tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8485410399130193412024-03-13T06:35:36.697-06:00Random Musings of a Tormented MindDeranged and DisengagedKGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.comBlogger475125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-27222624614880902522015-05-06T21:07:00.001-06:002015-05-06T21:12:13.053-06:00It's been two years since i Posted!! First of all, I came in here tonight to change my blog background because it was orange. I did not want it to be confused for Orange Crush support that has turned instagram and twitter hashtags for #abvotes, etc, orange.<br />
<br />
I chose a couple of different photos to hashtag #albertaelection and #albertavotes and #albertandp and i think they sum up my opinion quite nicely....<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcm2a_sNZ654D8jsNcK0jweGf2pDjtWLbiFJcVY8dFQcO-wHndbJmdDx9nQmBghD4wSnpqvEzvNvaoPQnwxBkc9zt8BeuDYttuZUHt9wtYeMAA93YNRAB_BXu_oaDNQh1orPBmTRBcv13G/s1600/lemmings.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcm2a_sNZ654D8jsNcK0jweGf2pDjtWLbiFJcVY8dFQcO-wHndbJmdDx9nQmBghD4wSnpqvEzvNvaoPQnwxBkc9zt8BeuDYttuZUHt9wtYeMAA93YNRAB_BXu_oaDNQh1orPBmTRBcv13G/s1600/lemmings.jpg" height="228" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqwR0pS9xuHq9SSAMeJ2DU7wO30cMDjHgPXLVuaZNgTzucTet1n3L5QNIPIVnbiymPDMi9WiIOjZcxSMgW3DmM7Js0avX0amlMeaWeqBLnv1LtAt6yeob4K9hrg2bdSzy7pjWHeifPzKY_/s1600/buffalo-jump.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqwR0pS9xuHq9SSAMeJ2DU7wO30cMDjHgPXLVuaZNgTzucTet1n3L5QNIPIVnbiymPDMi9WiIOjZcxSMgW3DmM7Js0avX0amlMeaWeqBLnv1LtAt6yeob4K9hrg2bdSzy7pjWHeifPzKY_/s1600/buffalo-jump.jpg" height="269" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
But I am not entirely losing faith, at least not completely, on a federal level. Most of the ridings I looked in detail at actually had more people vote for right-of-center parties than for the left-of-center parties.<br />
<br />
For example, in my own riding, 8987 votes came in for WRP and PC combined, with 7225 for the remaining parties combined. The second riding in my region had 11, 898 WRP and PC, with 3729 for remaining parties. My riding ended up with an NDP MLA while the other riding held with the previous WRP MLA keeping his spot.<b> But the whole area is still voting a majority of right-leaning parties at 66% of the total votes. </b><br />
<br />
I am randomly clicking on other ridings in Alberta that ended up with NDP MLA seats to see what their totals are....<br />
<b> </b><br />
<b>Wetaskawin-Camrose: </b>7525 NDP -<b> </b>7633 WRP and PC combined (50.3% majority right-leaning with NDP MLA)<br />
<br />
<b>Fort Saskatchewan-Vegerville:</b> 8927 NDP, Liberal, Green, etc - 8650 WRP and PC combined (not a majority but less than 300 votes difference)<br />
<br />
<b>Lethbridge-East:</b> 10 112 NDP and Liberal - 8628 WRP and PC (not a majority again, but not exactly a trouncing either)<br />
<br />
<b>Lethbridge-West: </b>11 923 NDP and Liberal - 7055 WRP and PC (okay that is bad, but it's almost 40% right-leaning)<br />
<br />
<b>Calgary-Hays:</b> (note PC MLA, just for comparison) 6208 NDP, Liberal, Green, SC - 11233 WRP and PC <br />
<br />
<b>Calgary-Acadia:</b> 6267 NDP and Liberal - 9585 WRP and PC combined (61% right-leaning with an NDP MLA)<br />
<br />
<b>Calgary-Mackay-Nosehill:</b> 7235 NDP, Liberal, Green - 9558 WRP and PC combined (57% right-leaning votes with NDP MLA)<br />
<br />
<b>Calgary-Glenmore:</b> (this is actually a tie at the moment, it is my brother's riding and he told me they are having a recount but as of right now this is the result) 9077 NDP Liberal AP - 12073 WRP and PC (57% majority right-leaning, unknown MLA at this time as PC and NDP tied wth 7015 votes each)<br />
<br />
<br />
I decided to look at various ridings because I have seen a great number of my liberal friends post "bye bye Harper".. as though they believe the tides are turning since NDP won a majority in Alberta. Could they win a majority federally now?<br />
<br />
The official provincial results show NDP with 40.6% of the vote and a majority government of 53 seats. That looks at first glance like a huge hard left turn. PC and Wildrose together only have 31 seats.... but <b>the popular vote puts 52% of Albertans still voting for a right-of-center party with WRP and PC. </b>That doesn't always help when we are talking about the breakdown into seats for MPs in a federal election, but it's not exactly like the majority of Albertans have suddenly become lefties. In fact, the majority of Albertans who voted are still righties. This does not mean the end of Harper quite yet. At least I hope not. I am not a die-hard supporter of any politician really, but I have no problem with Harper and how things have been going in the past 12 years with him as Prime Minister. I do however have nightmare thoughts of Trudeau or Mulclair so I guess we shall see what happens.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-8691411274324837142013-04-24T06:42:00.000-06:002013-04-24T06:49:04.188-06:00Behind the Scenes in the Liberal MindI have a friend that is a Liberal voter. Very socialist in his thinking and ideas. And admits it full out, as in he labels himself these things. He moved to Canada from England many years ago. He has literally spent years talking about Harper and how evil he is, hoped Obama would win, etc.<br />
<br />
But the other day I noticed he was having an interesting conversation with a friend of his back in England, on his twitter. He retweeted his friend's post which was "I will never understand the underclass' fascination with car boot sales #peasants". And then he added his reply which was 'Same over here except it's garage sales".<br />
<br />
I was quite floored. Mr Socialist, spending years chanting about the underdog, wanting Liberals to take over, whining about corporations and the evils of conservatism, suddenly publicly denounces those who attend car boot sales and garage sales as the 'underclass' and 'peasants' - by retweeting and agreeing with the statement. Whaaaaaat?<br />
<br />
I couldnt let that slide so I decided to tweet back 'that was rather elitist'. He wrote back 'maybe' and added a smiley face. I chose the word elitist on purpose because arent liberals always talking about class warfare, and how the upper class is living off the backs of the lower class, blah blah blah? And yet here he and his friend were, calling carboot sales patrons 'underclass' and 'peasants'. Wow. Here he was declaring himself above those 'peasants' by using the terms, an officially labeling others and participating in class warfare.<br />
<br />
That's not very Liberal, is it? And he is not the only one. I throw him in with the massive class of rich people such as movie celebs who earn so much money it's unfathomable to the majority of human beings, but they flap around claiming to be Liberals and Democrats and caring for those who have less. Ya right. That's why Ben Affleck is going to feed himself on only $1.50 a day. Somehow I dont care what he manages to find to eat for that price, seeing as he wont be living under a bridge every night. He is supposed to be bringing awareness to the plight of poor and homeless, however in the statement I read, he actually mentions 'earning millions' per film. That's right buddy, think how many people you could FEED by passing on more of your own earnings! Instead of this gimmick. Im not saying that he <i>should</i> give away his money, he earned it by people choosing to go to his films, but if these people truly care about the poor that they say conservatives are trying to run into the ground, how can they possibly stand to look at themselves in the mirror? It's aggravating.<br />
<br />
Or like my friend, he has had no end of arguments with others (majority of my area votes conservative) on topics like global warming... while living in the biggest house out of any of us and only has one child. Has brand new vehicles every 2 years. Travels (drives) allllll over the place for his job, far more driving than any of the rest of us do, aka pumping more gunk into the atmosphere than his friends and family, buys far more products because he is obsessed with having the best-of and new-everything hence more emissions from the production and distributing of such items, and flies back and forth to england and other parts of the world on a regular basis for holidays while few of us can do that more than every few years... but he is a staunch believer in man made global warming and thinks we need to cut down on emissions. WE, not HE apparently.<br />
<br />
Anyway I thought it was an interesting glimpse into a liberal mind. Class warfare, trodding down upon a lower class, and proclaiming it in public and thinking it is funny. Interesting. Liberal seems to stand for 'free' which you would think means people should be free to do what they like as long as it doesnt hurt someone else of course -- so arent these people 'free' to go to car boot sales? Who are they hurting? I lived in England and I know that thousands of people will go to these events. Ive seen it and it was surprising how many went. It's like a social event - put all your junk in the boot-trunk of your car and go to a big field or parking lots, open up the trunk, and people wander around looking at items. Money and products change hands, and everyone goes home. I thought it was a good idea since here, you have to drive around town looking for houses that are having these sales, but in England you just go to one spot and everyone is there. It can look rather like a gypsy camp by the time it's done lol, but people enjoy it. So? Who cares? Some make a living out of it, that's how they make their money and dont have another job. Maybe that is what upsets my friend, who knows. But seriously, who cares? Or rather - why does HE care. I thought conservatives were the ones who were supposed to be looking down the nose at everyone?<br />
<br />
I guess what Margaret Thatcher (whom my friend hated by the way and put Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead on his status) said all those years ago was true - what conservatives were trying to do was bringing the classes closer together but what the Liberals wanted to do would make the class distinctions even worse. She said that in the 80s and I think she was completely right. KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-78671755761607677232013-04-12T07:01:00.003-06:002013-04-12T07:11:49.341-06:00Effects of Obamacare?I have a friend in the southern US who posted something interesting in our group yesterday. I do not know what her political leanings are because she does not talk about that, but I kind of always assumed she was a democrat (if she even votes, I have no idea)... I am telling you this because people will always assume if you are against Obamacare, you must be against Obama and that is the reason for being against the program. That is not true in this case.<br />
<br />
My friend works in a high school daycare. She loves her job. She works with the babies of teenagers so that they can go to school and have their child in a safe place right on campus. It is a fully funded program, as in free for the parents. Sounds great right? A perfect social program. This way young moms can finish school and they dont have to pay a cent for their children to be cared for by qualified and caring staff. Great idea for the social program people.<br />
<br />
But, with Obamacare, the center may have to close down in 2 years unless they get more funding, or unless they make massive cuts to what they supply and do with the children, staff wages, etc. And the part time staff member's job WILL be cut this fall. And it is possible one full time staff member will be this fall. My friend was the last full time staffer to be hired, so it will most likely be her that gets the axe. The director has been very frank with staff about what is happening because she wants them to be prepared. Even with cutting the part timer and possibly a full timer, the center will not be able to continue past 2 years most likely unless staff get paid a pittance for working there (and who can afford to work in that case?).<br />
<br />
She said they do not have a benefit program right now, and my friend of course knew that before being hired, and she was okay with that. She did not take the job because of the benefit package, she took it because she loves working with children and she felt like she was making a difference in their lives, as well as their young mom's lives. She didnt want a benefit program as a reason for taking the job. Now they are forced to do it and it's almost impossible to pay for it. They have some funding rolled over from prior years that they never used, and that is why they may be able to survive for 2 more years. After that, it's not going to happen unless funding is increased, but it does not appear that it's going to happen.<br />
<br />
What the hell is going on?? I can tell you right now that if the Alberta govt forced my job to pay for a benefit program, we would close too, so I can totally understand what is happening in my friend's daycare.. But at least we use private fees for most of the income, so we could actually just put the fees up a big chunk and then cater only to the richer families and remain open. But we would not be able to have any low income and probably no middle income families either at those rates, so we would just close. We do not want to cater only to the elite, that is not why the center was opened. But with my friend's workplace, they only get a certain amount of funding from the high school, and the high school has to revamp and increase their benefit program for Obamacare too, and cannot afford to give the daycare any more funding from their coffers either. Well isnt this just peachy? I thought it was supposed to HELP people. Isnt that what supporters have been harping on about?<br />
<br />
So basically, in order to 'make sure' that 'everyone has access to affordable health care', an entire high school daycare will be shut down to pay for the program elsewhere (ie inside the highschool itself for staff). All of the moms will have to find somewhere else and seeing as many are poor and of course young, their children could very well end up in sub-par care or their moms may have to drop out of high school and work so they can actually pay for the care, or they may continue with school but have their child in sub par care all day long, and then evenings as well so mommy can work to pay for the care. Hmmm. Isnt that kind of the opposite of what was supposed to happen? If one social program has to close in order to install this new social program, what's the point of that exactly? To me it's a perfect example of the flaws in this plan. Not for profit agencies having to close their doors? That should be a red flag to Democrats and liberals that they overstepped and had a major screw up... but nope....<br />
<br />
** for those who may read this and think 'too bad', those girls made the babies and they should be responsible, that's not my point here. think what you want about the high school daycare and free care - what's happening here is the very programs liberals so often champion, like cheap or practically free child care, are being crushed by Obamacare. Was that what they intended to happen? KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-79552878517707625092013-04-05T23:25:00.002-06:002013-04-05T23:57:36.316-06:00Where to start...... i guess i can start with the president's remarks about an AG's looks, since the news covered that first all day too. Many women I know were saying it doesnt matter but I think it does. Not matter for top news, but for his stupid gaffes and ridiculous statements when he thinks he is being funny.<br />
<br />
Here is my take on it: What's he going to say to the next female AG that he meets? He can't tell her she is the best looking in the US because he already did that with someone else. But if he doesnt comment on her looks, does that mean he thinks she is as ugly as a pile of bricks? That's where I think it's a problem - it sets a precedent that shouldnt have been set. Is he going to tell another that she has great legs? Nice lips? Beautiful hair? What do you follow that up with when you meet other female AG's in the future?? Seriously. That's why it annoyed me. It's kind of like if you are a woman and you meet the president now and he speaks about you in front of millions of people, if he doesnt compliment your looks somehow, isn't that an unspoken insult? The man is such a tard I can't believe it. <br />
<br />
I dont jump on the bandwagon about him being sexist, I just think he is completely stupid. He thinks he is relateable but he is a total dweeb. Im sorry but he is. There is no end of lists of things he has said that were as bad as Biden, if not worse. Look up presidential gaffes if you are bored. But people still put him as higher in intellect than poor GWBush. At least he didnt claim to be a smarty pants ever. He joked about getting Cs in school. Obama is put on a pedestal and has been named in media several times as being one of the smartest and well-learned presidents ever. Oh really? I think they better take that back. the man has said some real boners in his time as Prez. You cant be perfect all the time, but it doesnt take rocket science degrees to know that you just dont say things like that or you will be expected to compliment everyone else too and then it's just going to get silly..<br />
<br />
_______<br />
<br />
Next, I have been looking into this Gluten-Free fad that everyone seems to be promoting. There are a lot of docs out there now telling people that they are gluten intolerant and need to cut it from their diets. A friend of mine was told this last year while seeing a nutrition homeopathic doc about her weight. He said she is bloated and tired all the time because her stomach cannot handle gluten. I said 'oh you have Celiac's? yikes!', thinking that was what she meant. She said no, she is just intolerant of it because the human body was not meant to digest it and that her doc said that most people are actually intolerant or sensitive and people were just not built to eat grains.<br />
<br />
Funny, I have been told that by vegans over the years, that human bodies were not meant to eat meat at all.<br />
<br />
Wow. Now we arent supposed to eat gluten either? Well there goes 80% of what I eat - gluten based foods and meat. Oh oh. I should be dead by now or in serious pain. But im not. hmmmm....<br />
<br />
So a year goes by and my friend is totally gluten free, as is her whole family. She has been very vigilant about it and makes most things herself from scratch because she doesnt trust a bakery to not keep flour lying around (gee, ya think its really gluten free if its made in a facility also making flour based products??) - and she rarely cheats. Very rarely. She was serious about losing weight after getting very big. Well after a full year she has only lost 10 lbs and looks pretty much the same. I could have told her that myself because I know some people with true Celiac's disease and they are not thin at all lol. But whatever. She doesnt understand what is wrong but her doc led her to believe that removing gluten from her life would magically cure her swelling belly. Nope. Not even her face is thinner.<br />
<br />
So I started looking this stuff up awhile back and was surprised to see so many studies and articles linking back to Paleo people - basically those that only eat what they believe cavemen would have eaten. Apparently humans can evolve but they are not allowed to change their diet as they go along for a hundred thousand years? People probably didnt wear much clothing and they didnt speak english as far as we know, so should we stop that too? Or other languages. Hmm interesting. But anyway, the point was that gluten is too hard for the stomach and intestines and cant break down properly, or something like that. But I read other dietary studies that showed gluten was good because it scraped the goo off our tummy lining and that led to digestive health instead. You know - like 'eat your fiber kids, so you can be regular'. But the Paleos say to get fiber from fruits and veg that they list. Somehow I see the other dietary science of scraping the intestines doing a better job than fiberous stuff from fruit, but what do I know? I just found it funny that if I followed links back through studies and books, I ALWAYS ended up at the original source being the paleo-diet people.<br />
<br />
I think we need to recognize a fad for what it is - a FAD and not waste our time and money on this. Humans have been eating bread for a long long time according to historical records. Thousands of years. Many thousands of years if you look at various cultures and their mark left on history like tools and drawings. Too bad they couldnt leave us recipe books eh? But as humans have evolved in various ways such as clothing and transportation and brain abilities, apparently we arent supposed to be able to evolve our eating habits. That just seems silly to me. But it also concerns me how some doctors are pushing this. I had a boy at my daycare, who was severely underweight at 2 years old, where his mom took him to a homeopath and the dude tested a hair sample and said her son was intolerant to 34 THINGS!!! 34 things he was not supposed to eat in any form. Yeah try putting weight on a kid who cant eat whole food groups and several individual items. Eventually mom got sick of trying to follow the plan and surprise surprise, we kept stuffing him up and he is now almost at regular weight. Phew. I seriously thought the kid was going to die because his bumb skin was hanging off in folds. HANGING OFF. the only time Ive seen anything like that in my life is on children in the ads for africa. But there it was, hanging off his rear end right in my face when I was changing him. I cried later. It was awful. So that was my experience with a doc telling someone they are intolerant of certain foods after testing his hair. Not allergic, just 'intolerant'.<br />
<br />
My friend has a PhD in nutrition and she has started posting all sorts of things on her page to try to make people aware of this new movement and to check into it thouroughly before making such a change. Because keep in mind, a lot of people are already on no-dairy and no-meat kicks as well. add in no-gluten and they are eating fruits and veggies but often not in sufficient quantities to get enough nutrition. How many people would actually sit and calculate the levels of the food they are eating when they dont even want to count something as simple as calories?<br />
<br />
And with the push for healthy eating, there are now studies coming out in the US and Canada showing youth as young as grade one presenting at ER with non-anorexic and non-bulemic eating disorders, where the bases was the children being afraid to eat almost anything because of being taught in school about obesity and they could die of a heart attack before they are 18 if they eat this this or that that. It's getting out of hand.<br />
<br />
I am not the picture of glowing health myself but I believe in the adage of 'everything in moderation'. Dont go around eating fast food everyday cos it's outrageous in calories and nothing beats a home cooked meal for taste and price anyway. Dont go pigging out on chips and then wonder why you cant lose weight. Try to be active when and where you can. Walk to the corner store instead of driving. Drink water to replenish your blood and keep your organs happy (I notice i get more headaches when im not drinking enough water every day). What's wrong with the old 4 food groups rule? that's so easy to follow. But two or three food groups are being wiped off the map by these fads - dairy, grains, and meats. Oh boy. and we wonder why there is a problem.......<br />
<br />
I want to throw in here that when we used to feed the kids at daycare fruits and veg for afternoon snack, we would let them eat as much as they wanted, because hey, it's fruit and veg! Perfect. We would have grapes, apples, oranges, brocoli, celery, cauliflower, and carrots. Parents started asking us to watch how much they ate... not because they wouldnt eat their supper later. But because they would come home on Monday and Wednesday afternoons with the runs. Every time. Ooops. So we started letting them fill their little bowls only twice and in all the years since, we havent had any complaints about the kids getting the trots at home later. Phew. We also stopped serving dark grape juice too because they would have green poop for days lol. But that's another story.... <br />
<br />KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-47128889866218131122013-03-11T16:16:00.000-06:002013-03-11T16:16:10.489-06:00Soda Ban BanI just saw this news link..... http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/11/Judge-Smacks-Down-Bloomberg-s-Arbitrary-and-Capricious-Soda-Ban so is bloombergs ban thrown out now or what!??KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-15807903406350444322013-03-04T22:08:00.000-07:002013-03-04T22:08:09.783-07:00PovertySo in reference to my previous post about Michael Moore, I decided to think about poverty. Moore said a strong social safety net is needed to support people in poverty so that they do not resort to breaking into homes etc.....<br />
<br />
How much stronger of a net do we need?? Seriously - even in the United States, poor people have MUCH more access to assistance than anywhere else in the world. My friend goes to Costa Rica every year and her husband is a doctor and they are planning to move there in the next couple of years to practice medicine. Not because he will get rich, but because the people there are in dire need of EVERYTHING and this family wants to help. As soon as they tie up their finances here and can move down there with buckets of money, they are going to do it. My friend came back a couple weeks ago from her last trip and said that poor people in North America have no idea what poor really is. We HAVE social safety nets here, up the wazoo, and have for a very long time, but there are still people around the world in much more dire circumstances and they have no access to help. But guess what - in all the years my friend has been going there, nothing of their's has ever been stolen. The maids dont pilfer their rooms even though they dont make enough money in one day to use the washing machines at the local laundromat. The local kids dont try to steal my friends' kids phones and music or shoes and clothes. She said they are the most wonderful people she has ever met and she always cries when they have to leave. Youd think, living in such poverty as a one bedroom shack with a dirt floor, those kids would be trying to steal everything in sight to make their lives better - but it has never happened. Not in the town they go to anyway. But she comes back up here and has to lock her house down like fort knox because it has been broken into so many times. Yet the people near her have access to soup kitchens, extremely low priced clothing stores (or free), help with housing payments, health care payments, school payments, etc. She is disgusted by the people up here acting as though they have 'nothing' but not wanting to work for it either. Of course, there are many people out there who work their asses off and get a totally bumb deal in life, but for the most part what I have seen is people being greedy and wanting wanting wanting and not being happy with anything.<br />
<br />
I speak from first hand experience through work. I have to watch single moms complain about their daycare bill when it only costs them about $20 a month from their own pocket. Or if you factor in all the CCTB etc they get, they always get free childcare. I watch them drive up in their brand new convertables (seriously, this just happened 2 weeks ago!), or their Jeep Liberty, or their brand new minivan, or whatever cars, and having packs of smokes in their designer purses, dressing their kids in Nike, Ed Hardy, Adidas, Point Zero, etc etc, brand new Nike shoes, or DC, DC hats and coats and fricken lunch kits. Mom having a smart phone, kid getting an iPad or iPod for birthday, and I just want to throw up! That is what you are helping a hell of a lot of people buy for their kids when you slog away at work every day and get hundreds or thousands taken off your cheques before you can put it in the bank. It disgusts me.<br />
<br />
I get on the bus with a host of single moms every morning that are going to college. I see their brand new fancy strollers, they are tapping away on their smart phones the whole time, their kids are all decked out - and I watch them get off at another daycare, knowing that we are paying for that, and knowing we are paying for their college too. I dont help them with money so they can have a smart phone and fancy clothes. I want their kid to grow up with a decent roof over their head. Here is my take on it - if they have enough money each month to pay for all that stuff, they are getting too much!!<br />
<br />
I think a major problem with robbery etc is actually the Entitlement class we are bringing up. Entititled to have everything right from birth instead of working for it. Wait til all those girls finish college and get a good job and then they might not get any assistance anymore, depending how much they will be making, and they are going to be shocked back into reality big time. What will they tell little joey who cant have DC runners anymore? Is he going to understand that mommy makes too much for assistance now and has to pay for everything herself, and he wont go steal someone else's DC runners? He will suddenly learn to work to buy his own? Hmmm dont hold your breath..KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-8273209414844281382013-03-04T21:48:00.000-07:002013-03-04T21:48:03.885-07:00Too much going onEvery day I think of a topic I want to blog about but there is just too much in my brain and I instead chose not to write about any of it lol. But then today I was reading a blurb on Sun News that said Michael Moore was talking about Canada again via twitter and I went to his page and read them and geezus murphy..... what next?<br />
<br />
Moore was posting about how Canadians don't lock their doors because we feel safer and one reason is because we have less poverty. He was comparing numbers such as 18% of Americans live in poverty where only 11% of Canadians do. Apparently that is a reason for us having less inclination to lock our doors.....<br />
<br />
I have locked my doors since the 80s lol. I live in a very small city but someone broke into my family's car when I was a teenager, and broke into every unlocked car in our whole crescent, the brazen turds - leaving<br />
all the doors open so they wouldnt make any noise closing them.. and since then I have also locked the house door. Was it poverty-stricken teenagers or adults breaking into the cars? Is this somehow a reason to take other people's stuff? I suppose you could say that, because why would well-off kids need to steal, right?<br />
<br />
But to act as though no one in Canada locks their doors but tons of Americans do is just plain silly. There was apparently a State Farm Insurance study done in 2008 that said more than half of Americans polled did NOT lock their doors. Well geez, the way michael moore talks, almost everyone does. I would imagine it's the same as up here - more rural areas leave their doors unlocked, and urban areas lock. How many people living in apartment buildings in cities leave their doors unlocked all the time, do ya think?<br />
<br />
And I dont always lock mine just because of someone coming in to rob me - I do it to try to keep out rapists, murderers, etc. I have kids and Im not going to leave them prey to some bad person out there if I can help it. Is that a poverty thing too? Are most rapists and murderers doing bad deeds because they are poverty stricken? I dont know about that Mr Moore. When I lived in an apartment with my young son, I didnt have much of value to be stolen, all my stuff was crappy second hand... but I couldnt stand the thought of someone sneaking into my place to hurt me or my child. That was the number one reason I locked up - and I cant even remember a time that rapes had occurred in my city before that time so it's not like I heard something on the news, it was just a habit I got into. Big deal.<br />
<br />
So is Canada much different than the US really? I was rather mortified at some of the posts Moore retweeted from Canadians. They were going on about how they dont want to become like the United States, how they left their doors unlocked for so long, they didnt even know where their house keys were, etc. I noticed he chose not to retweet ones that people wrote him saying they DO lock their doors. Only ones where people were tweeting him about unlocking.... well Im sure he could find some americans to retweet about not locking as well, but will he do that? Doubtful. I looked and there were plenty of replies from americans who do NOT lock their doors but he did not retweet. Surprise surprise.<br />
<br />
Then he went on about how crime is worse under Harper. Has Moore looked into all the relationships for the stats? Has he looked at population rising, immigration, the high standard of living up here etc to make his comparisons? I didnt see any evidence of that. It's like he is always trying to make Canada look like this wonderful pleasant place where bad things dont happen unless there is a conservative govt, and how canada is going to turn into the US if we are not careful. What a load of donkey crap. Seriously. And if he hates his country so much, why doesnt he just fricken move?<br />
<br />
He sits there and grumbles about poverty yet all reports I read said he has a net worth of over $50 million dollars. So spread the wealth a little more Michael - you surely do not need all that. you could give 50 families a million bucks and still be okay. Or give 100 families half a million. Or .... whatever breakdown you like. How many houses could he buy in impoverished areas so that the families no longer have a mortgage and can work to pay their regular bills and save money --- but as usual, he is one of those who will do some good deeds each year and draw the line, and go home with his multiple millions sitting in the bank and tell everyone else how bad and evil they are. He says capitalism has done nothing for him - then give the freaking money away dude. But he wont do that will he? In fact, I dont care if he does give away most of his money and keeps a mere one million for himself, because that's more money than the vast majority of americans AND canadians have. He is full of crap. I cannot stand it when big names like this go around telling us how we are doing everything wrong, when their bank accounts are bursting at the seems. He is one of many.<br />
<br />
Looking at Canadian crime stats online from 2006, the areas with by far the highest violent crime per capita are also areas where there is the highest number of police officers per capita (double the amount per capita compared to other provinces). I also noted that Moore said violent crimes such as murder increased under Harper's watch, but I see stats online that say it reached it's peek back in 1975 and has been declining since then. And oops - who was the PM then? The glorious Trudeau was in from about 68 to 79, and again a bit later. But shhhhhh dont tell anyone.<br />
<br />
<br />KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-84869956280816861892013-02-26T15:41:00.000-07:002013-02-26T15:46:03.369-07:00Bloomberg Soda BanI really dont know what to say about people who dont care about NYC Mayor Bloomberg's upcoming bans on soda pop of particular sizes. The latest news says that the ban would not allow pizza places to sell 2 litres of soda with their orders. I just found an online chat forum when i was researching this and was suprised at the responses.http://www.subchat.com/otchat/read.asp?Id=1039572 . The people in there are talking about people being too lazy to go to.store to buy the pop.cheaper,.etcetc. Thats not the point, in my opinion. Its the fact that a city MAYOR is involved in this, along with other bans, that affect people's personal choices and private business practices. What is going on?? I have a family of 5 and every other month or so we order pizza and sometimes get a family meal that includes the pop. Whoopie. We share it among 5 people and often dont even finish it. Its a treat for the kids as we dont eat out and rarely order in. Sure some people.overdo this but who am i to judge??<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It reminds me of a few years ago at work when getting a govt inspection. The inspector saw a staff member's can of pop in the fridge and said that when drinking it, the staffer should pour it into a coffee mug so the children dont see an adult drinking pop. I said "oh, so its okay for them to think we are drinking coffee, but not pop?'. Some.people put tons of sugar and cream in their coffee, while the pop in the fridge was coke zero. Sure its not the greatest but coffee is not the best for everyone either. I just found that over the top. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So back to nyc and bloomberg,,,, if the people there allow this to slide by and elect him again next time, they deserve everything that is thrown their way in the future. It will not stop at pop and salt. Trust me. </div>
<div>
</div>
KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-44710386546255915952013-02-13T22:42:00.000-07:002013-02-13T22:42:36.270-07:00How do you tell someone you like, " I really dont care if you lose your job"?sometimes I run into a dilemna with my beliefs about wasting tax payers dollars and a real-life in-person encounter... i work in childcare and for decades, the funding for various things just came straight to us. But then things started to change.... different levels of groups and committees started popping up, with people paid at each level with tax payer dollars, in order to 'coordinate' on a local level. Now, for many things, I do not believe in centralization... but in this case, when you have federal and provincial money being sent to Edmonton for various childcare needs, it should probably just get sent straight out in the most direct way (if they are going to have the funding in the first place), not drizzled down through multiple layers like 'southern alberta region' and then the local city and town regions. All of the people along the way are getting good full time wages and using up some of the money that is supposed to be going to our KIDS and their families.<br />
<br />
There was a city/district meeting last night in my city pertaining to this and the co-ordinator was worried that some big changes coming are going to mean an end to her job.... well booo fricken hoooo. That job title did not even exist 5 years ago and every center in the city managed to run and get funding before that... so what was this job actually FOR? I know she makes more money per hour than I do, and I am the front line worker actually with these children all day. Why does a coordinator who sits around filling out bazillions of govt forms get more? And in a job that wasnt even needed or in place only 5 years ago? So what if she loses her job? Seriously.. what is the job even FOR?? I guess the Alberta govt knows that it is in hot water with spending, and less revenue to boot, so it's looking at downsizing. We should be happy about that. Sure, it sucks that the top dogs never seem to take a pay cut and get their bloated cheques for sitting around posturing and doing basically nothing most of the time, but if there are lower level jobs that are completely unnecessary, why not save some money there?<br />
<br />
I had to bite my tongue right off because I did not think it was the proper venue to say 'well, so what? your job title is completely useless and has been a waste of tax payers money for the past 5 years'. But I was also a chicken lol. I could have thought of a nicer way to put it, I suppose, but its never easy to look right at a person youve known for a long time and like and say 'you SHOULD lose your job, no one should get paid to do what you do'. Sure, she has helped organized a few workshops each year, but half the time we cant go to them anyway because they happen during the week and we are ummm working! But we also managed to look after hundreds upon hundreds of children since the center opened in 1988 without ANY of these programs and workshops and coordinators. My boss was the chair person several times over the years and never got paid a dime for the organizing she did, so why is there someone in that position now, making over $50,000 a year? That's more than DOUBLE what I make after almost 20 years in direct child care. im sure that money can be used elsewhere.<br />
<br />
and people always cry out that they are taking money away from our children and more needs to be put in early childhood education... well I am a person that does believe in ECE, however, not at the cost of everyone else in the province and country. I believe it's good for kids to learn a few things before they go to school, but I dont expect to churn out a bunch of little einsteins that are going to be bored to death in kindergarten and grade one if we teach them too much... I also am well aware that the greatest minds in history didnt have preschool classes. Some of them grew up in poverty but happened to be brilliant. How about the NASA scientists that ended up putting a man on the moon in the 60s... when they were little kids, did they all go to preschool? Doubtful, especially if they grew up in smaller areas.<br />
<br />
Today preschool is really a babysitter for most people. I look at my job as making sure that children are safe and having fun while their parents are working. I enjoy teaching them new things and helping them experience the wonders of playdough, glue, and glitter. But my number one mission is to ensure that their parents can be at work all day and know that their children are safe and happy. I am a parent of three, and Ive had one of my children with another caregiver before he came to my center (age restriction)... he came home with THIRTEEN BRUISES one day from that place and I never want another parent to feel the way that I did. NEVER. It was horrible. I felt terrible and so full of anger. My mission is to never have another parent doubt their child's care and be able to work and concentrate on that and not worry about their child. I cant think of a better job in the world than making sure these tiny humans are safe and well cared for. I dont care if they can read when they go to kindergarten, because that's what K is for! I dont care if they cant write their name at age 4/5, as long as they are having fun trying. But today, preschool is looked at differenty and the sad thing is, I will be leaving the field within the next few years (center closing because boss is retiring), and I will never return. It has become a monster and I cannot stand the amount of paperwork and crap we have to do. It takes me away from the job I love - working with kids - and then I have to listen to other people bellyache because they might lose their paper-pushing job. Maybe they should come back and work WITH the children and ensure from first hand experience that they are learning and having fun and are safe. INstead of sitting behind a desk and taking $50,000 a year away from the children and their families in the local centers. Lord only knows how much waste there is all over this province through useless positions and beaurocratic waste. It's disgusting, really. KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-58223604013613327762013-02-13T22:07:00.000-07:002013-02-13T22:07:30.227-07:00Police Shoot Innocents - Where is the outrage?I am completely gobsmacked over why I have not seen much, if any, outrage over the innocent civilians who were SHOT at and by police in the manhunt last week for Chris Dorner. Seriously, WHAT is going on??? The woman who was shot was 71 years old! I kept waiting and waiting for news networks to be all over it, but they weren't. There were stories that day and a slight mention here and there, but that's it. Try googling it yourself and the top listings come from sites like salon.com, huffingtonpost, and local news sources - not from Fox, CNN, etc. WHY NOT?<br />
<br />
I cannot believe what I am seeing. I really cant. It is upsetting and I hope all three of those people sue the department and win. Lots.<br />
<br />
Who the hell goes out delivering newspapers on a quiet morning and expects to get shot by POLICE OFFICERS? What 71 year old woman should fear for her life in such a circumstance. She was shot in the BACK according to this local cbs article dated Feb 7th <a href="http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/02/07/2-innocent-women-shot-during-manhunt-for-ex-cop-chris-dorner-had-no-warning/">http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/02/07/2-innocent-women-shot-during-manhunt-for-ex-cop-chris-dorner-had-no-warning/</a><br />
<br />
It really is disgusting. This dude Dorner goes out and shoots people, killing some, wounding others, and it is all over the news that we need to find this crazy lunatic and get him off the streets. How about getting some crazy ass trigger happy police off the streets while you are at it?? To me this shows that even Fox News, famed for being super right-wing anti-govt etc blah blah is in the pockets of police. They do not want to show a bad side to the force, or what??? I dont get it. Youd think this would be huge news. But nope. How often are innocent bystanders shot by police, or injured in car chases between suspects and police, and it makes headlines? More often than this particular incident... why is that? Too embarrassed? Oops while we were out looking for Dorner, we ended up doing something WORSE - shooting at unarmed, innocent people who were just going about their own business and not appearing in a threatening manner in any way, shape, or form.<br />
<br />
The man that was shot at was just as bad a situation. Driving along the road, doo de doo, and BLAM BLAM BLAM.... wtf? I saw the live aerial shots of his truck and all of his air bags had deployed. Oops sorry man, we got a call that shots were fired, we saw your dark truck and thought you must be the suspect fleeing the scene, so we shot at you without ANY reason other than the colour of your truck.<br />
<br />
That is truly revolting. What if it was YOU driving down the road, readers, and you were shot at by police because of the colour or your vehicle? Or that you were driving slow (cos you were delivering papers to various houses on the street, like you do every other day of the week). How would you feel if your son or daughter was shot? What if any of these people were killed?? Is it 'okay' because the man wasnt injured (his truck sure was), or because one woman only got cut by SHATTERED GLASS from BULLETS, or is it okay because the old lady got shot in the back but will survive? WTF is going on. Seriously. I can't believe that I have not seen story after story about this on the news. It should be investigated hugely.<br />
<br />
Every time there is a maniac on the loose, are we to fear that police might get trigger happy and shoot US? that should not happen anywhere.<br />
<br />
And I thought that in general, police were not supposed to shoot unless there is imminent threat? The women claim they had no warning and I would have to agree because if they received warning, youd think at least one of the women would yell back and surprise to the officers - a FEMALE voice is responding, when you are looking for a male. If you can get shot by officers simply because you happen to be driving near a home of a higher up officer who is on some hit list, that's scary. I know that at least SOME people out there are outraged by this - I even saw some clothing articles being sold that say stuff like 'DONT SHOOT! IM NOT DORNER!'. Maybe the WHITE guy who's truck was shot at should have had one of those handy things. If they didnt notice his white skin through the windshield, maybe they would have seen his shirt? Yeah right. Anyway, the public DOES have to get angry about this and call for an investigation into the practices of police departments in situations like this. They all take their lives into their own hands when they sign up for a badge and carry a gun,,, what about two older women delivering newspapers? Should they expect to be ducking police bullets? From what I have read online in the few news articles available, their truck does not match the description to Dorner's enough, obviously not the same plates, and well again, that silly little fact that they were FEMALES. Just like the silly little fact that the man shot at minutes later was WHITE, not black like Dorner. Oh but who cares, it's okay for the police to shoot first and ask questions later.<br />
<br />
Isnt that perhaps an example of why the US constitution writers decided that regular citizens should be allowed to bear arms, that are of equal comparison to whatever their law enforcement officials have? Because of times like this? Hmmmmm. KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-43229313005861301862013-01-14T07:13:00.002-07:002013-01-14T07:13:36.754-07:00the Shotso... so far all of the kids at my daycare that have had to be sent home sick, or stayed home because they were sick, have had the flu shot. All of the kids we have had off sick have had their shots. So what is going on? some have had a bad gastro bug too on top of a fever and bad cold/influenza. Parents included - they have said things like 'man, Ive had to take 5 days off work since October but i got the flu shot too!'.<br />
<br />
Then i see down in the US they have declared an epidemic from the flu, and I heard on the news that more than 20 children have died so far, let alone other ages.<br />
<br />
I would like to know some stats - i would like to know how many of those who are sick and those who have died also had their flu shots for this season.<br />
<br />
It makes me wonder a few things - how useful is the flu shot? How helpful is it? and - what strains of flu are causing these deaths? Were they included in the flu shot this year or did another one pop up that was not expected to be so strong?<br />
<br />
From what i understand about the shot, the WHO signals what strains they feel will be worst, and choose 2 or 3 or 4 of them to include in the shot. I dont know how many they included this year or what strains because I havent looked it up yet. At any rate, the flu shot is supposed to help against those strains and then help with a lesser reaction to any similar flus. But people seem to get a false sense of security and think it protects against all flus. it does not.<br />
<br />
I havent had a shot in over 10 years and have never taken time off work for flu like illness. My children have never had the shot and none of them have had to take off school for flu either - only a couple days each for stomach bugs (vomiting, etc). Actually one has only missed one day in 4 years. Anyway it drives me crazy that people are getting these shots and don't even know what they are for. I couldnt even count the number of people who get a stomach virus and call it 'the flu'. that is NOT the flu. the flu is a respiratory virus that lists vomiting and diahorrea (sp lol) as RARE in the symptoms list. but people throw up and say 'oh no, I have the flu'. Or they say 'i got the flu shot this year because last year i had it for a week and couldnt stop throwing up'. Hello people - you didnt have the flu when that happened! that was a gastro virus, stomach virus, tummy bug, whatever you want to call it. But they go out in hoards to get shot in the arm with stuff they don't even understand and expect to not get sick.<br />
<br />
But still, I would like to know some real stats from those who are genuinely sick with the flu and received the shot. I want to know what kind of flu it was, especially those who succumbed. i think the health organizations should be carefully collecting data through whatever samples they need in order to determine the type of flu involved and tabulate whether the victims had their shot or not.<br />
<br />
Its a guessing game with the flu shot. They pick the strains ahead of time that they think will be the most damaging and then tell everyone to get their shots. What if they were wrong this time? Up in Canada our flu map shows very little movement other than a couple of huge cities. Everywhere else is listed as sporadic activity or none reported. So what's going on right next door in the US where it is now classes an epidemic? KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-8990278131181885602013-01-09T22:19:00.000-07:002013-01-09T22:30:29.034-07:00The B*tch and Moan ClubYup, it's already started. I shouldn't be surprised, as I predicted this, but still....<br />
<br />
My small city is building a new 'Events Center' after many years of the public crying out for one. According to supporters of the project, 'the majority' of city residents want this. But that is based on computer polls not like a city referendum or anything like that. Only people with access to computers and 'friending' certain groups on facebook, twitter, etc or following certain blogs, and people who voted in our local tv station polls online did the voting. I'm not sure how the results from that constitute 'the majority' but whatever. I saw some polls that were 60 to 80% in favor (some with only a couple hundred people voting) and some where barely 50% were in favor. Regardless, the City has finally decided to go ahead with the plan and build the new Events Center to house our WHL team and hold other events like concerts. To the tune of at least $60 million dollars. In a city of 60,000, that's $1000 per resident... or $3681 per family according to various census data online. Just to build it. Who knows how much it will cost to keep it running after the fact, or if it goes over budget (but of course, we all know govt projects neverrrr go over budget, oh no!)....<br />
<br />
So this is where the Bitch and Moan Club starts up. a local radio station asks it's listeners if they would be willing to pay for parking at the center in order to help the city recoup building costs. the VAST majority responding on there said NO. They even sounded offended.<br />
<br />
Oh okay, so the minority of city residents who will actually use this facility are not willing to pay more, but willing to let the majority of people that WON'T use it pay for it. That sounds fair, doesnt it? I'm tired of people saying 'the majority' want it - it can only hold about 7000 people and there are 60,000 people in the city so do the math - the majority do NOT use it obviously. I go into the seat totals more later, but just thought i would throw that out there.<br />
<br />
They don't want to pay extra, in the form of user fees basically, to help the city build this center, or pay it off afterward? Why not? They wanted the darn thing - according to those polls, the majority of people in this city wanted it, demanded it even - but now the majority don't want to pay for parking fees while CHOOSING to attend it?<br />
<br />
I have not visited the current/old arena in about 12 years - why should I risk my property taxes going up more, or higher utility admin fees or some other such form of increased taxation just to help everyone that wanted this place pay for it? Why can't they suck it up and know that parking fees are probably going to happen, and higher ticket prices than at the current center, higher concession stand prices, etc? Why do they think 'the City' can fork out over 60 million bucks in building costs and then run the place with a profit after opening? They would first have to come up with 60 million smackers (minimum) to break back to zero... then continue running the place and paying for staff, cleaning, upkeep, promotional materials, supplies, food, parking lot mainenance and snow removal, utilities, etc and making a profit at the same time.<br />
<br />
The Events Center is proposed to have around 7000 seats for hockey games, and between 7000 and 8000 for concerts etc, depending on the set up. At opening it is to have 5500 seats, and more opened/installed as they see how demand goes. The current arena holds 4006 and has never met capacity according to various sources I read online. The closest was in 2008 when it was 218 seats short of sold-out. Now they think that magically after the 39 years it was open (remember, it was brand new back in the old days and snazzy and the WHL team used to win the Memorial Cup and have a blast and was very very popular, but even that did not sell out crowds, back when the traffic getting to and from was not bad at all, the city was much smaller and easier to get around in, etc etc).... they think magically they can fill a new one with nearly double the capacity? Interesting. But whatever.<br />
<br />
My point is - I watched people bitch and moan about the prospect of paying more if they actually USE the center, and i just do not understand how they think its okay for everyone else in the City to pay more instead, whether they use it or not. This is not a school, it's not a hospital, it's an event center that may or may not hold cool concerts and will hold one hockey team and it's visiting team. That's it. But they don't want to pay more. I don't get it. I thought Alberta was a conservative-leaning province? my city in fact dumped out the PC mla in the last election for the WILDROSE mla, and so did the neighbouring county --- yet everyone acts like they want something for nothing, or want something and expect someone else to foot the bill. That doesnt sound very conservative to me! It's mind boggling and quite simply disgusting!<br />
<br />
To end, I saw someone complain that the City said they can afford it, and then start looking for ways to charge people more (oh booohoooo). Why does everyone think the City can afford it (for one thing, the majority of money the city gets is from US through taxes - duh)? The City cannot seem to fix all that needs to be done around here, roads are crappy in lots of areas, traffic backed up the ying yang, 50 year old sewer system needs to be replaced, etc. what they mean is they can afford to pay for it right now, but they need to recoup the money asap afterwards for future spending projects that the city is supposed to be doing like infrastructure, schools, blah blah etc. I know that the WHL is saying our arena sucks now and they threatened to pull the team if we don't fix things up, but it's a WHL team! something that has yet to draw in a sell-out crowd. It's not essential to the survival of the city and from what I have heard, the team has not paid rent on the arena in YEARS, so all these people that supposedly support the team are obviously not coming out in droves to help keep them here. I doubt that the team actually brings as much money into the city as people seem to think - if they cant pay their rent, that means they are tanking, not profiting. if they buy stuff in the city but dont pay the rent on the building, they are not actually helping the city residents financially at all - that would be IN THE RED folks. KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-71761834488135804702013-01-04T07:31:00.005-07:002013-01-04T07:31:53.389-07:00People Are StrangeJust a quick note to go along with my previous post. People are strange, curious creatures.<br />
<br />
When this young man was first arrested for alleged threats against a local school, I saw many local people commenting that they wished the mental health system was better so that these people could be helped BEFORE things like Conn happened.<br />
<br />
Okay, well it just came out in court yesterday that this man has to undergo a 30 psychiatric assessment at a forensic psychiatry hospital in Calgary.<br />
<br />
I read comments from THE SAME LOCAL PEOPLE on the news site, calling out that they dont want him to 'get off' on reasons of mental capacity, they want him to go through the system normally, and things about how it's unfair that 'these guys' get to claim mental issues and get off with a slap on the wrist.<br />
<br />
Okay - so which is it, people? This guy did NOT commit a crime against humans, he did NOT go and shoot up a school, he did not do anything to this date other than write some words that were allegedly threatening. Now there is a chance that if he does have other issues, they will pick this up at the hospital, and maybe he can receive treatment so that he WONT act on his words.<br />
<br />
But the people that said they wished the Conn shooter had received help and not 'fallen through the cracks', do NOT want this young man, who has NOT killed anyone, to receive help. Instead they want him to go straight to jail, no turning back, do not collect $200, and do not seem to put any thought into what might happen when he gets OUT. Since he hasnt killed anyone, even if convicted of his present charges, he would not spend much time in prison - and because trials take so long as it is, he could very well get 'time served' as soon as it's over and be out on the streets - that's what people want instead of an attempt at a psychiatric assessment? Gee that makes sense. A teen who has authority issues and has done his whole life is probably not going to come out of prison with a new-found respect for authorities like magic. It could in fact make him even worse. Gee that will be fun.<br />
<br />
But my point is, it's amazing how many people just simply do not think. They put their words out in public for all to see and then deny it when you point out that they are saying two entirely different things. Or they simply do not respond to you at all and pretend they didnt see your remark. People are strange, curious creatures.KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-35862344678463003892013-01-02T23:03:00.001-07:002013-01-02T23:08:47.713-07:00Speaking of school shootingsSo it turns out that 2 youths in my city are in trouble for things related to school shootings.. One school closed on the last day before xmas holidays because of one student apparently overhearing talk of violence and a 17 yr old was listed as the source. Now an 18 yr old has been arrested for apparently posting a threat to another school here and posting obscene material in relation to the Connecticut shootings. The thing is, ive known this kid since he was about 4 years old and have known his parents longer through work. I have seen things in the media that shocked me, such as a school board chair divulging information about the 18 year old's school history of being enrolled in classes for behaviour/emotional issues a few years ago. Regardless of what this teen said, the info released to the media is from when he was a minor. This is not a trial... What if the charges end up being dropped? My son and his friends hang out with this guy and the general consensus from those who saw the posts is that he did not make a direct threat and was mouthing off to get a rise out of people. what if that is deemed true and charges are dropped? This young man's personal information is now out in the news from when he was a minor. Im not sure that is right and i hope his.parents are looking into privacy acts and what is not considered okay under FOIPs. This is not in a trial situation... Its people giving out information on a juvenile record.<br />
I admit that i havent paid much attention to this happening to other people, but now that i know the person involved, its made me realize that such things should not happen. Even if charges stick and it goes to trial, i do not believe juvenile info should be flapped around beforehand. In many more serious cases, the court is not allowed to hear a youths criminal past, even if it is related to something they do as an adult. A judge has to figure out what gets released, but apparently in my city, school officials can decide that. What if that was your child? Your high school student? You might not feel the same as most people around here seem to. Its a tough one. He goes to school with my son and i admit i feel wary about all this and not sure what to do when he is out. I really dont. But i do.see.him being treated unfairly and if i was his parent, i would be speaking to a lawyer about this information leak from a named board chair.<br />
The recent horrible massacre in Conn has everyone wary and scared about it happening again, a copycat crime or other planned shooting but does that mean anyone who speaks in an ill manner about it should be arrested? Consider some things i have heard my friends say just in the past few days...<br />
<br />
One was frustrated at her kids while we were trying to talk and she said "hold on a minute, i have to go kill someone" and then she chased the kids down to tell them to smarten up. Or just today a woman i know with a newly retired husband said "oooooo i could just shoot him!!! He is driving me crazy!!" . If this kid said "i should just go shoot up my old school", is that an actual threat? Cripes it sounds terrible but is that an actual criminal threat? "im going to kill you" or "im going to get my dads gun and shoot those.mother f-ers" is a threat... But im not so sure if the other wording would stick as a threat charge... If it does, it sets a precedent and we all better watch what we say. Thats all im saying. If a teen tries to be controversial and tick people off or shock them, does he or she deserve to be in prison with convicted rapists and murderers? I would imagine a teen like that has issues with authority already, so what could being arrested and jailed and then imprisoned do? I dont want to be around here to find out!!!just something to think about. Ive seen people post on fb news sites that he should be dragged behind a horse... Thats very helpful.<br />
<br />KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-24589043014462697182012-12-16T23:23:00.002-07:002012-12-16T23:23:29.810-07:00I don't even know what to say....... I don't even know what to say about Friday's atrocity. I have 3 children, 2 attending school and 1 attending daycare. I cannot beging to imagine what those families are feeling and I feel sick to my stomach envisioning 20 tiny caskets being interred over the next short while, along with the adults who were caught in this with the children and some of whom saw it coming and knew that very young children could be hurt before they themselves were killed. It is sickening and unbelievable. Shocking saddening and heart-breaking.<br />
<br />
However, the issue of course turns to gun control. As always. I do not know what anyone could possibly do to stop this from happening again. There are over 300 MILLION known firearms in Canada and the US. Almost one for every person in the US and one for every 3 people in Canada (that we know of, that are registered, licensed, etc). God only knows how many are out there illegally that we do not know of. Even if the making of all guns was banned right now, there are more than enough to kill every single human being in the US and Canada available right now. So what's that going to do exactly? I say this because I have read numerous posts lately that talked about ceasing the marketing, sales, and production of firearms. Well that's just dandy - put thousands of people out of work when there are over 300 MILLION available right now, according to official govt pages in Canada and the US.<br />
<br />
Okay - so then it's that everyone should hand in their firearms right now. No need for them. They are made for one purpose - killing. That's what I read about on countless pages. Okay - so is every person going to hand their's in? I can almost guarantee it's only going to be law abiding citizens that comply. So how many firearms will be still out there, and who will have them in their hands? It's not rocket science.<br />
<br />
Another perspective to take on this is looking back at past mass murders using a firearm of some sort - how many times have we heard on the news 'the suspect/gunman had no previous record for violence and was not known to the police'? Quite a few. It seems to be a trend. 'Everyone' is shocked at the news of who the gunman is, or they say he was a bit strange but they never thought he could do something like THIS...<br />
<br />
So then there is all of the talk of mental illness - of course something is wrong with these people! That's not rocket science either!! Who in their right, sane mind would go into a school and shoot children and teenagers? Even if they were bullied, something has to be seriously wrong inside their mind for them to come up with these plans. Of course they were ill! They had to have been, sociopathic, psychopathic, anything. But there are millions of people who have similar or the same mental illnesses who would never come up with such heinous plans and act out on them. Never.<br />
<br />
So how do we figure this out? How do we stop it? Have you noticed on the news that they keep saying this is the 'second deadliest school shooting' next to Virginia Tech (32 deaths), but they have to carefully say School SHOOTING because the deadliest School MASSACRE was actually done with bombs, not firearms (45 deaths, 58 wounded), in 1927. Yes it is the second worst shooting, but it's actually the third worst school tragedy. In the end, it doesn't matter if it's the 100th worst, it is a terrible horrible unimaginable thing, made worse by the young ages of the children, who had almost no hope of getting away from this insane deadly maniac. But I choose to listen carefully to all newscast wording, no matter the topic, and I looked up the info myself. It may be worth noting here that more than 300 people, most of them children, were killed in 2004 in Chechnya while trapped in a school as hostages. Or we could think about the 900 people, 300+ being children, who died with the Jim Jones gang in South Africa, using poison as a crazy cult mission of death. Or the over 1000 children who have reportedly been killed in Suicide Bombings in Iraq alone over the past 10 years.<br />
<br />
What can we do to protect our children against these lunatics? I have no idea. But I am not going to tell my friend who target shoots as a sporting hobby (and has never even killed an animal with one, let alone a human) that she needs to hand over her guns in order to keep bad things from happening. I'm not going to tell my father in law that he can no longer have a .22 sitting by his back door to scare coyotes away from his acreage (or people who repeatedly go on his property to steal stuff). I am not going to tell my friends who's sons are Autistic or have Asperger's Syndrome to lock them up in the attic in case one day they become a homicidal maniac. <br />
<br />
And next week when I had planned to go to a firing range for the first time in my life - firing a weapon for the first time in my life - I am going to try not to feel like I am an insensitive callous murderous person for doing so. I have wanted to do this for a long time, just to try it out, see how a gun works and fire off a few rounds in a controlled environment - and now this happens and some of my friends said they 'cannot believe' I am going through with it!!! I feel like we will go and I will do it, and then not be able to tell anyone about it because they will think less of me. Why? I didn't shoot anyone and don't plan on it. There are no firearms in my home and I have never owned one. I've only seen one handgun in person, other than police firearms, and I held it long enough to hand it over to the police after my dad died, because my mom didn't want it in the house anymore. That's my experiece with holding a firearm - giving my dad's .357 (I only know what it was because the officer told me) and hunting rifles and old military rifle to the police. We also gave them my dad's harpoon. That's my experience with it but now I am being made to feel guilty about wanting to go to a range and try shooting a .9 mm. I am not the guy who killed those innocent children. I do not have guns in my house for someone to take and use for unbelievable crimes, I just want to learn how to use one. You never know, one day I may find myself face to face with an armed person who wants to kill me and maybe I will be lucky enough to get it away and be able to use it on THEM if I see fit. Or maybe, since shooting is even part of an OLYMPIC SPORT, I would like to try firing at a target and see how good I am. I also want to try archery - that would be acceptable right? Well what were arrows designed for? Knitting?<br />
<br />
Oh but they would be okay because no one has committed an atrocity with an arrow in the past, ever, right? Pffft people are not paying attention in history class are they? At the very least they should have seen the volleys of arrows in Lord Of The Rings and see the destruction caused (whether it's against the bad guys or not isn't the point - they are for killing things, food or adversaries). So why is it okay if I take archery classes, but not okay if I head to a gun range next week?<br />
<br />
This whole thing has brought up some lively conversations but who I want to think about and say a prayer for are the families of the victims and the suspect's family who will have to live with this forever too. They didn't pull the trigger but I can imagine they almost feel like they did by now. How horrible and unspeakable for all of those people to go through. I think of them and read their children's names and look at their young beautiful faces, and pray that we can somehow find some way to protect them from people who will attack them no matter what rules and regulations are enforced out there. <br />
<br />
<br />KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-20753652982664284372012-11-20T22:18:00.000-07:002012-11-20T22:18:22.775-07:00Previous CommentsI had this comment on my blog a little while back when I was speaking about my distaste for Romney - pre-election, and how if I lived in the US, I don't know that I would have been able to bring myself to vote for him, because I honestly did not see how he offered to make much of a difference at all. It began a discussion about voting for someone you don't exactly like, in order to get rid of someone you really don't like. Here is the line that caught my eye. It appeared at the very end of the comment:<br />
<br />
<b>""I cannot for the life of me understand the thinking that voting for "the
devil you know" is the best alternative. You're still voting for the
devil!""</b><br />
<br />
Okay, so that sounds like someone who agrees with me, right? Someone suggesting that voting for the 'devil you know' (Romney in my example), would still be voting for the devil.....<br />
<br />
Wrong! This was the first part of the comment:<br /><br />
<b>""Mitt Romney is not my idea of an ideal president either, but again,
America right now has only two choices, and if people really don't like
the incumbent, nad how he's been running America (into the ground), then
they should vote for a change.""</b><br />
<br />
The Devil You Know comment came after a comparison to Dalton McGuinty getting re-elected in Ontario and then getting a bigger chance to run the province further into the ground. Saying basically that people didnt 'like Hudek of the Conservatives, so they voted in McGuinty again, even with his terrible record, because they were at least familiar with him. Well - what if they didn't like Hudek for good reasons? Didn't like his policies, didn't like his character, didn't trust him to do better, etc? What if they didn't want to vote at all and then didn't? I have had other comments on my blog stating that not-voting is the same as voting with the status-quo, or that not-voting would be key to helping Obama win, etc etc<br />
<br /><b></b> <br />
Well what if ROMNEY is 'the devil you know' to many voters? not just Obama? They know of Romney, they saw what he did in his state as Governor, they heard what he had to say in debates, and how he flip flopped back and forth once he became candidate, and how he was in the candidate selection before with McCain so they already knew of him from back then - he would be the Devil You Know to many independents and republicans and they did not want to vote for him because they knew that it would be the same as voting for the devil - as highlighted above from my commenter.<br />
<br /><b></b> <br />
I saw that the person also wrote they would vote for ANY party that had a chance at ousting the current bad guy leader... okay...... so what if the person you voted for was worse or the same? What if it was a Green Party that was strong in second place, would you vote for them? What outcome would you expect? If it was Brian Mulrooney going for a second shot at the helm and thinking up new ways to take money from the people like GST, even under the 'progressive conservative' banner, would you vote for him? Just to get rid of someone you didn't like very much? I dont see how that is effective either.<br />
<br /><b></b> <br />
Bottom line - Romney was not a good choice. He is a rich guy that everyone knew would be attacked. You can't put a rich guy up against a socialist and expect him to come out strong. It was close, but not close enough. Romney had true conservative people shaking in their boots because the SPENDING needs to be stopped and not many of his ideas showed any hope of making that a reality, any more than Obama's ideas did. Something big time serious needs to be done and Romney was not the guy to do that. End of story. He was not able to get people behind him because he was stiff, had a fake smile, and his policies were all over the place. He chose a VP that voted FOR ALL THE STIMULUS SPENDING each and every time that I have looked up in his voting record at the .gov websites. His own VP would literally vote YES and then go out traipsing around the countryside the next day and cry that something got passed that means more spending. Ron Paul got nicknamed Dr No for the countless numbers of times he showed up to vote NO on bills but he got trashed for not being part of the mainstream republicans.<br />
<br /><b></b> <br />
Well guess what, mainstream republicans also had a big hand in getting the country in the deep hole it''s in today. As far as i'm concerned, the whole lot of them needs to be turfed. Republicans have been at the helm more years in recent history than Democrats so don't just put the blame in the D's laps. It's most of these govt people no matter what party they belong to. I lean right so I would hope repubs can get their act together sooner rather than later, but I will not blindly follow their chosen leaders if I know that they are as full of crap as the other guy. Why is that so wrong? I will not vote for 'the devil i know' either. I think that's great advice (even though not being taken the way it was intended).<br /><b></b> KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-11778014473737951682012-11-20T21:58:00.000-07:002012-11-20T21:58:07.870-07:00Republican Pundits against Romney, FOR Romney, and oops, now against RomneyGlenn Beck for example. These people make me barf. They start out talking down about Romney, during the republican debates, then he wins the spot so they start supporting him and acting as though he is THE best and get angry at those who do not want to vote for him because they didnt like his policies any more than they liked Obama's... esp Ron Paul supporters. Man, they got attacked left and right, but now.... Romney lost,,, and I have tuned in to Beck's program this week and heard him say that Romney is a LIBERAL, and that's why he lost.<br />
<br />
Seriously guys? Do you think that your listeners have all suffered from head trauma and no longer have long-term memories? <a href="http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/04/11/glenn-on-throwing-support-behind-romney-%E2%80%98at-least-he%E2%80%99s-not-a-commy%E2%80%99/" target="_blank">In this clip, Glenn Beck states that Mitt Romney has been his pick right from the start, dated April 2012</a>. I wish I could get the transcript from yesterday's Glenn Beck radio show I listened to via Sirius Patriot, because he was talking about his ideas being too liberal, that he IS a liberal, and that's why he lost. I thought maybe he was making a joke or being sarcastic, after seeing so many times where Beck supported Romney - but he wasn't!<br />
<br />
But Beck isnt the only one who has been doing that. I've seen and heard no-end of talk show and tv show hosts slam everyone into the ground who wasn't 'getting behind Romney' to get rid of Obama, really mean stuff sometimes, who are now complaining that Romney wasn't the right candidate to pull everyone together and snag a chunk of disillusioned Obama followers, and Independents.<br />
<br />
Well gee - no fricken kidding. It was brought up to me on this blog from my own comments about Romney recently and I even made one of the comments the topic of a new post. And here we all sit, with 4 more years of Obama. And if they don't find a Republican candidate to do well and have the right idea for the country in mind, it could go to yet another Democrat again, someone who may follow everything Obama has been doing. Oh joy.<br />
<br />
Maybe next time, the people won't be so quick to shout and stomp their feet at those who do not support yet another flimsy Republican candidate who acts more like an Overlord than the Voice Of The People. KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-40816504760390156632012-11-09T22:45:00.001-07:002012-11-09T22:45:30.927-07:00So... Romney...In previous posts, I spoke of how I did not feel confident at Mitt Romney being the republican candidate and I wasnt sure I would be able to bring myself to vote for him if I lived in the US. I got some comments back about how it's better than Obama, regardless if Romney wouldnt exactly be great at turning things around, at least he would be able to slow things down, etc. I replied about how I just did not trust the guy and did not think he could pull this off.<br />
<br />
And it seems that too many other people felt the same way. honestly, I dont know how anyone could vote for Obama after the last 4 years, I really can't, but at the same time, I do understand why Romney was not able to pull it in. The popular vote wasnt too bad really, pretty darn close, but after what went on the last 4 years, you'd think he would have won by a landslide. Or at the very least top off in the popular vote, even if it did not work out through the electoral voting districts.<br />
<br />
But he didnt. He simply was not the right candidate.<br />
<br />
A host I listen to on Sirius called this back in April 2009. He said that Mitt Romney will be the next Republican candidate, after falling on his sword to let McCain win (and then lose) in 2008, and that Romney would not be able to win either. And Mike Church was all too right. <br />
<br />
I had a hard time watching the election because while I would have loved to see Obama lose, I would not have been excited about Romney winning. It was a catch-22 I guess. I did not see that Romney would be able to STOP FRICKEN SPENDING, which is the failing death throes of all our countries (not just the US, in case someone hasnt noticed). It doesnt matter how much revenue any of us send in to the govt, they will always spend more. ALWAYS. Even the surpluses some countries have had, like Canada, eventually went down the toilet due to spending - and it was the conservative parties just as much as the liberal parties, who did all that spending.<br />
<br />
The way I see it, none of us are getting out of this unless some serious, hard planning goes in to curb this spending addiction. The money goes to so many things, it's unfathomable. It really is. I dont see how any of our countries are going to survive much longer if they continue in this manner. It's downright scary. Even the next day, Speaker of the House Boehner was talking about doing things to INCREASE REVENUES. They don't need to increase revenue, they are bringing in more money each year than ever before imagined for the federal govt to have at it's disposal --- just think about that for a minute --- but it's still not enough. It will never be enough.<br />
<br />
Someone needs to be at the helm who is serious about really tightening up and rolling back what has been happening and get back to what the govt's role is actually supposed to be. Here in Canada too. And people need to be behind this in the house, the senate, and at home. But who wants to do that? Apparently no one, based on the voting records over the years.<br />
<br />
that is sad and scary and I dont want to be part of it. I will not be voting for anyone anymore unless I really think they are serious about trying. I will not take time to vote for someone just because of the party or trying to keep another party out. Things are going to get really bad up here in Canada as well and I have 4 children and a brand new grandchild to be concerned about. It makes me sad and scared. I dont understand why so few others seem to feel the same. It's like everyone has blinders on. The spending has GOT to stop.KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-71227302227356864622012-11-04T23:36:00.003-07:002012-11-04T23:36:53.189-07:00I Get Kinda Tired Of...Hearing people treat those in, what they consider to be, low-standard jobs. Such as fast food, gas station, store clerk, etc.<br />
<br />
I mean, really - if EVERYONE went to college, like I hear so many people yap yap yap about on tv, who's going to serve all these yuppies their coffee at the drive thru in the morning? Who's going to be serving them at the grocery store counter? Seriously. It drives me crazy.<br />
<br />
I have sat and listened to some friends and aquaintances rant about how everyone should try to go to college and get a degree, and better themselves so that there are not so many poor families around.<br />
<br />
And guess where they have these little discussions? IN a coffee shop or restaurant. I have nearly collapsed in tears laughing at them and they get mad, and well, they don't invite me out for coffee anymore. And I don't give a shit. I'm glad. The only thing I regret is that I don't get to at least attempt to get them to see the irony and the error of their ways. Order from the server, and then say it's pathetic that adults are in these jobs.<br />
<br />
The convos usually include me asking who the heck would be serving them if 'everyone went to college and got a degree'. They counter with 'high school students'. Then I look at the clock and say 'Well, they are all in school right now cos it's a Tuesday at 11am', and then they look stumped. What high school student could possibly be working that shift? Or the one at 6 or 7am at the coffee drive thru? Seriously. Why can't people figure this crap out for themselves?<br />
<br />
It doesnt help that as an adult, I have worked in 3 grocery stores. I did awesome in school but I hated college and could not find my place. Every class I actually attended I got high marks in. But it wasn't what I wanted yet. So after I moved overseas, I did not go back to college other than a 2 year attempt at gaining the Early Childhood Development certificate, until I realized that after spending all that time and effort, I would only get maybe a $2/hour raise so it wasn't worth it for me to miss out on that much time with my kids, and go slightly batty while studying and taking the exams. I got over 90% in every class I took, and on every exam. I got 99% on the child psych 101 final exam. I loved that course! But just because I chose not to finish the whole program at this time does not mean I am a lazy dunce who doesn't want to 'better herself'. I'm just not interested in pushing and pushing and ending up stir crazy after finally getting a degree and sitting in an office or something all day. Is that wrong? If I want to go back to working in grocery stores after my kids are all in school and I tire of the daycare I am currently at, does that make me gum under people's shoe?<br />
<br />
I liked working in those stores. I would show up, do my shift, help some people out, dodge some crazy customers, and then when I went home, I didn't have to think about it again. I didn't have to carry around files or worry about a presentation being due, or work insane hours. And it's a job that people have needed for a very long time. If there were no grocery store clerks, how would people buy their food????? It annoys me to no end.<br />
<br />
Years ago, my boss realized that her husband's friend was someone I went to school with all through elementary. She said 'Hey, I know KT that you went to school with!' and he said 'Oh wow. How do you know her? I havent seen her in years!'. My boss said 'She works for me'. He said "She works for you?? I thought for sure she was going to be a doctor or something. She was super smart in school".<br />
<br />
I was offended by that comment. I happen to think my job is very important too. I look after tiny human beings that cannot defend themselves. I help keep them safe every day so that their parents do not have to worry. I cuddle them when they cry, I make sure they eat healthy food, I read them stories, rub their back to help them sleep, and play goofy games with them while also helping them to learn a few things and get ready for school. What's wrong with that job? A doctor is very important of course, and maybe I could have written the exams for it, but I cannot even bear to think of sticking a needle into someone's vein so I wouldn't do very well on the practical application skills test lol. I would faint. So no doctor for me - no nurse either unless I can guarantee a spot where I won't have to stick things in people lol - but is my job really so bad? It's lower pay but it kind of has to be in order for parents to have a hope of affording it - but I am literally in charge of the safekeeping of little wee humans every single day of the week, month, and year (if you count my own kids at times I am not working), for the past 2 decades. I would say that's important but it doesnt carry the distinction of Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer - so apparently I am wasting my life and talents. That really is shameful.<br />
<br />
Gas jockeys - who's going to be there taking your money or filling your tank if 'everyone went to college'?<br />
Servers - who's going to take your business luncheon order with all your hoity toity colleagues if 'everyone went to college'?<br />
Janitors - who's going to clean your school or mall after hundreds of people tromped through the halls day after day, leaving essences of their body and germies if 'everyone went to college'?<br />
Garbage collectors - okay some of these are really well paid by their city but the job still ends up at the bottom of the pile for 'things to do with your life', but who's going to handle all the garbage if 'everyone went to college'? There wouldn't even be a person at the dump keeping an eye on things.<br />
<br />
The list could go on endlessly, but those are ones I hear about the most, including store clerk, or 'i work in retail'. What's wrong with those jobs? I hear politicians talking about 'the man with a family of 5 who is flipping burgers, he needs help!'. I take it to mean, he needs to get out of that job... and if he wants to get out, then it would be good for him to find a way to do that. But what about people that don't mind flipping burgers? It helps bring money into the home, and there are an awful lot of fast food places around so apparently lots of people go there for a meal. So what if they all left the job because they got sick of everyone looking down on them and making them feel like they need to 'do something with their life'? Where would soccer mom stop to pick up supper on the way home? (okay that was mean, but if people want to throw around stereotypes, they should prepare themselves to get one right back).<br />
<br />
And what about people who simply do not have the mind for college work? I did great in high school but it did not prepare me for the bulk of work in college. I still did well, when I showed up, but it was killing me! Up til 2am so many nights I couldn't count them. I felt like I couldn't breathe, and half that crap had nothing to do with the career I was hoping to get to eventually. It was unreal. My bf is very smart with numbers, he can figure out equations in his head like you wouldnt believe, but he HATES reading. HATES HATES HATES it and always has. I wouldnt be surprised if he is ADHD or Dyslexic actually. But my point is, he did not do well on written exams at all, almost failed himself out of high school and went for the technical diploma (trades) instead of the academic ones (I got the advanced matriculation diploma, but I can't do math in my head like he does lol). So should he feel bad about himself for not going to college and torturing himself into a degree? Or should he be at peace with the fact that college was not for him and he has managed to go over 20 years since HS being gainfully employed all but 4 months of that time? Maybe he should be at peace with the fact that he can go out on a dangerous gas well site and be in control of everything that is happening, and have everyone on the site's lives in his hands and he does the job well and safely? You know, so people can have heat for their homes. Even those who went to college to become doctors and lawyers. They couldnt have that without some low end jobbers at the helm.<br />
<br />
People fill niches and there are a LOT in the working world. The snooty people that look down their noses at others seem to forget that even their highly expensive clothing and furniture had to be delivered by truck, so even the 'dumb truck driver' helped them get to where they are in their lives. They can entertain their friends in their lovely home, but everything in it had the hands of countless 'low end job' people. How can they not see this? It makes me crazy sometimes. There are jobs for people of all ability levels, and sometimes it's just because they like the job! Or maybe they have the skill but they don't fancy going to school for 10 years and are satisfied with something else. What right do others have to judge that?<br />
<br />
I had higher aspirations for myself, and sometimes I still do. I think about how my paternal grandmother did not go to college until her youngest was in school. She got her Registered Nurse diploma just after age 40 and she worked in that field for 25 years until retirement. Twenty-five years as an RN and she didn't even start until she was 40. Sounds good to me. Why do we all have to know what we want to be when we grow up, by age 18? You would not believe the pressure my 15 year old has been under to pick the HS classes he would need for his chosen career. I was angry with his guidance counsellor because I saw some elective courses my son might find interesting - Emergency Medicine and Forensics (they didnt have classes like that when I was in school!!) - but the counsellor advised him NO, because it would be a waste and interfere with the classes he should take to become a librarian (my son's current goal). Are you freaking kidding me? Why can't he deviate a tiny bit and try something else too? Maybe he will hate it, or maybe he will like it. He won't know unless he tries! I thought we were supposed to be helping our kids experience a whole bunch of different things so that they could have a better time figuring out where they 'fit'? Apparently not anymore! He's 15 and has only been a newspaper carrier - how is he supposed to know what he wants when he is 20, 30, 40, 50? The whole session was 'well, he will need this to get into that college program, and this and this and this'. I said 'Or he could always take upgrading for a year like half my friends did, to polish up on the classes, or take any he missed and needed'. The counsellor looked at me like I was insane. My son was only 14 at the time of this meeting, I should point out. All I needed when I was in highschool was to make sure that I had a top level course in the core subjects, and 100 credits. Then I picked some elective classes like gym and Sociology/Psychology, and Art. My son's final 3 years of highschool are filled completely with brainiac classes. I can only hope he won't implode. He is scary smart, but even scary smart can crumble under the strain.<br />
<br />
And what if he doesnt want to go to college at all for awhile? I would support that, but his teachers have a fit. What's it to them? Maybe he wants to serve them their precious coffee each morning and make sure the orders are done right, and take pride in doing the job properly. That's few and far between seen these days! So who cares what he wants to do as long as he wants to do SOMETHING?<br />
<br />
<br />KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-71103918915649759252012-11-02T00:04:00.000-06:002012-11-02T00:12:04.696-06:00What Women WantI find it very confusing to follow many women's train of thought these days. I am a woman. I am almost 40. I have 3 children, 1 step child, and 1 step grandchild. We are lower-middle income earning. We rent a house and live pay cheque to pay cheque. I work 6 hours a day unless I am covering holidays, when I work 9 hours a day. 5 days a week. I like working and actually start to feel really bored when on extended leave, such as when I was on one year maternity leave with my last child, or when I didn't 'have' to work financially for a couple years in the early 2000s.<br />
<br />
But I am finding a lot of confusing remarks from other working moms that Im not quite sure how to take. Women in general have been fighting for many rights over the past hundreds (or thousands) of years and I am glad for that. I fully support things such as women's right to vote. I cannot imagine living in a time when women were not allowed to vote. Where men did not think it was necessary to have a woman's opinion on record. I am glad that women fought those ideas for so long and won. Finally.<br />
<br />
But there are more things that have happened that have led to other major changes in the lives of human beings across the world and I wonder what is going to be the outcome. It can be a very confusing issue to start talking about, and anger often surfaces. One major one centers around women working outside the home. If someone suggests that too many dual-parent families have both parents working, the shit hits the fan immediately. The most common remark I can recall from growing up is 'Yeah, you men just want us women barefoot and pregnant in front of the stove'. Barefoot and Pregnant. That's what I remember most clearly.<br />
<br />
But then I consider this - I have worked in childcare since 1993 or so. In all that time it has been either single mothers going to work/school, or dual parent homes going to work/school. There has been only one single father with no mother on the scene in all that time. And the VAST majority of those women DID NOT WANT TO WORK SO MUCH. I have heard them complain and lament for almost 2 straight decades. They do not like missing so much time with their children. They do not like that we often hear their first words, or be the first ones to see their child take a step. They have broken down in tears in front of us. Complained that today's society forces them to have to work full time even when their husbands have good jobs, because of the high cost of living, etc. I cannot actually think of one mother in almost 20 years who has not at one point or another wished they did not have to work.<br />
<br />
So, have we fought all these years, got what we wanted, and now hate it? Of course there are moms who love their work and are proud of what they accomplished, but they have all gone through some serious inner issues wondering if it was at the sacrifice of their children. It's really tough. Then there are single moms who have no real choice because if they don't work, they go on welfare and then a large chunk of the population considers them leeches or parasites. They get criticized and made fun of and downright torn to pieces for being on welfare. Or they go to work to get off welfare and then hate that they cannot see their children very often. Many of our single mom kids are dropped off at 730am and picked up around 5pm so their moms can try to keep their head above water and put food on the table. But that means they barely spend any time with that parent, and often do not have a father with balls enough to be a REAL father and help out or be there for their child. I understand that many in society do not want to be forced to help these children just because their father has run off and is being an ass. Wepay more than $10,000 a year easily in direct income taxes and I would love to keep that money at home with MY family, what a big difference that would make for us! Almost $1000 a month extra in our hands? Or even a third of that? My gosh, that would make it so that I may only work 4 hours a day, or 3 days a week, who knows. But it is taken from me before I even cash my cheque, so that it can go toward any number of provincial and federal 'plans'. I totally understand why many people do not support so many being on welfare or how much aide goes out, taken from US and our own families. I get it.<br />
<br />
But what do we do about it? We have women able to take on any career they want really, and then also being the only ones able to bear children and carry on the human race, so those two do not always mesh. I know that all the books say you can have both -- but if someone else is looking after your child for almost 10 hours a day, 5 days a week, are you REALLY having both worlds? I am one of the few people I know that actually IS, because I chose to stay in a lower paying field in order to have my preschool children with me all day. All 3 of my children have gone to my daycare until they got to school age. I am the only person I know that can do that, other than a few moms that found ways to work from home. Meanwhile, I am watching other children who's moms are at school or work all day. It's a tough toss up - having a family AND working full time. The first 5 years of a child's life are said to be THE most important for forming every aspect of their intelligence, emotional health, mental health, personality, and so on. Yet many are spending their days in the care of people other than their parents. Is this healthy? I work in the field so if most moms started staying home (or dads, let's not forget they can be stay at home parents too and the kids love it), I would have to find a new career lol. But I'm just making observations about the confusion and issues I see in moms every day.<br />
<br />
We have moms who cry because they could not get off work to attend a field trip with us like they hoped. We have moms who cry because their little one finally spoke a sentence and they missed it. We have moms cry because their 20 month old bumb-scooter finally got up and walked that day but they missed it. It's gotten to the point where I dont even want to tell a mom if their child reached a milestone, so it can happen at home that night and mom can think she was the first to witness it. It's hard. I know because my center starts at 19 months and one of my kids had to attend different ones for a short time and I hated it. When my third was born early, I took an extended unpaid maternity leave until he was old enough because he did not talk at all yet from delays and we were not comfortable sending him to strangers. So we had to cut down major and had a rough patch waiting for him to be old enough and then I went back to work, taking my son along. It was rough.<br />
<br />
I put a survey out at work last month and one parent wrote a comment at the end saying she was so grateful to have us because knowing her child was safe was the biggest concern of her life, but angry at government policies for forcing her to have to work. I had to read that 3 times because I knew what parent wrote it, she signed her name to it, and yet I know that she and her husband bought a HUGE house 5 years ago, basically right when homes cost the most, and they both drive newer vehicles, the kids wear brand name clothing, and they have purebred pets, and I've seen their house inside once and it was full of high end looking furniture, flooring, and tapestry.<br />
<br />
So, while I understand the mom's frustrations, I am not blind to the fact that their choice in lifestyle also contributes to her having to work. I also know that she gets over 3 times more child support from her ex husband for her older child than I get from mine. Actually, what he gives her almost equals what I make in a whole month. So - while she feels forced to work, what is actually happening in that situation? Is she forced to work to put food on the table due to the high cost of feeding a family these days? Or is she forced to work so that they can keep making payments on their expensive taste?<br />
<br />
I know of at least 2 moms that ended up having nervous breakdowns in recent years and were hospitalized short term. I know their main complaints once they were ready to talk about it was that they felt like they had too much to do. Working full time in high expectation jobs, trying to make deadlines for school and daycare pickup while the boss is trying to get them to stay later, organizing kids going to various extra curricular activities after school such as swimming, dance, music, other sports, etc. Trying to figure out how and when to make a decent healthy meal instead of stopping at mcdonald's. Trying to find time with their spouse that did not involve falling into bed exhausted at 11pm, and trying to find one on one time with their children when they only have a half hour til bed and still need a bath, trying to do some professional upgrading or other courses to better themselves at work and falling asleep on their computer desk, etc. It's never-ending sometimes. I have a hard enough time organizing twice a week one hour sessions for ONE child in a sport, I can't imagine doing more. I am not surprised that some moms are cracking under the strain. They feel like failures, when really they have a ton on their plate and have been managing it for years, and their minds and bodies just need a damned break.<br />
<br />
Then they are trying to do other parent stuff like crafts with the kids, baking cupcakes for a birthday party at school, and they cave. I know a mom who fell asleep on her kitchen table one night, with the spoon of cake batter in her hand, and she woke with a start around 3am and cried because she didnt get the cake done... so she baked it and iced it and got one more hour of sleep before getting up for work. Quite a few of our daycare dads work the oilpatch and are gone days, weeks, even months at a time, so it's like being a single parent and it's tough. Many look haggard when they come in the morning, and I just want to shake them and ask what all of this is for. We have a lot of great dads at the daycare who are good helpful parents, but they are tired and worn out too. There really are only so many hours in a day. Even if dad baths the kids and puts them to bed, mom is not relaxing - she might be sewing a costume for school or doing a last minute project that junior forgot to tell them about (like me the last 2 nights trying to figure out making a two independent axle'd vehicle pod for a pumpkin to race on, because my daughter forgot to give me the leaflet and it's due tomorrow. I had fun at 11pm last night taking apart some old toy cars to try to get the stupid axles off. In the end, I strapped the damn thing onto a chassis that I ripped off and that will have to do. Then kiddo spent tonight decorating it for tomorrow's big race. That's the last thing I want to be doing after working full time this week and then trying to get the kids costumes ready for a bit of trick or treating on sheet-of-ice sidewalks. Blah! And then the alarm goes off at 6am and I want to shoot it and go back to bed. But I can't.<br />
<br />
Is this what women wanted? Running around like blue-arsed-flies (as my mom likes to say), trying to DO IT ALL? My spouse is working out of town at the moment so he could not help out physically. We do not have any new furniture other than a tv after our ancient one finally gave up the ghost, and we have a 1994 truck that was paid off ages ago, so I do not feel that we are both working in order to keep up appearances, like so many other families are, and we rented the cheapest house in our preferred area that could fit us all, so we do not have a monstrous mortgage to pay. But it's been tough. Some months I am wondering how cheap kraft dinner is and how many nights my kids can eat it without thinking they are dying (I rarely cook it), but food is costing so much I have had to resort to cheaping out at least once a week. Normally I try to make each supper cost around $15 or less, and that feeds 5 people (2 being man people over 6 feet tall). It's tough. That alone takes a huge chunk of my pay let alone lunches, breakfasts, snacks, and other assortments on the monthly bill like toilet paper and ketchup. So I work and I don't mind - but I am also always aware that this whole 'women working' thing is not quite what many envisioned it was cracked up to be. i don't care if it's controversial to say, because I happen to think it is true.<br />
<br />
What I have seen over the past few decades is more women getting into high position jobs, which is great because women CAN do them too. We are humans with many great ideas - men and women alike. We can all do it if we have the want and the talent for whatever our chosen career is. But it is still a fact that women are the only ones who can birth a child. It is still a fact that in order to accomplish these goals outside the family, most children will have to spend their days with people other than their parents. Some get to stay with gramma or auntie, but most are in other forms of child care. In fact, there are constant calls for more centers to make more spaces available. Alberta is ranked in the bottom 3, according to several online sources, for number of spaces available compared to how many parents need spaces. We are full to the brim, in other words, for regulated childcare spaces. We often have a waiting list at my center that is longer than how many spaces we have TOTAL, let alone empty. THAT'S how many families are working outside the home or going to school. I think I only know 3 stay at home moms these days. The rest work at least part time, but most work full time. Outside the home. I wonder how many more are going to start feeling the immense strain? I would bet that a lot more are very near the brink of asking for professional help than we would care to realize. And those are the ones in two parent homes with decent husbands who take a big role in the family as well. Mine is home at the same time as me the vast majority of the time and we still struggle to get everything done in the evenings, so I cant imagine what other families must be like with BOTH working full days.<br />
<br />
I know that most of these women would say they are glad to have their career and their family, if someone were to randomly ask them one day, but I see the very personal side of them each and every day and it tells a different story. Just some thoughts to put out there. I just wonder if we are taking on too much too soon, and falling into the trap of believing that our children also have to be as well-rounded as possible and join every sports club or extra curricular activity that we can possibly cram into our week. I know many that have their children in 3 different activities per week, on top of school. When are these people home? Do they do much more in their big houses besides fall into bed and sleep? I don't get it. I really dont. I grew up in a very rural area with only 6 kids in the town of 100 and we didnt have sports teams and dance clubs. We had music lessons from the old lady with a piano, and we had Brownies when another mom wanted to start it up. We did a craft night every 2 weeks for awhile, switching to different homes in the town. But that was it and each one was just for a little while. There was no swimming pool for lessons (our dads just threw us in the lake lol). Nothing. And we all survived. We didnt have all this crap going on and many of us even managed to go on to college and university and become teachers, doctors, lawyers, crazy-smart scientists, etc. How did anyone manage to become a NASA scientist in the past, when they had to use their brains, with paper and pen to figure things out, and a hilarious old computer screen to help out a bit, when our moms (or dads, cos I grew up around farmers who's wives liked to work in the field too so they would switch off)stayed home and we didn't have karate and football and tuba classes after school? I don't know how on earth the planet flourished when none of this was going on. Weird.<br />
<br />
But whatever, I find that I am just concerned about today's women taking so much on and still feeling like we have to prove that we can handle work and a family at the same time. Work and family have taken on a whole new meaning right along with these changes. In the past, I did not have to do professional development upgrades every year for my job - but now I do. In the past it was not seen as a crucial child need to be involved in extra curricular activities outside of school, but now it is. You are made to feel guilty if your child is not doing that - AND your child can even lose marks in school. Did you know that? For two years, my son had to bring home a form that I filled in every 3 months to list what extracurricular activities he was involved in, plus physical activity, and he had to get 100 points total or he would lose 20% of the class mark. WTF is that? Thank god he liked football at the time so he got 100 points automatically because he was in an organized sport that met for 2 hours six days a week. His coach signed it, and then we were done for a few more months. But my daughter will be going there in 2 years - if she doesnt score high enough or I dont lie on the stupid forms, she could lose 20% of a class's mark. That is fricken crazy. So yeah, things have changed.<br />
<br />
It's no longer good enough for mom to get a job as well, the parents also have to figure out when to eat around sports or other organized activities, do homework, be a family together, get some sleep, and do it all over again. And clean the house. Mine basically does not get touched until Friday night or Saturday. I have working friends who mop their floors at 2am cos it's the only time they can find to do it. Insanity! What are we doing to ourselves? Perfect kids, perfect jobs, perfect house, perfect activities for the kids, perfect meals... where does it end? Sometimes we cannot do it all, and I think some people are going to have to figure that out fast before things start showing the cracks in the facade and more moms (or dads) end up in hospital. I am totally serious. KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-63263743670924799292012-10-19T23:43:00.002-06:002012-10-19T23:59:02.033-06:00Private Health Care use in CanadaI have been following the interesting story of a woman in my city for the past month. I know her, and this is straight from her husband and herself, not a story floating around the net. The woman is involved in a sports activity with my daughter and I learned that she was sick and had some sort of surgery. I heard the words 'laser, headache, etc' and thought perhaps she has Lasik eye surgery or something. A week later her husband was outside enjoying the fresh air with me while their son and my daughter were doing their sports class. I asked him how his wife was doing, and had heard she had surgery. He said she was doing better. I said 'Was it laser eye surgery or something? I heard you talking last week to the instructor about her not going out yet because of the pressure'.<br />
<br />
And then we embarked on a sordid tale of the public vs private system here. His wife had BRAIN SURGERY. Oops. My eavesdropping wasnt very good that day, eh?<br />
<br />
For a few weeks, his wife had complained that she felt really strange in her head, an odd sort of pressure that she felt she could almost 'see' if she looked up. As in very focused and localized on a certain area of her skull. Under the skull. She went to 5 different doctors in our small city and was told that it was just sinus pressure, or pressure from the high winds we get around here, and eventually told it was nothing and made to feel that she was just being a whiner. She was basically told that she was being a baby about this and nothing was wrong.<br />
<br />
But here she is, a grown woman with 2 kids who has had very very few health problems. She also has had sinus infections and knew this felt like nothing she had ever experienced before. She was scared and angry. Her husband was getting very worried. He knows his wife best and knows she is not a whiner or a complainer. He went with her to ER a couple times to try to get someone to listen, asking for a CT scan or an MRI because he believed something was seriously wrong.<br />
<br />
One day during the sports class, the pressure shifted suddenly in the top of her head and a clear fluid started draining from her nose like a tap. The instructor saw this and everyone was very upset. It was not like spontaneous sinus drainage (she and I have both experienced that before), and the pain was excruciating. Back to the ER they went and again she was told nothing was wrong and to just go home. 'Take two aspirin and dont call me in the morning' is what this was amounting to! She felt like no one would listen and was becoming more afraid. The pain and pressure was making her sick and terrified.<br />
<br />
Her husband happened to talk to a guy at work about his fears and frustrations that something was very wrong. The man told him to go to Calgary and pay for a private MRI. He said there are 2 or 3 clinics there that do this. The husband did not know this (no one at the hospital told them, and Im sure they know about these places!) So he called immediately and got an appt the very next day and off they went to Calgary. I asked and he said it was about $800 for the MRI, and that they got to have a copy of ALL the information and a CD of the exam to take anywhere they wished.<br />
<br />
But they didnt have to worry about that because during the MRI, the technician immediately alerted the specialists they work with. Fluid was building up in this woman's brain to the point of causing destruction of brain matter. The stuff that leaked out of her nose was fluid from her BRAIN, trying to find a way out to relieve pressure. My god! She was rushed to the Foothills hospital for emergency surgery involving lasers and stents to help with the drainage. She was told that if she had not come in, she would very likely have died SOON. As in days, at the most a couple of weeks.<br />
<br />
About 5 days later she was permitted to leave but had one more MRI at foothills to double check things. It looked good. She looks fabulous now, about a month post-op. She has not been allowed to drive until the past week and is still not permitted to rejoin the sports club just yet, but is on the way to recovery. Her husband, meanwhile, contacted every doctor they saw and threw a fit. Some, including their family doctor, looked at the information from the MRI and admitted that looking back through the case file, they should have suspected this problem and booked her for an MRI, but also admitted that it could have taken several weeks to get that done unless something had happened like she passed out, but maybe not even then!!<br />
<br />
Another week later, she experienced more pressure and terrible pain, so they went to the ER. She felt like she was trying to walk on stormy seas and her vision was affected. They were told that our hospital and the local diagnostics lab did not have a technician available to do the MRI to check it that day. Hubby freaked OUT. It was 3am and the ER doc said "I will contact the on-call specialist at 6am to see what he thinks needs to be done". Husband thinks about this for a minute and says "Did you just say you would call the ON-CALL specialist at 6am?? Call him NOW. He is ON CALL". So the ER doc stopped in his tracks, and agreed, and went to make the call. Neurology specialist arrives and repeats that no one is available to do the MRI so they cant see what is happening. A desk nurse is on the phone calling around and says 'Can you guys travel? You can be seen in Okotoks for an MRI as soon as you get there. They have a tech available'. So he put his wife in the car and they drove to Okotoks at 4am ( 2 hours drive) and got the MRI done, got the results sent back to our city, and then returned home. The stent had to be readjusted a bit or something but all is good now, so far.<br />
<br />
WHAT THE HELL is that all about? I am soooo glad that private services have been set up around, but not enough people know about them. Im sure if someone had something horrific happen like this, their family could pool money, their friends, their church, I mean at least TRY to get $800 for the MRI. But also what happened afterward was insane - we dont have a tech avail on weekends for the public system?? What happens if there is a major emergency? Im sure there is one sometimes, there just wasnt that particular weekend. Why the hell not? It scares me to think this could have been a child who may be more vulnerable to such events and not be able to explain their feelings properly, so might get ignored even more. It scares me that because of a lack of funding or a finite amount of funding, hospitals cannot just go hire anyone they want, in any number they want. It has to be approved by desk jockeys. And a mother of two nearly died. She was >this< close.<br />
<br />
Why don't we have a private MRI system in my city? there are plenty of people around here who could afford $800 if the shit hits the fan and they are worried about a loved one. My boss had a STROKE last June and did not get an MRI until January, for pete sake! And that was a RUSH job! An expedited MRI. Gimme a break. I saw the paperwork with my own eyes, with her doctor's request for this to be rushed. There are so many people here waiting for MRIs, and so few techs, that it can take several MONTHS for a stroke patient to get an MRI to try to find the cause. that is insane.<br />
<br />
So I make sure to pass on to people now that you can get private ones done in cities like Calgary Edmonton and Red Deer. That was just on my first google search for alberta private MRI services. And if you think about it, people going for private MRIs move out of the public line, so it should work in favor of moving those who have to or want to use the public system UP in the line. I don't call them queue-jumpers, they are people who are looking for health care and found it.<br />
<br />
This sort of thing should not be happening in a country that boasts it's health care plan. It should not be happening in a country where the public does not have much in the way of choice. I dont drive, for example, so it would be difficult for me to get to Calgary, but we should have that option HERE in my city too. Unfortunately there is so much red-tape involved, it takes a lot of time and money to set these systems up, but at least they are available and there is hope. I have been waiting 18 months for the go-ahead for an MRI for trigeminal neuralgia. I cant have one yet because it's not as debilitating physically as the govt officials deem it should be before permitting me to have one on the public system. At least now I know that if I am finding it getting worse, I can book one up in Calgary and see the Upper Cervical specialists while I am at it. Instead of waiting until it is so bad I cant even work anymore. If there is a chance to fix it or make it a bit better, I would rather do that BEFORE it gets so bad I am paralyzed by the pain. Why not fix it before it gets worse, instead of being forced to wait until you can barely function? But this is what can happen in a public system. Too bad those south of the border are not listening to these warnings.<br />
<br />
I was also told at my physical exam today that even though I was previously told I should start having mammograms when I am 35 because my breast tissue is completely in tiny pieces and it's too hard to feel if its a tumor lump or just a broken breast tissue lump, it has now been changed to age 40. I do not have family history of the disease so I cannot be given one until after I turn 40, even if I beg for one. My doc would have to lie on my forms and say there is family history, even if there is not. He told me himself that if something were to happen, I probably would not be able to feel it until stage 2 or 3 unless I had other obvious symptoms to go along with it, where a mammogram can find stage 1. But his hands are tied. I am not about to scream and yell that I cant have one - I have not been outright concerned, but if I find a small lump that he and I are unsure about next month, with no other symptoms than lumpiness, I CANNOT have a mammogram! The govt wont let me. Who the hell are they? Unless I found a private one and paid for it myself, it's not an option. Interesting. I would have to wait to see if it grows (hence, spreads), before I could get one. That's nice!KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-56661534156891256552012-10-18T07:42:00.000-06:002012-10-18T07:42:16.562-06:00Binders of WomenI laughed when Romney talked about getting binders full of women during the debate on Tuesday night, because I knew it would come back to haunt him.<br />
<br />
But here is my thing - I'm a woman. I have worked in a job that was done only by men for the previous 30 years or so that the business was open. I was the first woman to do it, and I did a damned good job even if I say so myself. When I moved away, I trained a man to replace me. I can only hope that he took my ideas and used them, bettered them even, and that it carries on to this day. But it's nothing to do with me because I don't work there anymore.<br />
<br />
I do not feel that women will have truly beaten this gender based line until there doesnt need to BE any binders of women. It will finally be beat when employers only look at the stats, the resumes, the benefit that the PERSON would bring to the workplace, and not even pay attention to gender. Or for true fairness, no attention paid to age, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc etc etc.<br />
<br />
I work in child care. You'd think it would be easy, but because we have only ever had one minority person working for us, we get harrassment from the govt to try to hire minorities more often. No attention seems to be paid to the fact that we arent hiring ANYONE because all of us have been in our positions for almost 10 years and up to almost 30 years. We have the best staff turnover rate of any center in town, but then catch flack for not hiring minorities. We also got asked why we dont have any men working there. Well - we have only had one man bring in a resume in all this time and that was when we also were not hiring anyone but casuals. He didnt want to be a casual so he moved on.<br />
<br />
It's annoying to be TOLD who to hire. I understand the base of things - but what if those binders full of women still did not bring in candidates for staffing that were the best? It could be compared to affirmative action plans where students for colleges were chosen on race, not just achievements and abilities, and that led to many non-minority students not getting in despite having a better student record than those who were chosen. Is that fair?<br />
<br />
It's like reverse racism. Which is still racism. And I think going out of your way to find women specifically could be viewed as reverse sexism. It's still sexist. If you set out wanting to hire the best person for the job, and overlooked a man because he was a man, and chose a woman because she was a woman, that is not solving anything. That does not make it FAIR and EQUAL. It really doesnt.<br />
<br />
The wage thing is what bothers me most - if men truly are making much more than the women in the same positions and there are no other contributing factors such as longevity in the position and job performance, then that is unfair and wrong. If a woman is being paid less because she is a woman - that is inherently wrong.<br />
<br />
But what I see a lot of is pressure to hire women, even if that means passing up a man who is better qualified. I understand that women are often overlooked even if THEY are the better candidate for the job - but isnt it just as unfair if the woman stomps her feet about it, burns her bra, and then ultimately gets hired over a man who was more qualified? What does THAT solve? And how can the federal govt make this happen anyway?<br />
<br />
Would that not mean writing more business rules that are akin to affirmative action based on race? What if my workplace was told we had to have 10% male staff or be fined. Would my boss have to FIRE one of us in order to hire a man????? Seriously - what could come of such actions? How can the federal govt ensure that more women are hired in the workplace. The only thing they have control over is who THEY hire themselves. But during the debate Tuesday, it sounded as though both men had a plan for getting more women hired all over, and how to make them get the same pay. That means more govt involvement. End of story.<br />
<br />
Or how about a tax credit for hiring more women. Is that fair? Why should some that only hire men be penalized? What if no women apply?? Or women apply but are not qualified or not available for the hours needed? Etc etc. Should they miss out on a tax bonus for not being ABLE to hire women? All of this just keeps talking women-men-male-female, and keeps the gender barrier up instead of taking it down.<br />
<br />
I want a time when it's a PERSON being hired, not a man or a woman. A PERSON being hired, not a race or an orientation.<br />
<br />
It reminds me of a Staff Attraction bonus that my province came up with a few years ago for childcare. If an employer hires BACK a person who had been gone from the job for at least a year (or two?), and that person stayed on staff for 12 months, the center and the staff member would each get a bonus of $1000.<br />
<br />
WTF? I have worked there since 1995, so where is MY bonus? Why don't I get a bonus for working there and not quitting? Well, actually I did, because I moved, but I did not leave because I was seeking a better paying job elsewhere, which is why most people leave the field. I left because I had to move and couldnt help that. But each time I moved back here, I got re-hired and I stayed. I have been there consistently since July 2006. Where is my big bonus from the govt (or rather, tax payers)? Why should someone who LEFT the job get a bonus but not me, because I stayed. Just like why should a company that hires a woman get some sort of break? It leaves other workers feeling ignored and insulted.<br />
<br />
Women are often not treated fairly in the workplace. But I do not think the ideas coming out today are really fixing much, if anything. It still draws attention to gender and I can only hope that one day those lines are finally dropped and it doesnt matter if you are a man or a woman, it only matters that you can do the job and do it well. And be paid in accordance.KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-45105506449739479052012-10-18T07:16:00.001-06:002012-10-18T07:16:42.549-06:00Wasting your Vote?I had a comment on a previous post (Former Obama Supporters) that brings up a topic that many people have been discussing so I wanted to post it here along with my reply.....<br />
<br />
<i>Comment:</i> <span class="datetime secondary-text"><a href="http://randommusingsofatormentedmind.blogspot.com/2012/10/former-obama-voters.html?showComment=1350562426650#c1240719942440228110" rel="nofollow">October 18, 2012 6:13 AM</a></span><br />
<div class="comment-content" id="bc_0_0MC">
People
have two choices. More Obama and 4 more years of an economy in the
toilet, record spending, and wasting billions of dollars on Obama's
green picks, or the possibility of a different direction with Romney. It
always irks me to hear of people who don't like the status quo but
won't do a thing to change it - instead they'll not vote at all, which
of course is the same as voting for the status quo.<br />I hear this kind
of argument all the time.. "I don't like him" or "I can't stand him"...
that doesn't matter. Do you like the direction your country is headed
right now, and do you think the opposition could actually make it
worse?... those are the only two questions that are important.<br />You
don't have to like Romney to vote republican, you have to want a change
from what you've been living with, and the direction you've been heading
in for the last four years. Sitting at home and doing nothing just
ensures four more years of what you weren't happy with in the first
place. People deserve what they get if they're too lazy or picky to vote
for change.</div>
<div class="comment-content" id="bc_0_0MC">
<br /></div>
<div class="comment-content" id="bc_0_0MC">
<i>My reply: </i>I would wrestle with that if I was American and getting ready to vote.
My reasoning is that part of the problems in both our countries is
bigger and bigger govt growing out of control like a monster. Romney is a
big government man too. <br /><br />In the debate on Tuesday, Romney talked
about how he would not let illegal immigrants get driver's licenses,
for example. How does he plan to do that? Driver's licensing is solely a
STATE issue, not federal. Does that mean he plans to get involved in
telling the states what to do over that? Does that mean he would be
opening up a new crew of federal govt workers to oversee this?
Secretaries, people to head it up, people to oversee them, new
letterheads and govt titles? Pensions, wages, and benefits for them paid
by American tax payers? How is that going to save real money? That is
the sort of thing that would make me not want to vote for Romney.<br /><br />I
think he is on the right track for finding ways for businesses to be
able to grow with LESS govt involvement, and that in turn should make
the tax revenue grow bigger than it is right now - BUT you have to stop
and think there too - WHY do they need such a massive revenue from
taxes?<br /><br />BECAUSE THEY SPEND TOO MUCH. They all do - democrats and
republicans alike. If they keep funding new programs or keep the ones
they currently fund without major changes, the US is never going to come
close to getting out of debt. Some people refer to Romney as 'Obama
Lite' and I can see why. If you really listen to his speeches and
debates, he talks of new govt programs but does not say things like 'I
would close such-and-such group and put those people in place in a new
group called such-and-such', he just talks of all these new groups and
plans. That means MORE GOVT SPENDING. <br /><br />So, if Obama is driving
the US over the cliff at 100kmp, and Romney is going to drive over the
cliff at 60kph - it's STILL going over the cliff! If you are in that car
and it's going over no matter what, do you think it would be better to
die at 60kph instead?? Or would you rather throw open the door and jump
OUT? <br /><br />There is at least one other person who is on the ticket,
running as an independent, but he has not been invited to any of these
debates? Why not? I have to search the internet to find what his plans
and policies are. Is that fair? What if this guy has a bunch of concrete
plans to try to STOP the car from falling over the cliff, rather than
just slowing it down a bit like Romney? Most people wont know what his
plans are because they are told that it's either Romney or Obama and a
vote for someone else would be a waste.<br /><br />I heard a radio talking
about this the other day and I liked it. Mike Church (sirius patriot)
basically said that if people are told it will be THEIR FAULT if Obama
wins, because they did not vote or voted for the Independent, or wrote
in their own choice on the ballot, they could respond with 'No it's not
my fault, it's Romney's fault, for not showing that he is going to take
the country in the right direction, for not convincing me that he KNOWS
what to do to stop this excessive spending at the Federal level'. <br /><br />I
whole heartedly agree with that. It's not a person's fault if they vote
independent or cant bring themselves to vote at all because the two
main choices are not appealing, it's the Candidates' fault and the fault
of their policies and plans. End of story.</div>
<div class="comment-content" id="bc_0_0MC">
<br /></div>
<div class="comment-content" id="bc_0_0MC">
Now to go the other way, I believe that Romney really feels he can
change things. I believe him when he says that. I believe that he is a
nice person, not the rich snooty that people have been making him out to
be. I believe that he knows how to run a business, and how to be part
of a team. <br /><br />I like him more than I like Obama, I was always wary
of Obama when he tried to act like he knew what people wanted to here.
He did not seem sincere and laughed at his own jokes too often. But I do
not feel that liking one more than the other automatically means that I
would know that Romney should get my vote. It's very difficult. I do
not think that Romney has enough of the right ideas for how to turn
things around fast and hard. That is the only way, I feel, that the US
has any hope of getting through this. Fast and HARD changes. Changes
people are not going to like. To me it's like a household realizing they
are heavy in debt and getting the Debt Lady from tv to show up and put
their money in jars and tell them how much they have leftover and only
to live on what they bring in, NOT on credit. If that's how households
have to get out of debt, how is it that both these candidates are
talking about revenue for the future, and new spending programs????
There is NO FREAKING MONEY. They are in debt an astonishing amount of
money. A shocking, sickening amount of money. How are they going to get
out of it?<br /><br />As Mike Church also put one morning, when they finally
pay the 16 TRILLLLLLION dollars back, they only break even, only in the
black. Better than in the red, but it's almost impossible to think of
how they can possibly ever get to the point where they bring in enough
to cover what they are putting out. Households cant run like that. They
may lose their home and vehicles. They have much less chances to fix
their problems than the federal govts have allowed themselves. It's,
quite frankly, terrifying.<br /><br />Another thing I would note about this
Romney Obama time is that if Romney wins, that does not necessarily
signal the demise of Obama. He only served 4 years, so he could sit back
and watch the debt clock continue to rise, and come back for the next
election. If Romney really messes up or something bad happens under his
watch (terrorist plots, etc), Obama could slide right back in again. The
elections lately have been so close, near a 50-50 split, I dont know
that the Dems would kick Obama to the curb so easily. He could still be
their poster boy while they sit and watch the same things happen under
Romney. It could go back and forth between both parties for the next 20
years and the US will just continue to crumble. How does that help
anyone? What does that solve?<br /><br />It will take tough ideas, that is the only way I can see to salvage what's going on.<br /><br />And
here is another thought - how many times have either Obama or Romney
spoken about the Constitution in their debates and speeches? A light
mention here and there when it suits them. But that's about it. Neither
one of them has talked about how the Federal govt is going beyond what
it was supposed to do, and that has contributed largely to the debt and
problems. Neither one of them. They swear to uphold the constitution and
then ignore it. THAT is a major problem that both of them are the stars
of. So while I dont think Romney is a horrible man, I do think he feels
the Feds have the right to do what they have been doing and that is
just plain wrong. That thinking has led to the increased spending of tax
payers dollars over the decades and it's not going to turn anything
around. </div>
KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-8172338092246791142012-10-17T22:31:00.000-06:002012-10-17T22:31:17.933-06:00Looking back at 2008 US ElectionI mentioned in the previous post that I should look back at stuff I posted in 2008 about Obama, and things that friends of mine said back then, and other random people around forums and such, and post it here for viewing just before the 2012 election. I have only read through two of my past posts and already I am laughing.... it's like the same story being told all over again. Except it involved Romney and Ryan now instead of McCain and Palin. You could swap the names around and post the same things and no one would know it was a repeat of 2008, 4 year old, posts.<br />
<br />
Like this one called<a href="http://randommusingsofatormentedmind.blogspot.ca/2008/11/perplexed.html" target="_blank"> Perplexed </a>from Nov 14, 2008. Excerpt: ""One major thing I have noticed surrounds the election of Barack Obama.
While I understand the significance of this historic event, I also sit
back and watch others' reactions. I remember things people said before
he won the Democratic nomination and apply it to what they are saying
about him now. It is quite shocking. I know this is just a small
sampling of the hundreds of millions of people in the United States but I
also see it happening on television, radio, and in newspapers. I recall
people that supported Hillary Clinton telling me that they did not
trust Obama as far as they could throw him. Saying that there was
something about him they did not like and that his ideas were far too
left for them, or too radical, or too ever-changing. I watched those
people be very upset when Clinton lost the nomination, watched them
saying that the party was doomed and would lose. But then, the euphoria
around them hit. Quite suddenly, within the final few months of the
election race, these exact same people were suddenly prostrating
themselves at his feet. These same people who spoke with such disdain a
short time beforehand were suddenly singing his praises and wearing his
banner, dropping his name in every direction. He was suddenly THE MAN
and some of these people completely denied saying anything ill towards
him in the past. I could ask them what changed their minds, because of
course people CAN change their mind - but I did not receive a real
answer from ANY of them. None. What does that say? Does that say they
supported him because of his ideas, plans, policies, etc - or did they
jump on a bandwagon?""<br />
<br />
""I predicted to my boyfriend that within 5 days to a week of the
election, I would see those same people writing in the forums about
hoping he does not do half the things he talked about. I was wrong on
that one ----- it was less than 48 hours! That evening and the next day
was a huge celebration but by Friday people were starting to question
things. They said they think he will make an amazing leader, they are
very proud of him, "but I hope that he won't do this or that".""<br />
<br />
<b>In reference to the debt (about 10 trillion at the time):</b> ""That is my next point - I do not think many Americans are ready to PAY
for what they want. I realize I am speaking in general terms by using
'they' but they know who they are. If you are reading this and do not
feel that way, then obviously I am not talking about you. Anyhow, 'they'
want these programs but do not seem to understand the rammifications of
such policies going into place. The US has mutliple millions of people
who would require some type of assistance, year after year after year.
Who is going to pay for that? Is the White House going to have a
Lemonade Stand out front? It's your pocket or your child's pocket - or
maybe you, your child, your grandchild, and all of their children too."" <b> And oh gee, it's over 16 trillion now, yet people are shocked? WHY? His policies set out before election clearly needed some cash, so where else could he possibly get it from other than the American people (and future Americans yet to be born)?</b><br />
<br />
or <a href="http://randommusingsofatormentedmind.blogspot.ca/2008/11/whispers-of-intent.html" target="_blank">Whispers of Intent</a>, also from Nov 14 2008, regarding the Obama-Biden plan that was on the website before his election, and there for a short time afterward, but then disappeared and then was ultimately overhauled. <b></b><br />
<br />
or this<a href="http://randommusingsofatormentedmind.blogspot.ca/2011/11/random-thought.html" target="_blank"> Random Thought</a> that shows the US and Canada Debt Clocks on Nov 17, 2011. I wish I had posted and made note of the debt clock in Nov 2008. But my main point was the comment I left: <b>""So, if you were in serious debt, would you go to your financial advisors
and hear them say 'Oh, to get out of debt, you just have to increase
your spending'?""</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-91768709460080406592012-10-17T06:59:00.001-06:002012-10-17T06:59:26.933-06:00Former Obama votersSo I have at least 3 American friends who are not impressed with Obama's performance over the past 4 years and they do not want to vote for him (they do not like Romney either, which I dont blame them because I cant stand the man and find his ideas are not enough to help the US stop from falling over the cliff)... but they say things like 'this is not what I voted for' or 'I am disappointed with how Obama turned out'. They talk as though they had no idea this would happen. I get annoyed with it, because before Obama even became candidate, back when he was battling edwards and clinton, I learned things about Obama that were less than exciting. It seems to me that Obama did everything that people on the right warned about. So what's the big surprise? Back when my friends were voting for Obama, I told them of things I had learned and checked out for myself, and they would not listen. Now - they just say 'Im not happy with him. I had so much hope but he didnt do anything he said he was going to do'.<br />
<br />
Yes, he did! His words might have been wrong - like saying he would cut unemployment, and increase people's take home pay - but the policies he explained BEFORE he was elected showed that what he was touting was impossible to repair that way. His POLICIES were not going to work and that was obvious from the start - from the campaign trail - but people only chose to hear his words and not THINK about what he was saying. Over and over in history, these things failed. Over and over. So why did they think that Obama would magically be able to fix it using the same failed tactics? Or they were so focused on Bad GWBush, they couldnt see past the end of their nose. I just find it annoying and aggravating that they will not say 'I was wrong to believe his policies would work'. Instead they just blame Obama for not becoming what they expected.<br />
<br />
I'm sorry but they only have themselves to blame!!! One of these friends is from Alberta where most people vote 'right', and yet down in the states she let her son be in an Obama promotional video and told everyone how excited she was to have her son involved. He was about 7 at the time. Oh boy - and now she is disappointed with Obama. Her in particular I sent information to, but she ignored it or refused to believe it. Now she doesnt want to vote for anyone including Obama and probably wont vote at all. But will NOT admit that she was wrong and should have paid more attention back then. That is something we predicted. If I can stand it, I will have to go back through my old posts from pre-election and find where I guessed that people would turn on Obama and pretend they knew nothing about what the man would do to the US if elected.KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.com3