Category Archives: Thoughts

Raccons and the Anti-Christ

This is in reply to an article in the Something Cool News (to who I owe that most interesting title), www.somethingcool.ca, aticle found at the link below.

Fred, Fred, Fred…

An old apocalyptican like yourself does not recognize the appearance of Psycho Killer Racoons and that story being reported loudly on the ABC website as a sign of the approaching apocalypse?

Alternatively I suppose that you could take it as a genetic consequence of years of mistreating the environment. No – not the racoons, who are only acting naturally, but human beings. What else besides genetic and brain damage as a result of environmental excesses could explain this taking place. Yes I know we are speaking of Americans, but not even Americans can be that stupid without factoring in genetic and mental damages inflicted by environmental poisonning.

I suppose it does not really matter. Approaching Apocalypse or brain damage the result will be the same since, in a Universe set in motion to evolve intelligent live, even if it is only genetics and brain damage the Universe would have no other option but extinction of the humans to permit evolution to take another shot at evolving an intelligent species. In either case the effect, and thus from the view of humanity, is the same.

How to tackle the economic paradox

We have persistent poverty within a booming economy; here’s what B.C. can ­ and should ­ do — Seth Klein — Vancouver Sun (p A11), December 12, 2006

It’s the time of year when we find ourselves particularly conscious of poverty and homelessness, but especially this year.

British Columbians seem acutely aware of a paradox that marks our economy: We are simultaneously experiencing solid economic growth and decades-low unemployment on the one hand, and record homelessness, persistent poverty, and a stubborn sense of economic insecurity on the other.

We all tend to be more generous during the holiday season, but these problems cannot be fixed through charity alone ­ they require public policy action.

So what can ­ and should ­ the provincial government do to improve the lot of low-income people, both those who rely on social assistance and those who struggle in the low-wage workforce? A lot.

1) Increase welfare rates. Premier Gordon Campbell’s October announcement that he will increase the shelter allowance for people receiving social assistance was welcome news. But this long overdue change shouldn’t wait until February’s budget. And overall rates must be increased, not just the shelter allowance.A single person without a recognized disability currently gets $510 a month for everything ­ housing, food, clothing, transportation, heat and electricity, toiletries, etc. A single parent with one child receives $968, and a person with a disability gets $856. People without a disability receive less today, in real (inflation adjusted) dollars, than they did 12 years ago. After inflation, rates are 20–26 per cent lower (and 12 per cent lower for people with disabilities.

2) Depoliticize the process of setting welfare rates. Rates should be grounded in a transparent and objective rationale, and tied to a realistic estimate of the basic cost of living. The Dieticians of B.C. report that people cannot eat a nutritious diet on welfare. Calculations by both the Social Planning and Research Council of B.C. and Human Resources and Social Development Canada show that welfare rates need to double if they are to meet minimum living costs.A good starting point would be to immediately increase welfare rates by 50 per cent, a measure that would cost about $500 million.

3) Let all welfare recipients keep some earned income. Currently, only those recipients with a recognized disability or barrier to employment are allowed to earn and keep some extra money. B.C. is the only province in Canada that penalizes other welfare recipients by one dollar for every dollar that they earn. Everyone should be able to earn and keep at least $500 per month tax-free.

4) Raise the minimum wage. As with welfare rates, the minimum wage should be depoliticized, and grounded in a clear rationale. An individual working full-time, yearround should not have an income below the poverty line. For this to be so, the minimum wage would need to be $10 per hour.

5) Index both welfare rates and the minimum wage to inflation, and adjust them annually. The Conservative government of Newfoundland recently indexed welfare to inflation, the first government in Canada to do so. B.C. should follow its lead.

6) Make welfare more accessible to those in need. The process of seeking social assistance has become so complicated to navigate, and the eligibility rules so restrictive, that many of those in need are systematically discouraged and denied, and some of these people end up on the streets. The entire application process should be the subject of an independent review, and redesigned so it is appropriate for the majority of people who seek assistance.

7) Increase the stock of affordable housing. The province’s recent move to expand rental subsidies is of some value, particularly for those living in communities with high vacancy rates. But truly addressing the housing crisis and escalating rents requires a significant boost in the quantity of lowincome housing. The province should aim to create 2,000 new units of social housing per year.

8) Enhance access to post-secondary education and training. Meaningful training and education is key to accessing stable, well-paying jobs. The province should rescind the rule that prevents people on welfare from being post-secondary students, and re-introduce tuition-free adult basic education and other upgrading programs at the post-secondary level.

9) Bring in a universal, publicly funded child care program. High quality child care brings important benefits to children in terms of brain development and school readiness, and is essential to women’s equal access to the paid labour market. Quebec has shown that, if the will exists, a province can act alone.

10) Enforce and enhance employment standards. People working in the low-wage workforce rely on provincial employment standards for their basic workplace rights: Minimum wages, statutory holidays, minimum and maximum shift times, overtime pay, etc.

But these standards aren’t being pro-actively enforced, and have been significantly weakened. Vulnerable workers need to know that their workplace rights will be honoured. And if the laws made unionization less challenging, such workers would likely see significant improvements in their income and security.

Combined, these measures would cost the provincial treasury just over $2 billion next year. That may sound like a lot, but consider that last year’s budget surplus was $3 billion, the current year’s surplus is on track to be a similar size, and next year’s surplus will be larger still.The money is there to make a dramatic difference, and the public wants to see action. The cost of inaction is high.

Seth Klein is the B.C. director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Re: Government shouldn’t pay for criminal’s tatoos.

Like so may people, on many social issues, Ms Bjarnason demonstrates a failure to see beyond the headlines and make the effort to understand the underlying facts and issues.

The “safe ink in jail” program was about “other issues that needed addressing”. I would like to suggest that Ms Bjarnason, and any others who agreed with her statements, acquaint themselves with the reasons behind this pilot program.

While I may like the idea of “safe ink” and tattooing in prison, the success of this approach in addressing the problems caused by unsafe ink in prisons, means that I do support keeping and expanding this program. No doubt part of this support is because I have no false expectations that unsafe ink and tattooing are preventable, except at prohibitive costs to the taxpayer and society.

To make decisions on issues and actions based on thoughtless reactions to superficial headlines or catch phrases, paying no heed to the actual facts, leads not only to bad policy but so often to significantly increased hidden costs – in terms of dollars and (common) sense.

This public preference for making decisions, forming opinions or voting on the basis of this sounds terrible (good), this agrees with what I believe and/or don’t confuse me with the facts approach “is ridiculous”.

In Keeping with the Spirit of the Season – so to speak.

I got a chuckle from the reports on the Christmas tree kafuffle at Seattle airport. The chuckle arose from annoyance at all the e-mails and newspaper letters from people demanding we keep Christ in Christmas and suggesting I (we) are un-Canadian of un-Spiritual if we do not support their exclusionary demands.

OK, I admit to a little smugness over these self-labelled Christians being reminded that this season “belongs” in part to an earlier faith in Judaism. Lest others feel the need to stake their religions claim to this season, I concede that this Season traces it roots back to early pagan Winter Solstice celebrations. In fact the timing of Christmas is a result of the early christian church feeling the need to have a celebration at year’s end/turning to allow them to compete against the pagan faiths for followers.

The “it is OUR season” ranting has reached a level of annoyance such that I cannot help being amused at anything that serves to hoist these self-labelled Christians on their own petard by establishing earlier claims to the season for other Faiths and belief systems. I have grown tired of this holier than thou, this is OUR celebration, exclude those who do not believe exactly what we do attitude of these self-labelled Christians.

The point of my rant, ahem – scolding, and the reason I refer to these people as self-labelled Christians is that their behaviour shows a total lack of understanding of what the season is truly about. The fact is that the Seattle Rabbi who set the kafuffle off shows more understanding of the Season in urging the return of the trees – without his demand being fulfilled.

The Christ who comes at Christmas is about and for others, bringing a spirit of renewal and love. This season is about forgiveness; new beginnings; love for our fellow man; about the lesson of the Good Samaritan; treating others as we would want to be treated; about sacrifice for others; above alleles it is Inclusive.

Christmas is about OTHERS! It is not about or belonging to ME, as the “it belongs to us Christians” as the attitudes of these mistaken, self-labelled Christians suggests. Actions have consequences. In their self-centered beliefs and actions these theologues miss the raison d’être of the Season.

In behaving this way they, like Lewis Carroll’s Marley and Scrooge, “labour upon the chains they forge and of their own free will gird about themselves”. For in truth their Spirits do not go forth among their fellow man but are locked within the confines of their personal religious beliefs and their money-changing (hands) temples. To them Marley’s lament “Mankind was my business!” is nothing but a line from an old story.

Christ was and is about caring for others, sacrificing so that mankind could lead Full, Happy, Loving and Free lives. Mankind was Christ’s business.

Take a moment to reflect and meditate upon yourself and the season. Should you find that you have forgot about your fellow man, forgetting the design behind the season, you may want to take a look for the chains you have forged and meditate upon what Christ would have you do to break your chains and set your Spirit free to walk among your fellow man.

May the love and Spirit of the season fill your Soul, spill over and call blessings upon yourself, family, friends and your fellow man throughout the New Year.

Response to a Letter

First, I believe the only way to make any true headway on issues such as poverty or homelessness requires the entire community to be involved. We are speaking of very complex issues that need many new, innovative ideas so we can tease apart the separate threads making up the Gordian knot we currently have. In order to generate these ideas we must have discussion, debate and conversation. The second is that as part of the examination of these problems, issues and ideas it is a fair question to ask about my personal frame of reference. Having an understanding of my background and life experience should help readers understand what I am saying and not have misunderstandings occur, such as happened in the first paragraph of your letter.

Blame is a fool’s game. It accomplishes nothing and gets in the way of change. It would have been most beneficial to course of my life to have dealt with my mental health issues at a much earlier point in my life. I did not or could not get it together then and there is nothing I can do to change that past. I could blame myself for not having been able to act before and constantly beat myself up over that, but that behaviour accomplishes nothing. I have to let it go and accept it as one of the realities of my life I cannot change. While I cannot change what went before, I am responsible for my future mental health. I could be incredibly stupid and go back to the old behaviours that left me vulnerable to having my life trashed by mental illness. Alternatively I could choose to act in a rational and intelligent manner, accepting the reality that I suffer from mental illness. I can, by acting responsibly, choose to walk a path more to my liking. I have medication to put a bottom I can deal with on what was a bottomless pit of mental hell, tools to get me through the bad days, knowledge about my own mental health, awareness of and access to mental health resources to deal with unusual stress or problems, friends and groups for understanding and support, I have regained joy and found passion to pursue interests, issues and causes. Most importantly I have regained my ability to make choices. Hanging onto blame would only serve to anchor me in the unhealthy mental state of my past. I choose to let go and live well.

In a similar manner it is a pointless waste of time to attempt to assign blame for poverty, homelessness, addiction, mental health issues, injustices and the uncivil, selfish behaviour rampant in our society these days. There is plenty of blame to go around and absolutely no point in getting into a pointless argument about who, what, where, why or how we got into this mess. We are in it and I do not really care about blame. What I am concerned about is the future and that we as a community behave rationally and intelligently in the choices we make and the actions we take.

It is clear to me that the actions currently being untaken in regards to dealing with these issues have accomplished pretty well nothing positive while serving to add to the rolls of the poor, homeless, addicted, untreated mentally ill, victims of crime and a host of others ill-fated enough to need support. To continue current policies and behaviours expecting different results is to me behaving in a manner as insane as the insanity of an addict. What I in fact advocate, is that if we want to attain positive results (for example: cause the number of the working poor who depend on the food bank for enough food to live to go down or to reduce the number of homeless living on the streets), we must change policies and behaviours to reflect what is real as opposed to the current practice of seeing what one wants to see or believing what one wants to believe. Reality does not care what you want to see or believe it just IS. Ignoring or denying reality because you do not like, want to believe or want to acknowledge that particular reality is as pointless a waste as blaming. Refusing to face reality perpetuates current behaviours, wasting large amounts of money, resources and time to no purpose. When what you are doing only serves to increase the problems and challenges faced – it is time to change your behaviour.

Before we proceed to your points 1 thru 5 there is a question I need an answer to be able to more accurately understand the points you raise. Since I do not know you I have no real way to determine if you are narrow-minded, wilfully blind or merely uninformed. Your statements equate being homeless with being an addict which is erroneous. Before continuing to read I would suggest you familiarize with the reality of homelessness. Yes those with addictions make up a significant percentage of the homeless but they are far from all the homeless. The last figure I read, sent by another fellow citizen less than pleased with my words, was from a Toronto Star article on a study that cited addiction as the primary cause for 30% of those who found themselves living on the streets; a far cry from all the homeless. Labelling all the homeless as addicts, because some are, is no more fair than me labelling you as an unthinking, war mongering, ass-kissing megalomaniac who believes the size of his cojones is dependent on sending others abroad to kill and be killed just because conservative party leader Harper is.

It is totally irresponsible and un-Canadian for any Prime Minister to shove his nose so far up the American president’s derriere. It is beyond irresponsible to abandon our role as peacekeepers and place our soldiers in a situation where they will kill innocent bystanders and they cannot tell who the enemy is. It is insanity to spend our soldiers lives so that a bumper crop of poppies (heroin) can be raised, processed and exported to our streets to kill and addict the very Canadians our troops are pledged to protect. It is incomprehensible that any leader would think that aggressive actions, bullying and going around wrecking death and destruction make you a “player or leader” on the world stage. I cannot in any way comprehend how it is that Harper thinks the size of our military and his willingness to waste their lives and our countries treasures in military adventurism in any way enhances the size of his cojones.

On point 1 – Yes I believe in punishing crime. I do however suspect, based on your statements about “rights and freedoms” that we do have a very different view about our legal system. I believe everyone is entitled to the same “rights and freedoms”. Based on your words, you and your fellow conservatives advocate that some have or should have more “rights and freedoms” than others. Just what are the criteria you use for deciding which rights and freedoms someone should have? Where you were born, skin colour, religious beliefs? Does the amount of money you have and the size of donations to the conservative party entitle one to more “rights and freedoms” than those with less money and who vote Green? My personal beliefs is that our legal system should be as level a playing field as possible and that everyone should have the same “rights and freedoms”.

Your point that jailing pushers would solve addiction is a fallacy. Let us be perfectly clear on one point about the drug trade and that is, in one of those huge ironic twists that the Universe seems to abound in, the drug trade is the ultimate expression of Capitalism. Supply and demand is the foundation upon which the drug trade (legal and illegal) is built. No matter how many pushers you lock up, the lure of big bucks and all the things money buys ensure a ready supply of people willing to sell drugs to make the $$$. Similar to the way in which tobacco companies had and have no trouble finding people to make, distribute and sell a product causing death and suffering. If your approach to this group of issues is throwing pushers in jail, then you are doomed to failure as our society’s worship of the $$$ guaranties an endless supply of those willing to sell harmful products – of any shape or form. The only way to drive pushers out of business is to eliminate demand. This whole area of discussion demonstrates that what sounds good and appeals to ones personal world view often, when viewed rationally and through the lens of reality, will not accomplish your goal – unless your goal is to fill up prisons. We know from the experience of the USA that using incarceration to address drug use only fills up the prisons and makes rich those involved in the building and running of prisons. Yet another of those Universal ironies, another legal way to get rich from the illegal drug trade.

I have nothing against locking up pushers. I just firmly believe that for ethical, moral and spiritual values we should be concentrating our resources and time on helping the addicts as opposed to the conservatives desire to pour unlimited dollars into jailing pushers and then claiming we have no money to build detox beds. Build the detox beds, help the addicts get sober, you eliminate the demand, which eliminates the $$$ and thus the pushers. You and the conservatives may not find this approach nearly as soul satisfying as throwing lots of people in jail, but it has at least the possibility of working and it will help addicts.

Point 2: Another illustration of differing viewpoints. You see “down-and-outers” were I see my fellow human beings in pain and in need of help. As to your compassion and willingness to “give time, money and your home” – this is an important piece of what is needed to help those suffering with or from such challenges as addictions, mental health, homelessness or pure bad luck to get back on their feet. If some of the badly needed changes can be brought into being, I will be calling upon you to help execute those changes. Although there will be need of monies, properly spent, it is personal time and caring that will be the deciding factors in how successful we as a community will be in reclaiming lost lives.

This belief, that the soul of a community is determined by the involvement of citizens in volunteering, is why I also volunteer my time with organizations and activities that have nothing to do with poverty and homeless issues.

I think I will just pass on the issue of who gives more; it would be entering a pointless snake pit of definitions. Any decent accountant can build support for either side of your statement. There is far to much that needs doing and far to many who need help to waste time in semantically debates. I do not care where the giving comes from. What I do care about is that all the resources are used to take actions that efficiently and effectively produce positive results.

Point 3. I apologize for the following verbal jab but while I am much healthier mentally I do fail sometimes and this jab is just to good to pass up. Apologies. I bow to your working prowess. While I have, in a factory setting, occasionally worked 2 eight hour shifts I found that by the end of the second week I had to cut back the hours and get some more sleep and rest. As for your having “worked two eight hour jobs and sometimes three” there is nothing I can say as I always had to get some sleep and as I said by the end of the second week of 16 hour days I had to cut-back to get more rest. I could not, I would not even be willing to try, work three eight hour jobs as I have always had to get some sleep each day. No, going 24 (3 X 8) hours a day without rest is beyond me.

I must also apologize as I must have misunderstood your politics as I had thought you supported the conservative party. I must be mistaken about your supporting the conservatives since you want your taxes to go to a responsible government. On top of this you want a government to “re-steer the homeless addict through rehab into a self fulfilling job in society”. I think I will also apologize for stealing your words because, although I will drop the re- in re-steer, the goal of “steering the homeless addict through rehab into a self fulfilling job in society” is an expression of a goal I can get behind and support. So with you demanding both responsible government and sound social policy it is obvious you cannot be a conservative supporter. To be truthful, I do not see how you can support any of our current political parties using your stated criteria.

Point 4. This point forces me to take my tongue “out of my cheek”. I am not sure whether the current conservative government fooled you (and many others) completely or if you were so desperate for a responsible government that you became self-delusional. It does not matter. Let us be clear on one important fiscal point – this current conservative government does not behave in a fiscally responsible manner. Actually, they do not behave in a responsible manner in most of their actions. That aside, I base my judgement of their fiscal idiocy and irresponsibility upon my education and background – Bachelor of Commerce, Chartered Accountancy and wide experience in accounting and business. A fiscally responsible government does not cut taxes, it does not even promise to cut taxes during an election campaign. A fiscally responsible government takes every cent it can muster and applies it to reducing the government debt levels you cited. A fiscally responsible government does not tout a surplus when that surplus is an illusion. The so-called surplus exists only as long as interest rates remain low. Currently they are rising and are going to continue to rise, eventually reaching and surpassing the point where increased interest costs turn the “surplus” into debt. To increase the recklessness of this, the conservative government has committed to pour out of our coffers hundreds of billions of dollars, in following their ideology, on programs or assets that will add nothing of economic benefit to our country or its citizens.

Worse, in the pursuit of their ideology the conservative government fails to think. For example, in the area of their ideological based childcare program they failed miserably to consider what effect the additional $200 would have on the working poor. I recently heard, and agreed with, the indignation someone was feeling over hardships this unthinking, ideological policy making had. She was trying to come up with someway to overcome the disaster looming for a family in jeopardy of going hungry because the $200 placed the family over the income limits for accessing the food bank. Apparently the conservatives only worry about helping the working person who is able to donate to their party. The working poor who, needing every dollar just to survive, cannot afford to waste a dollar supporting any political party appear, in the conservative world view, to be unworthy of sparing a thought about. The conservatives are so busy pursuing their ideology they have no time to behave responsibly.

I have to admit to having no understanding of your comment citing our debt having gone to pay for a rich sheik in Asia. Should you choose to clarify what you are speaking of I would be glad to address this point. Currently that statement seems incongruous to being linked to paying for roads, hospitals or helping the homeless.

Point 5. I agree people need to be engaged in their community, province and country an a daily basis. The true problem with voting is that so many fail to vote and so many of those who do vote fail to expend the effort to actually think. They would rather just hear something they like, something they want to believe is true or promises of easy, fast fixes for difficult problems thus it is you have our current political situation. If people actually took the trouble to think and apply common sense to the issues and challenges that face us, they would ignore the existing parties and forming a new political collaboration based on acting in a responsible manner based on reality – not ideologies or world view.

As to your analogy of the bridge and ambulances: I think you are viewing the situation completely wrong. I would say that in pointing out what actually results from current policies and practices, then calling for the changes necessary to act in the manner required to help steer people into fulfilling places in society, I am standing on your imaginary bridge attempting to change the direction of travel from the disastrous path over the edge. In seeking to perpetuate the current policies and actions, to remain on the same old path onto the bridge and over the edge into the abyss, thus adding to the carnage of the pileup at the bottom of the gorge (or society), you are standing at the bottom of the gorge beside the river. Perhaps you would care to join me in switching from the old path over the edge onto a new path leading upwards and outwards.