what you deem to be unhealthy what is it to you? Does it matter to you if my arteries thicken with plague because when they do I have paid over $500,000 in the last decade in taxes which I believe should cover a visit to the doctor. Leave us alone. Look after yourself and your family by investing time in them; be kind to yourself and to others in interim remember to get off your high horse and realize that we are all capable of making choices we don't need you to advice us; I have a mother as do my children.
DEMOCRACY IS PARTICIPATION AND REPRESENTATION. IF THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT THEN LET THEM DECIDE!
I live in Burnaby and quite frankly Andrea I have an issue with the city acting as Big Mother. When you take on the role of mother you are opening yourself up to issues of accountability. Is that what you want because currently we are NOT equipped with the tools necessary to heal the world all we can do is look after ourselves in the best way we can; we provide care and nurturing to the best of our ability to our children and our family. In a perfect world hopefully we will be able to help others along the way but with legislation dictating to small businesses what they can or cannot sell is unconstitutional we fought for democracy and every time I turn around there is another rule that must be adhered which is apparently a rule to better my life. We don't need your guidance. Stick to issues that matters; try to resolve the issues that have plagued society from the beginning; try to unravel the mystery surrounding human nature and behaviour; cure the world of poverty and I am certain that you will be awarded the Pulitizer Prize. Do the job you are paid to do but leave individuals alone to make decisions in their lives because you see it is their life not yours: leave us alone. We don't need your high-principled dictatorship we are all capable of deciding for ourselves. Who are you to decide what is best. We all know that too much of anything isn't good for us but here is a little surprise for you: we are all going to die, guaranteed, but along the way we hope to find joy in the little things and sometimes their is immense joy in enjoying a hot dog or fish and chips but that does not imply that we don't eat fruit and vegetables at other times during the day. Even if all we ever do is consume what you deem to be unhealthy what is it to you? Does it matter to you if my arteries thicken with plague because when they do I have paid over $500,000 in the last decade in taxes which I believe should cover a visit to the doctor. Leave us alone. Look after yourself and your family by investing time in them; be kind to yourself and to others in interim remember to get off your high horse and realize that we are all capable of making choices we don't need you to advice us; I have a mother as do my children.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Micromanagement
Yesterday, I heard on the news: it is illegal to use a tanning booth for those under the age of 18 in Victoria, BC. I would have to explore this further but the fact that government would take the time to legislate an issue so insignificant in the bigger scheme of things is beyond my comprehension. How is it that the state has decided to micromanage individuals when we fail society on other levels. I am certain that a homeless child is not concerned whether they should be using a tanning bed when all they really want is a bed! It is matter such as these that lead me to have little, if any, faith in those that we have elected.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
CONTEMPLATION
Liberal
A simple definition: favouring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.
This is just the beginning of where I hope to go with this blog. It is my intention to expand the "Liberal" support in Canada. In the beginning there may be a few gaps in reason and logic as I explore this template but as this format evolves the goal is to present a forum for contemplation, conversation, criticism and change.
This is just the beginning of where I hope to go with this blog. It is my intention to expand the "Liberal" support in Canada. In the beginning there may be a few gaps in reason and logic as I explore this template but as this format evolves the goal is to present a forum for contemplation, conversation, criticism and change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)