So what comes next?

After schooling our youngest child through his final year of High School, today I started to wonder what was next.  The thing is I know that Drew will move on and forward with his life, but as a chronic pain sufferer my limitations leave me looking for things that can fulfill and validate my existence.

I have to admit I've been quite sick lately (a case of Labyrinthitis that is just hanging on), and keeping my energy up and pain levels down has been a continuous battle, so that might play into my current mentality.  However the dilemma stays the same, how can I accommodate the limitations of my condition and yet find something that can encourage self worth? (which is always harder the worse I feel, so hopefully that will change soon.)

Bob

Are you the product of a social experiment?

Essentially anything new and different in a culture can be deemed a "Social Experiment", because we really don't know the outcome until the damage has been done.  Take for example the "Free Love" movement experiment, or for that matter the "Public school" experiment.

What are the results of the first experiment?  What has society gained by accepting and embracing a culture of instant gratification rather than one of delayed gratification?  By my estimations it has encouraged selfishness over one of compassion for those around us.  What we want is all important, at whatever cost.  Free love wasn't just about sex, it was an ideology based on personal gratification through any means one deemed appropriate.  This included sex, drugs, and anything else that made you feel good.  With unrestricted intercourse the results became evident quickly, as is wont to happen when the product only takes 9 months.  Yes I'm talking about unexpected/unwanted pregnancies. Of course in a society where the individual's desires are paramount, this creates an situation where it is no longer fun or pleasurable so something must be done to control this as well.  This creates yet another result, abortion.  A direct result of personal desire overriding the well being of another person is abortion, the blatant wanton murder of the most innocent and vulnerable of society.  Murdering children so that the individual could abdicate responsibility for their actions.

I believe the drug portion of the "Free love" 60's social experiment goes without saying, as it is abundantly obvious with the number of shows on TV dedicated to rehabilitation from substance abuse. 

So what about the experiment I referred to as "Public School"?  And why did I call it a social experiment?  What we tend to forget is that learning is passed down, and before public education it was a natural part of parental responsibility. Now not that I believe that there isn't a place for public education, because I believe it gives us a chance to learn outside the confines of our own experiences.  However I do have a problem with massing groups of hormonal, vulnerable, impressionable children together for enormous lengths of time.  Anyone who has read "Lord of the flies" can tell you that this is the attitude and behaviour carried out (albeit in smaller, less lethal manners) in the schoolyards of public institutions.  Although there is a staggering trend towards lethality that has been taking hold, and should we not find a solution to the mentalities that develop within a (public education) society the trend will only increase.  For as much as we hope that all of our children will be treated equally, this just isn't the reality of the public education system. Not only that, but with so few adults to influence children in proper behavioral patterns, the children learn and feed of each other and develop in a more "wild" manner. 

I started this post after reading a social experiment being conducted by a set of parents called "Gender Neutrality". Read the article here.  Obviously this is going to create issues in the future, but what are they? What ramifications will this (thankfully limited) social experiment have on children that are not taught how to be a man or a women?  I believe that the way we are raised, and the events that occur in our lives are what dictate the person we will become. Already one of the children is confused, and has asked for a note to be written telling leaders at a nature center that he was a boy.

What I think people tend to forget is that these social experiments can reproduce exponentially when we introduce offspring into the equation through the subjects.  I think it's time to step back and look at what we are doing and question if it is the best thing for society, or are we indulging our base instincts for that instant self gratification.

Bob

My day in court,

Although I had hoped for the Judge to see that this law is one that sometimes needs to be broken, and does not actually endanger the public as much as the "nanny staters" would have you believe, It came down to the strict application of law which lead him to find us Guilty of running an extension cord over a sidewalk.

It was about an hour that we were in court, I cross examined the witness, and presented evidence, then made my argument.  Had I known then what I know now, I would have done things slightly differently in my preparation, but now that is neither here nor there.

I do feel like I was on the verge of swaying the Judge to side with me, but lack of courtroom experience and understanding tipped the balance in favour of strictly the facts.  I don't think I did to bad for a complete rookie though, even if I do say so myself. However now comes the task of staying on top of the city, and getting them on top of this before fall comes again.

I actually have my argument written out, so I'll post what I read to the court for you;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to start by explaining that I respect the law, and I am not here simply because I am unwilling to pay a ticket. I am here today because I disagree with a law that forces countless residents of Regina to break it, either knowingly or as in my case unknowingly, out of necessity. This law creates unnecessary financial hardship for people with no other option than to park on the street, with extra costs to avoid a ticket, further ticket costs, or possibility lost wages. It is not only my civil right to dispute this ticket, it is my civic responsibility to fight a law that is an inappropriate injustice to a large number of city residents who have no option but to park on the street, and yet need to keep their vehicle in running condition to support their families in Saskatchewan's winters!

As residents of Saskatchewan I am sure we are ALL aware of the necessity to plug in our vehicle in winter, and we are also all aware that a lot of the time sidewalks are not kept in the best conditions (by both the city and residents). As a result we are all more careful when we go out on them because poor conditions and power cords that accompany block heaters, are simply a part of the Saskatchewan winter landscape. Perhaps someone visiting from some a more tropical climate might be ignorant of this feature of the our winters, but residents know that one common winter feature will be power cords running over sidewalks in an effort to keep vehicles running. When a citizen takes appropriate measures to maintain both theirs, and the city's, sidewalks in such a condition for both ease of city sidewalk use, and a clear visibility of said “hazards”, these appropriate measures negate any real threat or liability. I was born in Saskatchewan, and have lived in the west all of my life, in all that time I cannot recall ever having tripped on an extension cord run across a sidewalk (of which were innumerable!) Why? Because like everyone else here in Saskatchewan, I am aware of the necessity for it, and that I need to be conscious of this very minor inconvenience.

It should also be noted that in the 14 years of this bylaw being enacted, there have only been “roughly 400” tickets issued (29/season), which shows decidedly that this is not an actively enforced bylaw, but one only acted upon at the behest of a complainant.

Your Honour; I was unaware of this bylaw's existence and although ignorance is not an excuse, it is a valid explanation when you look at the sheer number of Federal, Provincial, and Municipal laws that an individual would be forced to memorize to be in complete compliance. This is why the City has the 24 hour notice policy, and I was denied even the primary opportunity to comply willingly. Ticketing in a case where it was obvious where the owner of the vehicle is resides (the officer threw the cord onto my property), as well as being very likely that they were available (since their car was plugged in), is completely unnecessary, especially in a first offense situation.

As for the “hazard” our cord presented (As per the 3 criteria mentioned by the city, which were Tripping, snow blowers, and shovelling);

1. first off we promptly shovel our walks (to the extent that one Canada post parcel delivery man thanked me, out of the blue, for keeping it clean when he brought a parcel to my door during the major snowfall in November).
2. Secondly we did not leave excess cordage on the walk, it is one length of cord, flat and easily visible on the sidewalk. (Our cord is also one that has ridges on it which helps prevent slipping if it were stepped on.)
3. We have been diligent to clean the city sidewalks every winter for as long as we have lived in our home, and there is as far as I know only 1 snow blower in the neighbourhood, which I have never seen run. (And when we have shovelled for others, or Vice Versa, it has been easy to avoid cords.)
4. Finally I think it is safe to say that this hazard is minimized by pedestrians already understanding that they need to be aware of icy conditions, and any number of cords, that exist, not unnecessarily, on most residential sidewalks during our winters, (especially since residents are often forced to walk on the street because of poorly maintained sidewalk conditions elsewhere.)

I believe this law needs to be changed and adapted to suit the conditions we in the “Great White North” live in, and I am looking for some sort of compromise on this bylaw, whereby to maintain the functionality, it is not necessary for anyone to break the law, and yet still adequately ensure the safety of those walking down our street, as I believe we have already been diligent to do. There has to be a way for citizens without off street parking to maintain an operational vehicle in our Saskatchewan winters without being contrary to the law, otherwise it would be safe to say that thousands of the city's residents are forced every winter to break this law, just to have a functional vehicles.

On December 13^th 2010 I received a call from Mayor Pat Fiacco, who informed me that he, and my City Councillor Mr. Mike O'Donnell, would be putting forward a motion for the city administration to look at possible changes of this bylaw. Obviously after having this brought to their attention they have seen the problems with this bylaw, and they are taking the steps necessary to amend it to better reflect the needs of residents who have no choice but to break it. The Motion was set forward on December 20^th at the City Council Meeting, which was passed. There is currently an investigation going on by the public works department to look into adequate changes to the law because of this motion.

I would also like to mention that this bylaw is also NOT environmentally friendly, as it forces residents, if they want their cars to function during winter, to run them far more frequently than if they were able to use the block heater (which vehicle manufacturers recommend plugging in below -15C). And when we look into the future, where the possibility of “Green” electric cars becomes the norm, this bylaw will effectively eliminate a large number of “green” vehicles on the road as they will have no way to recharge them.

The courts not only have the power to enforce laws, but also to affect positive change when needed. Obviously this law needs amendment to allow for a compromise from the city to its residents, while having enough common sense in it to eliminate any real hazards.  I am asking you to send a message to the city administrators that they are in fact creating a hardship for residents and the environment with this law, and let them know that this law does not work for the average citizen therefore it needs to be amended. 

Your Honour, I invite you participate in this process by finding me not guilty.

Thank you, Your Honour.

Got a nice little note from an unhappy neighbor.

Note left on our car

I was welcomed to my wife's' car this morning by this note left from my neighbor.

Now to put this story into perspective; Yes I backed up to about 6 inches off his full sized extended cab truck's front bumper with our Pontiac G3 wave sub compact, when I parked in front of my house.  Why were you being an ass you ask?  I wasn't, I was complying with a city bylaw which requires me to leave 2 meters clearance to a driveway, it was in fact this individual parking too close to the spot ahead of him which created the issue.  It should be noted that my "daughter's vehicle" which he refers to in the note hasn't been there for almost a year, as she hasn't lived at home in almost that long. 

Here is a picture of the space he has to park, with our vehicle in the front, and their second vehicle in the back. Now I'm pretty sure there is enough room for him to get in and out of, while leaving me adequate space to comply with the law.  Yes our street is crowded for parking, but honestly if you complain your huge truck doesn't have room to park because of a sub compact, I think your head is planted a little to firmly and deeply in a dark stinky space behind you.  You will note that there would probably be enough room to fit two more of our vehicles in the space left, and ANY other vehicle.

I have asked them to park properly in the past because they have parked in front of our house backwards, too close to the driveway, and left a visitors vehicle parked in front of our house over Christmas, and I've politely asked them to leave us enough room for our one car, which is why I believe it was likely them that called the police to have us ticketed for our extension cord.

It's not really a question of whether or not we are doing anything wrong, because we aren't, it's a question of him somehow feeling entitled to get everything how he wants it.  Well boy, it's time to grow up a bit. I will be waiting for him to arrive home and speak to him in person, like a real man does. I was considering a note with the offer to come and discuss things, but I think I'll just wait and do it in person.

Updated from my Councilman.

Yesterday I received a call from my city councilman Mike O'Donnell, who knew that I had heard about the motion he and the Mayor are going to put forward to amend the current extension cord bylaw.  He also called to give me a little heads up on the procedures the use, and a little thing called an "executive meeting", which is a less formal meeting than publicly addressing Council during there regular meetings.  Basically he invited me to watch for this on the agenda and make an appearance.

I thanked both he and the Mayor for taking me and this cause seriously, and that I appreciated their efforts in working on it.  He said that my logic made sense, and it seemed that it was time to do something about it. :-)

Update from the Mayor.

I spoke with the Mayor of Regina (Mr. Pat Fiacco) about this issue for the first time on November 30th 2010, and he commiserated and agreed that he didn't like the law, as well as saying he would have the Cuty's legal team look into it.

Today (December 13th 2010) Mayor Fiacco called me back and informed me that he was going to put a motion in front of council to amend the bylaw where it will have a safe allowance for the use of extension cords to run across a city sidewalk. I mentioned that the City of Grand Prairie had a bylaw in place that satisfies both safety and necessity, so that he knew I supported a rewording like it.

I also got a letter today on my dispute of the ticket, and it appears that they didn't even read the reasons I was disputing it. I disputed it for 2 reasons, 1. the law is inappropriate for Saskatchewan, and 2. because the enforcement agency did not follow City procedure in issuance of City bylaws.  So I will continue on with it in court, and I will argue my case with even more ammunition knowing that the City will probably amend the bylaw.

Regina Extension cord bylaw.

I was upset about getting a ticket for a bylaw infraction, and wrote a letter about it to the Leader Post here in Regina Saskatchewan. And it seems this was a bigger issue than I thought.

I was also interviewed by CBC, Global, and CTV about this issue, and in an online poll conducted on the CBC article it seems that 85% of the voters agree that this should either not be a law, or the officer should have used judgment on whether or not it was dangerous.

I have started an online petition to start change, located at; PETITION.

I would love to hear ideas on how we can keep pedestrians safe, and at the same time accommodate the necessity of Saskatchewan residents to plug their vehicles in when they must park on the street.

Bob

Why I am fighting this ticket.

 I am not an enemy of justice, but this ticket is an injustice, and in this case the law was unjustly applied. This bylaw is an injustice to every person forced to park on the street who needs to keep their vehicle running, so they can get to work and make ends meet, in our Saskatchewan winters! Also complaints should not warrant instant tickets, they should illicit discussion first for compliance if possible, before ticketing, but if the offence truly warrants an instant ticket, tickets should be given across the board to everyone in violation of the infraction.

This ticket is an example of how our bylaw systems can be easily abused. When bylaws are enforced only on when a complaint is received, it is easy for individuals to use them in their petty squabbles against their neighbours. I say this because the enforcement officer who came and unplugged and ticketed my car neglected to ticket anyone else in our neighbourhood for the same infraction, including the vehicle plugged in all day right next door to us who was plugged in as we were being ticketed (and potential 5 more as he left our street.) I guess this is why I find myself personally arguing with individuals parked in marked Handicap spaces who have no legal right to be there, instead of them getting ticketed, because they know they can get away with it as enforcement usually only comes when called, and that takes time.

I should also mention that I was unaware of this bylaw's existence, and although ignorance is not an excuse, neither should ticketing be a form of enlightenment, especially in a case where it was obvious where the person resides, as well as being highly likely they were home if their car was plugged in. There are obviously 14 others in small my neighbourhood that are ether unaware, or by necessity breaking this law because they have no other option, as we live in a climate that requires our vehicles to be plugged in during the winter months.

• As for the “hazard” our cord presented;

1. first off we contentiously, and diligently shovel our walk, and the city walk in front of our home (primarily to make it convenient for postmen, which one Canada post parcel delivery man profusely thanked me for when he brought a parcel to my door).
2. Secondly we did not leave excess cordage on the walk, it is one thin cord flat on the sidewalk.
3. Finally we never left the cord on the sidewalk when it was not in use.

All being said and done, I am looking for some sort of compromise on this bylaw, where to maintain the functionality to support your family, it is not necessary to break the law. There has to be a way for citizens without off street parking to maintain an operational vehicle in our Saskatchewan winters without being contrary to the law, otherwise it would be safe to say that thousands of the city's residents are right now, and every day, are contrary to the law just so they can get to work and feed their families. As well as keeping the public reasonably safe and not inconvenienced. I am look for suggestions for the court, and from the city, on how to best resolve this issue and maintain compliance with the law not only for me, but also for those unknown multitude of others that are forced to break this law every winter.

BEWARE! Winter parking on the street means no power for you!

Those of us forced to park on the street overnight in winter are going to need stout vehicles, because in Regina it's actually a ticket-able offense to run an extension cord across a sidewalk to plug your car into! What an absurd bylaw to have, let alone to enforce, in a Saskatchewan winter!

The explanation I received from the Bylaw division was that “it is a trip hazard, and the city would be liable for it” as well as "we only ticket complaints" which wqas to explain why my next door neighbor did not receive a ticket at the same time for the same infraction. Now I understand that the city wants to protect itself from liability, but with reasonable measures (such as a bright yellow extension cord, and a contentiously cleaned sidewalk), there should be no reason that even an infirm individual will not recognize and be able to avoid this sometimes very necessary and insignificant “hazard”.

That's not the worst of it unfortunately; my first issue is how the officer (Badge No: C504) decided that rather than come to the house and inform us we were in violation of a city ordinance, and give us the opportunity to comply, he UNPLUGGED the vehicle and THEN wrote the ticket! (Obviously we were home, and of course we would have complied to the law!) My next issue is that this Officer failed to give a ticket for the EXACT same infraction, to the house right next door to us (not to mention any number of other offences occurring on the street, at the very moment he was issuing my ticket!)

Now of course we all feel like a victim when we get a ticket we don't want (and in this case weren't even aware that it was an infraction), but it's even worse when you are singled out among many of the same infractions occurring in the exact same single block street. If the officer was there to strictly enforce the bylaw (rather than give the person a chance to comply with it), then why was I the only one ticketed for that on my block?

My question is simple; What do you do in winter in Regina to keep your car running, if you have to park on the street?

It's really hard to “heart” Regina with bylaws like this enforced without the application of common sense or common courtesy.

Bob

The paradox of pain.

Pain seems to make the day last forever, but it never leaves you time to get anything accomplished.

I always seem to be fighting with the chronic pain I have, which seems to leave little or no time to accomplish even the things I am capable of.  I was thinking about this as I struggle through the day, wishing I could accomplish something while at the same time just trying to hold off being overwhelmed by it.  It's an odd situation we put ourselves in, we force ourselves to be task oriented, or outcome driven, and we never expect that to be taken away from us.  Yet at the same time the fragility of our bodies leaves us vulnerable to injuries which can leave us incapable of doing the simple things we once took for granted, and should this happen it takes considerable rewiring of the way we think to avoid a number of mental conditions which arise from it.  Of course I speak primarily of depression, but often our previously programmed thoughts can lead to other feelings like that of inadequacy, low self esteem, and burdening of family. 

It's a tough thing trying to to come to terms with both the pain and the feelings of inadequacy it evokes, but maybe that itself is an accomplishment to be recognized? Then again maybe I'm just grasping at straws, but you take what's in arms reach when you feel like you're drowning.

A trip through the headlines.

Today I noticed 2 striking headlines coming out of the Middle East, which seemed to me to explain each other.
1. NATO Afghanistan airstrike kills 27 civilians.
2.Car bomb kills 6 in Pakistan.

In Headline 1 it states how the Afghan cabinet (whom I might point out would not be where they are without western involvement) condemned the deaths as "Unjustifiable".  Yet at the same time that civilian deaths are tragic, when you fight an enemy that uses civilians as cover and camouflage what else would you really expect to happen?  Which brings me to the second headline.  This screams of civilian deaths, however accidental deaths of civilians seems to affect these Governments more than the threat caused by these cowardly terrorists who dress in civilian clothes and are absolutely willingly to kill innocent people.

Here's my dilemma; does the Afghan cabinet not realize that NATO does not want to kill civilians, or are they simply making political noise to appease the masses?  Do they not realize that insurgents dress as civilians?  Have they forgotten that NATO is there to help them abolish the oppressive regime they were living under?  Are their flipping turbans wrapped too tight?? (Ok I know they don't all wear turbans, but I'm at a loss to the mentality that directs their anger against those trying to help, RATHER than them all rallying to fight these murderous, cowardly sons of goats with everything they have!)

Voltaire said "So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men" AND "it is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".


Maybe it's time for the Middle east to wake up.

Britney Spears "Womanizer"; playing the blame game?

I guess I question the motivation behind this song simply because of the apparent hypocrisy it conveys. I have to say that this song and it's music video do nothing to promote respect for women, but to the contrary they actually degrade women to as little as objects for the use of men (the definition of a womanizer is a man who has numerous casual sexual encounters with multiple women - *paraphrased). This video is about how she won't fall for someone "like that", yet she dresses (or undresses) and acts in a manner that encourages just this action from a man. So really who is the womanizer? Is it the man who responds to the enticement, or the woman that encourages the behaviour?

If you don't demand respect by appropriate actions, you shouldn't be surprised when you don't get it. Unfortunately this undermines efforts of women throughout the ages who have worked tirelessly to advance the status of women without the use of sexuality, but based on a woman's abilities.

The thing that disturbs me the most about this video is really the message it sends out to men that tend to "prey" on women, and by this I mean the ones who don't require consent to fulfill their desires. This song and video just scream conflicting messages that could be very dangerous in the long run for women.

There is also a number of relational problems I see arising from the mentalities I see on both sides of this song and video. Foremost is the possibility for long term productive and fruitful (meaning mutual love and respect) relationships. Let me analogize for a moment; if I see a commercial for my favorite restaurant I may want to go out and have a meal, but it doesn't make me feel like going out and buying the establishment. (You know, the whole "why buy the cow when you get the milk for free".) This promotes a fragile shallow relationship which is easily broken by the next "commercial" that offers something different.

I haven't even come close to touching on all the issues I saw in this song/video, but I can break it down to simply saying that you have to "*honestly" respect yourself if you want others to have respect for you.


Bob


(* I used honestly here to accentuate the fact that we must all be aware of our own faults and self evaluate ourselves critically to become a person worthy of respect for ourselves through moral actions and attitudes. We cannot expect that we should receive respect just because we are alive, because respect is really not a human right but a privilege we enjoy when we we contribute positively to society.)

Once again Quebec holds back progress in Canada.

I'm not going to mince words; I think the Bloc has no place in federal politics. PERIOD! There is no place on a Federal stage for a Provincial party to be elected. If you want to sit in the House of Commons I think there has to be a simple understanding that you must run candidates in all provinces of the Country.

Honestly what can the Bloc accomplish in the House that any one of the Federal party candidates from their area couldn't? There are local members of a legitimate federal party that could represent them not only as adequately, but more effectively with the support of a national party behind them.

I personally think it's a travesty of democracy to have to kiss Quebec's behind with it's own "special" party because they somehow think they are more deserving, more entitled or simply better than everyone else in Canada.

Hey Quebec... Grow up.

Bob

With record profits for "Big Oil", how can they claim competition over collusion?

With record profits being recorded by companies like Exxon raking in 11.7 Billion dollars profit, Shell right behind at 11.5 Billion and 2 other major companies in the states (BP and conico) also raking in 9 and 7 billion dollars respectively.

So let's think about this for a second; In a competitive market place costs are driven down by companies "competing" for business by giving the consumer a better deal than the next company, on the other hand we have the collusive market place where companies form alliances and strategies to control the market place and increase profits. So with how on earth can big oil explain the consequences of collusion (big profits) of as being competitive?

The only competition I see, is the one between big oil companies for the dollar sitting in YOUR pocket.

Time for these Government watchdogs to pull their heads from where they are firmly planted (where the sun don't shine), and come down hard for the consumer they are supposed to be there to protect!

Sincerely (from me to the Government),
Bob

The Order of Canada now means murder is acceptable.

With the Order of Canada being awarded to Henry Morgentaler, Canada has not only condoned the murder of innocent children but by the award it says that Canada believes that this is something to strive for.

This award is even worse than if it had been posthumously awarded to Adolf Hitler! The problem is that Morgentaler's efforts will kill far more people than Hitler could ever have imagined to. I see Morgentaler's beliefs and actions as even more heinous than the Nazi leader because of his fight to kill those that have absolutely no way to fight back for themselves.


In a nutshell, that's the way I see it.

"Worst Neighborhood in Canada" strikes again.

In a place that has made itself infamous with the problems of substance abuse (and all the crimes that follow it), we have people who say they encourage healthy lifestyles and yet through their actions promote the opposite. This is yet another black eye for the "Worst Neighborhood in Canada".

What bothers me the most in this situation is that the people that are supposed to be in charge and helping inner city kids overcome an unhealthy lifestyle where the ones perpetuating the usage of alcohol and tobacco (and I hesitate to not to say drugs, because logically in a party situation with high risk individuals this would not be a very broad leap, especially in Jamaica. But as there is no evidence, I shall apply the benefit of the doubt here as it does nothing to diminish the scope of inappropriateness of the known situation.).

Here's the issue, The North Central Family Centre's mission states: "Our Mission is to carry out works for the encouragement and empowerment of the inner city community by offering a variety of programs. Our programs and services will promote positive and healthy changes in our community." From what I understand all of the children enrolled in the marathon program were required to sign a contract abstaining from drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. Now I've heard the justification that "the contract ended after the race", but wouldn't anyone that truly wanted to help these kids live healthy lives off of the dependence from any type of substances continue that contract on principle? What I'm trying to say is that if you TRULY wanted to help these kids live a lifestyle free of dependence, why would you EVER supply any of them to high risk individuals? Ii makes me feel the need to ask how this in any way fulfills their motto of "Empowering Youth, Families and the Community"? Why wouldn't you continue the contract even after the race, and if a deadline is required make it after you've returned home? Even on principle this contract should have been enforced by the chaperone's until the children were no longer THEIR RESPONSIBILITY!

I believe the Centre needs to take measures to re-establish it's credibility in the community which they propose they are there to help, and I feel this action is obviously the dismissal of the chaperone's involved, and further after the ridiculous decision of the Board of directors not to accept their resignation that these Board members ALSO need to step down and let others with a higher standard of values step in and take over.

Obviously this was not entirely an altruistic undertaking for these people, and it makes you wonder why they are doing it if their beliefs don't really match up with their stated philosophy........ Money maybe?

Ever more the cynic,
Bob

This is 12 years of "Liberal" Canada at it's finest.

Here is a kick in the pants for those intelligent enough to consider human life more important than an animals. In Canada you can be charged for killing an unborn deer, but not for killing an unborn child (for now that is, and with any common sense maybe the House of Commons will actually approve the unborn victims act to protect the people it claims to serve.) But it took 12 years of Liberalism being defeated by a minority Conservative government to have an issue like this addressed.

There is something seriously sick about a society that values the life of an animal over that of a human. Granted; animals are our responsibility to protect as good stewards of our resources, and it is even disgusting that anyone would consider killing a pregnant animal on purpose, HOWEVER after a fine and having hunting privileges revoked it’s case closed. On the other hand I COMPLETELY believe that the murder of a pregnant woman is by FAR more heinous than that of an animal, and the laws of the land should reflect the importance of those human lives.

Trying not to get swallowed up by the stupidity out there,

Bob

__________________________________________________________

For more info on this story I have include the lifesite article (and link) below;

In Canada You Get Charged for Killing an Unborn Fawn, but Not an Unborn Human Being

By Hilary White

VANCOUVER, As Canada's legislators prepare to debate Bill C-484, Canada's unborn victims of crime bill that was introduced in Parliament in November, conservation officers are reportedly "emotional" after having discovered three men in British Columbia who were hunting pregnant deer.
The three have pleaded guilty to violating the Wildlife Act after having shot two female deer, one of whom was found to have been pregnant with two fawns. The men have been charged with four counts against the Act, two for killing the two adult females and two more for the unborn fawns.
CanWest News service reports that conservation officers were "horrified" at the incident.
The deer season in British Columbia runs from mid-September to the end of November and the law prevents female deer from being included in the hunt. The officers believe that the deer were targeted specifically because they appeared pregnant.
Conservation officer Dave Jevons told CanWest that the case was "emotional," because the hunters appeared to be after the fawns for food or medicine. Some consider foetal fawns a delicacy.
John Hoff, head of Campaign Life Coalition British Columbia said the case highlights the "absurdity" of having laws that protect foetal fawns but not foetal human beings.
The Unborn Victims of Crime bill was condemned recently by the member for Halifax, Nova Scotia, Alexa McDonough, former head of the pro-abortion New Democrat party, who dismissed the testimony of the families of children killed in the womb as being motivated, through their grief, from a desire for revenge.
"In our democratic society, we have long decided that revenge is not a proper basis for drafting or adopting our laws," she said.

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Canada Unborn Victims of Crime Act Introduced in Parliament by Conservative MP
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07112104.html

A summer of loss.

This summer has been a summer of loss for my wife, 2 family members have been killed in Alberta in just over a month.

It started at the end of May when her Nephew died. Her 19 year old nephew had a car accident near Leduc Alberta, and amazingly he survived the crash. What he didn't survive was the semi which hit him when he returned to the highway to look for help. This happened only days before her mother's (his grandma's) birthday, and it turned out that the funeral was held the day she turned 60.

Today we found out that my wife's Step-dad was killed in a 2 car collision yesterday morning. The car accident took place near Leduc Alberta, where a half ton ran a stop sign and collided with his SUV. The aftermath at the scene was brutal. We were able to watch coverage on the Edmonton news and both vehicles were incredibly damaged, but her Step-dad was ejected from his vehicle as he wasn't wearing a seatbelt.

Dealing with pain and disability.

I read an article in a chronic pain magazine about Annette Funicello's battle with MS a while back, and I've been meaning to post on it for some time so here it comes. A quick warning, this will be lengthy.

The article I read mentioned how even though people knew she had the condition, she never "appears" as if she is suffering even though it is quite common to do so. Her reason can be summed up in a quote I read which went like this; "I think you only have two choices in this kind of situation. Either you give in to it or you fight it. I intend to fight."

After the first 5 years of my own chronic condition I came to this same conclusion, but somehow I saw it as logical and not something anyone else may need to hear so I really kept it to myself. But in recent days I have observed others in my life with chronic conditions who are not accepting the situations they deal with enough to fight the outward appearance no matter what they are feeling internally.

I found the reason that I don't allow myself to show many outwards signs is because I don't want others to pity me, or look at me any differently because of my disability. Sure I will talk about my condition to help people understand, but my only motivation is for others to be aware of my limitations to physical contact. (Not to say I haven't tried to do things with the result being some very severe consequence, but that too is a learning process which sometimes takes trial and error to discover the boundaries). However even through the sometimes rigorous trials of even everyday life, I do this not for my own sake but for the emotional well being of those around me, whom without my self control would be targets to lash out at in anger (more at the pain than for anything they might have done).

In particular there have been 2 other people that I am in direct (though infrequent) contact with which made me realize that the coping skills I developed may not be to everyone what I saw as a logical conclusion.

The first of these individuals I watched very harshly (quite rudely for that matter) speak to someone they call a friend, simply because this friend was performing a simple ability that the disabled individual could no longer manage for any length of time. This act was the simple act of standing, but the disabled person was so caught up in how they couldn’t do it that they took it out on their supposed friend. This is what I meant at the end of the last paragraph, if those of us who suffer don’t accept that we are and may forever suffer we will lash out in jealousy at those able bodied around us.

The second person I know was disheveled, lethargic and had an attitude of discontent when I ran into him the other day. Now I am in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY saying that he should be clean shaven and immaculately dressed, his appearance was mentioned only because it helped me understand that he is not at all coping well with his condition (which is the same as mine) even on vast amounts of Opiates. After talking to him I also found that he had not accepted his condition and is aggressively searching out a cure.


This attitude of not accepting said condition is extremely common among chronic illness sufferers. Unfortunately this can cause more harm than good, which is apparent after learning that this individual’s condition has worsened because of the continued search for treatment options and therapies that will cure him. When I decided to discontinue taking opiates for pain relief I understood that my amount of daily pain was going to increase exponentially, but that knowledge was very helpful in dealing with it. The key was having a mindset change from doing everything I could to get rid of the pain to one of knowing I will have to deal with, so I needed to learn to balance my activities to manage my condition and for the rest I just have to suck it up and deal with it!

At a men’s breakfast today I heard someone very succinctly describe “Joy”. He said that joy is an attitude that is outside the situation which we are currently experiencing, experiences which would normally cause more negative attitudes. My attempt to revisit his wisdom is a little longer, but I hope it conveys the information appropriately. It is up to us to experience joy through whatever we are dealing with, and this can only be found through Christ. This is not mere happiness which can be obtained by the simple act of receiving a gift, but true joy through even the worst circumstance and even further to outwardly glorify God by actions indicative of someone with the joy of Christ. Unfortunately neither of these fellow sufferers show anything near this joy, one because they don’t know the Lord, and the other because they haven’t dealt with the self centered issues of betrayal, disappointment, bitterness and jealousy just to mention a few.

How do I get this joy? What does it feel and look like? I can’t answer that because God will encourage each person differently, but it will look outwardly the same for everyone. It will manifest itself in the visible attribute of the gift of the Holy Spirit, Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. Unfortunately these will be more obvious to others than to ourselves, and if we fail to listen to those around us (no matter who they are) that point out our shortcomings in these areas we will be unable to correct ourselves. There is a way to have this joy, but it takes a lot of self examination to align your mind with scripture, and sometimes very pointed truths by others that will be a severe blow to your pride and your feelings.

I’ll be honest, I feel like I stumbled onto this by accident (though I don’t really believe in accidents, I’m sure the understanding was given to me by God). Nonetheless it is still something I work towards in an ongoing battle against the pain and limitation I deal with.

Bob

Hypocrisy thy name is ?

The latest scandal involving Christian leadership is that of Ted Haggard. Mr. Haggard has been accused of a homosexual affair and illicit drug use. Who is his accuser? The accuser is none other than the homosexual prostitute drug dealer that Mr. Haggard was said to have had the affair. But wait it gets better; the reason that this person said he came forward was a “matter of principle”.

I believe that leaders in the church are just as apt to make mistakes or fall into sin as anyone else, but I also believe we have to take into context the character of the accuser. This is especially true when dealing with homosexuals or their activist groups. They sheer hypocrisy of Mike Jones to accuse Ted Haggard of any wrong doing is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Sure there need to be repercussions to Ted Haggard’s actions, and these are already coming into effect as he has stepped down from his leaderships roles. However before we condemn him for anything more, we need to look at the motives behind Jones’ accusations.

Jones said he did it as a “matter of principle”. But this man is a self proclaimed drug dealer and homosexual prostitute, yet people are putting blind faith in his accusations. Since this man obviously doesn’t hold to the principles I do, it begs the question of what principles did he find so offensive that made him feel he must shout his claim to the world? Was it because Mr. Haggard was scheduled to speak out against homosexual marriage in a political arena (with US elections looming)? The timing does seem a little too coincidental, and since I don’t believe in coincidences I can only come to the most obvious conclusion that this was the case. It wouldn’t be the first time that a gay activist group tried to rally support by propaganda spreading.

What I’m trying to say is look behind the motives of people. This may or may not have been Jones’ reason, but his obvious lack of character gives me cause to consider his accusations far less credible.

Bob