Ok, so Jase and I went to Winners today. Winners is one of those places where you can find fab stuff, but you have to have the time and the inclination to do it. Believe me, the rude, rude people who shop there (I think they're the same people who clog up the aisles at Costco and Safeway) drive me nuts and they really wreck the experience for everyone else. OK. They wreck it for me. I have manners. I pay attention to who is around me.
I wish I could get this blog into the rude people's actual hands 'cause I'm pretty sure most of them are just oblivious -- which does NOT excuse them. I am constantly amazed at how clued out so many people are!
First of all, the aisles are very narrow. You can't set your cart in the middle of the aisle. It isn't allowed because you're NOT alone in the store. This goes for Costco too! If you set your cart across the aisle, how are other people supposed to shop?? Set it off to the side! Have a brain!
Additionally, you can't take more than (used to be six) - ten items into the Winners dressing room, so you don't actually need the cart.
And the shoes! When these women try on shoes, why they don't put them back on the rack when they're done. They leave them, not only on the floor, but in the middle of the aisle! What is up with that? Do they think their mother works there and will pick up after them? I bet these are the same Stepford Wives who go home and scream at their kids for not picking up toys. Sheesh.
Why do people walk down the middle of a large aisle and then just stop. Right there. Blocks everyone else. In England, I think because there actually is signage in the Underground with "Stand to the Right" on it, people naturally walk to the right as well. It really helps with traffic flow. Why can't Canadians do that?
And why don't people know that it is highly rude to walk in front of someone!? Why don't people know that? Imagine this: you're standing 18 inches away from a rack of whatever and some idiot decides they must walk in front of you! Don't they notice? I REALLY don't get it! Walk behind. If that is not possible, say "Excuse me please," before you walk by. Otherwise you look like an OX.
Back to the carts: why do women (and some men) bring tired, grumpy kids/babies shopping? Seriously, shopping is next to solitary confinement for children. It is NOT fun for them, mostly because these same stepford wives who don't put things back or hang up things they drop, won't let their children touch a thing. Seriously, a two or three year old is not going to enjoy sitting in a cart for an hour; not only is the metal very uncomfortable to sit on, they're bored! Yelling at them doesn't help. They still don't like it and those mothers look like idiots. Get a sitter for an hour!
And don't let your kid chew on some package. People don't wash their hands much, so not only are you letting your kid gum something up, you're also letting them eat other people's fecal matter and residual urine. Nice hey? Like I said, get a sitter.
And add to that, for some reason, these people bring their kids out when the kids haven't had a nap or lunch. Kids need sleep and food. If you're shopping any time between 11:00 and 1:30 or around 4:30 in the afternoon, I guarantee you your kid will be screaming in about 15 minutes.
The other extreme is those weirdos who let their kids run wild in the store. First of all, they're little; people aren't on their guard for them and they're going to be hurt for sure. Kids need to be under control for their safety and everyone else's.
Secondly, it doesn't demonstrate these people's good parenting skills that they'd ignore their children when there are so many strangers about. It is possible, even in a nice place like
Winners, that someone in that group of shoppers is not shopping just for clothing!
It escapes me too why these frigging desperate housewives don't consider for one second that the screaming child they are ignoring is annoying the hell out of everyone else in the store. If your kid is screaming, tired and hungry, go HOME! Man, some people are so selfish! On-line shopping is made for these people....
A temper tantrum means you take your kid out of the store RIGHT NOW. Whatever you're buying will be there in 20 minutes. Don't let your kid get away with that crap and don't think nobody minds. Everybody minds. A LOT! Pick your kid up and leave. This is the ONLY instance when leaving a cart wherever is allowed. A screaming kid is far worse than a wayward cart in this case.
Besides, when people tolerate that crap from their kids, the kids are learning that if they yell and scream long enough, they'll get their way. Believe me, that is not a great habit to get into; it is really hard to break when it is your 15 year old having a tantrum when you set a curfew.
Here's a question: when a shopping stepford wife knocks something off a hanger, why doesn't she pick it up again? Like, does she wanna buy something that some other automaton dropped and left to collect store dirt? Not probably.
Lastly, perfume. STOP IT!!! Good grief. If you stink, take a shower. What is up with people. And why is it the more tackily dressed/over hair-coloured/whiskey-voiced/Tammy-Fay wannabes always wear too much perfume!? Believe me, we see you coming - right out of the 70s! Zellers is next door baby.
Here's how mannered people do perfume: they spray it into the air and walk through it. Really. Do NOT stand there spraying your whole body with scent -- because too much is not scent, it is STINK, and a very effective way to have everyone who gets within six feet of you calling you an idiot under their breath. Oh, and by the way, most men hate perfume, except for when it is barely noticeable. Less is more.
In my dreams, I get to hold shopping etiquette classes where I actually get to say all this stuff to a group of rapt stepford wives (yes, I know that's an oxymoron). I think, however, I will end up just spilling someday out of simple frustration. Man, I better not find out where they keep the PA in Winners. I might just have to use it!
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Emillie the Dancer
Emillie:
So, my two other girls were highly miffed that I hadn't posted any photos of their stuff/accomplishments along with those of Alex's, and, as I promised to do so, I shall, starting with Miss Emillie, as we call her.
Em is the third of three daughters. She had a hard start -- the other two were pretty rough on her. Once, while they were all in the bath playing, the other two, being 2 and 5 and short on attention like most kids that age, decided to 'put the baby down,' meaning they decided they weren’t holding her anymore and just sort of dropped her into the water. They also used to like to draw on her with permanent markers and use her for their Fisher Price™ inspired medical tests.
However, about a year later, Emillie joined Scoil Ard Na Griene, which is the longest-established Irish dance school in
Joining the dance school was really serendipitous for Emillie. She'd had a rough go in elementary due to her being so talkative and social (read: not the type to put her head down, do rote work and never question authority. It isn't in her nature).
Em ultimately began competing with Ard Na Griene and has advanced quite quickly. There are a bunch of levels to go through: beginner, advanced beginner, novice, prize winner, preliminaries and open. She has a competition over the Thanksgiving weekend which will probably see her advance into preliminaries, which will also allow her to go to
Last April, Jason, I, Alex and Emillie went for a combined holiday/competition tour to
Friday, September 30, 2005
Closed, Stuffy Spaces
Seen on the billboard of a Calgary Church:
"Truth turns sealed caves into tunnels"
Call me a cynic -- or claustrophobe -- but that does't make for much of an advert, really. Either way, you're stuck crawling about in a closed, stuffy space, probably not finding the way out and possibly being stuck going round and round for ever.
Tunnels are dark, damp and usually have multiple false corridors leading off to no place.
If anything, this quote hightlights the one possible true thing: there is no such thing as absolute truth. All truth has shading, false entrys and exits, paths leading to nowhere and often, many frustrating dead ends.
Probably not a great quote to use related to religion.
"Truth turns sealed caves into tunnels"
Call me a cynic -- or claustrophobe -- but that does't make for much of an advert, really. Either way, you're stuck crawling about in a closed, stuffy space, probably not finding the way out and possibly being stuck going round and round for ever.
Tunnels are dark, damp and usually have multiple false corridors leading off to no place.
If anything, this quote hightlights the one possible true thing: there is no such thing as absolute truth. All truth has shading, false entrys and exits, paths leading to nowhere and often, many frustrating dead ends.
Probably not a great quote to use related to religion.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Poverty, Canadian Style
So I was reading the Calgary Herald yesterday morning and came across a great editorial on poverty in Canada. As I am always fascinated by what people in this country do to become less economically endowed, I was very pleased to see a breakdown of sorts in this editorial.
Calgary Herald Editorial (note: this link is active until October 2nd only)
Here's a bit of a synopsis:
“A recent press release from Vibrant Communities Calgary, a wing of the national poverty- reduction body of the same name, asserts nearly one Calgarian in four is living in poverty, despite being employed. The group based its conclusion on an analysis of Calgary's low earners as reported by Statistics Canada.”
“StatsCan's figures reveal 112,000 Calgarians in 2004 earned less than $10 per hour, out of a total of 497,900 persons over the age of 15 years holding jobs. However, “it doesn't necessarily follow they live in poverty.”
What that report doesn’t say is how many of those people are still living at home; have another full time job; are retired and have a part-time job to stay busy, have a partner who supports them; have investment income and have a part time job doing something fun.
Sadly, although there are myriad reasons a person ends up with poor earning power, in an alarming number of cases, people end up with low incomes for reasons that could be avoided. Dropping out of school – particularly high school – is not a good plan. No matter what, it is a career- and life-limiting move.
According to an article published in 2002 in a British business magazine, fully 80% of the world’s millionaires don’t have a university degree. What they have is moxie and drive combined with having finished high school and usually a couple years’ college, trade school or university.
Of the many other avoidable things that negatively impact a person’s disposable cash and future finances, smoking is a biggie: one pack per day equals about $3470 annually, not to mention the added cost of throat lozenges, cold medicine, and stop-smoking treatments. Smoking kills a lot of things; a person’s drive, their brain cells, their lung capacity and their heart function. Ultimately, smoking often kills the smoker, who often has inadequate or no life insurance. Smoking doesn’t contribute to being ‘on’ at work either: addictions tend to borrow a lot of brain time. Bad all round.
Drinking too much: one bottle of wine per day: $10 or so; that equals nearly $4000 annually. Ok, perhaps most people don’t have a bottle a day, and I have no idea what the cost of gin/vodka/beer is. It seems, however, and this is just my observation, that those who have less than they need are sometimes more likely to spend on non-essentials. Yes a person should be able to have some pleasures in life, and yes, many low income earners are completely responsible with their money, but dollars spent on ciggies and/or booze would go a lot further towards increasing income were they spent on education or an RSP.
Another money pit pursuit is gambling and bingo in particular. As an occasional and very reluctant volunteer (due to the smoking), I am appalled by the waste of money that happens in bingo halls. I paid attention at one event to the average sale: $37. Add to that food bought at the hall, ciggies consumed there (1/2 a pack for many participants) and the gas to get there and home. Bingo is NOT a cheap sport. Some people were spending upwards of $70 a night – and coming there three times a week! Even at $70 once a week over a year, that’s over $3300 annually. Now combine that with the cost of smoking and the annual cost of a university degree and books is landing in the huge garbage bins at the bingo halls.
At an event one night a co-volunteer overheard a bingo player saying “I sure hope the food bank is still open when we’re done.” Seriously folks, if you’re relying on the food bank to feed your kids and yourself, you don’t have money for bingo and smokes.
For the record, I don’t care if people smoke and/or drink/play bingo. I care that people smoke, drink and play bingo and bitch about how little money they have or how they can’t afford a better car or an education or to put their kid into a sport. “I claim bullshit,” to quote another friend.
Anyway, taking all this stuff as relative, if you compare the poverty cutoff amount in Canada ($20,337) to the average annual wage in Dominican or Haiti (about $1200 in a good year), it kinda makes a person reconsider what poverty is exactly, in a rich country. Poverty is when you simply don’t have enough to live on. I think if a person has money to live on, but chooses to spend it on non-essentials like smoking, drinking, gambling, tattoos, I dunno – whatever -- rather than shelter, food and clothing, then they’re not necessarily poverty-stricken; they’re just not responsible.
If you want to know about real poverty, go here: HAITI ARISE
Calgary Herald Editorial (note: this link is active until October 2nd only)
Here's a bit of a synopsis:
“A recent press release from Vibrant Communities Calgary, a wing of the national poverty- reduction body of the same name, asserts nearly one Calgarian in four is living in poverty, despite being employed. The group based its conclusion on an analysis of Calgary's low earners as reported by Statistics Canada.”
“StatsCan's figures reveal 112,000 Calgarians in 2004 earned less than $10 per hour, out of a total of 497,900 persons over the age of 15 years holding jobs. However, “it doesn't necessarily follow they live in poverty.”
What that report doesn’t say is how many of those people are still living at home; have another full time job; are retired and have a part-time job to stay busy, have a partner who supports them; have investment income and have a part time job doing something fun.
Sadly, although there are myriad reasons a person ends up with poor earning power, in an alarming number of cases, people end up with low incomes for reasons that could be avoided. Dropping out of school – particularly high school – is not a good plan. No matter what, it is a career- and life-limiting move.
According to an article published in 2002 in a British business magazine, fully 80% of the world’s millionaires don’t have a university degree. What they have is moxie and drive combined with having finished high school and usually a couple years’ college, trade school or university.
Of the many other avoidable things that negatively impact a person’s disposable cash and future finances, smoking is a biggie: one pack per day equals about $3470 annually, not to mention the added cost of throat lozenges, cold medicine, and stop-smoking treatments. Smoking kills a lot of things; a person’s drive, their brain cells, their lung capacity and their heart function. Ultimately, smoking often kills the smoker, who often has inadequate or no life insurance. Smoking doesn’t contribute to being ‘on’ at work either: addictions tend to borrow a lot of brain time. Bad all round.
Drinking too much: one bottle of wine per day: $10 or so; that equals nearly $4000 annually. Ok, perhaps most people don’t have a bottle a day, and I have no idea what the cost of gin/vodka/beer is. It seems, however, and this is just my observation, that those who have less than they need are sometimes more likely to spend on non-essentials. Yes a person should be able to have some pleasures in life, and yes, many low income earners are completely responsible with their money, but dollars spent on ciggies and/or booze would go a lot further towards increasing income were they spent on education or an RSP.
Another money pit pursuit is gambling and bingo in particular. As an occasional and very reluctant volunteer (due to the smoking), I am appalled by the waste of money that happens in bingo halls. I paid attention at one event to the average sale: $37. Add to that food bought at the hall, ciggies consumed there (1/2 a pack for many participants) and the gas to get there and home. Bingo is NOT a cheap sport. Some people were spending upwards of $70 a night – and coming there three times a week! Even at $70 once a week over a year, that’s over $3300 annually. Now combine that with the cost of smoking and the annual cost of a university degree and books is landing in the huge garbage bins at the bingo halls.
At an event one night a co-volunteer overheard a bingo player saying “I sure hope the food bank is still open when we’re done.” Seriously folks, if you’re relying on the food bank to feed your kids and yourself, you don’t have money for bingo and smokes.
For the record, I don’t care if people smoke and/or drink/play bingo. I care that people smoke, drink and play bingo and bitch about how little money they have or how they can’t afford a better car or an education or to put their kid into a sport. “I claim bullshit,” to quote another friend.
Anyway, taking all this stuff as relative, if you compare the poverty cutoff amount in Canada ($20,337) to the average annual wage in Dominican or Haiti (about $1200 in a good year), it kinda makes a person reconsider what poverty is exactly, in a rich country. Poverty is when you simply don’t have enough to live on. I think if a person has money to live on, but chooses to spend it on non-essentials like smoking, drinking, gambling, tattoos, I dunno – whatever -- rather than shelter, food and clothing, then they’re not necessarily poverty-stricken; they’re just not responsible.
If you want to know about real poverty, go here: HAITI ARISE
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Alex's Stuff
Just wanted to add a short plug for my daughter, Alex, who is a damn fine artist.The tatoos in these photos were done for - and on - our friend, Zac. They're done in henna, otherwise known, for this process anyway, as mendhi.
Alex has some art training. As part of Calgary's public school system, she's been exposed since kindergarten. She was very
fortunate to have Mr. J at Elboya Junior High as her teacher for grades 7 - 9.In 10th grade, Alex made a name for herself when she challenged the 'art teacher' at her new high school. A project was assigned to the class, but that project had very specific parameters. Alex contested that the parameters made the project an excersise in doing as told as opposed to a project that invited interpretation.
She did what she wanted to do with the project, convinced the instructor and changed his ideas about what art is in the sense of interpretation of ideas.
In 11th and 12th grades, Alex was again very fortunate to have Miss Rideout as her instructor. Alex's talent really began emerging in 10th grade but in the next two years, she has created several works that show the beginnings of a bonafide talent across mediums.
I'll have more stuff on here about Alex soon. Alex is in England at the moment. She's with Andrea, and will be joined next week by her cousin, Esti. In November, Hanna, the last quarter of the quartet will join them right before they head off to the continent and other places.
Their website is in the links to the right of this post.
Man, life can be busy!
This post is all about stuff that bugs me - stuff perpetrated by stupid (or uninformed, to be kind) humans.
Here's what's bugging me this week:
The sponsorship scandal in Canada and particularly the so-called sentences handed down to rich white guys. Probably enough said. What the hell was that anyway?
Wanna Laugh? At an event in Calgary last night, some guy (a politician) said that white, male Christians were a persecuted minority! Not sure where he thinks he's from -- because he's from Calgary, which is located in the bible belt of Alberta - a bastion to white, male, Christians.
He also said that Christians were under attack. So they should be. See George Bush for reference. And on that note, doesn't Mr. Bush (no I can't spell, read or speak, but who cares? I'm the President!) realise that The Christian Right movement and all those movements affiliated or attached to it are just as radical and dangerous as the Taliban? Actually, they're far more dangerous because they're run by white guys with money. See the sponsorship scandal for refernce. Also look up "teflon."
Mr. Klien's bonus money scheme in Alberta: are people dumb??? There is so much money in this province at the moment. Some of this money - about 1/3 of it - has been designated for infrastructrue projects; some has been designated to heritage stuff; some is going to Albertains. People are variously bitching and moaning about how this money should be going to charity and how the scheme is a vote-getting project.
First of all, those who feel that the money should go to charity projects should just bloody send their cheques to the charity of their choice. They're not being told how to spend their money. I think they're really bugged by two things: the "I should" part of the equation, where they supposedly should donate to the less fortunate; and the "But I want" part, where they really want to go spend their money on something completely selfish.
Secondly, Mr. Klien is retiring. He's been talking about it for ages, and he will do it. Mr. Dinning isn't giving the money away, nor is he campaigning yet (not overtly anyway) so no, this scheme has nothing to do with vote-getting. HELLO? McFly!
Incidentally, in a province where in the cities at least, almost every business is begging for staff, I think some of those receiving charity could get themselves a job and help themselves. Fort McMurry is full of jobs and no, one isn't requried to be a Newfoundlander to work there.
Too much charity makes for lazy people. Don't get on me about this. We live in a wealthy country. What we call poverty here is untold riches for most of the rest of the world. A good annual salary in Haiti for most people - about 70% of people -- is $1200. A YEAR.
And for those of you who think you're fooling anyone by standing in the middle of the road with your cardboard sign "Please help. Stranded. Need to get home. Anything helps."
GET A JOB. Oh wait! You already have one if those brand new, comfy NIKEs are any indication. And that is a remarkably warm looking Mountain Equipment Coop jacket you're wearing....
What else? How 'bout this ever recurring issue - false issue - of race!
There is no such thing as race. There are some 35 genetic markers shared by humans. None of those markers is specific to any particular group and none are specific to any skin colour, bone formation or geographical location. In short, these markers are proof that we all originated from pretty much one common ancestor, regardless of the skin we now wear, the language we now speak or the place we now live in.
Race, as the term is used and has been used for centuries, is a political construct used variously to separate people, subjugate people and to achieve special attention through programs, funding, affirmative action initiatives, etc.
This is not to say that problems associated with term race are insignificant or non-existant. It is to say, however, that perpetuation of belief that there is actually any such thing as race serves to segregate people and concentrate political power.
Steven J. Gould, in his book "Dinosaur in a Haystack," eloquently and correctly disproves the existance of 'race.' I hope you all read that book. In fact, read all of his books. He passed away about three years ago and the science world lost an uncelebrated sage. Gould was a lecturer, writer, professor, curator of the Museum of Natural History at Harvard and a damn smart guy.
http://www.hmnh.harvard.edu/ for more on the museum.
What else bugs me?
Language and the poor use of it - English in particular, as I live in a predominantly English-speaking city.
This could go long, so I'll just touch on a few things.
The words "get" or "got" are nearly always improperly used. Get and Got are like receive and received. So, for example, one can get a cold, because a cold is something you acquire, but one cannot 'get' sick: one becomes sick.
Similarly, one cannot 'get' rich; one becomes rich because they get (receive or acquire) a lot of money. Get it?
The word "hopefully." This is an adjective and should be used to describe something else, as in "He/she proceeded hopefully." The word isn't a verb, although most people use it as such. I really wish you would all stop!
"I seen." PLEASE people! This is simply bad, bad, bad. It is hick language, totally wrong and should provide the user with a dunce cap. Correctly, "I saw," as in "I saw that film last year." or "I saw it first," or "I saw it yesterday." Also correctly, "I've seen"(or I have seen, as I've is the contraction for 'I have'), as in "Yes, I've seen it," or "I've seen it happen."
Do NOT say "I seen." It is wrong and ugly. Period.
"Her and I" / "She and I"
She and I are going.... NOT her and I are going, because you can't say "her is going"
However, ... "get some icecream for her and I" is correct because you can get icecream for her as in "get some icecream for her."
Conditional phrases - those sentences in which one condition depends on another. It is WRONG to say "I would have if I would have..." whatever. "I would have if I had." Like this: "I would have gone if I'd known that film was on." Or, "Had I known that film was on, I would have gone." SEE? Easy. Must have a "would" and a "had." If you're using either twice, it is wrong.
Apostrohpes:
If what you're talking about is plural, as in there are more than one, there is NO apostrophe!
If what you're talking about owns something, or something belongs to it, put an apostrophe in.
Here's how it works.
My shoes. Plural. Two shoes. No appostrophe. EVER.
My shoe's lace. One shoe and the lace that belongs to it. Apostrophe!
My aunts. All of 'em. Plural. No apostrophe!
My aunt's husband. One aunt and the man who belongs to her. GET IT?
EXCEPTIONS: His, hers and its. Possessives, yes, but no apostrophes. OK? Those are pretty much the only exceptions.
DRIVERS.
These people should stay off the road: anyone who I say is a crap driver.
I think a lot of people must have had terrible accidents to their left hands, given how many are so incapable of signalling. What the heck. Would it ruin your day to signal your lane changes and your entry into turning lanes? Seriously, would it?
Scared Drivers;
Ok. here's the deal. If you're terrified to do the speed limit on high speed roads, DON'T USE THEM. Stick to the side roads where the posted speed is something you're comfortable with. PLEASE. You will get there in the same time but I will get where I'm going much more quickly if I don't have to follow your scared tail lights.
Alternatively, take a taxi. It will save you the cost of gas, the rest of us won't be stuck turtling behind you and seriously folks, taxi drivers aren't scared of anything. And they signal.
Merge Lanes. Do NOT STOP! MERGE. Go! Drive! get up to speed -- which is what the merge lanes are for -- and head into traffic. GEEZE, is that so hard?
Turn into the proper lane. When you're turning right, you are turning into the curb lane. I don't care if you have to get to the other side because the off ramp you want is over there. Do NOT hold up traffic behind you because you are waiting for enough space to cross over three lanes of traffic. What you're doing is illegal and HIGHLY annoying. You are not alone on the road and you don't have Government of Canada license plates: therefore, the rules DO apply to you.
Same thing with left turns: turn into the left most lane. Do NOT cut across to the curb lane. It isn't yours and you can't cut across two lanes. It is annoying, rude and dangerous.
About Tailgating: I'm going to do 2 or three kms over the speed limit. Not more, not less. You can sit on my bumper if you like, and I will slam on my brakes. If you hit me, it's your insurance, buddy. And no, I'm neither impressed by or scared of your truck because I can estimate your debt load. I'm pretty sure the insurance payment will make you consider selling your stupid truck.
And, for the religious among you: My spouse and I have determined that minivans prove the existance of god. Only a higher power could come up with such an ingenious way to contain bad drivers and make them visible to and avoidable by other drivers. What I don't know is whether there is a driving test by which people must prove a certain level of driving incompetance before they're allowed to purchase a minivan. The on-board tv/video does NOT help, especially when combined with male drivers who think their minivan is a great place to view porn. Did you not notice that you are surrounded by WINDOWS?? Does god know about your penchant for tacky films?
On the subject of windows in cars: yes, your car is your personal space, but those windows let everyone see you picking your nose when stopped at the lights. Seriously man, did you lose a relative up there or something? WE CAN SEE YOU!!!
I could so easily go on and on and on. But I won't. Today.
I'll be back.
This post is all about stuff that bugs me - stuff perpetrated by stupid (or uninformed, to be kind) humans.
Here's what's bugging me this week:
The sponsorship scandal in Canada and particularly the so-called sentences handed down to rich white guys. Probably enough said. What the hell was that anyway?
Wanna Laugh? At an event in Calgary last night, some guy (a politician) said that white, male Christians were a persecuted minority! Not sure where he thinks he's from -- because he's from Calgary, which is located in the bible belt of Alberta - a bastion to white, male, Christians.
He also said that Christians were under attack. So they should be. See George Bush for reference. And on that note, doesn't Mr. Bush (no I can't spell, read or speak, but who cares? I'm the President!) realise that The Christian Right movement and all those movements affiliated or attached to it are just as radical and dangerous as the Taliban? Actually, they're far more dangerous because they're run by white guys with money. See the sponsorship scandal for refernce. Also look up "teflon."
Mr. Klien's bonus money scheme in Alberta: are people dumb??? There is so much money in this province at the moment. Some of this money - about 1/3 of it - has been designated for infrastructrue projects; some has been designated to heritage stuff; some is going to Albertains. People are variously bitching and moaning about how this money should be going to charity and how the scheme is a vote-getting project.
First of all, those who feel that the money should go to charity projects should just bloody send their cheques to the charity of their choice. They're not being told how to spend their money. I think they're really bugged by two things: the "I should" part of the equation, where they supposedly should donate to the less fortunate; and the "But I want" part, where they really want to go spend their money on something completely selfish.
Secondly, Mr. Klien is retiring. He's been talking about it for ages, and he will do it. Mr. Dinning isn't giving the money away, nor is he campaigning yet (not overtly anyway) so no, this scheme has nothing to do with vote-getting. HELLO? McFly!
Incidentally, in a province where in the cities at least, almost every business is begging for staff, I think some of those receiving charity could get themselves a job and help themselves. Fort McMurry is full of jobs and no, one isn't requried to be a Newfoundlander to work there.
Too much charity makes for lazy people. Don't get on me about this. We live in a wealthy country. What we call poverty here is untold riches for most of the rest of the world. A good annual salary in Haiti for most people - about 70% of people -- is $1200. A YEAR.
And for those of you who think you're fooling anyone by standing in the middle of the road with your cardboard sign "Please help. Stranded. Need to get home. Anything helps."
GET A JOB. Oh wait! You already have one if those brand new, comfy NIKEs are any indication. And that is a remarkably warm looking Mountain Equipment Coop jacket you're wearing....
What else? How 'bout this ever recurring issue - false issue - of race!
There is no such thing as race. There are some 35 genetic markers shared by humans. None of those markers is specific to any particular group and none are specific to any skin colour, bone formation or geographical location. In short, these markers are proof that we all originated from pretty much one common ancestor, regardless of the skin we now wear, the language we now speak or the place we now live in.
Race, as the term is used and has been used for centuries, is a political construct used variously to separate people, subjugate people and to achieve special attention through programs, funding, affirmative action initiatives, etc.
This is not to say that problems associated with term race are insignificant or non-existant. It is to say, however, that perpetuation of belief that there is actually any such thing as race serves to segregate people and concentrate political power.
Steven J. Gould, in his book "Dinosaur in a Haystack," eloquently and correctly disproves the existance of 'race.' I hope you all read that book. In fact, read all of his books. He passed away about three years ago and the science world lost an uncelebrated sage. Gould was a lecturer, writer, professor, curator of the Museum of Natural History at Harvard and a damn smart guy.
http://www.hmnh.harvard.edu/ for more on the museum.
What else bugs me?
Language and the poor use of it - English in particular, as I live in a predominantly English-speaking city.
This could go long, so I'll just touch on a few things.
The words "get" or "got" are nearly always improperly used. Get and Got are like receive and received. So, for example, one can get a cold, because a cold is something you acquire, but one cannot 'get' sick: one becomes sick.
Similarly, one cannot 'get' rich; one becomes rich because they get (receive or acquire) a lot of money. Get it?
The word "hopefully." This is an adjective and should be used to describe something else, as in "He/she proceeded hopefully." The word isn't a verb, although most people use it as such. I really wish you would all stop!
"I seen." PLEASE people! This is simply bad, bad, bad. It is hick language, totally wrong and should provide the user with a dunce cap. Correctly, "I saw," as in "I saw that film last year." or "I saw it first," or "I saw it yesterday." Also correctly, "I've seen"(or I have seen, as I've is the contraction for 'I have'), as in "Yes, I've seen it," or "I've seen it happen."
Do NOT say "I seen." It is wrong and ugly. Period.
"Her and I" / "She and I"
She and I are going.... NOT her and I are going, because you can't say "her is going"
However, ... "get some icecream for her and I" is correct because you can get icecream for her as in "get some icecream for her."
Conditional phrases - those sentences in which one condition depends on another. It is WRONG to say "I would have if I would have..." whatever. "I would have if I had." Like this: "I would have gone if I'd known that film was on." Or, "Had I known that film was on, I would have gone." SEE? Easy. Must have a "would" and a "had." If you're using either twice, it is wrong.
Apostrohpes:
If what you're talking about is plural, as in there are more than one, there is NO apostrophe!
If what you're talking about owns something, or something belongs to it, put an apostrophe in.
Here's how it works.
My shoes. Plural. Two shoes. No appostrophe. EVER.
My shoe's lace. One shoe and the lace that belongs to it. Apostrophe!
My aunts. All of 'em. Plural. No apostrophe!
My aunt's husband. One aunt and the man who belongs to her. GET IT?
EXCEPTIONS: His, hers and its. Possessives, yes, but no apostrophes. OK? Those are pretty much the only exceptions.
DRIVERS.
These people should stay off the road: anyone who I say is a crap driver.
I think a lot of people must have had terrible accidents to their left hands, given how many are so incapable of signalling. What the heck. Would it ruin your day to signal your lane changes and your entry into turning lanes? Seriously, would it?
Scared Drivers;
Ok. here's the deal. If you're terrified to do the speed limit on high speed roads, DON'T USE THEM. Stick to the side roads where the posted speed is something you're comfortable with. PLEASE. You will get there in the same time but I will get where I'm going much more quickly if I don't have to follow your scared tail lights.
Alternatively, take a taxi. It will save you the cost of gas, the rest of us won't be stuck turtling behind you and seriously folks, taxi drivers aren't scared of anything. And they signal.
Merge Lanes. Do NOT STOP! MERGE. Go! Drive! get up to speed -- which is what the merge lanes are for -- and head into traffic. GEEZE, is that so hard?
Turn into the proper lane. When you're turning right, you are turning into the curb lane. I don't care if you have to get to the other side because the off ramp you want is over there. Do NOT hold up traffic behind you because you are waiting for enough space to cross over three lanes of traffic. What you're doing is illegal and HIGHLY annoying. You are not alone on the road and you don't have Government of Canada license plates: therefore, the rules DO apply to you.
Same thing with left turns: turn into the left most lane. Do NOT cut across to the curb lane. It isn't yours and you can't cut across two lanes. It is annoying, rude and dangerous.
About Tailgating: I'm going to do 2 or three kms over the speed limit. Not more, not less. You can sit on my bumper if you like, and I will slam on my brakes. If you hit me, it's your insurance, buddy. And no, I'm neither impressed by or scared of your truck because I can estimate your debt load. I'm pretty sure the insurance payment will make you consider selling your stupid truck.
And, for the religious among you: My spouse and I have determined that minivans prove the existance of god. Only a higher power could come up with such an ingenious way to contain bad drivers and make them visible to and avoidable by other drivers. What I don't know is whether there is a driving test by which people must prove a certain level of driving incompetance before they're allowed to purchase a minivan. The on-board tv/video does NOT help, especially when combined with male drivers who think their minivan is a great place to view porn. Did you not notice that you are surrounded by WINDOWS?? Does god know about your penchant for tacky films?
On the subject of windows in cars: yes, your car is your personal space, but those windows let everyone see you picking your nose when stopped at the lights. Seriously man, did you lose a relative up there or something? WE CAN SEE YOU!!!
I could so easily go on and on and on. But I won't. Today.
I'll be back.
Monday, March 01, 2004
This is about how adults, and specifically parents, are stupid. If you're sensitive, read on and please send me your rants, raves, disagreement to j_publicist@hotmail.com
About a month ago, TIME magazine ran an article about rampant drug use among young people -- 7 - 13 year olds, legal drugs. The pushers are these kids' parents, who are aided and encouraged by the kids' teachers and guidance counsellors.
The problems are multiple and include depression and the currently popular ADHD. These ailments occur largely in upper middle class populations and more often with boys than in girls.
I have also noticed over the last 10 years or so, an enormous increase in the use of plastic to transport children, beginning from the second they are born (the ubiquitous 'crash cart' into which newborns are dumped and where they stay until they depart the hospital) and where they remain night and day until they are old enough to walk and protest.
Call me idiotic, but there's a reason our kids are nuts and on drugs at the ripe old age of 8.
Who was that scientist who experimented with monkeys? Some monkey babies were 'raised' by a wire-frame mother. Others were raised by surrogates and others with their natural mother. You know the outcome: the wire-frame mommies, which very closely resemble society mothers, were cold, detached and basically uninterested in the baby monkeys. These babies grew up into psychotic unloving and occasionally murderous adults.
The surrogate mothers did better, but not as well as the natural mothers in most cases. Where the natural mother had been raised by a wire-frame mom, the effects were ongoing. Crap parenting lead to crap kids.
Now couple crap parenting, which is not the sole property of society moms or disadvantaged families, with lots of plastic -- meaning the kids are not being touched or held in addition to being ignored -- and voila; psychosis, drugs, ADHD.
OK, lets carry this further. Lets imagine -- no, lets acknowledge -- that a whole slew of the teaching staff in YOUR kid's school was raised by the wire-frame equivalent of a parent. Those teachers don't have a clue how to raise kids, don't have any clue about yours and can't cope. So they recommend your kid take drugs.
Or, lets say your kid has a pretty good teacher, but your kid spent the first three years of his or her life in various forms of plastic -- the car seat, the crib, the playpen, the stroller -- and so they're just plain old depressed from simple deprivation.
So, what do we do? We drug 'em and then we wonder why there are so many depressed people around.
Here are my solutions:
1. Throw out the plastic!!!! Babies need to be held. If they cry, pick 'em up. If you have to go shopping, get a baby carrier or carrying sling that attaches to you! Not only will your child be close to you where it should be, you'll have BOTH hands free and nobody will ever be pissed off at you again for blocking the aisles with your cart AND your stroller and your myriad forms of baby paraphernalia. Carry your kid.
The best, most idiotic thing I hear about carrying babies in plastic is "He/she's too heavy to carry." So, adding another 12 lbs of plastic makes the baby lighter? What a load!
1a. This does not apply to car seats. Use those all the time and use them right. Your kid doesn't like to be strapped in??? Well guess what! He or she probably won't like life support much better. Use your car seat and strap yourself in too while you're at it. Don't be dumb. It is your kid's life. And yours, If you die, in a crash for lack of seatbelt, if your kid survives the crash, guess what. No parent.... Think about it.
2. Ignore your mother/father when they tell you you're going to spoil your child if you pick them up all the time. You will NOT. Babies cannot be spoiled. 2 year olds, yes, but not a crying baby. They cry because they need something. That something may simply mean "Hold me." See, if you don't pick them up, they will grow up to be insecure, depressed kids and adults and will probably have a teacher or three moaning about ADHD.
Kids are little for a very short time. Most kids are walking by 14 months or so, so hold them when they're little. Would you rather have a psychotic 14 year old on your hands?
3. Be a rational adult. Whatever shit you get up to, be assured, your kids are watching you. If you get drunk every Friday night with your mates or your girls, rest assured your kids will follow suit. Don't be a putz. If you want good kids, be a good adult.
4. Listen to your kids. Guess what. Sometimes they are right. Sometimes, you are wrong. Shut up, listen to your kids and learn something. The worst thing that can happen is that your kids will get it that you respect them.
5. Last point: If you're not sure you want to parent then DON'T do it. It is a life sentence. The first 18 years is hard time. After that, you get parole, but you never get full release. Not to worry, though; if you are sure you want to be a parent, you will welcome the sentence and you will buy in totally about 1 second after your baby is born or arrives.
If you are not sure, don't experiment with anything but the colour and brand of condoms you're using. CONDOMS ARE CHEAPER THAN KIDS. Use the condoms if you have any doubts.
In my next couple of columns, I'm going to rant about the idiocy of those who support abortion in a country where access to information is rampant. After that, we're going to discuss the political term "race" and how misuse of that term has totally screwed up most everyone's life.
Send your rants to j_publicist@hotmail.com
About a month ago, TIME magazine ran an article about rampant drug use among young people -- 7 - 13 year olds, legal drugs. The pushers are these kids' parents, who are aided and encouraged by the kids' teachers and guidance counsellors.
The problems are multiple and include depression and the currently popular ADHD. These ailments occur largely in upper middle class populations and more often with boys than in girls.
I have also noticed over the last 10 years or so, an enormous increase in the use of plastic to transport children, beginning from the second they are born (the ubiquitous 'crash cart' into which newborns are dumped and where they stay until they depart the hospital) and where they remain night and day until they are old enough to walk and protest.
Call me idiotic, but there's a reason our kids are nuts and on drugs at the ripe old age of 8.
Who was that scientist who experimented with monkeys? Some monkey babies were 'raised' by a wire-frame mother. Others were raised by surrogates and others with their natural mother. You know the outcome: the wire-frame mommies, which very closely resemble society mothers, were cold, detached and basically uninterested in the baby monkeys. These babies grew up into psychotic unloving and occasionally murderous adults.
The surrogate mothers did better, but not as well as the natural mothers in most cases. Where the natural mother had been raised by a wire-frame mom, the effects were ongoing. Crap parenting lead to crap kids.
Now couple crap parenting, which is not the sole property of society moms or disadvantaged families, with lots of plastic -- meaning the kids are not being touched or held in addition to being ignored -- and voila; psychosis, drugs, ADHD.
OK, lets carry this further. Lets imagine -- no, lets acknowledge -- that a whole slew of the teaching staff in YOUR kid's school was raised by the wire-frame equivalent of a parent. Those teachers don't have a clue how to raise kids, don't have any clue about yours and can't cope. So they recommend your kid take drugs.
Or, lets say your kid has a pretty good teacher, but your kid spent the first three years of his or her life in various forms of plastic -- the car seat, the crib, the playpen, the stroller -- and so they're just plain old depressed from simple deprivation.
So, what do we do? We drug 'em and then we wonder why there are so many depressed people around.
Here are my solutions:
1. Throw out the plastic!!!! Babies need to be held. If they cry, pick 'em up. If you have to go shopping, get a baby carrier or carrying sling that attaches to you! Not only will your child be close to you where it should be, you'll have BOTH hands free and nobody will ever be pissed off at you again for blocking the aisles with your cart AND your stroller and your myriad forms of baby paraphernalia. Carry your kid.
The best, most idiotic thing I hear about carrying babies in plastic is "He/she's too heavy to carry." So, adding another 12 lbs of plastic makes the baby lighter? What a load!
1a. This does not apply to car seats. Use those all the time and use them right. Your kid doesn't like to be strapped in??? Well guess what! He or she probably won't like life support much better. Use your car seat and strap yourself in too while you're at it. Don't be dumb. It is your kid's life. And yours, If you die, in a crash for lack of seatbelt, if your kid survives the crash, guess what. No parent.... Think about it.
2. Ignore your mother/father when they tell you you're going to spoil your child if you pick them up all the time. You will NOT. Babies cannot be spoiled. 2 year olds, yes, but not a crying baby. They cry because they need something. That something may simply mean "Hold me." See, if you don't pick them up, they will grow up to be insecure, depressed kids and adults and will probably have a teacher or three moaning about ADHD.
Kids are little for a very short time. Most kids are walking by 14 months or so, so hold them when they're little. Would you rather have a psychotic 14 year old on your hands?
3. Be a rational adult. Whatever shit you get up to, be assured, your kids are watching you. If you get drunk every Friday night with your mates or your girls, rest assured your kids will follow suit. Don't be a putz. If you want good kids, be a good adult.
4. Listen to your kids. Guess what. Sometimes they are right. Sometimes, you are wrong. Shut up, listen to your kids and learn something. The worst thing that can happen is that your kids will get it that you respect them.
5. Last point: If you're not sure you want to parent then DON'T do it. It is a life sentence. The first 18 years is hard time. After that, you get parole, but you never get full release. Not to worry, though; if you are sure you want to be a parent, you will welcome the sentence and you will buy in totally about 1 second after your baby is born or arrives.
If you are not sure, don't experiment with anything but the colour and brand of condoms you're using. CONDOMS ARE CHEAPER THAN KIDS. Use the condoms if you have any doubts.
In my next couple of columns, I'm going to rant about the idiocy of those who support abortion in a country where access to information is rampant. After that, we're going to discuss the political term "race" and how misuse of that term has totally screwed up most everyone's life.
Send your rants to j_publicist@hotmail.com
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Welcome to The Stupid Files, a diary of stupid human tricks.
There isn't a day goes by when I read the newspaper and find some human has done something ridiculous. Without doubt, all of us stand back in total amazment at the antics of our fellow beings, and most of us would love the forum in which to point out such human dumbness. I hereby lay claim to such forum.
As much as I am quite happy to write and read my own opinion, this blog will be much richer for contributions, so please don't hesitate to provide your own observations.
You can send your contributions to thestupidfiles@hotmail.com.
What started this rage, you might ask? Well, back in about May of 2003, fines in my city for various traffic infractions increased substantially. Very substantially. Shortly thereafter, a city resident wrote a letter to our local daily, complaining about these admittedly large increases. His main point was that, if a person racked up $1500 to $2000 per month (yes, he actually said that) in fines, their family would suffer and their kids would have no food.
Needless to say, I was highly amused and amazed that anyone would actually admit (it seemed like an admission to me) they were such an apalling driver that they were paying out huge money monthly to support their 'habit.'
I immediately fired off my own letter suggesting that traffic fines are not a predictable monthly expense and that if that person had such an issue with filling the city coffers, they had only to slow down, obey the rules of the road and drive sober and straight.
I also suggested that they do us all a favour, sell their car and use public transit or taxis, because, given the money they were paying out for fines, it was obvious they were a completely unsafe driver and were putting the rest of us at huge risk by being on the road.
Seriously, isn't it pretty stupid to complain about the city 'raping and pillaging' the poor citizens when the complainer is completely in charge of not paying any fines, simply by obeying the rules of the road?
Here's another good one, according to me: our school system has a partnership with a local transportation comany to get kids to and from their schools. Due to growth in the city, many kids live a long way from their designated school. So at one point, there was an increase in the annual cost of this transportation, from $25 per year to $75, capped at $150 per family, regardless of number of kids in a given family. I was a large increase, but on a per-day basis, amounted to a total of something like 50 cents per trip. Not very costly, and far less costly than city transit, which was, at the time $1 per trip for school kids, or parents driving.
A father wrote in to our daily complaining about this fee increase -- bitterly, I might add -- claiming that such an increase was a huge burden and so on and so on. I did a little research on this particular father, who was part of the parent council at his kids' school (so easy to find out about). I asked one question: was he a smoker. Answer? Yes.
What I find stupid about his complaint is that he was outraged at paying a total of $150 per year to have his children safely transported to and from school five days a week, but had no problem paying $7 A DAY or more (I couldn't find out if he was a one- or two-pack a day man) to support a habit that was neither good or safe for anyone involved.
This is how it broke down: the kids go to school 198 days per year, two trips per day. This transportation includes same time drop off and pickup every day in a warm vehicle. Total cost per child, $75 per year. That amounts to about 68cents A DAY for both kids.
Smoking on the other hand was costing this man at least $7 per day, 365 days a year, for a total of at least $2,555 annually. What I pointed out in my response letter was, that if the father in question were to forgo one pack of smokes a week, he would amply cover the cost of school transporation for his kids and would add a health benefit for him and them.
Why is it people who smoke dare to complain about the costs of this and that when they could easily afford things were they to simply cut down!?? I'm not about to moralise about whether or not people have the right to smoke. It is a stupid habit, with no health, welfare or social benefit, but hey, go wild. Just don't complain.
In my city, the cost of a pack of smokes is now hovering around $9, which equals, give or take, about $63 per week, which equals almost $3300 per year. That's about the amount I paid last year to lease my brand new car. That is also about the amount I spend on my mortgage. That amount is 4 times what I paid to have my daughter in competitive dancing and it is double the amount one would pay out to put a kid into hockey or ballet or any other sport.
Smoking is stupid but complaining about the cost of things when one is a smoker is REALLY Stupid. Stupid people are annoying. Smelly stupid people.... well. 'nuff said.
I will be back shortly. I encourage your rants, raves and contributions!
WriterWriter
The Stupid Files.
There isn't a day goes by when I read the newspaper and find some human has done something ridiculous. Without doubt, all of us stand back in total amazment at the antics of our fellow beings, and most of us would love the forum in which to point out such human dumbness. I hereby lay claim to such forum.
As much as I am quite happy to write and read my own opinion, this blog will be much richer for contributions, so please don't hesitate to provide your own observations.
You can send your contributions to thestupidfiles@hotmail.com.
What started this rage, you might ask? Well, back in about May of 2003, fines in my city for various traffic infractions increased substantially. Very substantially. Shortly thereafter, a city resident wrote a letter to our local daily, complaining about these admittedly large increases. His main point was that, if a person racked up $1500 to $2000 per month (yes, he actually said that) in fines, their family would suffer and their kids would have no food.
Needless to say, I was highly amused and amazed that anyone would actually admit (it seemed like an admission to me) they were such an apalling driver that they were paying out huge money monthly to support their 'habit.'
I immediately fired off my own letter suggesting that traffic fines are not a predictable monthly expense and that if that person had such an issue with filling the city coffers, they had only to slow down, obey the rules of the road and drive sober and straight.
I also suggested that they do us all a favour, sell their car and use public transit or taxis, because, given the money they were paying out for fines, it was obvious they were a completely unsafe driver and were putting the rest of us at huge risk by being on the road.
Seriously, isn't it pretty stupid to complain about the city 'raping and pillaging' the poor citizens when the complainer is completely in charge of not paying any fines, simply by obeying the rules of the road?
Here's another good one, according to me: our school system has a partnership with a local transportation comany to get kids to and from their schools. Due to growth in the city, many kids live a long way from their designated school. So at one point, there was an increase in the annual cost of this transportation, from $25 per year to $75, capped at $150 per family, regardless of number of kids in a given family. I was a large increase, but on a per-day basis, amounted to a total of something like 50 cents per trip. Not very costly, and far less costly than city transit, which was, at the time $1 per trip for school kids, or parents driving.
A father wrote in to our daily complaining about this fee increase -- bitterly, I might add -- claiming that such an increase was a huge burden and so on and so on. I did a little research on this particular father, who was part of the parent council at his kids' school (so easy to find out about). I asked one question: was he a smoker. Answer? Yes.
What I find stupid about his complaint is that he was outraged at paying a total of $150 per year to have his children safely transported to and from school five days a week, but had no problem paying $7 A DAY or more (I couldn't find out if he was a one- or two-pack a day man) to support a habit that was neither good or safe for anyone involved.
This is how it broke down: the kids go to school 198 days per year, two trips per day. This transportation includes same time drop off and pickup every day in a warm vehicle. Total cost per child, $75 per year. That amounts to about 68cents A DAY for both kids.
Smoking on the other hand was costing this man at least $7 per day, 365 days a year, for a total of at least $2,555 annually. What I pointed out in my response letter was, that if the father in question were to forgo one pack of smokes a week, he would amply cover the cost of school transporation for his kids and would add a health benefit for him and them.
Why is it people who smoke dare to complain about the costs of this and that when they could easily afford things were they to simply cut down!?? I'm not about to moralise about whether or not people have the right to smoke. It is a stupid habit, with no health, welfare or social benefit, but hey, go wild. Just don't complain.
In my city, the cost of a pack of smokes is now hovering around $9, which equals, give or take, about $63 per week, which equals almost $3300 per year. That's about the amount I paid last year to lease my brand new car. That is also about the amount I spend on my mortgage. That amount is 4 times what I paid to have my daughter in competitive dancing and it is double the amount one would pay out to put a kid into hockey or ballet or any other sport.
Smoking is stupid but complaining about the cost of things when one is a smoker is REALLY Stupid. Stupid people are annoying. Smelly stupid people.... well. 'nuff said.
I will be back shortly. I encourage your rants, raves and contributions!
WriterWriter
The Stupid Files.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)