All posts by James W. Breckenridge

Consider

Thoughts on Thinking

Leave a comment
I was addressing a group of geographers the other day on Abbotsford’s social problems of homelessness, poverty, mental illness, addiction and affordable housing.

I decided to use their theme of inclusion and diversity to refer to George Carlin and his bit on mutually exclusive words with inclusion and diversity seeming to hover on the verge of being mutually exclusive, joining such examples as politicians & truth.

The point was to cite this as the root of not only our social problems but of almost all other challenges facing our societies, indeed facing the entire human race.

Not politicians and their propensity for lying or acting on what their ideology says should be the situation instead of what the actual reality of the situation IS. Rather it was my postulation that for the vast majority of the human race, especially politicians, thinking is an incredibly painful task, to be avoided at all costs.

What else would explain the length people will go to in order to avoid thinking about things or outright refusal to think period?

Politicians lie is an accepted truism, born out by the evidence of their words, actions and the outcomes of their behaviours. The solution to politician’s lies and so many other conundrums is the application of tools such as Occam’s razor or the science of logic. But this would require the application of thought, in some instances deep thought, causing pain, even agony throughout the population.

So it is that people go for what sounds good rather than apply critical thinking. They cling to what they want to believe or want to see rather than what the reality is. They avoid any thought or consideration of their core beliefs or world view because that would require deep thinking. Anything to avoid the pain of thought, the agony of deep thoughts

After all, who would refuse to think about problems and solve them, rather than wasting resources accomplishing nothing and allowing the problems to worsen and multiply, unless the very process of thinking was incredibly painful and must be avoided?

ipso facto: thought = painful experience for most people

I asked them to give a little thought to the effect that thinking being painful and thus to be avoided has had on social issues in Abbotsford and Canada. I asked anyone finding themselves experiencing pain, to work their way up to thinking by merely considering these ideas, kind of thought lite.

The point of this postulation was originally to engage their interest and drawing attention to the need to get people actually thinking about the problems, what needs to be done and on solutions. It served very well to engage their attention on major social problems and the hard realities we need to really think about and face in order to make intelligent, rational, sometimes unpleasant decisions on so many pressing issues.

The reason for sharing this here is because, frighteningly, when this idea continued to roll about my mind making me think further on the postulation about thought hurting so much, evidence in support of the proposition continued to grow. So think about (or at least consider the possibility) the proposition that thinking = pain.

Asking yourself: Who would refuse to think about problems and solve them, rather than allowing the problems to worsen and multiply, unless the very process of thinking was incredibly painful and must be avoided at any cost?

Frightening thought isn’t it?

Municipal

But Abbotsford City Hall is SPECIAL! at least in their own minds.

Leave a comment

It is behaviour such as Abbotsford City Hall’s action on the Old Spaghetti Factory application that leaves thinking people shaking their heads.

I expect that something will be worked out and that we will get an Old Spaghetti Factory in that location. I also expect that the business people who had the misfortune to find themselves dealing with Abbotsford City Hall will be telling other potential investors that they DO NOT want to do business in Abbotsford; that you want to drive on by Abbotsford if you are looking to do or open a business simply because dealing with Abbotsford City Hall is a time wasting, irrational pain in the a*s.

Perhaps there are some parking issues but… we are not talking about building a NEW Old Spaghetti Factory, we are speaking of putting a restaurant into an existing building that housed … a restaurant. That is correct: they are proposing to put a restaurant into a location that previously housed an approved restaurant, same location, the very same building. Understandably someone looking to put in an Old Spaghetti Factory would choose a location that previously contained a restaurant and expect no problems.

I do not care if there are some minor parking issues (if they were not reasonably minor the project would be dead). Abbotsford City Hall approved putting a restaurant in that location originally; it is unreasonable, unpredictable behaviour to suddenly question the suitability of this location for a restaurant. And Abbotsford City Hall wonders why rational, intelligent people do not want to do business in the City.

Personally I think the people behind the proposal should have told Abbotsford City Hall that there was no problem. There is a city bus route servicing that location and customers can park at Seven Oaks Mall and take transit to and from the Old Spaghetti Factory.

What I, potential investors, business people and any reasonable human being what to know is why there is such a difference in the rules for businesses, citizens etc and Abbotsford City Hall. A shortage of half a parking space can scuttle a proposal for others, but Abbotsford City Hall can be short thousands of parking spaces and create traffic chaos and all is fine. Is this the kind of behaviour you want in people you do business with? If Abbotsford City Hall wants to see why people and businesses drive on by and avoid the City – just look in any mirror.

Homeless

7PM Executioner

Leave a comment

I have developed a severe dislike for 7PM: zero hour at the shelter, the point in time where those waiting on the seven o’clock rule for whom there is a bed available get in and you tell those for whom there is no room that they must leave and you close the gates. At which point you get to tell anyone who comes that there is no room and that there is nowhere else in Abbotsford, not even a barn, to find shelter in.

In a job that is by its nature stressful, counting down that first hour to zero has taken the stress to a whole new level. The bell tolls 7 and you become Ming the Merciless, at this time of the year often sending the surfeit off into the rain. On those very rare nights where the shelter does not fill up until after 7PM the lifting of the burden of sending people away at 7 results in a feeling of profound relief, of almost being on holiday.

With the flood of new homeless inundating the shelter these days those rare occasions of relief are to be treasured, for they are scarce and threatened with extinction. It is no longer unusual to turn away a dozen people because there is no room at this “inn”. In fact in the last couple of weeks we have twice narrowly missed (by one) turning away more people than we can accommodate when full.

I wish my words could convey what it feels like night after night to say no, in effect saying: get your hungry ass back out into the rain and the night. To see and record the numbers as the situation worsens. They are far from saints, many of them there as a consequence of bad choices and/or stupidity, but just as many are there because of mental illness, the personal challenges they face and a growing segment who is there as a result of the poverty entrenched in society by our current social and economic policies.

I could, have and will again in future list solid, materialistic, self-centered, it is all about me reasons that people should be demanding those they have chosen to represent them address these growing social issues. But not here and now as this is about feelings.

NO, this is not about “those type of people” except indirectly. It is about us and what our inaction, our complacency on these issues says about US. Those who claim “I am not responsible…” are either lying to themselves (something we all do to varying degrees), lacking in spirit or lacking in substance – that is to say: shallow. We are all responsible for the outcomes of our actions or inactions.

The current society we decry so loudly as uncaring and cold did not just spring into existence. This society is the one we have built using the building blocks of our deeds, our refusals to act and our evasions of engagement. One of those building blocks is that there are so many people I have to turn away at 7PM. We are capable of addressing this and similar issues, of building the society we claim to want – If we choose.

It is about our choices, about the fact that a significant portion of what I feel at 7PM is despair with and disgust for our so-called Society.

Municipal

Spectrum: $5,000 for what?

Leave a comment

So we are paying Spectrum $5,000 a month, a fee soon to increase by 50%, for their “expertise”. This would be the same “expertise” that produced the debacle at the ECHL all-star game? I am sure the ECHL was impressed by the lack of preparation and knowledge displayed by City representatives travelling on the taxpayer’s credit card.

Given Abbotsford City Hall’s track record I fail to understand why they had to pay for Spectrum’s “expertise” to appear of questionable intelligence. With brilliant moves such as their behaviour/failure on the Provincial funding front, Abbotsford City Hall is clearly capable of demonstrating incompetence without wasting tax dollars on outside “expertise”.

While on the subject of Spectrum: was it not just a few months ago that Abbotsford City Hall was claiming the reason to have brought Spectrum in was not to help sell Plan A snake, but to help secure an ECHL team through “expertise” and “connections” – the same rational that was used to sell the claim that major Ice Shows and Bands would be breaking down the doors to perform at the new arena? We have seen Spectrum’s performance with the ECHL, which raises serious questions about their ability to deliver the promised performers.

I would like to know why it is the city is doing the work vis-à-vis the ECHL when this was part of the stated reasons for brining in Spectrum and where were Spectrums claimed “connections” and “expertise” at the ECHL all-star fiasco. Based on their performance so far I fail to see why we are wasting our tax dollars on Spectrum Unless of course Abbotsford City Hall feels the need to have someone to blame, blame and excuse making being a demonstrated expertise of Abbotsford City Hall, when the arena shows its true colours: white, as in Abbotsford City Hall’s giant White Elephant – bleeding taxpayers dollars.

Consider

Dim, Dim future for journalism.

Leave a comment

As one would expect, people being people, several of them went out of their way to bring the less than complimentary article in the February 22 2007 UCFV Cascade about the Salvation Army to my attention. They seemed very disappointed by my reaction “The future of journalism is sooooooo dim!!”

Ironically the February 26th edition of the somethingcoolnews.ca would contain an article by me on the terrible reporting I saw on Global’s Noon Hour News. This was not the first piece/letter to the editor I have written on this topic and given the flood of just plain BAD journalism these days it will be far from the last – as evidenced by this piece.

Those who have witnessed my reaction know that I find the fact we are being inundated with shoddy, deficient reporting at a time and on topics were full, accurate public knowledge is needed in order to make intelligent decisions extremely aggravating and very, very frustrating. A public constantly misinformed by the media presents an educational challenge that must be overcome before we can begin to address our society’s problems. Another layer, another barrier added to beginning to solve complex pressing social problems such as homelessness, addiction and poverty. This deluge of outright terrible journalism is adding to the problem at a time we desperately need accurate, thoughtful and insightful journalism to give people facts and a true picture of the state of affairs.

So I write to the reporters and editors to express my thoughts not so much because I expect them to change (although one can always hope) but to relieve my frustration and because if we, the victims of this inferior journalism, do not protest we surrender all hope for decent reporting. I really have no expectations of reply or that they will publish these critiques, but then with the internet there are venues to share it with the public and faithful readers. I must acknowledge that the Abbotsford – Mission Post did publish my letter to them – unedited and in its long entirety. Based on reading it weekly the post seems to be trying to live up to its rather lofty stated Editorial Policies.

Unfortunately for readers and those who pay for the publication the UCFV Cascade seems to have no such lofty editorial standards or policies. From Ms Bois article it would appear their requirements are a) it fill the blank space on the page; b) it permit the abuse of one of the target’s print ads to fill an even bigger blank space on the page and c) it permit the placing of a flashy, eye-catching “expose” insert on the front page in a desperate bid to “move the paper off the strand’. Just as an aside vis-à-vis the “expose” it would appear that either the Cascade lacks a dictionary or perhaps just anyone capable of using a dictionary.

Personally, if I had been editor the space would have remained empty with the caption: “Our apologies, the article scheduled for this space was unfit to print”.

For obvious reasons of common sense there is a policy of no dogs on the property, especially necessary in light of a cliental under the influence of behaviour changing substances. Ms Bois may choose to argue that the dog is “a nice gentle animal”. This is the type of quote that hacks in commercial, “if it bleeds it leads” journalism always hunt someone down to say after a child has been savaged by said “nice doggy”. With the state of journalism these days if you cannot attack your target for causing a vicious dog attack, you can always criticize their anti-dog policy.

Unfair but then fairness was notably absent from this article. Fairness would have required that she make it clear that the whiner was not refused food as implied, but was given hearty soup, bread, dessert and pretty much a bottomless cup of coffee. Several times a week there is a meal provided for a $1, giving those on very limited budgets a chance to purchase a change from soup. In fairness to everyone, if you choose to spend your money on other things than the meal you get soup.

When personally lacking the dollar, through my own choices, I never felt/feel slighted, it was and is fair. Fairness also causes me to sympathize with the volunteers if, after 20 people have spent several minutes each arguing they are so special the rules apply to everyone but them and then cursing them as terrible human beings when they enforce the rules, if a volunteer gets a little snippy. In fact I often find myself apologizing for the oaf’s behaviour and thanking them for volunteering since I appreciate that without the volunteers the meals, the café and many other services could not function. They voluntarily give their time and far too often I am left wondering just how crazy they are to continue to volunteer given how often they are verbally abused by clients.

They are human beings and so yes politeness, asking instead of demanding, please, thank you and just plain good manners can result in them preferring to help, even go out of their way to help, a person demonstrating basic civility over a person screaming obscenities in their face while demanding T-bone steak for dinner, that their every demand be immediately met and asserting that they are the point around which the Universe must revolve. Karma: good behaviour is rewarded, bad behaviour has a cost. Excuse me if I do not find this Balance upsetting.

Although, considering Ms Bois contacted her target just before the Cascade’s deadline expecting them to drop everything and meet her needs NOW, she may not even find “the universe revolves around me” attitude anything but normal behaviour. No, blithely tossing off “Unfortunately my attempts to arrange … did not succeed” is not acceptable journalism when it a) involves a deadline that is for the writers convenience and is unrealistically short and b) there is no reason to rush the story into print.

But then this attack was not about being balanced. If it was Ms Bois would not be demanding special treatment for some (exemption from the dog ban, accepting 75 cents for $1 meal) while taking away the rights of others (the right not to be bitten by a dog or even having to worry about that; that everyone pays the $1 you did for your meal) and then a few paragraphs latter accusing the target of giving special treatment to some. Either argue for or against special treatment but be consistent and include an explanation for why the special treatment. I for one would be interested to know upon what basis Ms Bois thinks it equitable or ethical treatment to charge those who spend their money on things other than the meal less than those who save up to treat themselves to the meal as opposed to the plainer soup that everyone can have.

I do concede that Ms Bois was very consistent in whom she spoke with, searching out those who have a bone(s) to pick or conflict with the target organization of the article and avoiding anyone with positive experiences or things to say. This kind of unbalanced, negative research is what spreads misinformation and establishes stereotypes such as all homeless are lazy drug using bums. The lack of balance and its focus on the negative also leads to the kinds of gross factual errors the article contained.

Perhaps it was simply laziness that prevented a simple google search or a search of local newspaper articles would have turned up: a) reports on the extreme weather plan, resulting in the shelter stuffed to overflowing b) articles and letters about how full the shelter is and the large number of people turned away because the shelter was already not only full but overfull.

Even simpler would have been a little footwork. It is not as though the target organization is clandestine or hard to find. Giving the writer access to the best evidence of all, personal observation. Drop in and observe, better yet volunteer to see just what they face day-in and day-out. Of course this course of action would have entailed the high risk of meeting those who have good things to say or seeing some of the truths staff and volunteers see, face and deal with daily.

Perhaps it would seem that basing a judgement on the future of journalism on this one article is against common sense, unfair and unbalanced – but entirely in keeping with Ms Bois reporting. Sigh. The future of journalism is so dismal. I should have expected something along these lines after all, to adapt from the Tao of James, “When you think you have reached rock bottom journalistically with articles that were unfit to see the light of day, someone will write an article to prove you wrong.”