Respect

I just had what ended as a very sad conversation with my daughter about respect.

I raised my kids to acknowledged people and to say thanks when someone does something kind to or for them. Apparently, I am out of line expecting adults to, at least, acknowledge when I do a kindness for them.

In the case of strangers or near strangers, I'm often baffled when they can't manage a "thanks," but in the case of my niece, I'm full on offended and saying so to my daughter, who is very, very close to my niece and always has been, caused my daughter to hang up on me.

I am amazed at - and happy about - the extent to which my daughter will go to to support and defend her cousin. It's confirmation that to a large extent, how I feel people should treat each other has sunk in with her.

What's sad, though, is that I'm not sure that same defence comes my way.

Earlier this year, my niece spent nearly 30 days essentially living in my house, eating my food, using our utilities. During that month, we travelled by car seven hours to visit my daughter. I asked for gas money and told my niece that food was her responsibility. She didn't ante up more than $25 for the entire week, gas, food lodgings.

Neither here nor there did she lift a finger. She didn't wash a dish; she didn't offer to buy food; she didn't - not once - say "Thanks Auntie, I know I've been here a lot."

I was annoyed to be sure but I let it go. I know this kid and I know she's not concious of how she's acting. Her parents have spoiled her bloody rotten - not her fault - so she's as close to incapable of realising that she's a sucker fish.

What sent me over was an incident about six weeks later, when we ran into her at the local grocery store. This kid has never ever suffered for money, thanks to parents are generous, very much to a fault and who've spoiled their kids. So when I discovered my neice going through my grocery cart, eating food that I needed at home and that I hadn't yet paid for, I was furious and insulted and disgusted. I wrote her an explained why I was so annoyed. She didn't bother to respond. I know she recieved that message - she discussed it with someone else - so I'm even more annoyed that she didn't acknowledge to me.

My daugther and I were talking about it this morning and she, rightfully so, suggested I let it go because, despite my being appaled at my neice's behaviour, there is nothing I can do to change it.

My question is at what point is someone old enough to acknowledge that despite their having a right to live their life as they wish, they will offend people and that they are, I think, responsble for at the very least acknowledging when they've pissed somone off. I also think adults don't take endlessly and that they don't take other people for granted.

That statement caused my daughter to hang up on me. I must say I'm angry and confused and I feel really, really trampled upon, not only by my neice, for whom I've utterly lost respect, but by my daughter who will so intensely defend her spoiled cousin but who would not rise to my defense.

Am I wrong to expect at the least an acknowledgement?

I think not.

FINALLY; The mainstream begins to question....

I just want to say how THRILLED I am that the mainstream is beginning to ask questions about 9/11.

Click to hear what an architect has to say:


I also want to say this:

There is NO way that three state-of-the art buildings - all constructed to withstand an endless raft of possible attacks, fires and other damage - all fall straight down into their own footprints on the same day due to a 'terrorist' attack. NO way.

There is no way that a man in a cave had access to Thermite of any kind.

Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.

A 757 CANNOT hit a building, leave only a 16 foot hole, utterly disintegrate but leave enough biological matter to identify passengers by their fingerprints. THAT could NOT have happened.

There was no plane and there were no bodies, seats, debris, suitcases or parts of any aircraft in the field at Shanksville. THAT event did NOT happen.

Many people have accused me of wearing a tinfoil hat (meaning I'm a weird conspiracist). Well, I'd rather wear tin foil than choose the blindness the US government has perpetrated on its people.

9/11 is the most significant false flag incident in the last 50 years. The other two were Tonkin and Pearl Harbour. Both of those incidents were designed to get the US voting public on board with wars - Vietnam and WWII. Both those false flag incidents were highly successful - assuming you're ok with killing millions of people for profit.

9/11 is no different.

BLINDERS OFF!

Why are Christians presumptive assholes?

I've been contributing to a great blog recently, via its comments section. It's in the archives, right there to your right... top item. The guy who writes the blog is brilliant and deliciously controversial.

Some of the commenters are also super fab to read, some because they've considered what they're saying and others because they're so out to friggin' lunch.

One guy's comments have me in a state. At first I thought it was funny that he was calling me a snake and assuming I am male, but then I thought about and realised that he's exactly the type of religious person that makes people like me go "Hell NO!"

So, for the record some details about me.

First, briefly, although most people - religious types particularly - call me an athiest, that is not the case. I don't use the term because in order to be an athiest, one has to allow for the existence of a floaty god thingie in order to then say "I don't believe in god."

For me, it isn't a question of not believeing in a floaty god thingie. THERE ISN'T a floaty god thingie. I don't know what the term for that is but, for me, it isn't 'atheist.'

Now, for the rest of it:

After I wrote a previous response to a commenter (after he called me a snake), I realised that this Todd feller represents exactly what I much dislike about religious types. Two characteristics in particular: assumption (yes, there’s an ‘ass’ in that) and arrogance.

So Todd – and everyone else who’s reading this one and Jim’s excellent blog (and my comments on it) here’s who I am.

Eldest daughter of a family comprising seven sisters, an adopted (Chinese) brother and a step brother (two blended families).

FIVE of my cousins – all first cousins – are currently active, working ministers. My grandfather, great-grandfather and great-uncle and the five greats behind him were all ministers – 8 generations and soon to be nine.

My mother, father and step dad were all sunday-school teachers and the men were deacons. My Uncle is the only seller of church hand bells IN MY COUNTRY.

One of my first cousins is the head of the largest church organization in my country (and no, I won’t say which to protect HIM). Two of my second cousins will be ministers shortly.

I grew up in a church – literally: my father turned the sod for the building and helped build it. I went to kindergarten there and my mother had a school in the building, which was directly across a little city street from my house. I sang in the adult choir from the time I was 13 and was baptised at that age.

The bible was the first book read to me and was a daily presence in our home. I can still read it, if I must, in English AND French.

So Tom, because you’ve presumed that I am an uneducated, uninformed neophyte, I just want you to know that your presumptive, assumptive, uninformed stripes are GLARING.

The main difference between the presumptive, assoholic religious type and me – and Jim – is that, despite what is utter hokum to us, we would defend the right of said people to believe what they will until such time as it infringes on us. I think it’s garbage but I appreciate the commitment people have to their faiths.

Now. Go read something other than your bloody bible. You MUST be able to defend all aspects of an argument in order to argue well. This Todd dude can’t. I can.

To quote my brilliant youngest child, “My mind is so blue right now, even I’m not allowed in.”

More on Swine Flu

The media has taken a highly alarmist approach to reporting of the swine flu issue. I personally know two people who've had swine flu. Both took a week off work, suffered through it - and no, it wasn't fun - and that was the end of it. And no, I am not ill.

Except in very few situations, washing one’s hands and keeping one’s hands out of one’s eyes, nose and mouth, is the best possible prevention for any communicable disease.

What the media is NOT reporting is the pre-existing conditions of those who've died. The adults who have died recently have NOT died from swine flu. They have died because they were previously compromised. It is only possible, not proven, that swine flu hastened their deaths or had anything at all to do with those deaths.

Newspapers and radio are also ignoring the fact that, where the story relates to babies and very young children, most parents take their children to hospital, often for very minor complaints, when those children are ill.

It should be no surprise to anyone that a parent would take a youngster to hospital when that child is quite ill nor that the hospital keep that babe. Such is prudence when it comes to youngsters. But that does not have any relation to swine flu.

The GLARING omission, one the media as utterly ignored, is Roche Laboratories, the company that produces Tamiflu, has a vested interest in swine flu. The media is not asking WHY there is a sudden occurrence of a "pandemic" following the company’s stockpiling of Tamiflu and their June 2008 press releases, available on the company website, of their planning for a possible pandemic. How would they know? Why would they plan?

Swine flu and the so-called pandemic are false-flag events designed by a large, predatory corporation to promote sales of a product, in this case Tamiflu, which stocks the company now wishes to dispose of. It bears noting too that these created pandemics provide a very wide scale public testing of this company’s product.

There is absolutely no reason - NONE - for panic or school closures or termination of herds of pigs. All that does is continue to incite false, media- and corporate-created panic over nothing that regular hand washing won’t prevent.

The truth is that more - many more - people will die from AIDS and starvation, many of them children, in the next HOUR than will die from this flu.

The other truth is that in far too many cases, the vaccine is far more dangerous than the illness. See this article from 1976: "

Swine Flu

In 1976, a national influenza campaign was designed to immunize nearly the entire United States population in fear of an influenza pandemic. However, the A/New Jersey/1976/H1N1 vaccine, also known as the "swine flu" vaccine, was found to be linked with the development of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and the program ended.

People consuming what passes for news must ask themselves what is NOT being reported and, more importantly, WHY those details are not being reported. The media has willingly, it seems, become very little more than a promotional vehicle for corporations with products to flog.

See http://buytamiflunow.co.uk/treatment-for-swine-flu-tamiflu/ for more.

Roche Pharmesceuticals implicated in Panic over Swine Flu

If you've been reading me for a while, you'll know that I am highly sceptical about how and why the media reports what and how they do. You'll also know that I detest everything to do with Big Pharma. That industry is highly suspect, predatory and founded on unethical business practices.

So, you will not be surprised to know that I went digging a bit about this Swine Flu "pandemic" and how it might have got itself into the news....

Roche Laboratories Inc issued two press releases in 2008, both regarding Tamiflu, their 'cure.'

09-23-2008	ROCHE ANNOUNCES TAMIFLU® ANTIVIRAL FLU MEDICATION IN AMPLE SUPPLY FOR 2008-2009 FLU SEASON
06-26-2008	ROCHE INTRODUCES PROGRAM TO FACILITATE CORPORATE PANDEMIC STOCKPILING OF TAMIFLU®

I hope you noticed, and that your heart jumped into your throat just then, the release of June 26th 2008.... "Program to facilitate corporate PANDEMIC stockpiling of Tamiflu..."

If you are naive enough to believe that the swine flu is anything approaching a pandemic and that there is no corporate interest behind the panic, stop it. Just stop.

The current world-wide economic 'crisis' has affected all business sectors. Any good business finds a way to increase its sales. Roche simply took advantage of a failing, desperate media, fielded a 'story' that would have the calculated benefit of increasing sales of a product that the company had stockpiled.

In the next HOUR, thousands and thousands will die from AIDS and starvation. In the next hour, internationally, one or two people may succumb to pre-existing conditions that MAY have been agrivated by the flu.

This is NOT a pandemic. This is a sales tactic for Roche.

It simply makes me furious the way that 80% of the western world sticks its barely educated head into the sand, does no reasearch (which the internet is very good for) and believes anything the media serves up as news. What an absolute abdication.

Open Mindedness....

Sadly lacking in the religious quarters of my family... but then so is the logical mind required to comprehend this great little animated short.

Many thanks to James Gardiner, who's blog is listed on the right here (please go visit).

Open-mindedness
by totocacapouet

Thanks for watching.

Conservative Party of Canada; Self- Attack?

An open letter to a Leader who obviously worships the failed McCain campaign and its tactics.

Mr. Harper:

These recent attack ads, and those planned, are regressive and damaging - to the Conservative Party.

During the recent US election, the McCain team made extensive use of such ads, very much to their detriment.

The issues upon which the attack ads have been based are inconsequential, particularly the idea that one's accent in French has anything to do with their ability to communicate well.

And a note on that point: Mr. Harper, your accent is decidedly English. Decidedly. Further, your continued missteps related to Quebec, her people and culture mark you as uninformed. I cannot imagine why you would allow yourself to become such an easy target...

As it relates to Mr. Ignatieff being out of Canada for 30 years, I would suggest, sir, that he has never divested himself of his Canadian-ness, his citizenship or his love for his home country.

Further, he has never misrepresented himself - as you have done: your assertions, and those of your party, that you are 'from the west,' or 'the first western PM,' are frank misinterpretations: four years at university does NOT qualify you as having come from the west. You are a born and bread Ontarian. It is offencive for you to claim otherwise.

Again, to bring up Mr. Ignatieff's 'faults' does little to hurt him but causes YOU extensive damage.

Mr. Ignatieff is an educated, considered, worldly leader. Whatever one's politics may be, one cannot deny that he is a highly skilled speaker and has an excellent grasp of international politics. His commitment to this country cannot be underestimated, nor will it be damaged by childlike arm-flinging and foot-stomping of the attack ad type.

Mr. Harper, your repeated mistakes, dishonesty and now your party's ridiculous expenditures on misleading, libellous advertising is a slap in the face to Canadians.

Such tactics apply only to the politically naive: is that the constituency you wish to attract? Those who do not read? Those who are not issues-oriented? Armchair politicos?

I am a writer and political analyst - from the west - and I am representative of many voters here who are shocked that The Conservative Party of Canada would even consider resorting to McCain-esque tactics. You cannot have such a short memory....

I guarantee you, these tactics will fail and they will further damage your credibility as a leader and the credibility of your party's ability to lead this country.

Canadians have recently watched the events in the US, where an educated, charismatic, excellent leader warded off infantile, poorly considered political tactics through measured responses. We want an equally competent leader. The leader who LEADS, not a leader who acts like an ineffectual school-yard bully.

These ads remind Canadians too much of Senator McCain and cast you as absolutely NOT the leader Canadians want.

Terror Storm

I just want you all to watch this with an open mind.

Please.

Terror Storm. Yes, I know the guy has a rep. But does discrediting the person mean the message isn't true???

After you're done that, watch Zeitgeist. Please. C'mon. Open mind.

Thanks.

I'm sorry if you can't sleep after.

Anarchy might help.

RULES of the ROAD and other stuff

Because I work from home, I don't drive every day, which leaves me immensely frustrated when I do drive by how many people don't know the basic rules of the road.

Also because I work at home, I am concerned daily with my own manners and grammar; on the occasions I am out and dealing with the public, I am appalled by how many people can't manage "Please," and "Thank You" and by the public's general lack of social skills...

So, although not everyone reads my excellent blog, will those of you who do PLEASE pass on these simple tips? If you will, you will have done north American humans a great service.

Driving:
If you're going to drive, you need to know how to do three things: how to use your car's signal; how to turn right and left; how to read road signs.

Your car's signal stick is right there beside your pinkie finger. You barely need to stretch your hand to reach it. It is highly useful for letting drivers behind you know what the heck it is you're planning to do next. You are not above the law. I don't care who you are, you are not above the law. Use your signal.

If you're going to turn, you must signal 50 feet from your turn. On a residential road, that's about the distance from the alleyway to the road. If you really have no clue how far 50 feet is, get your butt out onto the sidewalk and take about 16 or so decent sized steps, turn around and see how far you've come. That's about 50 feet because most people's strides are about 3 feet give or take.

Signalling 50 feet prior to your turn allows the other (bad) drivers behind you time to get their shit together so they don't hit you. If you don't signal or you signal at the last minute, despite it being the other driver's fault, you deserve to be hit and have whiplash as a reminder of why 50 feet is a good signalling distance.

If you figure the rules don't apply to you and you don't use your signal and people honk at you, you do NOT get to give them the finger. You are the idiot in that scenario so don't bother proving it by flipping the bird, ok?

Turning:
In north America, where we drive on the right, when you turn right, you turn into the right-most lane. There are NO exceptions. You do NOT get to hold up traffic behind you whilst you wait for a hole that lets you cross three lanes at a time.

You may NOT turn into the left lane (the median or centre lane) when you're turning right. when there are two lanes - as in, you're on a four lane street (two lanes for each direction), the left side lane is RESERVED for those who are turning left. You'll know who they are because they will be across from you scowling at you so you don't turn into their lane, make them wait and probably miss their green light.

When you're turning left, you MUST turn into the left-most lane - the one closest to the centre line or the median, as the right lane (the curb-side lane) is reserved for drivers turning right... GET IT?

This is not rocket science but it is the law, despite that not many cops will bother pulling you up for this transgression...

In many Canadian provinces (I have no clue about the US), one can turn right on a red light. HOWEVER, one must STOP at said red light, make sure the turn is safe and then proceed. You may not glance to your left, spy a hole in traffic and run the red. That's illegal and dangerous and guess what? If you're hit (which, again, you would deserve) you're going to take it right on your driver's side door.

Ok. traffic signs;
YIELD means you must stop and wait to merge into traffic.

MERGE means get your ass up to speed and merge. Do NOT stop and do NOT slow down. You are supposed to MERGE to the speed of traffic and join in. If you stop in a merge lane, you suck. IF you impede other drivers from merging correctly, you also suck. In a merge situation, both drivers have equal rights. It's as if they are already sharing a lane.

ADDED LANE means that you're turning right into the right-most lane and that you do not have to stop or slow down or change lanes. This isn't a merge or a yield. You have you own lane so get with it!

Basic walking skills:
Ok. Seriously.

WALK TO THE RIGHT. Always. In malls, on the sidewalk, when you're shopping. Stay to the right. YOUR right.

Do NOT walk in front of people when you can easily walk behind them. IF you MUST - and you hardly ever have to - walk in front of someone, SAY EXCUSE ME! For shit's sake don't treat people like they're invisible.

DO NOT squeeze yourself between the racks or shelves and someone who is looking at whatever is on those racks or shelves! Seriously. Walk behind the person.

Today, as I was carrying three bags of groceries, this lady with an empty cart tried to squeeze herself between me and the racks of planters. She had no clue that she should be to my left so waited for me to get out of her way - right into a huge empty space that she could have - and should have, had she had any manners - stepped into.

This goes for escalators too. STAY to the right! If you're not moving, stay on the right so people who walk up escalators can do that!

Finally, when you speak, NEVER say "I seen." You did not, you never have and you never will "seen" anything. You either say "I saw," or "I've seen." There is no such thing as "I seen" unless you are the hickest of all hicks. Stop it.

Apostrophes.
If it has an apostrophe, it's either a possessive (meaning something belongs to it) or a contraction - i.e. It's - contraction for "it is," or "it's" meaning something belongs to "it." It's feet or it's hands for instance.

If it has an S but no apostrophe, that means plural - more than one. I.e. "I have two pairs of shoes." "Those are my shoe's laces" means one of your shoes (a single shoe) has laces. If you mean that both of your shoes have laces you say "Those are my shoes' laces," which is the correct placement for a possessive when you're already talking about a plural.

You cannot say anything like "There were 50 mother's in the room," because that begs the question "Mother's what???" If you put an apostrophe in there, it means all those mothers (see? Plural) own something. If you really mean there were 50 mothers in the room, there'll be no apostrophe thanks!

Lastly:
Their - belongs to them
There - over there
They're - They are

Your - something that belongs to you, as in "It's your shirt)
You're - you are (if you read all of this you are going to be a much better behaved person)

There "IS" one of them
There "ARE" four (or any multiple) of then

There IS a bunch; there IS a ton. ( a bunch and a ton are both one thing - singular, therefore 'is').
There are thousands
My family "IS" large; My family "IS" coming over. A family is also an entity made up of family members.
My family MEMBERS ARE coming over. My sisters are coming over.

The Band IS; the company IS (both a band and a company are entities - one item)
The Government IS.
The band MEMBERS ARE
The company WORKERS are
Members of Parliament are but THE (which also denotes one thing) Government (one entity) IS.

And if you're going to say something like "What we're talking about are dogs," please don't because that is horrific misplacement. WHAT we're talking about IS dogs" because you're referring to the 'what,' not the 'dogs.'

Speak well and prosper.

Yes, I am Ranty McRanterson. These are the rules. Follow them.

I don't care how small it is, you're an ass if you steal it.

Yesterday, my nephew (newly arrived here from the UK to work for a year) and I hit the local grocery giant to stock up lunches. Whilst there, we happened on my niece.

Forgive me while I deviate for a second to some background: my nephew from the UK and my niece from here are not related at all. When my nephew came over at the winter holiday, he and she took quite a shine to each other. He was back for almost six weeks in late January and all of February and they spent nearly every day together.

That was all fine. What was NOT fine was that she eats constantly. She's super fit and she runs 10 - 15K a day, so she has an appetite. She spent nearly 30 days at my house and ate constantly. She not once offered to purchase her own goodies or replace anything she took. Yes, we asked, and yes, my nephew, who was essentially on vacation but also looking for work, footed her bill.

What is also NOT fine is that she takes whatever she wants, when she wants it from whomever has it and she never replaces anything she takes nor does she even offer replace and she doesn't ante up even when asked several times.

This came to a huge head when we went on a week-long trip including a seven-hour drive there and back (gas): she offered $20 for the entire week for food, gas and lodgings. So yeah, she is spoiled as all hell. And for the record, no she does not have bulimia. She trains hard and is legitimately hungry and needs to eat. But she has the means to pay her own way....

So spoiled is she that she gave my lovely nephew much reason to believe that she was quite in love with him and that she'd would not only wait for him but that they'd be a couple when he came back - only 8 weeks passed; he had to go back to the UK to get his work permits in order.

Six weeks later, she was already dating another guy - a wealthy guy with a house and a fancy car and money... she does not like to pay her way and sees no reason to do so, nor does she like to be without a boyfriend so this guy fills both bills. She also has a really bad habit of looking down on people who don't have THINGS.

So speed forward to yesterday in the shop, when we come upon said niece quite unexpectedly. My nephew has been trying to reach her since he arrived last weekend but she has not troubled herself to reply to phone calls, texts or an email.... suffice to say she was quite off-kilter running into us out of the blue like that... Karma...

After saying hello, I moved off to grab the rest of our shopping and to give them talking room. Five minutes later, I turn the corner into the cereal aisle to find my niece eating the food out of my cart.... the food I had not yet even paid for.

I know many - too many - people don't consider consuming a few un-paid-for grapes here, a banana there or a handful of nuts to be theft, but consider this: in a busy store like the one we were shopping at yesterday, it's reasonable to assume that of the 3000 or so bodies that come there every day, a good portion don't believe themselves to be thieving when they're munching away on un-purchased items.

So those 5 or 10 grapes per person becomes 40lbs a day; and that one banana becomes 40 bananas; and that handful of nuts becomes 12lbs of nuts. Figure that over 10 stores in the city and now you're talking quite a bit of merchandise being stolen.

Stores have a accounting item called shrinkage. Department stores figure 17 - 20% for shrinkage and I believe grocery stores figure something higher than that. It is remarkable too that most of this theft is occurring at the hands of ADULTS.

Guess who's paying for that shrinkage! ME. Me and every one else who knows theft is theft, even if it's only 5 grapes.

What really pisses me off about all this is the reality that my niece - who is my sibling's daughter and who is, by extension, my flesh and blood, has no honour. It seems she has that little self respect -and respect for others - that she would steal from me and from the store I was purchasing groceries at.

Suffice to say I have lost respect but worse, I am appalled to know that my sibling's child feels she is above the law and more special than the 'rabble.' It's sad and I makes me question my sibling too....

My niece comes from a well enough off family. She has never wanted and she will never want. She doesn't usually pay for her clothing or her food or her education but she works - four months at a time if she must - so she must occasionally have money of her own - and she certainly has access to other people's money. Why she would steal is beyond me.

I took the opportunity to email my niece about the incident (and also make my opinion on subject of theft known to my own children).I'm sure she'll take huge offence at being caught and called out and I'm pretty sure I'm going to hear from my sibling - and yes, I will ask said sibling why it's ok to steal small things....

As it relates to you dear reader, the problem isn't the item stolen, necessarily; it is the respect one has for one's self. Theft is theft is theft, no matter how large or small the item stolen is. If a person takes what is not rightfully theirs, the acquisition comes at the absolute sacrifice of one's personal honour.