Random Musings of a Tormented Mind

Waiting Game

2012-01-25T13:20:00.000-07:00

A status update from my friend's FB page this morning,,,, as a little reminder that while our Canadian health care system may feel like it's free and beneficial to all, and better to just be able to go to the doc and not get a bill - there are other ways that we 'pay'. Sacrificing quality for quantity (aka cost)?

""My f**king doctor's appointment, that I have been waiting NINE MONTHS for, was cancelled. Instead of tomorrow, it's mid-February. FML.""

Well she only has to wait another month so that's okay, right? This same person has traveled all the way to Calgary (3 hours) with her child for an appt at the Children's hospital with a specialist, only to find out upon arrival that it was canceled, more than once. It doesn't just happen to adults obviously.

Is this a fair trade off? Having the province decide how many specialists they will pay in the province and not having any other option available to hire more? And having to wait eons for some appointments? As I have stated in previous posts, my boss suffered a stroke during the first week of June 2011. I was there. It happened at work. Her MRI and neurologist appt were in NOVEMBER 2011 and that was even after her own doctor, who is also a family member I might add, pushed for it to be brought up from January 2012.

I was supposed to be set up with a neurologist in May 2011 but I still have not even had a phone call for a consultation let alone anything beyond that, for trigeminal neuralgia. This is the way we 'pay' - through lack of services, govt controlled number of specialists, and long waiting times. I wonder if that is really worth the cost. You would have to ask someone like my friend who's mother had to wait from August 2001 to February 2002 for surgery on a lung tumor, only to find out after the delay that the cancer spread to her brain somewhere between Oct and Feb and she died May 2002. No one will ever know if she would have had a fighting chance if her surgery had not been delayed (due to it being first booked on a holiday weekend and the surgeon was going away, so it was delayed 4 more months).

Ask her family if they think that maybe paying a little bit more toward their health care directly would open the doors for more specialists and more services. I bet they might have a different opinion than what you see playing out in the media most of the time about how great it all is..

Pot..... Kettle.........

2012-01-21T22:35:00.006-07:00

In light of my earlier posts regarding Ron Paul-ia, I saw some more interesting exchanges between RP non-supporters and a supporter (actually another supporter pops in at the end, but I was interested in what went on between two main posters). This again from a new FB group that my family members found themselves a member of because the group owner changed the name and purpose of it from finding out stuff about George Soros, to 'booting Ron Paul from the Republican Party'. I realize there are groups like this all over the place, left and right, up and down, but I am particularly interested in groups such as this one because the gist of the whole thing is to say that Ron Paul supporters are nuts, wacko, nutjobs, crazy, bat sh*t crazy, insane folk. But repeatedly in this group for the past few days, all I have seen are the ones against RP slamming other people into the ground, name calling, posting stupid photoshopped pictures, and generally acting... well..... crazy themselves. I don't get it. I don't understand how they cannot see that they are acting in the very same manner they accuse Ron Paul voters of. It's mind boggling.

The following is a list of screen shots taken a few mins ago from one of the newest threads posted today. One RP supporter in particular goes out of her way to provide links, comments, information and asks questions of the anti-ron paul members but is repeatedly bashed and it's eye-opening. I have doubled up on some posts so that you can see that I did not skip anything. As in, I cut the screen shot above and below the last post each time so that you know full well this is the whole conversation in it's entirity, without any edits unless you count that I snipped off all my identifying info at the top of the page and the ads along the side. You should be able to click on each one to view it a bit larger so you can read it. One other RP supporter comes in and takes their bait and does not act as eloquently as the original RP supporter, but it's 'Jennifer' that I was interested in. And just to remind you, this is an 'Open' FB group, all content visible to anyone and everyone, so I am only posting info that is already public. Hence why I did not bother removing the names of the posters. They chose to post in a public forum visible by anyone who comes across the page.I am not a member of this group (they denied me), and I can obviously see them. so here we go:

So basically, if anyone was reading this who wasn't sure about Ron Paul - would they get any actual info out of it? There are other threads about RP being a suspected KGB agent, and this is the current Group Description that was posted a few hours ago (it changes often but this is the most recent):

"""Ron Paul is a stooge of the Iranian Government and clearly a left winger that has infiltrated the Republican Party. RINO's are bad enough, but Ron Paul has to go NOW.

Iran and Pakistan are Russian terror proxies. Ron Paul is their American Propagandist...very simple.

Ron Paul Archives

http://theconservativemonster.mobi/categories/263/ron-paul-1.aspx

Ron Paul spews 100% Iranian and Russian Propaganda. He should be thrown into prison for giving aid and comfort to Iran as a U.S. Congressman. Iran has been directly linked to Al Qaeda, the 9/11 attacks (via Hezbollah) and the deaths of thousands of U.S. Soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is a Marxist that says "conservative slogans" to draw in suckers. The Republicans can't out him, because thy still spread the lie that "Reagan defeated communism". Why are Russian missiles still pointing at Eastern Europe? DUH. - Steve Cooper."""

One of the group owners, this Steve Cooper, has even been deleting friends he has had for 2+ years from what I have seen in the group so far. Like a man named Dan today who talked about why he liked RP and the next thing you know, Steve wrote that he 'sent dan to Gitmo' (meaning booted him from the group). This after Steve called RP a soviet implant, a KGB agent, and a marxist. Dan questioned why and then listed things RP talks about that would be opposite of a Marxist, said 'I have been friends with you for two years' and still got the boot. It's just totally bizarre behaviour. I know, you could find me a host of RP supporters acting like nimrods too, just like you could for any candidate at any time - but those who follow RP seem to get the most backlash for being insane. They get far more flack than Obama supporters do - and I mean from the Republican voters! I have been in political forums for years and I have never seen so much outward nastiness as I have from the jabs thrown at RP supporters. And yet these people don't see it. They are so completely blind to it I don't understand how they can't see their own craziness and 'bot-ery'. I'm waiting for them all to fight now because some can't stand Newt and some can't stand Romney and they have even poked fun at Santorum so I'm sure the inter-bickering excluding Ron Paul will get going more as the elections progress. That should be a riot to see as well.

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

Oops here are some more posts that were added to the above thread while I was writing this:

And now 11 mins have gone by with no answering of the questions asked.

And then I found something rather hilarious. The same dude posting above in favor of the boot ron paul page (Erich), mentioned a list of republicans that he supports and said The Tea Party Loves You!!!... one of those he named was Senator Jim DeMint. So I thought that was rather hilarious, considering that mr DeMint just came out on television to say that he agrees with ron paul's ideas on FOREIGN POLICY. Oh my, poor Erich won't know what to say if he manages to see that link..... and here it is for your enjoyment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA_dIaF1nrQ

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

Just to update from January 23, 2012 - here is another lovely comment from the same group (the owner):

Ron Paul-ia AGAIN

2012-01-18T22:40:00.003-07:00

I find it very interesting that in all the years RP has tried for the candidacy to run for president, he was largely ignored, but now people are going batsh*t crazy. I listened to 6 different right-leaning radio programs yesterday, the day after the debate, and I swear to you that every single host started flapping about Ron Paul less than 30 seconds into the start of their program, some with their very first words after introducing their programs. And then they proceeded to talk about him for at least a half hour straight, each one of them, along with sending out emails largely about RP from their daily info links... One that has slammed him repeatedly went so far as to say 'I was ready to endorse him, racism and foreign policy aside, until last night'. Thanks Mr Levin - that was an interesting comment. Anyway I just find it intriguing. All this constant talk of him being unelectable, that he won't even get close to winning the GOP spot for the presidential election, yet these hosts are spending more time talking about RP lately than they are talking about Obama or any of the other GOP candidates combined. It's very telling for what they REALLY think is going on.

Then I found something disturbing this evening. I logged onto my 14 yr old son's FB account to catch up on some games (to send myself gifts lol) and I noticed a whole bunch of posts from a group called something like 'Call for the Republican Party to boot ron Paul'... I know that my son did not join that group so I couldn't figure out what happened. There were a lot of questionable posters and posts on the wall of the group that I would not want my son to be exposed to so I immediately removed him..... but then I realized that all the notifications for the group then disappeared and I wouldnt be able to see how he got himself into it (like if a friend added him, or what). Curious, i hit the membership list of the group and noticed that my BOYFRIEND and his cousin - both ron paul supporters, were members... then I knew something was up. I figured that the group must have been about something else in the past and someone changed the name of it, automatically making all the members of the past group members of the new group.... so my bf logged into his account and sure enough, 10 hours earlier the group had changed it's name. Originally it was about George Soros and economy stuff.

The group owner took it upon himself to change it to something completely different instead of forming a new group. That way, it looked like there were over 3000 members already (the prior group total for the George Soros one)... now it is already down to just over 2100 members (even though new members have been added several times today). So that shows how many people stumbled across this group and wondered how they ended up in it, and then clicked Leave Group. But i just found that to be so cagey, so sneaky!

I also found it interesting that the group members are calling Ron Paul supporters crazy, but when you read their posts, they are acting like little bratty children. Name calling, silly posters depicting RP and Iran's president embracing in brokeback mountain, but it's called Blowback Mountain.... other super-imposed photos of ron paul cheering on Iran, or dressed like an alien, or smoking pot from a huge bong, etc etc. Those things are so trivial. I was bad on this blog once and posted a photo of Nancy Pelosi next to a scary lookalike poster of Chuckie the horror movie doll but she really did look like him (it?). I did not post ridiculous photos of nancy's face superimposed on someone else. All of that is completely juvenile and happening at lightning speed in that group - while members under the age of 18 were automatically exposed to it all by the group owner changing the name and the temperment and the topic of the group with one click of the button. Shameful.

There are interesting threads of topics to read through as well, but a heck of a lot of it is just name calling and egging on RP supporters, things like saying if you are a RP supporter you must be one of 3 things - a racist, anti-jew, or a truther. 90% of the content so far is bunk, playing games and calling names. If they really want to get things going, how about having a rational grownup discussion about their dislike of RP and provide links of support instead of stupid fake photos, links to random youtube videos with opinions rather than proof, and documentation of their claims? Some of the members are doing that, but it's not long before the name calling starts again. I am going to keep an eye on the group member total to see how many people remain in it once they log into fb and realize that their old group has been hijacked and they were basically added without their permission. Should be interesting.

I also noticed topics such as people wondering how on earth Dr Paul could have delivered 4000 babies... acting as though it's not possible and he is lying. My own doc, who is not a full obgyn, has delivered over 2700 babies the last time I counted, and he has been a doc for 20 years and only delivering his own patient's baby for the most part, as a general practioner. I did a quick search on the net for the avg number of babies an obgyn in the US might deliver and kept coming up with the numbers of 12 to 15 per month. 12 per month x 12 months a year, x 30 years is over 4000 babies. I read stats at a US medical site that said it's widely reported that obgyns deliver 250 to 300 babies per year - if they did that for 30 years that would mean 9000 babies. So it just irks me that people cannot take the time to look up some info (took me less than 5 mins to check 10 sites) instead of running off at the mouth. Just that simple comment on the wall of that group made me realize that the real bat sh*t crazies on there are the ones RUNNING it, not all the paulbots they keep slamming.

But i think by far the most offensive thing I saw on the page so far is a photo of a young man who is mentally disabled holding up a piece of paper, and someone has written 'i love ron paul 2012' on the paper (via computer).... right away i thought 'okay, so you people are going to go around calling supporters racist, but it's okay for YOU to post photos of a mentally challenged individual and use it to poke fun?' That's sure nice isnt it? only 3 people have clicked Like so far, but one person went so far as to comment 'It's a PAULTARD' and 3 more people clicked 'i like' to that... wow. I simply do not understand how people can be so completely blind to what they are doing. I am not saying it's only people against ron paul doing this - i saw it done against obama, bush, and the current GOP candidates as well. But my god - get a brain people! 'Retard' is what they are calling the paul supporters of course, and then posting a photo of some young man who is challenged - they are calling HIM a 'retard' and thinking it's hilarious. Wow. As I said above - it's shameful.
______
Update: I took a screen shot of the 'paultard' comment (since it's an open group and anyone on FB can view all of the posts, even without being a member). I took the shot this morning because instead of anyone pointing out that it's rude to the young man in the photo, more people have clicked 'i like' instead.

Ron Paul-ia - again

2012-01-16T23:30:00.001-07:00

So I managed to watch the entire debate on Fox news tonight and one point really interested me. The gist of it was Ron Paul talking about how the US can't just go along with going into a foreign country and killing people to get to a target without somehow talking about it with that country first (in reference to Bin Laden and Pakistan). He was pretty much getting booooed with those comments but he said something afterward that SURELY must make people think. He said 'What if it was us, and a Chinese dissent was here? Would it be okay then for China to just come in and start bombing the United States?'. You could hear crickets chirping. But seriously - he has a point!

Here's a little spin on things - what if they had found out that Bin Laden was hiding out in Montreal (like, oh I don't know, maybe a wanted Rwandan war criminal?). Would they just send in the troops and blast up a montreal safe house without alerting our PM or anyone else first? Enter Canada with special forces and take him and others down and then just leave? What would we Canadians think of that? Or like RP said - what if China found a bunch of it's highly wanted war criminals or factions hiding out in the US? Would it be okay with the American people if China started sending drones in to bomb and retreat, bomb and retreat, and then finally get an actual location and send in Chinese troops without alerting the White House? What on earth would American citizens think of that?

RP basically said also that the US has to tread more carefully, and perhaps follow rather like a 'do unto others' principle. He got boooooos for that as well. Apparently not even the Christians in the audience thought that the govt should follow one of the Ten Commandments on that score! I fear that RP is right when he talks about war mongering.

I saw someone on the RP facebook page say that the audience tonight reminded him of the Family Guy episode where Lois was running for the school board and I couldn't agree more. In that episode, when Lois was talking real issues, the audience boooooed with gusto. But when she just simply started answering " 9/11" to every question, the audience went wild with support.

Sound familiar?

More .05 problems eh?

2012-01-12T22:56:00.002-07:00

Last month I posted about the proposed .05 alcohol level provincial law coming to Alberta very soon (sometime this month I believe). I had a number of comments, one in support of the new laws. I posted about my concerns with how some people might find themselves in trouble after a couple of glasses of wine and worried about some outcomes. This is the comment in support of the new law: It's a good thing that this kind of law exists. It's also good that somebody thought of first-time offenders too. This way, they're given the chance to rehabilitate themselves, so that they wouldn't repeat the same mistake twice. They can get off with only a warning and everybody could be happy. Of course, now that the holidays are at our doorstep, the predictions of impaired driving incidents are pretty high, but hopefully something would happen and drivers would be more attentive.

Alright,,,, so now I wonder what this person would think of THIS story: SOBER 82 yr old is $6000 in debt so far after not being able to blow hard enough on the breathalyser . I could not believe my eyes when I saw the story on Sun News earlier. I did some web searches before posting and found the above story on Cranbrook's own newspaper site. If this is indeed the whole story, something is very wrong here! Regardless of how the woman said it happened though, she has a hospital blood test on record, done less than 2 hours after her incident with the RCMP, and it shows a ZERO blood alcohol level. If this is indeed all true, WTF? And you don't think this could happen to you?

I never even thought of these ramifications before.... I have wondered about it in the sense that they can pretty much make you blow into a breathalyser anytime they want now because they do not have to see signs of impairment (since the federal level is set at .08, not .05) - they can just decide to check you and say that they suspect you may have had a couple of drinks. It made me think about my mother who is 66 and has had a lot of breathing problems the past couple of years. She went for asthma tests last year and could not blow hard enough into the tube to get an accurate reading. The tech was actually getting frustrated at her and it upset her because HELLO - she was there BECAUSE of breathing problems, why should they be surprised she can't blow the damned asthma tube and ping pong ball?? But my mom is also notorious for turning down the wrong street and this situation could have easily happened to her. Wanna know something else? My mom does not drink either. Like not at all. I think she had a sip of Arbor Mist 3 years ago, and before that she had a glass of champagne sometime in the 90s. But she is on medication that always makes her breath smell sweet. I have commented to her before that she reaks of booze because of it. My boss is on a bunch of medication for a serious illness as well and her breath often smells like she has been into the whiskey - even if she just drank a glass of milk in front of me. So in other words, both of those women could also end up getting pulled over and smell of booze and have to be breathalysed - and then the trouble could start for my mom if she couldn't work the machine. My mom is on a very fixed income and there is no way she would be able to afford such fees as this woman has faced. I would lose my MIND with anger.

But it happened to that 82 year old woman, so how do you know it won't happen to YOUR mom or gramma. Or auntie. or YOU. Is that what we really want from all these rules and regulations? Old ladies paying thousands of dollars for legal moves to get their car and license back when they have NOT been drinking? Geezus. I don't even know what to say about it. I was shocked but I guess I am not really that surprised.

To be fair, I also found a response from the RCMP --- RCMP reaction to this story. While reading through it a few times, I noticed some things of interest - first off, the woman has a letter from the hospital timed and dated at 350am on the same early morning as she was reportedly stopped by the police. I have not seen it in person of course but the woman was holding in several photos and it apparently says ZERO blood alcohol level - if this is true, I would like to know how the RCMP state in the above article that they did some 'calculations' and determined that she would have blown a 'warn' or a 'pass'. How did they figure that out? By taking her volunteered information that she had a mouthful of champagne or wine at dinner, during a toast, and then figuring out her weight and height and hours since the drink, much like the charts I posted about in my first blog about this topic? If her hospital record does say Zero, how did they make their calculation?

Another thing of note is that they said she was lawfully detained. That's because they can pretty much lawfully detain you for any reason these days without proof, can they not? They can detain you for questioning as a witness even if they know you did not perpetrate any crime. They can detain you while waiting for someone else to come along (such as in this story where an off duty officer told the woman that she had to wait for an on-duty officer to come with a breathalyser). They can make you stand outside in the cold for 2 hours while you attempt a breathalyser (or attempt to thwart it, which is what the officer in the article states his staff saw happening). So yup, she was detained lawfully alright - because the police, especially Federal ones, can pretty much make you stop for anything. As I stated in my earlier post - just try turning around in a check stop lineup to go another way home and see what happens to you!

The officer goes on to say that based on their calculations, the woman would NOT have blown a 'fail'. And then he goes on to say ""Regardless of the age of the person driving the vehicle, impaired driving kills people.""

Alright then, but this woman was not a drunk driver, or even a slightly impaired driver, based on their own admissions. The woman says that she was tested 15 times that evening before she was finally issued the punishment. They did NOT get a reading and towed her car anyway. I realize they have trouble with a lot of people being a pain in the arse and lying - but this woman was old and they had her standing outside. They pretty much admit to that because they said she was allowed to enter her home for water and to use the washroom. They did not say that they waited indoors to do the tests. Why not? did it have to be outside in the middle of the night? I don't understand. Maybe the woman is a raving looney for all I know, but what I also made note of is that no one seems to have found a past record for drunk driving yet. How would this old woman know how to thwart the breathalyser machine if she doesnt have a record of problems with the police before? I had no idea until tonight that you could block the tube with your tongue or suck in air instead of blowing in. I've never had to do it, and have only seen it in person twice (both times the driver had not been drinking, FYI).... is there a reason this little old granny would know how to thwart the machine repeatedly and keep herself standing outside for 2 hours with no jacket? Again it is wise to note that the RCMP themselves said that she would not have blown a fail, so she was not impaired and just acting ridiculous because of that...

Medical Bankruptcy

2012-01-09T22:44:00.001-07:00

I decided to comment on a friend of my brother's FB page today when he was discussing America's medical system with his american friends... I noticed that he said our healthcare has always been 'free' and I felt the need to go in and post that NO it is not free. Maybe I should have respected his page and kept my mouth shut, but then again, he allowed me on his page and he posted 'publicly' and then made a mis-statement that Americans who are unfamiliar with our system will not understand. I discussed that we pay more taxes to cover this and about 47% of Canada's tax revenue, reportedly, goes to the healthcare system and it's always increasing. Gee then we wonder why other things get cut, but I digress. My point is that in the end, he basically asked me to stop 'debating' on his page. I felt like I had been slapped in the face. I'm supposed to sit back and watch him tell his american friends that our healthcare is 'free' and not talk about the resulting short comings. But whatever, boohoo to me.

What I did note was that one of his friends said that medical debt is the highest debt for US citizens. That is not true! Um how about MORTGAGES? Geezus murphy. So I went online for awhile checking recent documents in relation to personal debt in the States. It's quite confusing but I did find a 'Harvard' report from 2004 or 2005 that said the highest reported link in personal bankruptcy in the US is medical expenses (stating that about 54% of those filing personal bankruptcy had medical expenses in their list). In Canada it was far far lower.

But upon further investigation, I read several accounts where when they looked at the stats used for the report, some people only had a $5 or other extremely low medical debt in their list. Other things like vehicles, homes, and credit card debt, added up to a much higher percentage. So then I wondered how many of those people had medical expenses as their number ONE reason for filing. I had a very hard time finding that info.

I am well aware that in Canada, there are people who filed or almost had to file for bankruptcy after waiting for very long periods for treatment and being unable to work in the meantime (ex shoulder and back surgeries and even cancer treatments). There have been 3 stories in my local paper over the last year detailing those very kinds of stories, because people were losing their homes while being on reduced income while awaiting treatment. But I had no idea what the stats were. So I trolled around some more and found an interesting paper by the Fraser Institute. Yeah yeah it's called a right leaning think tank, but it has factors to consider while trying to get to the bottom of this.... 'The Medical Bankruptcy Myth'....

Everything has it's spin, I realize that, but I can just look around and listen and read articles and know that it is not all roses up here either. And I am well aware that many studies end up being picked apart and you have to be very careful what you take in. Like years ago when I did a paper for college about why baby walkers were banned in Canada. The same study kept appearing as a basis for the decision so I finally tracked it down and discovered it was a study done on TWO children, twins. The twin who was allowed in a baby walker walked later than his brother,,,,, two weeks later. Oh boy! I didn't know that twins were supposed to walk on the same day,,, just because they were twins! That is amazing! Anyway that study appeared over and over in publications regarding the ban (stats on accidents were the priority, but it also stated repeatedly that baby walkers were also bad for a child's physical development, and quoted the study I tracked down). What a crock of baloney! I should also note that over 90% of the accidents involving baby walkers were due directly to lack of parent supervision (such as the number one accident - falling down stairs while in a walker). My rambling point is that just because a 'study' was compiled does not mean that it was scientifically sound and considered all variables necessary and related to ensure a valid outcome. Do not be fooled. Check them out for yourself!

----------- Jan 10 update

So I was perusing the comments on that FB page and I had to sit on my hands to keep myself honouring the poster's wish that I not contribute further.... He had asked Americans about the cost of various services and how it all works. One woman said that a family member works in hospital billing and gave him some quotes. One jumped right off the page at me. She wrote on behalf of this family member that a premature infant can cost $400,000. That topic is close to me because my last child was a preemie. I am a member of several Preemie Parents groups and by far the majority of members are american. There are whole threads where they discuss cost and I have never seen a total higher than $250,000 (and that was an extreme case with a micro prem born at 22 weeks with a LOT of medical problems including heart surgery etc). So I did a little digging.

The first places I hit were like March of Dimes and so on that focus on preemie issues. They state all over their site that the average cost in the US is $50,000. I have seen the avg quoted as high a $64,000 (2009 data). Okay so where the heck did this $400,000 come from? It seemed so outrageous next to the poster's other costs, it was baffling me (eg, cancer diag and treatment $100,000, heart attack $50,000, etc). So I finally found some data saying that the average cost is $50,000 but they can go as high as $400,000. If you think about how averages work, there must be an awful lot of preemies born that cost far BELOW $50,000 in order for that number to come up. So while the poster stated a truth (that it can cost $400,000), the operative word here is CAN. Obviously that is a very high cost that happens to very very few people, only in extreme situations, or the average cost would be higher, would it not? So that's the kind of thing I do not like - basically posting scare tactics.

I looked up the average cost of a preemie birth in alberta after seeing that those American averages also include delivery and the first year of the child's birth, not just their NICU stay. I figured out based on looking at charts online for alberta that my son probably cost the province a mimimum of $37,000. That was based on the average cost for a straight forward csection, and $1500 a day for 15 days he was in NICU, based on what his own RN's told me the cost was to keep him there. My son was a very healthy preemie. He did not need any major intervention, was only on oxygen for an hour, and only had to be kept warm and fed. He had a saline IV for fluids, but no medication and no emergencies with his heart or lungs. So he was a pretty darn cheap preemie compared to what happens to many (air ambulance, hospital transfers to Calgary or Edmonton, interventions for heart and lung issues, etc) - and it still came out at $37,000 which is not far off the US average cost. No I did not have to pay a bill directly, but the other part of the news about healthcare problems in the US also states that the costs are unnecessarily high.... well apparently Canada's costs are high too eh? I saw a sign in the register office at the hospital that said uninsured out of province parents would have to pay over $3000 a day for NICU and out of country patients would have to pay up to $6600 a day for NICU stays. Boy things sure are cheap up here! Must be because govt is so good at reducing costs - haven't they proven that over and over? Bah!

Anyway my point is, the grass is not always greener on the other side. I have posted in my blog before about how the hospital pretty much forced us to take our son home when he was still 5 weeks premature, weighing only 3lbs 9oz, because it cost $1500 a day to keep an otherwise healthy baby in hospital. We were terrified! We did not let ANYONE come to see him until 6 more weeks had passed and he was gestationally one week old (but he was really 8 weeks old), and my older children had to strip their clothes off the minute they came home from school and wash up to their elbows before they could touch him because a simple cold could have sent him right back to the hospital, or worse. That's what happened to us because we do not have a choice here. We cannot even attempt to keep a tiny baby like that in hospital if they don't want him there because the doctors are always hounded for cutting costs when they can. There is no extra insurance to fall back on. The only thing we could have done is pretend to be incompetent. If the staff was worried we would not take our son's care seriously, they could petition the doctor to keep him there until they were sure it would be okay. But that would mean pretending we were idiots and we could not bring ourselves to do that. I passed my 24 hour check with flying colours, and they stuck him in a car seat padded and lifted up with blankets (against all car seat safety information), and send him home. To save some cash because you know, our system is so much better :)

What the heck? I thought we lived in Canada - 'glorious and free'???

2012-01-09T22:00:00.001-07:00

So today I found out something that has baffled me and befuddled me. I had no idea that when a person goes in for a criminal record check that includes a Vulnerable Sector search (for those who would be working with children, disabled, or elderly people), they can now be fingerprinted if their file is flagged - and it can take as much as 6 months to get paperwork back. What? I almost fainted.

Partial reasoning is that there are sex offenders out there who have received pardons and then can legally change their names. If you go in for a vulnerable sector check (govt requirement at my job every 3 years for example), and your birth date happens to match the DOB of a pardoned sex offender, your file will be flagged and you must agree to being fingerprinted in order to get your check done. WHAT? I repeat... WTF?

So here is a problem, one of many - you did not commit a crime but you are being fingerprinted in a police station because your birth date happens to match an offender. You cannot get your record check back until you agree. And then it can take anywhere from 11 weeks to 120 days (according to the rcmp and govt websites), or longer, to get it back.

And that links to another problem - what if your job requires you to have a valid active record check every 3 years (like mine) but you do not get it back in time..... at my job, I would not be permitted to be alone with a group of children for any amount of time until I got the record check back. That would cause serious issues because I work 6 hours a day largely with a group of children on my own! So ummmm... what would that mean for my job?

I have read many articles about this tonight and was shocked. There are people in all sorts of areas having trouble with this (you can google stuff about Graham James + volunteers and get many stories like this one http://www.globaltvbc.com/graham+james-sparked+fingerprint+screening+delays+volunteers/85533/story.html). Yeah, the chances are lower for people in my line of work because most tend to be women and there are far fewer women on the list than men. But it's the principal of the thing that bothers me. I have worked with young children since 1989 and have submitted to every criminal record check, vulnerable sector check, and children's services intervention check (oh wait, I didnt do that oe - more on that in a minute!) that has been required of me. My employer has spent several hundreds of dollars paying for these checks since she opened her center in the late 80s - and after all this time she too could be flagged. Now, she may be able to get an exception because she has had her same married name for almost 40 years and used that name for over 30 years of owning a center, but as of right now I cannot find any info on how to actually OBTAIN an exception. I saw it written somewhere that sometimes you can get an exception, but how you go about it, I have no idea.

I read another article about a dad in Moose Jaw SK that was unable to coach his son's soccer team because his file was flagged and it wasn't done in time for soccer season. I read about volunteers who were retirees and never required record checks when they were working, and their files were flagged so they did not get to do the volunteer services they wanted to do that year, etc. It just seems like we are always shooting ourselves in the foot! You hear an ad on the radio about your local homeless shelter desperately needing volunteers, and you go to the police station and get flagged for being born on a certain date, and then you end up not being able to help out for several months while you twiddle your thumbs and DID NOTHING WRONG in the first place. I don't get it. The govt issued pardons to these people and now the good ones are the ones who will be held up in the system because of it. Nice.

Now onto my earlier mention of the Child Welfare 'intervention' check. In 2009 I was on maternity leave and during the regular inspection, my boss and coworkers were informed that they now had to have a Child Welfare Check done every 3 years. This was not the same as a Vulnerable Record search, it was something they had to go to the Provincial Building and apply for and then pick up later. I looked at the forms when I returned to work and they even had to write down the names and birthdates of their children (even adult children) so their background could be checked to make sure that even if no criminal charges were ever brought against them, the govt could see if they had any sort of intervention from Children's Services in the past. They were told they HAD to do this every three years on top of the police and vulnerable sector checks.

When I returned to work that summer, I looked up the regulations guide that had just come out 10 months prior and I could not find a single thing in that guide anywhere that mentioned a child welfare check. But since I was part time and the 3 main girls had gone to get their's, I didnt bother thinking about it. But after my file was checked by the same inspector this summer (routine random check), and she said my file was COMPLETE, I wondered why - because I did not have the child welfare check. Again I looked at the legal mumbo jumbo in the regulations and found nothing. I went online to the govt of AB child.gov.ab website and put that term into the search bar - and got NOTHING.

Since my boss and coworkers are now due to get their 3 year checks done again, I asked the director to phone the inspector and ask whether we need to get this child welfare one done or not - referring to how the regulations guide says nothing about it whatsoever....... the inspector replied "Well no, it's not actually a regulation, but it is HIGHLY recommended'. WTF? So they are just making up rules now and twisting the words around to make it sound like you HAVE to do something, when in fact you do not?! Gee shocker.

You could say 'why wouldnt you want it done?'. Well let's see - the director has worked in childcare for over 30 years now, over 25 of them being her own center that she bought and runs on her own with a small staff (3 besides herself). Her children are all over 30 years old now and if she had done something naughty, it would have shown up a longgggggggg time before now. The others working at the center have been there 6 years, 12 years, and 17 years. One are mother and daughter. None of the 4 of us has ever been arrested, or even taken in for questioning in any police case ever in our entire lives. None of us has ever been fingerprinted. None of us has done anything inside a police station other than order those police record checks (tell a lie, I was locked in a cell during my grad year while out with friends getting our photos taken in funny locations - a friends dad is an officer here and he shut us in the holding cell in our grad gowns for a fun photo shoot). I paid a fine at the station once in 1991. That's it. But we are continually subjected to more and more nonsense, more and more invasion of privacy, all because of a few bad apples out there who should be kept behind bars when they assault children or other such vulnerable persons, instead of being let out and PARDONED, no less, and run amuck around the country. It's sickening and disheartening.

Ron Paul-ia

2011-12-29T23:34:00.001-07:00

I don't even know where to start with this, so forgive me for any rambling.

I have been following the ups and downs of the US Republican primary/presidential candidates quite closely and knew that sooner or later, someone would try to drop the rod on Ron Paul's head. Prior to the recurrent backlash from the supposedly racist remarks made over 20 years ago in a newsletter, mainstream media barely mentioned Ron Paul's name. It was rather like he didn't even exist, even though he has found himself in the primary race more than once. Now suddenly I am easily finding all sorts of articles, and online/tv/radio remarks about RP. What a surprise. Cain is out, the others are often neck and neck in polls, so out comes the attempts at trouncing the man who was so incredibly ignored, he even received only 90 seconds of voice time during the CBS debate in November.

That leads into my next point - a lot of the RP naysayers endlessly state that they 'like Ron Paul, but disagree with him on Foreign Policy'. Well fancy that - the CBC debate was ABOUT foreign policy and national security. Would that not have been a good time to throw some questions at RP to find out what he really wants for the United States? If so many people do not like his policy, or say he is weak on foreign policy, or outright think he is a nutjob, then why not use a forum ABOUT foreign policy and national security to let him run himself into the ground? But no - instead, out of the 3600 seconds of time available, RP got 90. That is seriously pathetic.

Which brings me to some interesting comments I heard this week on Mark Levin's radio program. Levin is on holiday so yesterday Mark Simone was filling in, and today was Tom Marr. I only happened to tune in for about a half hour of each 3 hour program, but lo and behold, both hosts were talking about RP during that entire time. As soon as I tuned in my Sirius satellite to Patriot, I heard Ron Paul, and thought 'here we go again'. Yesterday, Simone was having fun talking about the racist newsletters and making a remark about how a nazi website has it on there. The way he was talking, it was as though RP knew about that the whole time. Well I'm sorry but those newsletters were printed over 20 years ago, and there weren't very many websites back then, if any. I graduated 20 years ago and didn't get online for another 4 years. But the way Simone presented it, it was as though RP had some control over who posted anything on their website. Our countries cannot even control the amount of child pornography, something that every normal person on the face of this planet is vehemently against - so how on earth is RP supposed to control some wacko group posting excerpts of something that they probably wouldn't even know existed if it weren't for the media and fellow candidates flapping their lips. It's ridiculously shallow and transparent (oooo I used the talking point word against them!).

I looked up past articles pertaining to these newsletters and some of the excerpts listed were hilarious. I have no idea how or why they should be considered racist. There were however some remarks I found (assuming that they were true and taken in context) that made me wince. RP maintains repeatedly that he was not the writer of the newsletter (which is common practise by the way - like how I write every single newsletter at my job and my boss sign's her name to it), and has taken responsibility and apologized. It seems that I cannot find anything from recent years where he was uttering racist remarks, despite the multitude of video and audio available on this guy, but he will weather this storm, yet again, as it came up in 1996, 2008, and so on in between. Same story. Same result. And magically brought up again so close to the poll time. Interesting.

Today, Tom Marr was talking about RP being scary and reasons why he would not want him to be president in any way shape or form. But he took a moment to utter under his breath that he doesn't want the troops 'over there' either. Funny, I read the same thing countless times from Sun News' Brian Lilley today on his FB page. I like Brian, his is about the only show I manage to watch all the way through on the new network - but he too seems to be falling for the 'Ron Paul doesn't seem too bad, but I don't like his Foreign Policy' bandwagon. I find that sad. It's become a catch phrase/talking point all of it's own 'Ron Paul's Foreign Policy'. Then people nod and say uh-huh - but when you ask a few more questions to find details about what they don't like - they have no answers. For one thing, that would have to be POLICIES. There are more than one - do these people not like ANY of his foreign policies? Can they name his policies? I have asked this question and seen the same results time and again 'RP is an isolationist'. Oh he is? Why? "Well umm because he doesn't want to get involved with other countries". Oh, he doesn't? Not at all? Or like what? Please explain. "Explain? Oh well umm he doesn't want to have our troops over there and stuff. But Iran has nukes and we should do something about that". Oh okay, Iran has nukes? What can our troops do? What do you think we should do? "We should go over there and stop them". Oh okay so how are they going to stop them? Like they did (didnt) in Afghanistan and Iraq? "They stopped them there! We brought our troops home". Oh? We stopped them? But I thought just the other day there were almost 100 people killed in several bomb attacks in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I forget which cos every week there are bombings and I get confused. "well they got Bin Laden. So they won. Now we have to stop Iran". Ohhh right. Bin laden was the supreme leader and the others cannot manage to work without him, even though many hundreds of people there have been killed SINCE bin laden's death. "Well Iran needs to be stopped and Ron Paul said he won't do it". Oh really? Ron Paul said that? I thought he said we cannot go in there pre-emptively and presume and assume without actual proof, and that it was unconstitutional to do so. "Blank stare".

And so has gone pretty much every chat I have tried to have about Ron Paul's Foreign Policy. I swear that 90% of the people uttering the new catch phrase did not even know what foreign policy was about until Ron Paul's ideas became an issue. Well - some of them might have learned about it when Sarah Palin was in the running with McCain. "I can see Russia from my house".

Sorry, I got to rambling. Here are some excerpts from various online posts that all seem to say the same thing, but are from different media personalities in direct reference to Ron Paul:

-Ron Paul makes sense on a lot of things but falls apart on foreign policy. I don't want an American president who wants to be the world's policeman but Paul's isolationism is a bridge too far.

- No, we are engaged, sometimes wrongly. Paul would end all of that. Some of those moves would be good but some would be disastrous. When he said there is no problem with a nuke Iran and when he says he won't admit to being a 9/11 truther because of the controversy then I have to dismiss him.

- I also find his foreign policy too isolationist and truth be known I would like America to pull back. [my note: this one confuses me. Saying RP is too isolationist, but admitting he would like America to pull back.]

That was all actually from one person, on one page, all in the same thread. So why not expand on his thoughts with each succeeding comment? There was a little reaching for other topics (ex, the Truther remark) but no expansion on the main issue of the thread - foreign policy dislike/isolationism. I see that repeatedly. How is his isolationism a 'bridge too far'? What moves would be good and what moves would be disasterous? The above lines are almost like answering a question with another question. It gets you nowhere in a real discussion about these policies. It makes you wonder if the speaker even knows what the policies are or if he has just been listening to what others say, because it sounds an awful lot like everything else I have read and heard for eons.

Today Tom Marr said that RP was 'dangerous' but did not enlighten me in the half hour I listened... dangerous how? Yesterday Mark Simone said that RP was obviously racist - but did not expand on that. Does he know something that no one else anywhere has been able to prove? And what is his definition of racist? Racist against anyone who isn't pure white, or specific groups like blacks, asians, etc? Who knows. I sure don't, even though I listened closely for an explanation. It turned out to just be name calling in the end. I could call anyone I wanted to a racist (well, I could get sued for slander I guess, but I could still do it) and that would not mean it was true. So I don't understand why all these people are just going on and on about words, name calling, catch phrases and 'word of the weeks', when they should go into detail to explain it to those who are trying to understand, trying to get ready to vote, and having a hard time sorting through the mire. Why not take a moment to actually deeply explain their views if they feel it is so important that RP does not win the ballot? Probably because in the end, they cannot. They don't know the answers, or they do and don't want to get into the thick of a REAL conversation.

All I can end this with is a little tally of social media from FB. A list of the candidates with the number of people who like their official FB pages.

Ron Paul - over 667,000
Rick Perry - over 179,000
Mitt Romney - over 1, 200,000 likes
Michelle Bachmann - I can't find an official one. the wiki one has over 19,000 likes; a political looking one in her name has a little over 1000 likes
Newt Gangrich - over 222,000
Rick Santorum - over 39,000
Jon Huntsman - over 30,000

Herman Cain still has over 388,000 likes so he has more than some of the candidates that are still in the running have combined. Interesting.

Anyway that's just a small sampling of one social media site and the number of followers. Mitt has them all blown out of the water, but Paul is next and none of the other candidates even come close. So - RP is a whacko nutjob isolationist Truther - and apparently so are a hell of a lot of others eh? Should he really be discounted so easily? Ignored and then 20 year old muck thrown around again when that doesn't work?

Let's not forget, in the face of these racist accusations, that a long standing Senator was once a member of the KKK - by his own admission. You will find things online about Senator Robert Byrd spending a 'brief' period of time with the KKK, and a book about the shame he feels - but you will have a hard time figuring out how long this brief period was exactly (he says he joined in the early 1940s but is not specific beyond that. He does not say when he left either. So it could be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or more years). When you read the little Wiki blurb about it, you do not readily see that he actually started up the local chapter himself, recruiting 150 or so of his friends, and having a Grand Dragon of the KKK come down to officially start them up. The link above even states that he, along with some other Democrats, opposed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. But yet he survived election after election and stayed in the Senate until he finally keeled over at age 87. Now many of the Democrats who called him a friend and good colleague are coming out against Ron Paul for his racist newsletter that he may or may not have known about. Um... okay.

________________

I have to come back in and add something I was thinking about after posting. One particular apparent newsletter blurb I found online regarding RP's 'racist' remarks was in reference to the Rodney King melee in Los Angeles. I remember that. I remember watching it live on the news. It was horrid. Anyhow, the newsletter supposedly held a remark something like "things calmed down after the blacks went off to collect their welfare cheques'. I winced at that. If that was in context and not meant to be a humor piece, then yuck - it sounds horrible. But after I posted my original piece, I recalled how my cousin commented that the Saint John, NB Occupy Camp seemed to get boozed up each month on what also happened to be Income Support Payment day. Now - does that mean she is an occupiest? She said virtually the same thing the newsletter did - only she was not talking about the color of someone's skin, she was talking about anyone and everyone still sitting at the occupy camp in her local park after 3 months. I posted about it previously.

I've had taxi drivers over the years apologize to me for being late around the 20th of the month because it was 'Child Tax Benefit day' and they were busy picking up the single moms who got their money and were either out shopping or out at the bars. Does that mean all of those taxi drivers were blatantly rude about low income people? Or were they also stating a fact? I've had store clerks comment that it was Welfare Day so they were busy. The majority of people in my city are white, so I guess we can make those comments and not be called racists, just elitist or something. But if the majority happened to be black and we stated that fact in the sentence, 'the blacks are getting their income support checks today' - that would be racist. Yes I agree - the person who wrote the piece in the newsletter directly mentioned the word 'black', but the majority of the people involved in the riots were black. So --- now what? Was that person trying to say that most blacks are on welfare, not just the ones in the riots, but all of them? That would be pretty darn racist. Or was he talking about the vast numbers of black people in those riots and how many of them were low income and left the riots to take time to pick up their welfare checks? Was he actually WRONG?

I wrote in my previous piece about the Saint John occupy camp about how people in other cities watched many leave the camps to line up at midnight for the release of a video game ( think it was the newest Call of Duty game,,, not sure). I wrote about the Income Support payments. Seems eerily similar to what the newsletter with RPs name on it was saying about the rodney king riots. Maybe it was more about being elitist and calling down low income people, rather than racist. Neither one is good - but when you expand your context of thinking, I bet you will discover that you yourself have made similar comments about other groups of people What does that make YOU?

Sewer System or Leisure Center Expansion

2011-12-11T23:33:00.000-07:00

Hmmm let's see. What should we spend your tax dollars on today? An expansion of the Leisure Center (you know, the one where when we first built it, we did not include seating for watching the swimming in the just-short-of-olympic-sized-pool, and not enough seating for the hockey rink?)... or should we build the new Event Center for the local WHL team.... or should we fix miles and miles of old sewer pipe that needs to be replaced ASAP?

I know! We will build the Event Center AND expand the Leisure Center - and then we will just hike up everyone's electricity bills by 47% starting this month AND increase their sewer and garbage collection fees. That's a great idea!

OMFG. That is what my city council is up to at the moment. Less than two weeks ago, the front page of the paper boasted about the City planning an expansion of the Leisure Center. And then this week the paper told us that our fees on utilities are going up 'because' of the 50+ year old sewer pipes around town.

I'm sorry - What? Should we not push back the leisure center and the Event Center planning projects until stuff that our tax money is absolutely supposed to go to gets done first? Apparently not?

Another little tidbit to keep in mind is that the paper also printed a story a month or so ago about how our City Council was thwarted in their bid to get Federal tax dollars to help with the Events Center, so they are going to hit the Feds up for cash for the Leisure Center instead, and transfer the money they saved up for the Leisure Center themselves (oh sorry, I mean with citizen money) back to the Event Center. According to the councilman interviewed, they 'do this kind of thing all the time. Move money from one pocket to the other'.

Okay - well move the freakin money to the SEWER pocket instead of hitting us all up for more money during the coldest months of the year (ie higher elec bills and now higher fees by 47% flippin percent!!!!!!!!!). It is truly outrageous. Only one guy I voted for got onto council and he isn't exactly fulfilling my dreams either, but the other ones can go to.... well you fill in the blank there.

It is truly baffling. People are really struggling right now but winter is the worst time to raise fees on Elec because while summers here can be hot, you can manage to survive in the heat if you don't have a/c. I did it for many years. But in the winter - good luck if it's -40C outside and you can't afford to have your heat on for long because of the elec side of the bill. This literally makes me sick. If we have money slated for projects for fun and leisure, they need to have a vote to shift it back over do to the emergency of the sewer system. Why have families keeping their furnace low and wearing sweaters and mukluks to bed because they are afraid of their bill being too high to afford, in favor of keeping cash for a Leisure Center expansion - which is really part of a ploy to get more money from the Feds so they can use it for the Event Center? It's revolting.

Another thing to note is that I heard about this sewer pipe problem at least 1-2 years ago. I remember reading that about 80kms of pipe is very old (and a bunch of water pipes too if I remember it all correctly) but there was definately talk of how old the sewer system is and how much of it needs to be replaced. But now the City is acting like this is new news and acting like it's a dire emergency and they have no choice but to increase the sewer bill by $4 a month on avg and increase Electricity (which they say is unrelated, and I say Baloney).

The council keeps saying that we have been 'spoiled' for many years, having cheaper utilities than any other city. Well guess what? It's also one of the cheapest cities to live in across the board (rent, food prices, etc). They keep comparing us to Red Deer and Grande Prairie for prices but they don't seem to factor in the avg wage in our city compared to those ones - if the standard of living is higher and the wages are higher there, then their bills are going to be higher. If my city starts charging us the prices from further north, and our wages do not reflect the others', then people here are going to be in deep kaka. Sure, we have a lot of high earners here but we have a huge number of lower earners so........ how are they going to afford all of this? I don't get it.

The City knows that some people are stupid and others just simply forget. Just this week at work, my coworkers were talking about the sewer problems and how one of them lives in an area that needs redone badly - they talked about it like it was the first announcement of the Apocolypse. But I reminded them that I told them about this at least a year ago, if not two. Why has the city been wasting millions of dollars on 'plans' for the non-existant Event Center, revamping water parks (although my kids did have fun, they also had fun in the old ones), etc while they KNEW the sewer issue was going to hit the fan eventually. Where are the savings for it?

I could go on and on but I think I more than made my point. We need to start paying attention and calling them out on this. I already wrote my MP and he misunderstood me the first time so I wrote him back again. Will it make a difference? I don't know - I would try the MLA but I have had issues with him over the years on totally unrelated matters and I do not like him as a person at all. Very ignorant and condescending. So I refuse to even attempt to talk to that man anymore. I should be contacting our WildRose guy and see what he has to say about all this. But there is not a single person on Council that I wish to email or call. I sent a copy of my MP letter to the mayor and the councilmember I quoted above and they did not respond. Nice job guys!

.05 Alberta Impaired Driving Legislation

2011-12-08T23:33:00.000-07:00

So Alberta passed the new 'drunk driving' legislation including:

For drivers whose bloodalcohol level is between 0.05 and 0.08, first-time offenders in Alberta would be subject to a three-day suspension of their licence and a three-day seizure of their vehicle. A two-time offender could lose the licence and vehicle for 15 days.

[Source: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Alberta+government+says+drunk+driving+bill+will+ahead+despite+ruling/5791533/story.html#ixzz1g0wJccSg ]

I have watched for local and provincial citizen reaction and time and time again see people commenting that 'you don't need to stop at the bar on the way home from work and have a drink', or 'if you are going to the bar, take a cab, problem solved', etc. Time and time again I see people referring to 'the bar' as the place people don't need to go unless they have alternate transportation to and from.... I would wager that over 80% (if not 90%) of the comments in support of this legislation mention bars, nightclubs, and pubs.

Okay. But - what about those dastardly alcohol beverages that are NOT consumed at 'the bar'. What about going over to your friend's house for a nice dinner and they serve wine. If you drink that glass of good red whine and then drive home - you are no better than anyone who stops at 'the bar' for a drink after work. You could lose your car and license for 3 days, just the same as all those 'bar hoppers', depending on how your body reacts to a glass or two of fine wine. Have those same supporters thought of that? Just curious.

I should throw in here that I very rarely drink. And I do not drive at all (I have never gotten my license because driving gives me major freak out phobia). So this law will not affect me at all. My partner maybe drinks 4 cans of beer and a glass of cheap Arbor Mist zinfadel a YEAR. So it doesn't affect him either. In the past 6 months I can count the number of drinks I have had on one hand. So yeah - I am not whining and complaining about this new law because I like to have a drinkie poo and then go for a spin in my car. That doesn't happen.

But I can see where this law could cause some havoc. If the federal guideline for impaired driving is 0.08%, then how can this legislation fall under a 'drunk driving' title if the person is blowing 0.05 or 0.078? Who decided that you are in fact too impaired to drive with 0.05%? I know that drunk driving is an issue and I would lose my damned mind if one of my family members was hurt by such a driver - however, this is not the leading cause of vehicle related deaths, and it is dipping below the federal approved level so I'm not quite sure how that can happen. I did a quick check online and found that many other countries have their statuatory level set at .05 so perhaps Canada is behind the times with this issue - however, it still stands here federally at .08 so it doesn't matter what Sweden or Belgium say, does it? I just find it odd.

So then I looked up stats for 'how many drinks is .05', knowing of course that this is subjective due to many variables. Time since consumption, height/weight, age, gender, each person's individual reaction to various alcohol (such as, because I so rarely drink, I can feel a slight buzz off of one 5% vodka cooler), etc. I played around with an online DUI calculator and discovered that if a 130lb person drank two large glasses of 7% wine with supper, and then drove within one hour, they would be at 0.049%. Or if they drank a fancier wine, a nice Jackson Triggs Sauvignon Blanc at 13.6%, maybe a glass and a half, they could be at 0.048% if they left within an hour. It's just a guess - they could be higher, or they could be lower - but it's something that the supporters of this need to think about. I know an awful lot of people who serve a glass of wine at the dinner table, especially if having friends over - and now those friends will have to say NO because on the way home, they could wind up losing their car for 3 days. If a smaller woman, 115lbs, had a glass and a half of that wine, the site lists it at .055%. Oopsy over the new limit. It's that easy.

But at the end of it all, driving is a privilege not a right, and drinking alcohol is a choice not a necessity - so people need to think about that too if they are complaining. But what concerns me is the number of people driving around out there who are prescribed prescription narcotics like pain killers and even muscle relaxants. I have worked with people who pillpopped all day and then drove home at night. They spoke of their aches and pains and how they were practically immune to their meds - which I highly doubt - and popped T3s, T4s, naproxen by the handful, and stronger meds - and then drove. They won't blow diddly squat if they are stopped. So it bothers me that a person who consumes a glass and a half of wine at a family dinner could lose their car for 3 days, while others who were poppin' oxycontin like tictacs all day can just carry on through. Cripes, I was given Imitrex one day for a migraine and I was SO looped on that stuff I could literally hardly move. I threw out the rest of the pills cos there was no way I could function on those - but I have friends who drive within an hour or so of popping a couple. Yikes.

I understand the war on drunk driving, but there are so many other things going on that are putting people at risk - even in Alberta where we have people who only have their provisional license driving around all over the place, but have never bothered to go back to get their full license. Apparently that is going to change (or already has?) where there is a time limit imposed on how long you can drive around with the easy license before having to get the full one - but for now, the provinces has too many of those drivers to count. I heard on the news awhile back that over 300,000 drivers in Alberta do not have their full license. Surely I misheard that frightening total???????? But even 30,000 would be too many. So - because it's easier to have someone blow into a tube and measure their BAC, they get the rap first.

And meanwhile, I know of at least one repeat DUI offender who keeps getting off on his charges because his lawyer knows how to work the system. This guy was even driving when a friend was killed in the crash because this guy was drunk! And here he is, driving around town with a brand new car he purchased after totally his last one this summer in a drunk driving wreck. The 4th of his that I know about. So you better get young Sally, who had a glass of wine with her grandparents one night and drove home - but leave the repeat over .08 offender to drive around again and again. Hell, my brother in law has had FIVE drunk driving wrecks that totalled all 5 vehicles, and he is still out driving around. The longest he lost his license for was a year and he drove anyway.... which is why he did so well on his test retake after getting his license back. THOSE are the people we need to be tougher on first, don't ya think?

UC Davis - the long version

2011-12-07T22:08:00.001-07:00

I'm not sure how many of you have seen this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y&feature=share but it is not the one you saw on mainstream news and shared around the social networking sites.

It is a 15 minute long version of what happened before The Pepper Spray Incident and I think you should watch it. It's very interesting to say the least.

[Edit: If you cannot or do not wish to view the video at this time, it shows the police force giving verbal warning of their intent to remove the tents if the people did not do it themselves about 4 times. It shows students chanting at the police and refusing to leave, even one girl walking straight up to them with her camera phone. Then it shows that after the tents were removed and the officers had arrested a few students who tried to interfere, the crowd becomes more vocal and then moves around the officers, refusing to leave until their friends are let go. The crowd surrounds the officers on all sides, with a wide row of students blocking their path. The officers eventually give face to face verbal warning to each student sitting across the path, explaining that pepper will be deployed if they do not let them pass. The crowd remains, with one or two in particular leading all sorts of chants like 'You do not shoot students'. After the police pull out their big pepper spray cannisters and spent a great deal of time shaking them to show the kids they will use them if they don't leave, the chant turns to 'You do not shoot children'. Blah blah. Then another group of officers comes up behind, complete with a police cruiser within a few feet of the group, but they still do not move. The officers attempt to make the crowd move and release their surrounded (aka captive) officers but they do not - and then FINALLY, after alllllllllllll that, the officers use the pepper spray and everyone starts screaming and crying. Oh please. Boo hoo.]
I can't say that the police were still in their rights to use pepper spray on those misguided young sheeple, but I can tell you this - If I found out my son was risking his life by being somewhere like this, I would kick his a$$ to Kansas and back and he would wish he had to deal with pepper spray instead. If I found out that he was willingly participating in an event that literally encircled a group of armed police officers over something as ridiculous as a protest against Wall Street, I would feed him pepper spray for breakfast every day for a month.

All it would have taken is ONE idiot in that crowd to suddenly decide to throw something at the police. Or get dangerous and throw a molotov, or charge them pretending to have (or actually have) a weapon, or something else frightening, and it would have been freaking insane chaos and death. But no, the students trusted that everyone in their large group was just peaceful and innocent. Luckily they were kinda right. They really took a chance that day and I hope that their parents see their faces on this video and kick their butts to Kansas and back too.

I would like to know who was leading these kids. You hear one or two male voices very loudly leading the student group in their chanting. Who is it? I wish his lovely face was on camera a few times. I did see one guy that appears near the beginning, while the police are still trying to clear the tent area, holding out the peace sign... but then later on shouting to entice the crowd to move up to the police by shouting COME ON and gesturing with his arms until they finally advanced. Maybe he was one of the leaders. Who knows. But whoever it was doesnt really matter in the end - I think this video shows how so many humans are easily led. A leader walks along and they follow just because he seems strong and is loud. They are no different than cattle and it's a shame. How could one or two young men lead a group that large? Why do they have so much influence? I can only hope that some of those students went home that day with a sh*t stain in their skivvies and re-think what they do in the future. Should they allow themselves to be put in a situation like that again? I hope some of them realize how stupid it was. You don't block in a group of armed men and demand release of their 'prisoners'. That is just plain stupid. If one of my friends was arrested wrongly, I could expect that if I pitched a fit, I would be arrested right alongside her. I certainly would not be calling all my other friends to come and surround the police lol. It's outrageous. But look how many did it! It was like they were brainwashed.

The first video that aired of this incident of course says that the students were engaged in a peaceful protest and just simply sitting in the park to voice their opinions when police pepper sprayed them for not leaving. But in fact, the students fully surrounded the squad and refused to let them leave until their friends who were arrested were set free. Um. That's a different kind of story all-together, is it not? In this video, you can see the students moving swiftly in an arc to close a circle around the police, but before that you can hear the voice(s) telling the crowd that they were going to support their friends. Those kids chanted the words back without even knowing what 'support our friends' would mean - and then they did it! Idiots! Cattle! They are so lucky that one person in that group didn't come unhinged and do something ridiculous. It makes me sick to my stomach. Someone like the dude that shot the Arizona congresswoman, for example. Can you imagine? Ugh.

But I should not pontificate over something that did not occur, it just worries me that so many people cannot think for themselves and need someone else to show them the way, even if it's the WRONG way. And why have I seen no mention on mainstream news regarding how long this event dragged on for before the police finally tried to disperse the crowd so they could leave. What if they had not pepper sprayed those students? How long should the police have stood there surrounded? How long would the students have sat there blocking them in? What if it went on all day, all night, all the next day - no one can guess how long that crowd would have stayed there. Would that fall under Unlawful Confinement? Interference with an Arrest? Could the police have trusted that the crowd would eventually get bored and wander away? They made a decision and did it. With ample warning. Watch how long the officers shake the pepper spray bottles before finally using them. Watch how many times the officer talks to each student in that front line to warn them of what will happen. They claim they were protesting in peace and had the basic right to do so - but were they not infringing on the rights of others by surrounding a group of people (who happened to be armed officers) and refusing to let them go??

Ridiculous!

Occupy... Teenagers

2011-12-03T00:12:00.000-07:00

Whooops. My cousin just picked up her 16 year old niece from the Occupy 'protest' in Saint John about a half hour ago, so 2am their time, drunk out of her mind and hanging out with 20+ year olds. She is not a happy camper. She has figured out that the occupy protest there (and too many other places to count) has become a big stinking mess.Her words - ""WTH is their message? No Rent - Mess around with young girls?"".

I saw about a month ago that my little cousin was hanging out there, helping hand out literature on the protest at a wooden table... and I worried about it but did not want to cause a stink by saying anything. Not that she would have listened anyway, but I have been watching her page for updates. I have seen the REAL news that has been going on at various protests around North America and did not like it one bit. Especially since it has been dragging on and the people who probably had a good concept about why they were there are long gone, back to work and their families, leaving the muck behind. I've seen programs where the journalists showed up at night to talk to some protesters and began knocking on tents, but they were empty! Just left up to make it look like a ton of people were still there supporting the cause, but they were not. I have watched citizen camcorder interviews with protesters who are very clearly drunk and/or stoned out of their minds, mumbling jibberish about how 'the rich should be BEHEADED'. Oh ya - im sure that 99% of the country agrees with you. What a crock.

I've seen far too many photos and videos to mention of people defecating right in the middle of the park. And to think, they didn't pick it up with a doggy poo bag or anything. Just squatted, took a dump while people were walking past filming, and they didn't care one bit. THAT is who is hanging out at these protests, especially the long standing ones. Get real.

And there are young girls and boys hanging out like it's a new party haunt instead of the Occupy Protest. I got my first and only underage drinking ticket in a public park here in town when I was 17. Yeah I was stupid, yeah I drank from the age of 14, so it's not like I am above my young cousin in my mind - but I was not at the park under the premise that I was protesting big corporations. I was there to hang out with friends and have some budweisers and a cop drove up and put the spotlights on us. Ooops.

But what is going on at these protests is something else entirely. A free place to sleep, drink, and be merry. And take a crap apparently. Throw garbage around, feel up young drunk girls, get some drugs, drink some booze, and pass out and sleep the day away, ready to 'protest' again the next day. I mean evening.

All while pretending to represent 'the 99%'. Really? And then I have to wonder what they were drinking. What did my little cuz drink? Moonshine they made in some guy's boot? Or could it have been something from *gasp*, a big corporation. A brewery. Someone that uses fossil fuels to run their business and transport the booze to the stores? Someone who is decidedly non-eco-friendly. A company that probably gets tax breaks instead of giving it to the people in the tents? No. Never! Not possible.

At any rate, I hope that after my cousin's headache wears off tomorrow, she will think twice about what is going on down there and how her hard work at the beginning (i will not begrudge her for believing in something enough to get out there and help) was turned into THIS mess.

Environmentalists Creeping into Classrooms

2011-12-02T23:17:00.000-07:00

Actually, they have been creeping for years and now it's more like stampeding through the classrooms.

I could mention the recent news about David Suzuki and his website basically promoting to children that they must save the environment or bye bye Santa. But that has been covered on many blogs.

So I will just concentrate on what has been going on in my childrens' schools.

My daughter is 9. She has had several environmentally-friendly-laced lessons spread across many subjects over the years, but they are becoming more and more blatant. For the past two weeks, she has been bringing homework that is discussing the amount of packaging used in projects. She is a smart kid, has had very good marks all through school so far, but she is stumped on this stuff. She had to do things like evaluate the amount of packaging used in a box of chocolates and basically defame it for not being enviro-friendly. I have pretty much written every part of her homework on this topic and I literally have only had to help her with homework about 3 times in the past but have had to help every day she brings home this particular stuff.

Tonight I figured it out - she has not been taught anything about WHY the product is packaged that way. She has not been taught how a factory works (I'm going to make her watch some episodes of How It's Made!). She has only been given papers with pictures of the various layers of packaging certain products come in and asked if they are environmentally friendly or not. Whatever happened to learning about something by learning first how it works and then expanding after that?

Anyhow, she had to do things like go around the house and look at various products we have and list some enviro-friendly and non-eco products we use, and evaluate whether we should be buying/using them or not. She is NINE. Why are they trying to drum this into her head at such a young age? It is really driving me crazy. I'm sure her teacher is wary of me by now because I have left numerous comments on her homework these past couple-few weeks and it clearly shows my displeasure. I admit that I chickened out on directly talking about it at parent-teacher interviews but that was before this latest enslaught of projects came home.

I asked my daughter if she knew how the chocolates got from the factory to the homes and she had a totally blank expression. I explained a bit about how it's made, packed, transported by plane/train/automobile (or all three), store shelves, eventually your home, etc etc. I asked her what those chocolates might look like if they were just placed inside a small box all in a pile and then sent on their way. She looked blank again. She had no concept whatsoever about any of it. She is only being taught to criticize the amount of packaging involved. Well, I would like to see what Sally Tree Hugger would think if her hubby bought her a box of chocs that had virtually no packaging and she opened up her surprise to find a melted-hardened-remelted heap of broken chocolates inside. YUMMY! Oh thanks hunny :) So thoughtful!

I got my daughter to write 'If consumers do not like the packaging of a product, they do not have to buy it' at the bottom of her page. It's all about choice at the end of the day, isn't it?

And tonight my 14 yr old son comes home to tell me about a project he has to do in Language Arts class. LA. Not science. Not social studies. Language Arts/English class.

He is supposed to be learning about the proper format for business letters. So, the project is to write a business-style letter to the principal of a fake school, from the 'point of view of an Environmentalist'. Are you friggin kidding me? That is exactly what the teacher said. So there it creeps into English class. She would probably say she is trying to make the class more interesting and keeping up with current events is one way to be more interesting - but there are a multitude of ways to do that without dragging environmentalist ideas in. What about enterprising or inventing? How about have the kids write a business letter to a fake company telling them about an idea they have or an invention they have made that they think the business would be interested in? If the idea is to learn business letter format - what better way to get the kids to think ahead to their own futures and abilities by having them pretend they invented something? Or have a great idea for a new product? Maybe a kid could go all sci-fi and pretend they made a real time machine and want to write to NASA. It doesn't matter if it's totally far-fetched or something more real, the point is to have the letter end up in a nice proper business format.

Instead, they will be writing letters that detail how a school could become 'more Green' (teacher's words again). What does a green school do for these kids in the future REALLY? Sure it teaches them to be more aware of a few things, like garbage and waste (which is a serious problem for everyone all around the world), but there were other ideas flying around like going no-paper. Having all students using e-readers for text work instead of books, all smart boards instead of chalk boards, all laptops or iPads instead of writing on paper. Those are some ideas the kids were coming up with. My son is going to stick with garbage/waste (having the school start recycling bins for bottles and cans and contacting a local recycling depot to pick them up periodically for free by reaping the proceeds). Garbage IS a problem. You don't need to measure emissions and wind speed and solar energy and oil/gas for that. You can see it every day in every place. So his idea sits well with me. But the others - oh please. A few bins is a lot cheaper for the tax payers for each school than thousands upon thousands of computer gadgets. But whatever.

My point is, the schools are bringing this in more and more and it is driving me crazy. I have chosen to talk to my children about it so they can have different perspectives and make up their own minds, or be influenced by my opinion because I am, after all, their parent. If it's okay to have the school board and teacher's opinion influence them, then I think it's okay to have my opinion influence them as well.

A month or so ago, my daughter brought home a project that was supposed to be learning about our province - Alberta. At first glance all appears normal - maps, cities, towns, rivers, lakes, mountains, etc. The usual stuff we all learned. Some fun info on the dinosaurs discovered here, different habitats and climate regions, etc. But then I flip the page and find a whole section solely dedicated to the Alberta Oil Sands. In the very first sentence of the unit, it said "sometimes known as the Tar Sands". I drew a little arrow from that part and wrote in the margin "the MEDIA terms it the tar sands, which is in fact incorrect". The children should not be taught that it is sometimes called the Tar Sands! What the hell? Who allows this stuff to slip through? That was the only section related to the oil industry in Alberta. Nothing about coal or gas, forestry, fishing, etc that I recall learning about when doing Alberta projects at my old elementary school. What happened to those? Do they not exist? And all Alberta is is a place for rocky mountains, dinosaurs, and tar sands? Whatever! Again, my daughter is 9 and at a highly impressionable age and she is being taught to call it 'tar sands'. That's lovely!

Her father and step father help keep a roof over her head and food in her mouth because of the oil sands projects. I will be writing that in the margin if she brings anything home that disparages the projects up there. This article happened to be very careful to just talk about bitumen and extraction, but it blew it's cover by references the incorrect slang term of 'tar sands' right off the bat.

My son had to make his carbon footprint when he was 12. We were actually the lowest (aka 'best') scoring family in his class, which he thought was funny. He has had teachers send home work that involved talking about taking public transit or riding a bike to school to reduce emissions (sorry, but isn't a school bus public transit??)... while the very teachers leading the classes drive their cars. Gag me.

They have both learned about using solar energy in the home but never once so far had any project looking at the COST of doing this. My father in law wanted solar panels on his home a few years back, thinking he could enjoy his golden years without having to worry about a big power bill at his farm every month - until he got the quotes from various companies being between $50,000 and $70,000 for just his house and few little sheds. Do they learn THAT in school? Of course not.

I could go on and on but I will leave with a hilarious project (actually more like bewildering) that my 9 yr old brought home last month, before the long weekend. Believe it or not, the project was about the packaging at Fast Food restaurants and it actually said to go to FIVE different fast food places and order a HAMBURGER, FRIES, SOFT DRINK, and an ICE CREAM SUNDAE (x5 for five diff restaurants). It said to order it TAKE OUT and bring it home and fill in the chart listing everything that was given in the bag. Then at the end, compare all of the restaurants to list in order from best to worst, who used the least to the most packaging.

OMFG.

Are they crazy>???? Like seriously. Teach kids year after year about healthy eating - slam parents down in the media for taking their kids to mcdonald's - support forcing come restaurants to stop giving out toys in their kids' meals ------ and then send a project home requesting the child eat at FIVE fast food restaurants just to COMPARE PACKAGING. I was livid.

I wrote at the top of the paper "Daughter is not doing this project. We rarely eat out, but I am certainly not eating out 5 times in the next 4 days just to fill in this paper". Then I wrote in the conclusion at the bottom "One way to avoid excess packaging is to NOT EAT TAKE OUT FOOD" lol. Geezus murphy. What is going on?

The other side of the paper had the children open their lunch kits every day and write down all the packaging their parent put inside. Oh great, just what I need at 6am - my 9 yr old telling me that I am not making her an environmentally friendly lunch. Fan-freaking-tastic. But the fast food one just blew my mind.

Read your kids' textbooks and homework papers. Check what they are working on. You might get a nasty surprise.

Lazy!

2011-11-28T22:17:00.000-07:00

We really are well and truly lazy. A lot of us. Probably most of us. And it is really starting to show.

I have talked before about my opinion on unions, for example. I feel like when they were first created, they really were for the worker, for 'the people'. A lot of places were so interested in making a fast buck, they treated their staff worse than crap. If someone was sick, they could lose their job so they would come in half dead instead. If a child was very sick at home and dad wanted to help mom, he could lose his job. Many jobs were dangerous, like certain factories, and the workers were a dime-a-dozen so bosses didnt care if someone was killed or maimed on the job... It was crap. I can see why worker's unions were started up - the masses showing their bosses that they could not treat them worse than animals, or they would all go on strike. It was like they were striking for matters of life and death. Striking meant proving that there would be no work done (aka no money for the owners) if the staff were not treated better.

We have no clue about that kind of life today. I was talking to a friend of mine who works at a local grocery store and she was saying how she just got paid a full 8 hours for sitting in on the union meeting for 3 hours. I said 'wow, what was the meeting about?' and she said 'Well, we haven't had a contract for almost 18 months so we were shooting ideas back and forth about how to get XXX store to meet our demands'. I thought about this for awhile afterward and came up with only one question: "Why the F*** do you need a contract to work in a GROCERY STORE?". Like, seriously. I have worked in grocery stores for a total of 5 years (3 different stores, in two countries). The stores were only open certain hours, so it's not like you could get worked to death 24 hours a day. There are labour laws in place federally and provincially that did not allow for more than X many hours, so many hours rest in between, blah blah blah, so why do you still need the union? What does it actually do? Sure there are still bosses that don't care - you might have a sick kid and daycares and schools won't let you keep them there any longer (for example, Alberta's new rules for childcare that came in effect Nov 1 2011 that demand the immediate removal of a sick child (the fine print says they have up to 2 hours to arrange for the child to be picked up) - but your boss might get ticked off that you called in on short notice and be a pain in the arse, or even fire you. I am not stupid - I know it happens.

I had a manager at a store in England get royally ticked when two days in a row, my son's babysitter called me to say I had to come and get him because he had a stomach bug. The manager was angry and said something like 'So, what, she can't take care of a little vomit?' and I said 'Look it's not my fault, they have their rules too and there is sh*t spraying out of the back of his diaper every 10-15 mins and no, she does not want to deal with that all day long and she has other kids there to think about'. It was tough - the fun of being a working mother. Father away with the military, mom trying to go back to work - not fun! But I also knew that if I was fired, I could take the case up with the court if I wanted to. It's not like there was no fall back for me. I didn't even think to contact the union because it's Life. It happens everywhere to everyone and I didn't want the union breathing down my boss's neck. I wanted her to deal with ME and that's what we did. I went home and my son ended up being extremely ill for 5 days and I was off the whole week. Sh*t happens lol.

But my point is, it was a grocery store job. It closed at 9pm and didn't open til 8am the next morning. I knew that no matter how crappy the day seemed, I would definately manage to be off shortly after 9pm. I knew that they did not want to pay out too much overtime so that would not often happen anyway (it actually never happened in over 2 years that I was asked to stay late).... and it's a job that may involve stacking shelves, running the til, dealing with grumpy arsey customers, figuring out how to change the til tape, sweeping, taking back food someone left in a cart, etc. Sometimes my job taxed my brain - mainly with horrid customers - but it wasn't 'Hard'. I have never needed aid of the union in any job ever. Though I was forced to pay for it if I wanted to keep working there. That's nice. Of course, you could say that BECAUSE of the union, my job wasnt so bad - but again, it's a GROCERY STORE. How hard was it 50 years ago? 100 years ago? It was pretty much exactly the same except you had to use your own brain to tally up the totals instead of a computer. You had to mark the prices yourself instead of scanning a bar code. So what is it about the Grocery Store job that requires membership in a union? It's mental.

So now I go back to my friend. I remember when she first started this job about 5 years ago. She was mad because shortly after starting, the union and the store came to an agreement on a contract. The one that ran out after only 3 years, but I digress. The contract stated that workers should only have to do ONE night shift per week. Night meaning no later than 9pm, store closing time.My friend was upset because her daughter was young at the time and went to bed at 7pm, and my friend liked working nights because then she had the whole day with her kid, and her parents were only needed for a few hours of supervision until kiddo's bedtime (they shared a home). It was great - until the negotiated, union-demanded contract was signed and suddenly my friend was only allowed to work 1 night (evening) in 7. She also had a raised union-fee of 10 cents per hour on top of the previous rate, as well as a monthly fee increase. Oh nice! She had also liked working evenings because after 6pm, the previous-previous contract had sealed in an extra dollar per hour after 6pm. So that was my friend losing money per week, plus paying increased union fees. For what?

But she seems to forget all of that. She has turned into a Union lover! She talks about them like they are super fantastic and really helpful. Last summer she said 'I had to contact my union rep because I was scheduled for 3 night shifts and we are only supposed to do 1'. OMG. NOOOOO not 3 evening shifts! That's terrible! I came to find out that the store had to cut down on the number of supervisors (which my friend is now) because of the cost, and just not being necessary, so that meant the remaining ones would need to work more evenings a week to make up for it. But that was against the contract! OH NOOOOOOOO! What a harsh life it must be - working in a grocery store that's open 9-9 and having to work the later shift sometimes. It must be truly horrible. I feel soooo sorry for my friend.

Gimme a break. When she signed on with this new job, she did not want to work days! She wanted evenings so she could hang out with her kid. When her kid started school, she wanted to be able to go on field trips and stated that she missed being able to work more evenings. Now suddenly she is going to call the union because she got 3 night shifts? What happened? Who brainwashed her??

And then she made another funny comment. She said 'something happened' at work (she cannot say what, apparently) but the union has been working very hard for her to get this rectified. I said 'oh my gosh, when did this thing happen?' and she said 'a year and a half ago'.

Oh. So whatever happened was 18 months ago, and the union still has NOT in fact rectified it. Why is my friend paying them again? Please remind me. I know it's not something horribly terrible because she was not in the hospital, had no injuries that I could see this past 18 months, didn't come back crying and bawling about some terrible fight with a boss - so what the heck could it possibly BE? It drives me crazy listening to this stuff and I have resolved myself that the next time she sings the praises of her union, I am going to lay it all out for her. All this union has done is take money from her and her daughter for the past 5 years with very little to show for it. Tricking them into thinking that all the good things (such as, getting paid or getting benefits) have happened only and solely because of The Union. Well that's crap because lots of stores still manage to run without a union and last time I checked, they got paid and they got benefits! How is that possible?

My god - I just realized, I only made a few bucks less per hour than my friend and I don't belong to a union. Something must be wrong here. I thought you needed a union to secure your pay! I better tell my boss she has been doing it wrong all these years!

Seriously - I don't 'get' what has been happening. I have worked in places with a union and seen/heard staff refusing to do something because it's 'not in the contract'. I'm talking simple things like a cashier picking a piece of garbage up off the floor as she walks to her break. I have seen that exact thing happen MANY times in fact. Once it was a staffer saying that she refused to pick a grape up off the floor in produce because she was not a janitor. Oh I'm sorry - is it a janitorial thing to do, or is it a humane thing to do so some old granny doesnt come along and slip on it and break her hip??? BEND OVER and PICK UP THE %$#Q^%$ GRAPE you lazy lazy cow. I've been known to be on my break at workplaces and wipe down the soaking wet sinks in the bathroom, pick up paper towel sheets strewn across the floor and put them in the garbage, etc. Why? Because I take pride in my job no matter what it is, and I dont like walking into a bathroom that looks like baboons were running amuck - I think it reflects badly on the business, and it will in turn reflect badly on me if customers think we are pigs and don't care.

I saw a staffer refuse to help a woman who had tripped and fallen to her knee, asking for help. The staffer said "I can't. I'm on break". WTF? It's a PAID break you ninny, now get the woman up off the floor and call for assistance, and then go on your remaining 10 mins. It won't kill you to miss 5 mins once in awhile.

Don't get me wrong. My grocery store jobs could be rather monotonous and I longed for my breaks, counting the seconds until I got one, and groaned if it was late. But I survived. No one died. And I managed to get a short break eventually. These are provincially mandated breaks so if you repeatedly don't get one, you can call the alberta labour board to speak to someone. So - why use the union? What are they gonna do? Hold an axe over the head of the supervisor until you get your break? What if someone called in sick and there are not enough people on hand to give you your break? Are the customers of the store - your bread and butter - supposed to suffer by going in long line ups or having you shut your til in their face? Is that the way to strong-arm the store into signing contracts and bending over backwards for the union? It's pathetic.

We have grown very lazy in our quest for fair treatment at the workplace, we really have.

I remember another place I worked at - the girls at the customer service desk were always mad because they did not get their breaks until the regulated 4.5 hours had passed, while the cashiers got their breaks after 3 hours. And often times, their breaks were even later if it was busy. I remember the union rep saying that if they did not get their breaks in 4.5 hours, they could close down customer service and leave. That's right - just walk right out of there, all three of them, and leave.

Customer service was also the smoke shop so they would close the rolling blinds and lock it up, pocket the keys, close down the tils, and leave even if they had 15 people waiting in line! It was insane! I was only 22 so I was a bit shy to say how I felt about that, I mainly kept silent. But I remember when I was 24 and pregnant, walking to the customer bathroom becasue it was closer, and a woman waiting in line grabbed my arm to ask me what was going on and why they were not being helped. It upset me (hormones lol) and I said I was really sorry but I did not work in that dept and I kept going. I really didn't work in there and couldnt sell them smokes even if I wanted to because I didnt have the key - but my point is, because 4 hours and 35 mins had passed, the staff closed up and walked out with all those people wondering what happened, and didn't care. And this was backed by the union. It was their idea! It drove me crazy. The store suffered because of that manouver. Those girls could have sent themselves one at a time if they were so concerned and the other two could remain to man the tils but nope - they put their skirts in the air and walked out as a team. Puh-fricken-leaz. you'd think they were steel workers getting their hands burned and crushed by an uncaring foreman, for all they acted.

And so here we are today with some of the laziest workers I have ever seen. I went to a KFC last week to grab some popcorn chicken as a surprise for the kids and one person was on a break, one was talking on the floor to customers, two were farting around by the ovens in the back, and the front desk clerk was mopping the floor and completely ignored me! She pretended like she didnt even see me. I couldnt belive it. I was stunned... she was half heartedly mopping (aka pushing the mop back and forth over the same spot very slowly) and kept her eyes averted from me. I 'ahem'd' a few times but nope. I am not a loud boisterous person, so I didnt yell HEY YOU like I could have (I also didnt want her to spit in my food if I yelled at her)... so I started looking around. The person on a break saw me when I came in, watched for a few mins, then realized no one was going to rescue me, so she came off her break and apologized. She took my order and as I walked out, I heard her reaming out the staff lol. But COME ON. Those kids are making at least 12 bucks an hour and they cannot even serve one customer standing there. Gimme a break.

Just like the kids at A&W who rolled their eyes and acted hard done by when I asked for extra napkins (they had only given me one for a two person order to begin with). Just like a lot of the Full Service gas stations do not do half of what they used to do when I was a kid. Just like they won't pack your bags for you in half the stores around here anymore. Just like they stand there like idiots if you ask if someone could go get you another carton of eggs cos you meant to buy two. Yet they make 3 and 4 times the money that people doing that job 20+ years ago got. And people back then had to work even harder for that smaller amount of money. Is that what unions and fairness campaigns have brought us? Oh lordy. Look out if something serious goes down someday cos these kids wont have a flippin clue what to do. they will line up at the side of the road looking lost, waiting for someone to help them.

We are lazy. I'm lazy for not trying to point this out more often to the culprits, but I am trying to instill a work ethic in my children at least. I am hoping my three will be somewhat productive members of society as they grow older. This reminds me actually - my son, for two years in a row, was the only kid who showed up for every single football practise and game with his team. Yes some people miss for valid reasons, but the coaches know who they are. The rest just cant be bothered, or their parents cant be bothered (or both). I remember at two banquets in a row, the coaches praising my son for his efforts and stating that they can easily tell who is being taught a good Work Ethic at home. I was proud of him and of myself in that moment. That is what I am trying to accomplish.

My son does a flyer route 4 days a week and it is 2-3 times bigger than any of his friends have, and sometimes he whines that he is too tired and wants to 'catch up' the next day but I tell him he is just kicking himself in the butt, giving himself double the work if he is tired the next day too so he needs to just get his butt out the door and get it over with.I told him that when he is old enough to hold another job, there will be shifts posted and he better show up unless he is very sick, because you cant just 'do it the next day' in jobs like that. If you are scheduled Monday 4-8, you will be working 4-8, end of story. He kinda got my point after that and just does it without too much whining now lol. But when he gets paid and sees 120 bucks in his bank, he is thrilled. That is his incentive. Nothing else. And I want him to actually work for that money. I don't want him to be the kid that shows up and does a half-assed job and expects to get the same pay as everyone else. Sadly, they do get that pay, but there are bosses out there who will schedule the good kids more often than the rotten ones and he will again benefit with his money earning incentive. And learn how to just do the damned job and stop belly aching lol. I want him to be proud of himself and know that while everyone was there and made the same money per hour as he did, he actually EARNED it and that will benefit him in the future. And I hope the younger two will respond to that as well. Fingers crossed!

How many can we say that about these days, honestly? Going back to my friend - she wants the union negotiated raises, but wants to do less and less work with each contract. How does THAT happen? She was ticked off one day that she had to come up and run the til when someone didnt show up and the store was busy. Well too bad! You are a floor manager and it's YOUR duty to make sure things are running as smoothly as possible, so get on the til, get those customers out before they get fed up and never come back, and then go do your paperwork. I swear that I am going to say that to her one of these days when the issue crops up again. I am sick and tired of listening to people whine. They have no idea what it must have been like to work anywhere a hundred+ years ago. We have come so far since then and have more job security, often benefits, higher pay, etc and then want to do less work. ''That's not in my contract'. Ugh. Kill me. I'm so tired of hearing that.

This topic rests on me a lot because there is so much talk of unions trying to move into my career field and I don't want it. Neither do any of my coworkers. My boss said she would close her doors if we were forced. I don't want it to come to that. Sure Id like to get paid more but I am thinking of our families too - they pay my wages with their childcare fees, and if a union comes in, they will have to pay more and guess what? They wont be able to afford it. More and more women will end up having to stay home instead of going back into the workforce. It would not be cost effective to pay half your wages to daycare. Who would want to work 20 days a month and only come out with $500 clear after taxes, deductions, and childcare cost? Not many. I know I would stay home for sure. So what would we have gained after all these years of trying to support women going back to work? Only those in very high paying jobs would be able to afford 'approved' childcare in centers or registered dayhomes, or out of school care programs, so we would be back to a class warfare yet again. It's disgusting that so many people don't see it like that. If a union comes in, then my boss would also be forced to set up a benefit program when NONE of us want one. Why not? Because our spouses already have programs through their work that are all very good and we do not need more benefits! We would be paying for half of that new benefit program, our spouse paying for their benefit program, we would have to start paying union dues, we'd have parents dropping out like flies because they couldnt afford the higher fees for our union negotiated wages - and the next thing you know, our center would be closed and we'd all be out of a job entirely..

Oh boy that sounds like fun! Where do I sign up?

Focus on your own backyard Mr Redford!

2011-11-21T22:41:00.002-07:00

And I mean Literally focus on your own back yard Mr Redford. You know - your 6000 acre eco-ranch. Eco is it? I've been looking at your website for Sundance Resort and having a quiet chuckle to myself. You have a ski resort and 'wide groomed trails' for cross-country skiing and snowshoeing. How are those trails groomed? A team of non-flatulent horses pulling downed trees to groom the trails? Oh please.

Guess what else? You can see the ranch from space!!!! Just like you can see the oil sands but when they are finished reclaiming the land, you won't even be able to tell it was even there - like some areas the media likes to pretend don't exist are already reclaimed. A little note on the reclamation process as an aside - I've seen multiple mentions in the news that the oil sands projects have yet to reclaim ANY land. But if you take the time to look up the criteria for a full announcement of reclamation, you will discover that the area has to be free and clear growing on it's own for 25 years before a certificate can be issued. There are large swaths of land already half way through the process but they are forced to wait. So it's not like 'nothing' has been done up there, it's just going to take awhile to receive full official approval of it being a reclaimed area. And there are many in the works - the media just doesn't want you to know that yet.

But I digress. Back to dear Mr Redford who has decided to go full steam ahead at bashing the oil sands projects. I seem to recall him filming a movie with Jennifer Lopez right here in Alberta about 6-7 years ago and gee well - how did he get there? How did the large team of cast and crew get there? How did they travel to and from the filming sites? What kind of fuel filled their buses, trucks, and cars? What was in JLo's gas tank when she stopped at Tim Horton's in Redcliff, Alberta one morning? How did they do some of their work in Medicine Hat, an hour from their main location in Burdett? Was it all run on solar panels and potato juice?

Why is it that these big green celebrities can jet all over the world to spout off about greenhouse gases and the dreaded reliance on fossil fuels, when they themselves use FAR FAR FAR more than all of us regular folks put together? It is really starting to p*ss me off.

I guess my little tiny house is less energy-efficient than the endless list of places to stay at Redford's Sundance Resort. Perhaps one of these several beauties that are 'scattered about the mountain above the resort' were built by elves. Surely no heavy equipment was trundled up the mountain-side to build them. No way! And I would imagine the people must land on top of their luxury rentals after a hang-gliding lesson because there most certainly cannot be roads built to the homes! That would mean trees would be cut down. And the stone fireplaces the site boasts about must be for show. You cannot tell me they are burning wood in there! Well maybe when the rich buddies of ole Bob come and stay, they don't mind a pile of mountain-pine-beetle-riddled wood stacked up against the fireplace. Yup, that must be it.

Speaking of wood, all of these rooms in the resort hotel must have been built using completely dead trees only. Of course there is no mention of that in their green policies but that's okay, I'm sure Bob thought of everything. If you want to get in on his project you can buy some prime housing spots at a cool $1.5 million. I'm sorry but I had to laugh my head off at one particular part in the link about buying a housing lot. It says to 'join us in preserving and enhancing the legacy of this remarkable place'..... by BUILDING on it? Ummm okay. Preserve = chop down trees, stake out lots, build roads, and then build homes. Ya! That makes sense! So it's okay to take out natural areas of a mountain and preserve the area by building homes so no tree will ever grow on that spot again, but it's not okay to extract oil from near the surface of the land and then replant trees and brush that WILL grow in that exact spot. That makes so much sense. Why didn't I think of that?

Another interesting thing I noted on the site was several mentions of wishing for people to carpool or use the bus service to get to the resort, as a way to help with the environment. They offer ski lift ticket discounts for people carpooling with 4 or more people, etc - for example. But when I clicked on the link for How To Get Here and then transportation, I was faced with this perplexing page stating that their preferred transportation service is Medallion Limousine, which is an 'exclusive black car service'. Where is the bus info? I am still looking. It mentions preferring to use 'mass transit' on other pages of the site... but then links you to the exclusive limo service. Oh. Okay.

Another interesting page to read is the Wind Power section under Conserve. If you read carefully, you will notice that it does not say anywhere that the resort USES renewable wind energy to power itself. It says that it purchases Renewable Energy Credits from Renewable Choice. Now some of you might say 'it's the same thing'. But no, it's not. What it means is, the resort uses whatever energy is available for that area (ie perhaps from a coal-fired plant, I havent looked that up yet), and then buys these invisible credits from Renewable Choice which then helps that wind turbine farm keep running. I would imagine that the energy those turbines run gets put into the grid wherever it is hooked up to - but that energy is NOT in fact going to the resort. No where on there does it say anything about USING wind power directly. It just buys credits. So someone else is getting that wind energy, but NOT, in fact, the resort. Oh - that's what passes for 'green' these days, is it?

I checked out the Renewable Choice website to try to find more info for you but it is chalk-full of double-talking mumbo jumbo. Here is a page that is supposed to explain to you what these RECs that Redford's resort buys are for. Yes it explains that the credits you purchase are then added to 'the grid' but that's as far as it goes. What grid? I looked at their map of programs and there were none showing for the whole state of Utah, where Redford's resort is. So where is the energy going? Where did they buy the credits from? How does this all work? And what I have always wondered is this - let's say Mr John Doe lives near a Renewable Choice wind farm. If Robert Redford's resort purchases a whole whack of RECs, does Mr John Doe then NOT have to pay for the energy he gets at his home, and anyone in the surrounding area for that matter, until Redford's credits run out for the year? Or what? Is it free to those who are 'on the grid'? I never seem to be able to find that information whenever I try to look this up. It is baffling.

But here is another way to look at the amount of energy this Sundance Resort gobbles up each year - whether from the wind, the sun, coal, natural gas etc - and it comes from his own website.... It states that each year, the resort uses enough energy to match:
- Planting12,502 mature trees or

- Not driving more than over 3,068,581 miles in an average

passenger car or

- Taking 263 cars off the road for a year

Thanks so much for giving us a fully detailed view of your carbon emissions Mr Redford and team!! You use enough to match running 263 cars for a year, or driving 3 MILLION miles, or planting over 12000 MATURE trees. That's some fine green-livin right there! WOoooieee! Don't forget to use the preferred limo service when you visit the resort.

Seriously, it just boggles my brain time and time again how some of these people can pretend that they are anywhere near as environmentally savvy as they claim. I looked up some of Redford's former homes (google it yourself, there are too many to list here!) and one in particular was a huge estate that is now owned by Neil Simon. Yes I am sure that Redford tries to live green, but he is NOT 'green',,, he might just be 'greenER' than some of his hollywood cohorts. But he also has the money to put into this while trying to take money away from others by trashing the thousands upon thousands of men women and children who rely on the oil sands to keep a meager roof over their heads.

And to top it all off, you can read about Robert Redford opposing the building of an eco-friendly housing area, using the increased traffic as one reason for not building Affordable Housing or Assisted Living and Retirement units within that facility. Oh so it's not okay for people to drive to and from their homes, but it IS okay for them to use a limousine service to go to and from his SKI LODGE. What a total crock of crap this is. He even has listed on the website that a limodriver will meet people at the Salt Lake City airport (you know, after they take such an environmentally friendly flight) and take them straight to the resort, which is about an hour's drive. So he does not want people driving too and from work at this little proposed housing project, but he does want them driving to and from the airport to his resort.

Seriously - if anyone reading this was concerned about what Redford had to say about the Alberta Oil Sands, so soon after his protest of the Keystone XL Pipeline, perhaps you should do a little reading on Redford himself and see if he has any business whatsoever slamming down the people who are actually providing him and his clients/visitors with the very fuel they use to get to and from his resort - not to mention the staff, supplies, maintenance, building equipment, etc that zip up and down his roads each and every day.

A 'sign' Of the Times

2011-11-21T19:05:00.001-07:00

Twinkle Twinkle Little Star
How I wonder what you are.
Up above the world so high.
Like a Vagina in the sky.

Twinkle twinkle... whoa wait a minute. What did you say? Like a Va-jayjay in the sky? WTH?

Well that is what my coworker was told at a recent workshop for learning about using music to teach young children. My friend was quite shocked to sit there and listen to the seminar leader tell everyone that they should STOP making the little diamond shape with their hands while singing 'Twinkle Twinkle Little Star' with their preschool groups. Why? Because, the leader said, the diamond shape we are using is actually the sign language sign for Vagina - so we should all stop using the diamond immediately in case others find it offensive, or confusing (for example, if there are children in the group who use sign language to communicate).

Well, we were not ones to take this new info at face value - we got out our sign language manual (because we teach simple signing to all of our children and have done for many years) - and lo and behold, that was not the sign for it. It's an upside-down triangle.

To double check, I went online when I got home and looked at several sign language dictionary sites and came up with the same thing every time - upside-down TRIANGLE, not the 'diamond'. My friend was told to use the sign language sign for diamond from now one - and then the group leader showed a sign that isn't quite the sign language for diamond either. She said to point at your ring finger, but it's actually making the letter D and shaking it off your finger,,, but I digress.

My point is, we were told to change an age old song because some may find it 'offensive' ---- even though the information I have gathered shows that THIS is the sign for vagina:

That's the most 'diamond-shaped' one I could find, the rest are more like a triangle with thumbs straight across. But, regardless of that, the diamond we have all been making with our hands since we were wee folk ourselves looks nothing like that - it's right side up, fingers pointing up.

I wrote to a couple of people involved in the seminar to ask them about it and got basically nothing in response. The head of our childcare association even said 'I guess if that's what she said, we should follow it.' What? Why? Because this woman who is supposedly the regional head of our Family Literacy blah blah group says so? Who the heck is she to change this age-old fingerplay song that the kids love so much?

This is the kind of thing that drives me insane. We decided that we are not going to follow this new fun little rule, and I wonder how long it will take before we are practically forced to change it. Ridiculous. IMHO.

I should post a disclaimer that I did see the 'diamond' on some sites but it was more like sign-language 'slang'. I saw mention of it on a gay and lesbian website (where they stated that 'sometimes' it is used the opposite way) and a lot of photos on a google image search showing the 'diamond' or 'large O' shape. But nothing on the mainstream sign language dictionary sites. They did not say at this webinar that it was Sign-Slang. So are they jumping at the gun or what?

It is reminiscent for me of the days in the early 90s when I worked in a british playschool and a Prime Directive came down that we were no longer allowed to refer to the 'playing house' area of the center as The Wendy House (which seemed to be the usual term around those parts). Instead we were to start calling it The Home Corner, in order to open up the idea of playing in there to boys as well. Funnily enough - the boys were already quite happy to play in there and somehow, despite the name Wendy House, they did not go in there and boss the girls around, demanding supper on the table and the children fed and changed. The boys were already having a grand old time in there without giving a crap what the name of the place was. And changing the name did not invite in other boys who must have wanted to play in there apart from the girlie name. Those ones that were uninterested stayed out, it made no difference what the name was. And now here we are 20 years later still preparing for all inevitabilities in case we Offend someone.

Maybe I find it offensive to point to the finger for the diamond! What the heck is that teaching children? I don't have a diamond ring. Is it a measure of being an adult to carry a diamond around on your ring finger? What about boys? You don't see many men out there with diamond rings flashing around - so what is THAT going to teach them? Geezus murphy. I don't know where some people get their ideas.

Random Thought

2011-11-17T23:22:00.003-07:00

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'?

I didn't think so.

I'm turning into my grandparents lol

2011-11-17T23:13:00.000-07:00

you know the old story - granny and grampy complaining about how 'kids these days' are lazy and don't know how to work? I remember hearing that from older folks when I was a teenager and in my 20s, working at various jobs. You would hear the stories about how grampa had to walk 5 miles in snow up to his ears to get to work, and then you would just laugh cos you figured Grampa was full of doo-doo and enhancing his nostalgic stories.

Well I think grampa was right, and even with a minor embellishment here and there (like my mom telling me she walked a mile to school and when I visited her home town the darn school was right at the bottom of the hill near her house LOL).... grampa was still right! Because I am turning into that older person that tells nostalgic stories and b*tches about 'the young folk' being lazy.Why? My god just look around!

I have beefed before about how some teen girls at a local A&W actually sighed and rolled their eyes when I went to the counter to ask for more napkins. It was like I had asked them to stand on their heads and sing christmas carols while making my order or something. All I could think at the time was 'holy crud, these girls are making $14 an hour and don't want to lift a finger to get their d*mned checks, when I had to focus focus focus on customer happiness while I worked at KFC when I was their age, for less than 5 bucks an hour'. I started to realize at that point that I was turning into Grampy - but I am RIGHT and grampy was too I'm sure :)

My bf was talking tonight about how he is over 40 and works harder than most of the young people who get hired on at his jobsite and he can hardly stand it. He said that the 22 yr old stands around whining about 'the cold' while the guy that's over 50 is down in a ditch doing physical labour. They are both paid the same, but the young guy cries about the work. He was out on a jobsite for another company today and could not believe how long it took them to get going. He was out there for 7am and nothing was ready until after 11am. He said there were about 6 guys doing a job that only needed 2, and even then it took them over 4 hours to get their cr*p together. It annoys him greatly. They saunter around acting hard-done-by while making almost $30/hour, doing the same job my bf did at their age for only $7/hour. It nearly drives him out of his mind.

He told his young coworker that when he was their age, his pipeline boss told him to 'run and grab that hose'. He said 'I walked, and suddenly my boss ran up behind me and kicked me in the a$$. Like really kicked me in the butt and said 'i told you to RUN', so I ran'. I love that story. It's hilarious. He said he ran anytime someone told him to after that and he was making 7 bucks an hour, working in the mud rain snow sleet and hail, to get the darn job done. That was 20 years ago. Now it takes 3 days to do what they used to do in 1, even though they have better, more specialized equipment nowadays. Sound like grampy talkin'? Yup, it does, and as I said - grampy was right.

If our grandparents and great grandparents thought we were a bunch of whiny lazy little turds, what on earth must they think of the young people TODAY? I'm not saying all of them are lazy of course - there are always going to be some that actually strive to earn their money and go above and beyond expectations - but there are far too many that do not. Yet they are making three times the money per hour we did only 20 years ago. It's disgusting really. It's not like $14 an hour at a fast food restaurant barely lets you get by in today;s world - that's more than I make per hour and I've held my job since 1995 lol. We have hired new kids, 22 and just out of college (or younger) and they literally walk in the door and sit on the floor reading a book instead of watching the kids. Or they go into the bathroom 15 mins before their hour-long lunch break and then take their lunch and come back and go into the can again for another 15 mins (so it's really a 90 min break) and then they say they want more money per hour. GET A GRIP kiddos! Are you insane? We only have one worker in her 20s that has survived and that's because she is the daughter of another worker so she has been brought up to get a job and DO that job.

I remember when I worked in fast food, customer happiness was THE number one issue because if a customer wasnt happy, they werent coming back, and the store and your job would suffer directly. Now I feel like I am being a pain in the arse if I ask for no tomatos on my burger lol. I really do! Last week I stopped at A&W again on the way to work and a new young girl was working. She was SO bored and slow and acting like her life was just going to end cos a customer was speaking to her, I almost left !If it wasnt for my 3 yr old loving a bacon and egg sandwich, I would have told her off and left. Instead, I watched her. She ignored me completely while fiddling with something on the counter, and then finally turned and in the most-bored-everrrrr voice said 'how can i help you?'. It was 8am - WAKE UP CHICKIE lol. I was the only customer at the counter, so it's not like she was busy, and she never spoke to me again after I placed my order. She looked like she was cleaning out buffalo cr*p instead of working a pretty easy job. Easy at that moment cos hello - one freaking customer! If I had acted like that 20 years ago, I would have been fired on the spot. that store is actually still owned by the man that hired my brother back in the mid-90s and there is NO WAY he would have put up with that attitude back then. Im quite shocked to be honest, but I see it everywhere and it's sad. These kids have NO idea what it's like in the real world because there isnt a real world anymore!

Now I understand why gramps and grams tsk'd and tutted every time they went somewhere - because back in their day, kids had to bend over backwards to serve customers for 25 cents an hour lol. My bf remembers that his step dad started working for an oilfield services company in 1976 for $2.50 an hour! He would come home covered in mud and gunk and totally exhausted - while the kids today doing the exact same job are making about $25/hour and more concerned with getting cell reception so they can hop on FB than anything else. It's ridulous. So I'm sorry for thinking your stories were full of kaka gramps and grams! I am starting to sound just like you now, and I finally understand what you were trying to say to us!

Smarten up, quit whining, and just do your d*mned job!

Senior Living

2011-11-16T22:25:00.000-07:00

An article in my local paper today brought to light the fact that some elderly couples will go through a divorce in order to get assistance with their living expenses in various senior's homes. I cannot recall the %, but it seems to be a new trend as times get harder, prices increase, and senior's expenses are beyond their capabilities. I totally feel for all of them and worry about my own future as well, along with my mother's future. It's not like I am a hard-nosed nasty woman not caring.

But I try to look at the bigger picture. What have we seen in the news repeatedly over the years? Various unions fighting for higher wages and more benefits for nursing home staff. It was a big thing here a year or two ago, and in the paper almost every day for ages. Okay so along comes some higher pay, and better benefit packages - well who is supposed to pay for that? Isn't it the people using the nursing home? The residents? Grandma and Grandpa? Who else is there to pay for these increases in wages and benefits? Oh - the government? Well since the govt doesnt actually make money, it's more like a lender or a broker, that means the money is coming from us taxpayers - AND some of those very seniors as well. Whether it's through taxes on their pensions, or taxes on products they purchase such as toilet paper, prescriptions, food - you know, the important stuff? - they are paying these higher taxes to go toward senior's assistance programs and little by little more of their money is taken away and they in turn can no longer afford to stay at their home and divorce after 60 years so that they can both claim single and get some govt aide. What a lovely system we have set up for everyone. Isnt it charming?

Basically the article calls for more assistance for couples so they don't have to divorce. And also cheaper rates for living in a nursing home. Okay - but then where is THAT money going to come from? Oh from the taxes on pensions, taxes on everyone else, taxes on products -- what about the workers? How are they going to keep getting paid the same rate if the money coming into the home from the residents is lower? Ohhhh I get it - from the taxpayers again. So granny and grampy might get to stay married and get some more assistance - but they really won't be any better off at the end of the day. Everything will cost more through a different manner instead. What is it about this system that creates such havoc every time they try to fix it?

I thought about this a lot today because one of my coworkers has worked in senior's homes for many years. She recently started working with the other end of the age scale at my daycare :) Anyway she showed me the article and said it's 'digusting' how much some have to pay. I thought I would try a little banter to see what happened... I said "Well I seem to recall all of you and your unions demanding higher pay and benefits, so someone has to pay for that". I got the huff and puff response. She told me the name of the doctor that runs the home she worked in and was practically spitting while saying that he drives around in his fancy car while people in his assited living home are struggling. Yes, I realize that looks really bad to many - perhaps he could take less of a profit from it (if he is even actually profitting, who knows) but we can also choose where to put our seniors in the first place! there are several in my city and more being built to accomodate the future influx of seniors - but that man is also a physician and his car and big nice house may very well be a direct product of THAT, not the senior's home. It's hard to say, but she doesnt know for sure either. All she does know is that the seniors are having to pay a higher and higher amount to live in these places, while their pensions are not increasing and they become financially stuck.

I get that. It upsets me as well. I can barely stand to think about the number of poor senior's out there. My mom gets nowhere near enough in pension to pay for some of the assisted living places around here, so if something happens to her (she is 66), she would be stuck. Oh but wait - that's where HER FAMILY comes in. How many of these seniors are left there by family members who simply do not want to take care of their own parent(s)? How many are really and truly alone with no family anywhere to help them? I know that if my mom had a stroke or something and needed full time care, her pension is almost the same as what I clear in my job each month so I could actually stay home full or part time to care for her. And I have a son who is less than a year away from the age where he can work almost anywhere, so he could help too. I would rather teach my son about sacrificing a few things in order to help his grandmother than try to ship her off to a senior's home, even though she could most likely qualify for assistance. It would be hard. My mom and I argue more than we talk nice lol, but she is my mom and I will not be stuffing her into some room and visit her once a week, then once a month, then only at holidays. No way. We have already discussed this, my partner and I, and he is adamant that my mom is not going to a home. It would be hard, it's never easy.

My aunt's mother in law got alzheimer's and it was very hard. Oh man, for years they had so much trauma with that situation, but she lived in their home. My aunt still worked for the justice dept so they had someone come in to help with her during the day, but their wages allowed for that. If it didnt' then my aunt and her husband would have worked something else out. They would not put her in a home because they felt they owed her more than that.

So there are many ways to look at this situation. I am not going to diss those that do have their parent or grandparent in a home, but those that complain about the cost really have to take a step back and absorb the whole picture. It would probably not cost 3 grand a month for that parent to live with a family member, depending on medical needs and the family could be more assured that their senior was being treated well, getting the care they need every day, etc without a huge bill hanging over their heads each month. It's not easy no matter what someone chooses - it's not MEANT to be easy! But if the staff demand to be paid more, if the nursing care costs more, if the benefit packages are larger, then SOMEONE has to pay for that! We already pay pensions above and beyond what any of these seniors paid through CP becasue the cost of living has skyrocketed since they were working - we already put almost 50% of taxes into the health care system including senior care... what more can be done and what has to be sacrificed instead? How about the people working there stop getting their union to fight for higher pay and just suck it up instead? I know in my job I cannot make much per hour or no parents would be able to afford childcare other than the super rich so I dont even bother asking for raises! I know what the result of that would be immediately - higher fees for working parents. So hello - people in the seniors home yell and scream for more money because their job is so hard and demanding, and then cant figure out why it costs so much for seniors to live there.

It's not rocket science.

Sometimes I Just Don't 'Get' People

2011-11-15T22:56:00.000-07:00

So I have a lot of 'liberal leaning' friends. Actually a lot that are very liberal and are loudly voicing it all the time. But after knowing them for many years, sometimes I wonder if they know what they are even talking about.

Take a friend of mine who is a gun-totin' chick. She has loads of photos of herself hunting, shooting at gun ranges and galleries, at gun shows, etc. But she is, by her own words, far further left than the Democrats. She is always posting articles defaming republicans, praising Obama, slamming 'the rich', etc. Yet she herself works in a private industry that contracts out with big businesses. Ummm okay. Sometimes she makes huge commissions that make one month of my own salary look pathetic. And yet she will post endless things in support of the more recent Occupy protests. Does she not understand that those people are against the very companies that are putting food in her mouth and a roof over her head? It baffles me. And then she will quietly rant to close friends about hating how the gun laws are becoming more harsh in her state, but she won't post about it 'in public' and doesn't seem to think anyone will notice. Well, I do. I don't know if she is liberal or conservative or libertarian or what-the-heck based on what I've known about her personally all these years but if I was forced to guess, I would say she is a heck of a lot more right than she is left. If I told her that, she would probably never speak to me again lol. Seriously.... that's sad.

Then there is another liberal friend of mine in Canada who rants and raves alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the time about the conservative govt and how we are going to go down in flames with Harper at the realm, etc etc blah blah. But she just started working at a vet clinic. A fully private one. Where people who choose to have pets come in and pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars for the services she helps provide. She sees these pets get CT scans and MRIs within 48 hours using cash or credit or deferred payments - but does not support a private option in Canada for humans. What? How can you slam that option for human beings but support it for animal owners to the point of physically working there every day? That one will floor me for a very long time. People choose to have pets. They do not often choose that their pet becomes sick (unless they take on an animal from a shelter, etc to help it back to recovery instead of letting it be euthanized) - but it's still a choice and then they can choose to pay outrageous bills and my friend will help take their money. But she doesn't want ME to be able to get an MRI for my trigeminal neuralgia in due time at a clinic of my choice. She wants me to sit on the waiting list forever, or for the govt to somehow fork over more money to move things along faster. At any rate, it's nice to know that my friend supports private vet clinics for animals, but not for humans. Lovely!

And then I come to a person who I hold in high regard. His family has done amazing things with their lives and helped a lot of children. However, he seems to think he is a very far leftie and roots for the NDP, though even they are probably not as far left as he wishes... but I have to watch him build his life while spending huge gobs of money that most people could not even fathom having. Renovating entire homes, buying new things allllllll the time, top electronic equipment, all the new gadgets, collects old cars (like NICE old cars), and is always buying something new and crazy every week or maybe every other week if he is being a slow poke --- way more than most people have. Why not donate more? Why not look around and see all the stuff he has accumulated - his WEALTH - and realize that he actually has more than 90% of his conservative friends. He bashes others for their lifestyle but doesnt even seem to notice that his is more lush than everyone else combined! Honestly - I really cannot believe it sometimes. How can you tout the ideas of Karl Marx and Fidel Castro, and then go home with a boatload of new 'stuff' that you don't even need? He could go out and buy 500 toasters for low income families, or a whack of winter coats and boots and just drop them off at the homeless or women's shelters... he could probably pay for 5 families' monthly groceries with the amount of money he spends each month on 'stuff'. I swear! So - what's up with the crap about being such a leftie and hating 'the rich'. Guess what buster - you ARE the rich, to millions of people who are far worse-off than you could even imagine, right here in Canada.

So, I just don't 'get' it sometimes. I feel like I have to hide being a conservative-leaning gal because people might think I dont care about the poorer folk, children, health care, seniors, etc etc when in fact, I find that a hell of a lot of my liberalesque friends are the ones who are thumbing their noses at everyone, or at the very least not even noticing what a double standard they present to the world.

Interesting Comment

2011-11-06T09:12:00.000-07:00

I was listening to the Mike Slater show (Young Conservative) on Sirius Patriot and a caller made an interesting comment. He was a slightly older guy and he said that things have changed a lot. He said something like "It used to be that when people were elected, they were elected based on what they said they WOULDN'T do. But now people elect them based on what the politicians say they will DO for them".

That really does seem true. I can hear in my mind politicians of the past saying that they would not do this, would not do that (anything from getting involved in union politics, farting around with personal lives, etc). But now it's all about what they will do for you. For certain groups. Lobby-d by other groups to 'guide' them in their direction. Voters on tv looking for who will put more into medicare for them, or more into welfare, or even who will raise/lower taxes, etc etc. On and on it goes on both sides of the political spectrum. So much for limited govt involvement.

I just found it interesting and worth further thought - how things have changed even in the last 40 years regarding how we elect our politicians, and why.

What Is going On Here?

2011-11-03T22:21:00.000-06:00

Want a bonus for quitting a job, or going through college and not bothering to find a position in your field right away? Well step right up to Alberta childcare and you could get between $2500 and $5000 as a 'signing bonus' - straight from the tax coffers.

I honestly do not understand what is going on these days. A few years ago, Alberta started a special fund for 'Staff Attraction' bonuses, where if a person was working in a childcare center but QUIT (for whatever reason, like, perhaps, not enough pay), and a year or so had passed, the Director of the center could contact that person again and say 'If you come back to work for us, after 12 months, the AB govt will give you $1000 as a bonus". I thought that was the craziest thing I had ever heard of - quit your job and then get a bonus for coming back, paid for a la tax payers.

But it has since gotten worse. I was reading in our funding booklet today because I am getting ready to do our yearly 'Accreditation' mumbo jumbo - and I came across changes to that Staff Attraction bonus system that made my head fall off and roll across the floor.

Now it is only available for those who have their One or Two year certificate/diploma, however it also includes NEW staff - anyone who has less than 6 months experience working in childcare, and for those who have more than 6 months experience. What the hell?

I was fuming. Why? Well let's see - because I have been working at my center since 1995, my boss since 1988, another coworker since 1999, and another for 6 years. We don't get any bonuses from the govt for longevity, tenure, etc. Nothing like that.

But my boss could hire someone fresh out of college next spring and that person would get a bonus of $2500 after ONE YEAR of work. Or she could hire someone who has been out of the field for a little while and they could get that as well. OMFG. I really could not believe what I was reading. I was shocked. If the person is a Level 3 (2 yr diploma), they could get up to $5000 after two years of working.

ALSO what I noted was something interesting... It says after 12-24 months of FULL TIME employment at a center.. but then it classed full time as '80 hours or more per month'. On what planet is full time work only 20 hours a week? Holy crap I nearly choked to death and had to read the whole segment 4 times before I finally believed it.

So, basically, I have shot myself in the foot and lost the opportunity to get a big bonus by REMAINING gainfully employed all these years. Heck, I should have quit my job a couple years ago, went across the street to work at Burger King for a year (for the same pay I might add), and then come back to the center and get a nice little bonus of $2500. What the hell was I thinking by trying to remain in my job all this time? I didn't realize that I could get paid for QUITTING. Wow. Am I ever stupid.

I really do not even know what to say about this. I am not even saying that I should get a bonus for 16 years of continuous ACTUAL full time employment (187 hours a month on average), but I am saying that people who quit or didnt try hard enough to find a position after college should not be taking some of the tax money that I have helped pump into this system for all these years in order to get themselves a nice little bonus. $2500 is an extra month's pay for our top earning employee. Little did we know this handy dandy bonus was waiting in the wings.

I understand the very base onus of the scam, I mean program.... They want quality workers to be with your children every day. Of course they do. And sometimes the really good ones end up moving onto something else because the pay is better and they have to think of their own families. But honestly - paying someone who does NOT have much experience a bonus? Paying someone who QUIT in the first place a bonus? What is that all about? And how many other govt run/supervised programs have this kind of deal in the works? How much of our tax money is being handed out through this method across Alberta, and across Canada? I found it sickening and I wasn't the only one.

My boss was floored. She prides herself on having the lowest staff turnover ratio in the entire city - and I would be willing to bet she is one of the highest in the whole province because we have all worked there for so long. But talk about a shot in the arse to find out that people who do NOT have such low staff turnover are able to give some of their staff huge bonuses. She is happy to give us a $50 Christmas bonus and I am happy to receive it - and I do not think it is necessary. But geez now that I know about the other funding, maybe I should just quit and work somewhere else for awhile, and come back and get 50 times that amount for my next Christmas bonus! wooohooo! Talk about financial planning at it's best!

Another thing that ticked me off is the size of the bonus. $2500 would pay about 2/3 of the Level 2 college program, and $5000 would pay over half of the Level 3 program. So basically, your bonus for getting that education would be to have a huge chunk of your bill paid off within a year or two of graduation, if you play your cards right. Make sure you do not get a job in your field right away, wait 6 months, then apply at a center and BINGO - bill paid, largely by your fellow taxpayers.

Meanwhile, there is a whole whack of us out there who did our schooling, struggled to pay bills and loans, worked while studying, and we didn't get squat to help us pay it off faster because we *gasp* started working in our field right away and did not quit. How terrible of us. How stupid.

Seriously - what is this world coming to? Why are we paying people bonuses for leaving their career field or not being able to get one (or not trying hard enough) in the first place, leaving those who did work hard and remained employed for 5, 10, 15, 20, 25+ years straight in the dust? If a private company wants to do that - fine, go for it. It's your money. But this program is NOT using private money that it made. It's a government program and it's using YOUR money. Enjoy!

Local Energy Efficiency and Affordable Housing Woes

2011-10-26T22:49:00.000-06:00

Two big stories in town this week... first off was a rather scathing opinion piece detailing our local version of the Energy Efficient Appliances programs - similar to the federal one. The point of the article was that since the program started, our electricity has gone up from 7.7 cents to 12.5 cents - nearing 'doubled' status, and therefore hasnt really saved anyone anything. There is much more to the article, but I was interested in a comment I read this morning by a reader.

She went rabid, talking about how much more those people would be paying now if they had NOT bought energy efficient furnaces, washer/dryers, etc. Well let's think of some math first... hmmm... the furnaces I saw that were approved for the program were $4000 to $6000 a piece. The washer dryer sets are around $1500 on the cheaper end, $2200 for the approved brands... and windows are extortionately high. It's 2 grand for one big living room window if you are lucky. So let's say someone decided to go all out and purchase 10 grand in energy efficient appliances and additions - and now they are 'saving' 20 bucks a month on electricity because of it. Okay - so how long will it take until they break even for what they paid in the first place (including the few hundred dollars refund from the municipal and fed govt)....By my calculations it would take 500 months, or 41+ years, to break even at saving $20/month and adding up to 10 grand. So in 41 years they will start their real savings (if electricity stays at 12.5 cents but it's actually supposed to go up even more). Wooo that's quite a deal! OR if they had chosen NOT to join this program and did NOT spend 10 grand on appliances, they would only be paying $20 a month extra so it would take 41+ years for them to finally be able to say they were wasting money by not joining that program 'way back when'. But wait - a furnace lifetime is 20-30 years by recommendation so all the people that bought a new one in order to save 20 bucks a month on their bill will have to buy another new one before they truly reap the benefits...wow that's awesome!

Did the woman writing the comment stop to think of that for even one minute? Those people are not saving a dime - and what if they bought their items on credit card or finance plan? they are paying the bill for that every month still and I guarantee you it's more than $20. So what are people thinking?

If you want to buy energy efficient stuff - go right ahead. But if you dropped a few grand (or several) in order to do it, don't dupe yourself into thinking that you are saving any money at all. I know that my house sucks and I would love to fix the windows and put in new insulation in one wall that is realllly crappy - but after I added up $8000 for windows and $1200 for the wall re-do, I realized I would not be saving any real money for a very very long time and we are not going to live in this house long enough to reap the benefits at all. So what's the point? I am smart enough to figure that out in mere minutes, so why can't anyone else?

The other story surrounds the lower income houses that I have talked about in the past. To backtrack, a housing company came here around 2005 and started building 2 and 3 bedroom attached/terraced homes that were selling for only $95,000 to $100,000 each. It was all over the papers that year - Own Your Own Home for Less Than Rent! weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. However - with the housing market spiking around that same time, within a couple of years, those same homes were selling for over $200,000. Wow - is that affordable or what? Anyway so yeah a whole bunch of people still bought them though they had literally doubled+ in price.

And whoops - it is now coming out that the workmanship on them is so bad, real estate agents are starting to not even want to list them! One building even has it's entire foundation slab separating and 'floating', which is causing structural damage to the entire row of homes. And the people are stuck. They have only been paying the mortgage for a few years and cannot sell them for the 'new' value of $150,000 because they cannot afford to do that when they purchased for $220,000... and also because no one is going to want to buy a house that is going to fall down on top of the other ones or has mould problems, etc etc. Whoops.

But I might sound really harsh here in saying that I do not feel sorry for the people that are stuck. well okay, I do, because I am human and I care. However in the grand scheme of things, they bought homes that were supposed to be affordable housing units for almost a quarter of a million dollars and jumped on the bandwagon of owning these cutesy little homes just because all the hype said it was 'stupid to rent when you can own'. Own what? A piece of crap set on a wasteland that 20 years ago was deemed SWAMP and UNINHABITABLE???? Hello? homes that only 2 years before they bought were selling for less than a hundred grand brand spanking new? I don't get it. They did not do their homework on the most important and biggest priced item they would ever buy in their entire lives - and now they are upset and complaining about it.

My friend and I looked at those homes and my friend even went to a meeting to learn about them when they first went up, and she came back saying 'holy crap, I wouldnt buy one of those EVER'. She is just a normal person doing a normal job with no college education and she figured out that it was a bad idea all by herself. Why did so many others fall for this? We said right from the start that they are going to be pieces of crap that will fall apart in 10 years. They started to fall apart in only 6 so wow - but whatever. I dont want people to be homeless but I also do not want to bail out those who fell for the sales pitch and signed on the dotted lines willingly.

Occupy.... Tim Horton's

2011-10-26T22:27:00.000-06:00

I saw a FB group today for an Occupy Tim Horton's movement, after a lesbian couple was apparently asked to leave the bench in front of a Tim Hortons in Ontario this week. I saw posts calling for people across Canada to protest in front of their local Tim Horton's restaurants from coast to coast in a joint appeal to get Tim Hortons to stop allowing franchize owners to discriminate against LGBT people. The protest for that particular restaurant (owned by a christian pastor apparently) is to be held tomorrow but I saw lots of posts calling for a Canada-wide Occupy-style protest.

Well gee I hope they don't hit my local timmies cos the very outwardly flamboyantly gay guy they have working there might find it rather amusing. This kid (he is in his early 20s) is probably the most outwardly gay man in the whole city. I've certainly never seen the likes of him around here lol. Most move to Calgary or Vancouver (including my own brother, so dont get your knickers in a twist thinking im all homophobic and stuff). Im saying that my local timmies, in small town ALBERTA no-less, has a guy working there that might as well be waving a rainbow flag above his head with a big I'm GAY button on his shirt for the one or two people a year who don't notice that he is... rather gay :) This guy sings little songs to people when giving them change or taking their orders, he even has managed to sneak in wearing his fake boobs on occasion, and his name tag is always changed to something fanciful and fun instead of his given name. Ive actually known of this boy since he was a wee young man in my daycare center and 15 years ago we knew we had living proof for naysayers = that people are born gay or straight or bi and that's the way it is. We knew when he was only 4 years old that we were witnessing a young gay man growing up. He sang all day long then too actually.

But anyway I am getting a little off track. My point is, because of what happened at this one store, there are people calling for protests at EVERY tim hortons, because they did not like the official response from head office. Well I am sorry but I bet there isn't even a timmies in Toronto that has as flamboyant an employee as we do here in redneck land. And he works at THE businest timmies in town. And has been there over 3 years at least so far.

so before you decide to get out there and occupy tim hortons with the rest of these people, make sure your local chapter really is as discriminating and evil as is being portrayed. If a small alberta city can survive with the gayest guy in the world handing out donuts, im pretty sure there are a hell of a lot more - and this is STAFF, not patrons. Perhaps there is more to this story than has been told. Just educate yourselves before jumping on the bandwagon.

But I would actually like to see it happen here - and see this boy come out in his staff uniform with all his little fancy flashy bracelets and earrings and necklaces, hold up a protest sign, and say [sing] 'oops gotta go boyzzzz, my break is over' and head back into work. Now THAT would be a sight to see!

be careful what you wish for

2011-10-20T23:37:00.002-06:00

so okay, it appears that the former Libyan leader is dead. I remember his name in a negative light after being a child of the 80s and hearing of his name associated with evil all the time. However - Im not so sure that we should rejoice in the killing of this man. We are supposed to be setting an example in western countries - of each individual having his time in court, etc etc. Did this man go on trial? No. There are conflicting reports about how he was killed as well - was he hiding in a hole like Hussain? Or was he in a gun fight and got shot? Who knows. I wasnt there and neither were you. If he was in a hidey hole and begging for his life, as at least one libyan rebel soldier or NTC soldier, or whatever Im supposed to call them now, said - then we are all cheering the death of an unarmed man. The execution with no trial. Is that what we are supposed to be about?

I also caution that we do not know who is going to take his place and how it will work. I have read reports coming out of Egypt that mainstream news is ignoring and then that makes it harder to find the truth. What I have read is thousands of Christian people being forced out of Egypt. Including police officers, not just regular folk. If that is true - what on earth have we done there? We helped get rid of Mubarek and then the news just kind of slowly faded away. Why? Is it really that boring to report on the building of a new country (basically), or is it that they dont want to report on what's really going on over there? Who knows. We sure as heck don't.

And to think - some of these evil leaders were actually put into power by US. as in all of us (not just the US). We helped with some coups and then some of these guys and their subsequent family members got into power and then 30-40 years later we are taking them out and calling for a replacement.

Just be wary while celebrating the death of the Libyan leader. All is not always what it seems. And it will most likely take a long time to sort out and we have absolutely no way of knowing who will come in next and what they will be like. Reminds me of learning about Hitler. He did not rise through the ranks proclaiming his REAL beliefs. He gained the respect and trust of millions of people, and at the same time sealed their fate before they knew what was happening, and then his true wishes for murdering millions of people came to light. When it was too late. Do you think Hitler stood at a podium 20 years before he became leader and said "I am going to wipe out the Jews and take over Europe" and then all the german people cheered? Of course they didn't!! He fed them what they wanted to hear, promised them the moon, promised to help the poor and needy, promised everything and then tied it all up in a nice little bow before blowing the box wide open. And brainwashing people while he was at it. We have to be very careful about what's going on. We are a world away and pretend we know what it's like over there, when we cannot even begin to imagine what life is like for those people.

They are cheering that MG is gone - but who will be next? Will he magically be better or will it just appear that way on the surface for awhile? The US found Hussein and he was not murdered, he was taken in and passed on to his country for their laws and trial. I doubted he stood any sort of chance but at least it was done 'the right way' as much as we could handle.... The same is not true for MG and when we do not know the circumstances under which he was killed, we should be a little careful about what we cheer about. On the other hand, his own people took him out and if that's what they wanted to do then fine. But what kind of outrage happens over here when a leader is shot? The current US president has a very low performance rating right now, Canadians like to point out that less than half of them voted for any form of conservative govt so Harper is not exactly on strong ground either - he gets called Hitler by some of my liberal friends all the time in fact. So if someone were to shoot him and drag his body around, would we cheer about that? If not - why not? We cheered about MG without truly knowing the facts. You could say that the US and Canada and other countries are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths too over the past 20 years in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc (enemy combatants AND civilians) - so maybe they should cheer if our leaders get knocked off as well. Would we look at it in the same way and support their cheers? Highly unlikely. So let's put the shoe on the other foot once in awhile eh?

*** Update Oct 23/11

In light of a comment on my post, I thought I should point out that I am not alone in my thinking by far. I just read an article in the Globe and Mail regarding Canada's commitment to Libya and the liberal and ndp supporters are posting comments full force against Harper for joining this mission and setting up even before NATO was in agreement. There are almost 700 comments on the article as I write this and the first page I read was full of disdain for how Gadhafi was taken down, derision against people celebrating it, potshots at Harper, and warnings about who is in line to replace him - along with reminders that his supporters were of the largest tribe in Libya so what's going to happen with them now. More bloodshed? We just don't know. So I am not alone in my message of 'be careful what you wish for'.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-turns-commitment-into-clout-in-libya/article2210169/comments/

ER Weirdness

2011-10-17T22:56:00.000-06:00

So, my poor bf has had another round with a strange bacteria that has infiltrated a cut finger and caused havoc the past couple of days. But what I really just cannot figure out is why, when going back day after day to the same ER ward in the same small city hospital, they don't seem to keep records handy of what medication they themselves ordered. The day before. I just don't get it!

A month ago, the infection was in a little sore on his neck. It was incredibly painful. The ER doc ordered the medication and said to keep coming back every day to have it checked, repacked, drained, etc etc. But every single day when signing in, the nurse would tap on her computer and then ask if he was on any medication. Um... duh? Yeah.. the stuff you guys gave me yesterday. Nurse says 'What is it called?'. Patient says 'well I cant remember, it's one Ive never heard of, but the prescription was written up for me here yesterday'.... You'd think it would be on file? I don't know... so then we guess and try to remember. Yes Yes I know, the doc says to bring a list of your medications to appts so you don't forget anything. But if HE prescribed it, it's in his file. Why not at the ER? My doc types my name into his computer and a big long list of everything I've been on since 2004 pops up. The only things he wouldnt necessarily have on file are things I might have had at a walkin clinic, if the files were not forwarded to him... but this is the same ER, the same window to sit at, and even the same doctor was on call every single day for 5 days - and guess what he asked every single time as well. 'What medication did I give you?'. What? Geezus. I did bring it the following times of course, so they could see the name and dose for themselves - but why isnt it in their system for easy retrieval regardless, esp when a patient is told to come back day after day.

And now it's happening again. He went in yesterday morning and was hooked up with a home IV pack and the nurses got and prepared 16 vials of this medication, each one with the name taped to it... And he was told to come back today in case they needed to do some more. Okay so he goes back tonight, not thinking and throwing all the vials in the garbage before he left - only to have to text me to ask me to DIG IN THE GARBAGE for the medication name because they did not have it on file! We thought maybe there was some laziness involved last time. But nope! The medication is not in his file nor are his previous ER visits for the neck infection. What is going on with this? I do not understand that.

So after my dumpster diving, I texted the name and dosage of the medication back to him and they sent him home with 16 more vials of it. Totally crackers system this is. He told them that he threw the vials away and they said they needed to know so they could give him the same stuff again cos it appeared to be working well.... he said 'Isnt it on my file?' and she looked around and said no. It just doesnt make sense to me at all. A doc orders a prescription, nurses prepare it after the dispensary sends it down to them, and then no one writes it on a file or taps it into a computer? It's just bonkers.

Fetal Position

2011-10-13T23:32:00.000-06:00

I was reading an article on the Huffington Post yesterday regarding some apparent possible hospitals in the US being able to refuse performing abortions (I am too tired to go find the link right now, but it was passed around on FB). But what interested me were some of the comments people posted on it. Of course there was the usual tussle over at what stage an unborn child should be considered a human, others saying right from conception, others responding that an abortion is not the killing/taking of human life because it's not born yet and hasnt taken a breath, the usual comments about how an embryo and a fetus are not called 'humans' so therefore based on those terms, it is not murder, etc.

One woman commented something that made me laugh my head off and I wondered why I never thought to look it up before. She took the word fetus, that most were throwing around to say it is not human, and presented it's meaning. At it's roots in Latin and Greek, fetus means "offspring, bringing forth, hatching of young". And in other roots it means "suckling" and "to come into being". For those who believe that abortions after 12 weeks (say 12 to 20 weeks, before fetal viability) are okay, stating that a fetus is not a human - I ask where they got that information from. The roots of the word dating back hundreds and thousands of years have always appeared to mean 'life' in some form or another. Not 'mass of cells' or 'bundle of cells' like I have seen MANY people using over the years. Even for an embryo, the 'mass of cells' part doesnt last very long. I had an ultrasound at 5.5 weeks with my daughter and was shocked to see a stumpy little head (like a tadpole, big and bulky compared to the rest of the body) and little stumpy legs and a round belly. Didn't look like a mass of cells to me, but hey, that's my opinion.

Anyway I just found that interesting. Then I was reading through more comments saying that the fetus is not a human until it takes a breath. Who said that? Is that a scientific thing? I saw one man post something about how a fetus is not called a human in any science book and women don't walk around saying 'I am pregnant, I am having a human". Ya - he is right. That's not something people walk around saying. But they also do not refer to each other as humans very often. Maybe that guy should think about that. He does not walk down the street and say 'hello, fellow human' or "I have 3 human children". How ridiculous would that sound? If he does not refer to others as a human most of the time, why should he worry about if a fetus should be called a human. I dont say 'I just had a human!' when I give birth. I say 'wooo it's a boy' or 'I just had my baby'.

As Ive posted before, my last child was born very premature. It bothers me to think that the man writing those comments would think that 5 miliseconds before my son's birth, he was not in fact human. But somehow magically when they pulled him out, he took a breath and TA-DA, it's a human! Yay!!! Phew I was worried there for a minute. I thought they were going to say I gave birth to some other species. Thank you for telling me it's human!!

No. People do not talk like that.

This could go on and on and people will forever have this argument but the ones I hear most hold the least weight, the least power. It makes them feel better to say that whatever is growing inside the woman is not human. I'm not quite sure what other species it could be if it's not a human until birth, but 'fetus' and 'embryo' are NOT terms used to name a species. They are terms used to define the stages of development of whatever species is involved. Last time I checked, if a woman had something growing inside her womb, it would be a HUMAN embryo, a HUMAN fetus. So those arguments don't really fly with me.

If you are going to debate this, be real with it. It IS a human being growing in there, and it IS alive (dependant on the mother, but then again an infant is completely 100% dependant on others after it is born as well or it will postively die). It IS a human being in early developmental stage (or late, depending on what your current gestational limit belief is), and it IS alive, and you believe it is perfectly okay to end it's development and life. Be real with what you are supporting. Maybe I would respect other's arguments for this issue if they would just face up to the absolute fact that they are in fact supporting the ending of humans in their developmental embryotic or fetal stage. I rarely see anyone use those terms at all. They skip over that and start talking about the mother's rights to her own body. That's fine. That could be a real argument there - but if it is not okay for a mother to smother her crying infant at 1 day old, why would it have been okay for her to get an abortion 2 days earlier? What is the actual difference there? The born child has rights apparently, but the unborn child does not. If you believe that, then explain it in real terms. Do not keep walking around flapping about how an unborn child is not a human. If it isnt, then please explain what species it is. If it's not a 'person', then please explain what a person is. Is a person only one who has taken a breath? Then why do we bother putting infants who were stillborn into little caskets and naming them and burying them? Surely they are not humans so parents should not need to obtain a death certificate. Afterall, their infant did not take a breath.

If someone injures a pregnant woman. the fetus dies, and the person gets charged with the murder of the unborn child, you should be up in arms about that and protesting his arrest. You should be screaming from the rooftops that he did not kill a human being at all and should not go to prison for that. But most of you aren't. Why not? You would say that this mother wanted that child. How do you know? How do you know she wasn't booked for an abortion the following week and just didnt tell anyone after all the media blitz surrounding her unborn child's death. You can't know for certain that she wasnt wanting or planning an abortion.

All of those kinds of arguments drive me bonkers. I want someone to be real about it. Talk about what really happens in a termination procedure at various clinics and explain why you think that is okay. Explain what species this woman is carrying in her womb if it's not human. Don't use catch phrases that everyone else likes to use. Study the stages of development and learn about when the brain develops and is active (ie tests on fetal dreaming patterns), study when the heart and lung systems start up, when the eyes form, when daddy's dimples take shape on the cheeks or mommy's long second toe shows up, and then match that with your personal belief for when an abortion can be performed by. Etc etc. Educate yourself on everything and then come and talk to me about it.

And please, oh please, do not throw in all the extra hot topics like the mother's life is in danger, or rape/incest. I happen to think that it would be crazy to force a woman to go through trauma like that (or die) if she didn't want to. We agree on that, but probably for differing reasons. But we can agree, so let's just hear about the other kinds. The 'oops I forgot to take the pill' or 'oops i didnt know that my medication could make my pill ineffective' or the 'oops i didnt think i could get pregnant my first time' or 'im too poor', etc. The ones that make up the vast bulk of abortions. I know a lot of women who have had children, and I only know ONE that had an abortion because the pregnancy was literally killing her (she went septic and turned green, it was pretty scary), and I only know ONE that had an abortion for medical reasons of the infant (extreme case of spina bifida that was so harsh, the infant would not have survived). In both of those cases, the mothers were completely distraught and still are to this day. It was traumatic and horrific and my heart goes out to them for having to make such tough decisions. But that's it - just two. Out of lord only knows how many. The bulk of abortions are convenience (or inconvenience) of the mother. So let's talk about those.

Distracted Driving

2011-09-21T07:07:00.000-06:00

So we have a new Distracted Driving law in the province as of Sept 1st. My city also put in a bylaw that people are not allowed to smoke in their vehicle if a child under the age of 16 is present. The fine is $100 for that. I can't remember what the fine is for distracted driving....

But my question is, would it be considered DD if a police officer is straining himself turning his head and lifting himself up higher in his seat in order to try to see into a car passing by to see if a child is in the car seat, because the driver is smoking?

That's what we witnessed the other day. We were out for a few mins and my bf lit a smoke on the way back to the house. All of our kids were at home but we keep the car seat in the back of the car of course. Actually it's a high-back booster seat, but whatever. Anyhow we happened to pass a police officer and he was staring at us as we approached and then while he was driving, he completely turned his head around and was leaning toward his window, lifting himself up higher in his seat and staring right into our car with a determined, almost grumpy, look on his face. I was baffled. At first I thought perhaps he was checking for our seat belts but they are super easy to see in that car.... we ended up staring back at him, most likely with baffled/annoyed looks on our faces. What? Two people can't drive to the corner store at 7pm? But then as I traced his line of vision, I realized he was trying to look into the booster seat behind the passenger seat. My gosh! All I could think was that it would just take a second for a kid to run out in front of him and he would not have had time to react because his head was at a 90 degree angle from the windshield for several seconds.

Then it made me think about our truck. The back has legally tinted windows. We have a high back booster in there as well. I don't think they would be able to see if a child was present or not, even when right up beside us. So if my bf is smoking and a cop sees him, is he going to get pulled over?? Basically, anyone driving around with a car seat is at risk for being pulled over. You can be totally driving legally properly safely the entire trip but still get pulled over by the police because of this new bylaw. Is that right? Should someone on the way to work be made late because a cop wants to see inside a car seat? I swear it makes me want to put a doll in the seat lol. I know that's just stupid but come on! My bf has not had a speeding ticket since he was 23 (he is 42). He has never had a parking ticket, no points off his license, not pulled over due to a problem with his vehicles like a taillight being out, etc. But now he might get pulled over because the police can see a car seat in the back and can't tell if a child is in it or not while he has a smoke in his hand. It's ridiculous. I can see something happening in the future where you are not allowed to smoke in your vehicle at all. My city is the 5th in the province to add this bylaw. The largest city so far. I would imagine the other big cities wont be far behind.

Every day I see children put at risk by people speeding through school zones or not having a clue how to deal with pedestrian crossings. I see people speeding, stunting, passing incorrectly, etc. Drunk drivers are out every day. There are reportedly over 400,000 drivers in alberta who have not taken their final license test and didnt plan to until a 4 year limit may go into effect.

But now the police can pull you over to check a car seat or to give you a ticket or warning for using your cell phone or eating a burger. I dont think people should text/talk and drive. I cant even text and walk!! But a local woman was just pulled over for distracted driving because the officer said she was on her cell phone when she was really chewing on a toothpick!!! He did not give her a ticket but he still gave her a warning!!!! If her story is true that is totally insane. How do you prove it? You have to take the day off work and lose money in order to appear in court and it's your word against the officer's word and that's it. Same with carseats. What if one decided to be an arse and say that a child WAS in the seat?? How do you prove there wasn't, against his word that there was. It's nuts. There are so many traffic violations out there every day that are easy to see, but you never seem to see an officer. Now there are more things added to their list and THEY can drive unsafely and in a distracted manner in order to visually look for kids in car seats with a smoker parent - but you can't. I just found it odd. I was totally weirded out by this cop. I havent had an incident with an officer for over 20 years - and that was for an underage drinking ticket 3 weeks before my 18th birthday lol. So im hardly used to cops staring at me in a grumpy manner or perhaps pullling me over on the road. Fun times ahead!

My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding

2011-09-19T23:15:00.000-06:00

I watch this show on TLC sometimes when I am bored. I find it humorous to see the gigantic dresses some of these young girls wear to their weddings and then the almost non-existant dresses they wear to the receptions lol. What a contradiction!

Anyway, the undertone I see a lot on the program is to do with how the Gypsy (Traveler) community is viewed in Britain. I can attest to the fact that in the general population, gypsies are not talked about nicely. At all. My ex husband is English and we were married for 5.5 years and we have a teenage son so we are still in contact. If you say the word 'gypsy' to him, he will make a face lol. He likes to call them Gippos (jippos).

When we were first married though, I had no idea what gypsies were other than my idea of someone dancing around in sheer fabric or reading my fortune :) So I was all new to this and I heard some people referring to each other as Gippos or gypsies if they were dressed all messy or looked a wreck, but I didnt think much of it. I was 19 lol. I didnt really pay attention to that, I was too busy trying to figure out everyone's different accents and learn German too, since I lived on a british base in Germany :) I didn't have time to figure out all those crazy brit sayings.

At any rate, I was introduced to various Traveler communities during my years in England and I must say that each one was very negative. That's what also interests me about the program - they speak as though they have it rough and for no good reason. But if you watch for tiny details on the show, you can pick up on a few things. For example, showing the caravan parks (trailer parks i suppose you could say) where the ones highlighted in the show live - you can see dirt and crap and grunge all over the place. Tonight's repeat showed them walking through a yearly event where up to 10,000 gather each year and my god what a horrid pig sty that was. Ew. No, they are not the only types of people living like that - but in the program you see them all dressed fancy and clean and getting their hair done. Then they show a bit of their caravans (like travel trailers and such) and it just looks a horrible mess. Mingin' is one word the brits I knew like to use when talking about gypsies.

My first real encounter was when I worked in a large grocery store. A traveler camp moved into the field behind the store, literally overnight. I left work one day and there was a big open grassy field, and came back the next morning and it was completely full of trailers, wagons, vans, dumpy cars, and people. oh my god the people! TONS and TONS of them everywhere. I almost fell off my bike because I was so confused and thought I had taken a wrong turn on the way to work lol.

When i got into work, the managers were all in a buzz over it. Later that morning, a whole bunch of kids were suddenly running around the store. Dirty 'mingin' little kids. Yeah kids get dirty and they didnt look much diff than when my kids got into a pile of dirt and made mud pies lol, but they were running about with no parents in sight, no shoes on, touching all the clothing, hiding in the clothes, running through the produce area, meat dept - everywhere. It was like an invasion lol. I had to go help round some of them up near the front doors to wait for any parents to show up and there were more than a dozen at that point, with more still loose in the store. I didn't know what to think. Who shows up in a strange town and lets their kids run around in a store like it's a playground. If it's one family, you can understand that one parent isnt very responsible - but we had no idea how many parents were needed to grab these kids. Finally an equally dirty man showed up, yelled at the managers for treating his people like rubbish, and herded the kids out the door. I was dumbfounded. Who on earth were these people? Where did they come from? The man had a very thick accent but I could not place it. I figured northern england. The travelers were there for about 5 days and one morning they were gone. Just like that... But I can't say it was almost like they weren't even there because that big field was nothing but a torn up wreck with garbage, broken pieces of god knows what, busted furniture, piles more garbage (and I mean piles without the bags - just heaps and heaps of crap strewn all over the place). It was sickening. The Town owned that field so they were responsible for cleaning it up, at tax payers expense of course, and they had to do it fast before locals complained about it blowing into their gardens and yards. It was quite eye-opening for me. I could see why my husband was so rude about gippos... I saw it myself.

I was also quite aware that perhaps it was just a particularly naughty group of gypsies. But when I was almost 8 months pregnant with my first child, another group came into town and practically took over the place for 2 weeks. This group came from Scotland and Im not kidding, they drove me out of my freaking mind. I could hardly tolerate walking in the town center because you could not walk 10 steps without one of the young girls approaching and asking if you would buy a sprig of heather. If you kept walking, more would come and surround you! I was not happy because I was heavily pregnant, my husband was serving in Bosnia, I had no family around, and these girls would come 3 or 4 at a time and walk backwards in front of me trying to convince me to buy some heather. I went into town a lot because I had to get final things for my baby, and I could only carry so much at once without exhausting myself. So I encountered them a lot during that time. On the second or third day of this, I decided to buy a fricken sprig of heather for 2 quid (about 5 bucks at that time) and get them to leave me the hell alone. The moment you left a shop, they were in your face. You walked by a bench and they would stand up and follow you. Just as you ditched one crew, you ran into another. It seriously was a nightmare and townspeople were getting angry. I have never in my life had a beggar come at me like that - other than one dude that put his arm around me this summer and shocked me to death in my hometown here in Canada. But that was a first (and hopefully a last).

I kept my sprig of heather with me at all times when going into town for the next while because when they started coming at me, I would whip it out and say 'sorry ive already bought some back there' and just sort of point randomly over my shoulder. I thought this would solve things but imagine my surprise one day when walking down a narrow sidewalk and getting surrounded by three dirty young girls with dirty children in disgusting strollers - all asking me if I could spare some money so their babies could have some food or milk. I was completely ticked off and mortified. I tried to push my way through them but my belly was so massive by then, I actually went into hospital about a week after this encounter actually, I was also feeling protective and they were crowding me. I started to get upset. When I said no, they kept coming in, right up beside me, and I could not pass them without stepping into the busy street. I didnt know what to do. They kept talking about their babies having no milk and I finally got angry and I think the expression on my face helped back them off. I pulled open my cardigan to further show my big belly and half shouted, half cried, that I had my OWN child to worry about and buy things for. They parted and drove their strollers around me and were already calling out to people walking up behind me. I was disturbed and disgusted by that. They could see that I was pregnant easily, and they still pushed up against me and plopped their dirty little toddlers in my way. Horrible experience, im sure heightened by my condition, but I have never before or since seen anything like that.

My third was just seeing the Travelers from afar - a camp was set up somewhere between Oxford (where I lived) and the next major town to the south and it was a total tip. There were even people sleeping in this big tree, with their sleeping bags hanging over the branches, tents off the lower limbs, and hundreds of caravans as far as the eye could see. It looked like a bad case of a summer drunk fest carnival or the 60s gone terribly wrong. As we drove past, I was completely dumbfounded. And now as I watch that program on TLC and see them say that it's their way of life and people don't understand and judge them - well Im sorry but I guess I am one of those judges. All the southern red neck trailer park jokes in the world could not come close to what I saw in England. I saw three camps and three disasters. Im sure there are travelers over there who arent like that, but then perhaps they arent travelers in the traditional way.

I have friends in Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and England and they all feel the same way about the Travelers. And they live there, live with them, see them, their whole lives. Are we supposed to sit over here in North America and feel sorry for the bad rap they receive, hoping that we won't know WHY they have a bad rep in so many places? The onus in every show is that if the people holding the reception find out they are travelers, they might cancel and bar them from entering. Is it mean nasty hall-owners? Or is it people that have had to clean up the messes one too many times and now decided that they will no longer take that risk? One woman in particular during tonight's program was very worried they would be discovered,,,, but you could gather some clues from her son while he was explaining that they didnt want other guests to show up at the house waiting to find out about where the reception was because they would be all out in the car park and 'well, you know...'.... and then he just carries on without saying what he was going to. Gee could that have been 'they get all rowdy and start wrecking stuff and throwing their garbage around the neighbourhood, or vandalizing the home(s)'? Nah. That couldnt be it. He was just going to say they sit nicely and quietly out in the carpark and wait patiently for details of the reception and his mum doesnt want them to do that. Of course.

When you know something about someone...

2011-09-16T00:30:00.001-06:00

On Sunday, a house fire set a family of 6, with another on the way, homeless. The city has been going bonkers collecting donations, setting up fundraisers, etc to help the two parents and their 4 children (and newborn due in 4 months).

but. i know something about this family.

the father was due to go on trial on sept 29th for robbing two pharmacies at gunpoint in 2009. i should also point out that he did this right when their current youngest child was born. he was originally arrested for also uttering death threats, but i dont know if those charges are still on the ballot.

anyway so 2 weeks before trial, his house burns down and the community feels that it is doing something good and awesome and charitable to collect donations for them.

they used to be my neigbours. the dad moved into community housing with his wife about 6 months after they had separated. it was single parent family housing and she was on welfare with their two children (at that time). she immediately got pregnant and they lived right directly next door to me for over a year before housing caught wind of him being there and kicked them all out. that was in feb 2008. i moved in with my bf that same month, so i know my timeline right down to the day.

anyway in the time before he moved in, she complained to me that welfare was paying less in this city than her previous city in another province. she was getting more than 300 higher each month there. i pointed out that it was probably cheaper to live in this smaller city. but whatever. my point is, they have been jamming the system and taking things from the community for as long as i have known them.

he allegedly robbed two pharmacies at gun point while their 4th child was not quite born yet and then about a month old. he scared the living hell out of all of the people in those stores at the time and they were probably very distraught and distressed during and after that. he was there to take prescription narcotics and he got them. I also know that he is barred from at least one other pharmacy because of fraudulently obtaining oxycotin with a fake prescription.

and now here he is getting the whole community to give to him once again and hardly anyone knows it. some people are finally putting the pieces together because someone posted on two local news articles online today asking if that was the same man involved in the robberies.

the kids are not at fault here. when i knew them well, the older ones, they were really great kids. the kind of kids you didnt mind having over at your house every day because they were respectful and friendly and just plain nice. but after the father was arrested and put on house arrest, i no longer allowed my son to go over there. i ignored their son phoning our house at least once a week to talk to my son. the mom invited my son to her boy's bday party via facebook and i blocked her. i just did not want to have anything to do with them. why the hell would i send my kid to their house when he was on house arrest for bleeping ARMED ROBBERY. are they insane?

anyway so now this happened and i feel bad for them but im not giving them a dime. i suppose if i actually had clothing to pass on, i would, but their kids are no where near my kids in size so i cant help out much with that. but people are donating couches, tvs, etc. there is a fundraiser set up. there is a facebook page set up. there are ads on kijiji for two local cities. its everywhere and it just makes me want to strangle someone. this guy is supposed to be going to prison. how much do you bet his trial in 2 weeks gets delayed?

why should the people who had his gun in their faces have to wait even longer for justice? because his house burned down and he didnt think to pay a whopping 15 bucks a month for insurance? he and his wife keep posting thank you, but they are still without a car and a home! What do they want people to do?? they are in a hotel right now and i know that sucks. i feel for the kids, i really do. i have 3 of my own and no family here that i could stay with if something horrific happened.

but guess what? we have insurance as renters. we are in excellent standing with our rental agency and they would think nothing of transfering our rental agreement to another home immediately if they had a vacancy. we could be in another home probably quite fast and stay with various friends split up if we had to until it was all sorted. but this guy has burned his bridges. his wife has frauded welfare but did not get charged. they have frauded community housing or they would prob find a place for them asap. the woman's shelter has temporary homes for families but have not offered - why? because she stayed there while supposedly escaping her husband and moving across three provinces to do it and they remember. this is a small city. you cannot get away with everything like you can in larger cities.

meanwhile, a house burned down in the same area 2 months previously while a single mom was at work and her 5 yr old daughter was in childcare. her neighbours started the fire so it was not her fault at all. she worked to try to get ahead - and lost her home. i did not see fundraisers for her all over the place. why not? is this family different just because there are 4.5 children? who wants to see a pregnant woman homeless - i sure dont. but i know personal intimate details about this family and this is the third child she has had since sept 2007 when she was defrauding welfare and community housing. she got preg again and had a baby in 2009 right in the middle of his two armed robberies. now she is preg again in 2011 and their house burns down. how many more disasters does she need before she gets away.

i am not heartless, and dont tell me i dont know what its like to be a trapped woman in a bad situation because i do. i was physically abused by my ex husband for years. i was dragged around by my hair, punched, kicked while 4 months preg, almost thrown down stairs (almost, because i kicked him as hard as i possibly could to save myself), and all this while i lived 4000 miles away from my family. i used to scream out the window for help but no one came.

what wised me up was having a baby. when our son was 5 months old i knew i had to leave. he kicked me and pushed me and threw things at me while i was holding our tiny son. i made plans to leave and i did. it took me 4 more months to get it all sorted but i did it. i moved back home and ive been here ever since. so i know exactly what it is like to be in a relationship with an abusive controlling husband and it took having one child to smarten me the hell up and get out. i had a hard time finding a job, it was hell, but it was better than being smacked around and dealing with all that crap. but this woman is on her 5th child with this man, 3 since she fled across the country to get away from him.

so - at what point do we stop? at what point do we have to say NO MORE. they have already taken umpteen thousands of dollars from the tax payers and who knows who else... and now they are just getting handouts left and right like crazy. maybe i would feel better if someone came along and said those kids deserve more and then i could give stuff knowing that the parents are out of the picture. but thats not the case and it is paining me to see so many good people helping them when the vast majority know nothing about them, and have no idea he is allegedly an armed robber. imagine the outpouring when he goes to prison.... but his wife has told me things that would make you want to shake her silly, and she has basically been like a career welfare case ever since. your money, no matter where you are living in canada, may be helping this couple. i dont mind if it helps their kids but at the same time, it's just helping them NOT to have to help their own children. it really sickens and upsets me.

Ten Years

2011-09-11T08:19:00.000-06:00

September 11, 2001.

I was laying in bed when my phone rang just before 7am Mountain Time. I was living in Elkford BC and my mom was calling from her home in Alberta. I was super groggy and confused while mom was telling me to go watch the news, something terrible had happened in NYC. She said that a plane had apparently crashed into the WTC and it was awful. I said okay I will check later, because I was tired and just figured it was a horrible accident. I was living in Germany when a plane crashed into a hotel in Amsterdam years earlier and then had to fly into Amsterdam less than a year later and was creeped out by that particular terrible event. So I knew it could be devastating. I intended to go back to sleep but then I just tossed the covers back and went into the living room. I remember turning to CNN and I believe it was Aaron Brown standing on a hill with the WTC burning in the distance behind him. It was an eerie sight.

But then he turned while listening to his ear piece and oh my god, another plane just popped into view at the right of the screen and turned into the other tower. I don't remember thinking anything other than OH MY GOD! I could not believe what I was seeing. I had maybe been awake 2 mins and I was watching an attack on the United States right in front of my eyes, live on screen. Before the second plane entered the view, Brown seemed to be talking about having no idea how this could have happened, but after he saw the second one, he turned back to say something like 'America is under attack. This is the work of terrorists.'. I mean, it had to be. What kind of funky air mistake could bring two planes into the huge WTC buildings mere minutes apart? I could not believe it. I was thousands of miles away but I was locked on the screen in shock and horror. I will never forget my feelings and shock and disgust. But for the moment it was also confusion. It felt like it wasnt even real.

I remember watching when a blurb came up and confusion erupted in the newsrooms when reports came around 740 (my time) that something had happened at the Pentagon. Then a little while later another report came of a plane 'missing' somewhere around Pennsylvania. What the hell was going on? In the meantime, US air space was closed down and flights were being either sent back to their departure points, or re-routed to Canada. My brother kept calling from Calgary because he worked in a high rise building for Telus and they were on Orange Alert. All window shades were closed and they sat in eerie silence while planes lined up over Calgary. It was unnerving because no one knew if there were more planes to be used in this attack. If they were re-routed to Canada, would they just decide to crash here instead? No one knew and it was scary. Constantly all day long they had to sit in their building and listen to planes fly right overhead to land at the airport, while they watched the news coming out of NY. So I was worried about 'what next, who's next?' at the same time as feeling just useless over what was happening in the US. Four planes? It was insane.

But what most bothered me that day was watching some news channel (I cannot remember if it was CNN or what) when a man called in from one of the 90th floors of the second tower to be hit. He was calling in because he could not get a hold of his family and wanted his wife to know he was safe, as well as all his coworkers. He said what company they worked for, what floor they were on, and that they were all okay and just waiting for help because they could not get out of their office due to the wreckage and smoke. He sounded a little rattled but mainly calm and trying to keep his wits about him. He just wanted the families to know that they were safe.

Less than 20 mins later that tower fell and I burst into tears knowing that man was gone and everyone else. They were going to be rescued - they were just waiting and trying to find a way out, but there was no way they got out of there. It was completely impossible they would have reached the bottom in only 20 mins. The newsanchor woman had to gulp and choke while trying to report that they think the tower just collapsed. I know that she too was thinking of the man she had just spoken to. I think that part hit me the hardest. I wish I had remembered his name, but I remember his voice. He was calm, and just focused on letting all of their families know they were okay.

Then the second tower fell and listening to people scream and cry while watching the live feeds on the streets was devastating. By then I knew the towers were full of rescue workers too. People on the streets who had just escaped the tower were buried under dust and rubble. The dust cloud looked like a monster from a movie, billowing down the streets in every direction and swallowing everything in it's path.

I did not leave the television for several hours that day. I felt I HAD to watch this, watch everything as it unfolded and never forget it.

Trauma - Life In The ER 2

2011-09-07T21:24:00.000-06:00

Just some extra tidbits of info on the healthcare system. My boss had a 'mild' stroke the first weekend in June. Her neurology appt in in NOVEMBER. She has not even had an MRI to see if there might be a clot somewhere. She did have a CT scan almost right away but that did not show a cause.

My friend's bf had a seizure in July. His first ever, and he has not had one since but his license has been taken away due to the seizure. He has yet to see a neurologist and in fact has not even been given an appt date yet.

What? I knew that our system was crumbling but are you freaking kidding me? You can have a stroke and not see a neurologist to try to determine the cause for 5 MONTHS? You can have a seizure that stops you from being able to drive, which also happened to be your career before the event, and still not see a neurologist more than 2 MONTHS later? I honestly did not know things were this bad. I cannot believe it. My boss could have a clot somewhere that could dislodge at any time. They can only guess in the meantime and stuff her full of heart medication and blood thinners - oh but wait - she also has a long standing blood disease that causes open wounds so if she gets one of those, she cannot be on blood thinners or she could die in the middle of the night from blood loss. Oh but who cares. We will just make her wait even though she has been paying into the tax system for over 40 years, 30 years being a small business owner and paying even more taxes than most people. What a great payback for years of service to the country. Kinda like when her husband had a heart attack a few years ago and had to wait an extra 5 days for surgery because the surgeon was on holiday. "the" surgeon in a city of over 1 million people. Didn't they have a replacement? It's crazy. It really is.

Trauma - Life In the ER

2011-09-06T23:15:00.000-06:00

This weekend, my boyfriend spent Thurs Sat Sun Mon and Tues at the ER for a big owie that needed daily care. We noticed some not-so-nice things while in our regional hospital ER - it was DIRTY. Omg,,,, I didnt go with him to the first two appts but I went for Sunday and Monday and looked for what he had told me he had seen - dirt in the corners, dirt on the floors, smears on the chairs, etc. I was actually quite shocked. I do realize that the ER can be a very heavy traffic area and difficult to clean - but each time I was there, a janitor came through and I watched as they just mopped or swept the very middle of the floors, not going near any corners and not wiping down everything. I don't know when they might do it, maybe at 3am but coming back on Monday, I saw the same smears on the same chairs, the same dirt in the same corners (EVERY corner, I might add) and I was disgusted. I know people say hospitals are the dirtiest places but I always thought it was just the germs that could be lurking UNseen - not dirt and crap in clear view. I was really shocked. My bf was left with an open wound in the curtained areas each day for at least 15-30 mins and all this crap was flying around? The doc would come in and check the wound, decide on further treatment, then leave saying a nurse would come do the new dressing... then he would sit there and wait. I almost got the damn stuff out myself to put over it because I did not want him getting further infection from the hospital itself! What is going on here?

My doctor and the walkin clinic I use are both privately owned - meaning a team of doctors gets together and leases a space to open their practices in. They pay for the cleaning staff, etc and those places are always pristinely clean. I went to walkin with my kids this morning in fact and specifically looked around for dirt and gunk and I did not see any at all. Whenever I've gone to my doctor's office in the morning, the place looks brand new like no one has ever been there before. Why? Because a private cleaning crew comes in at night. I realize that it's no guarantee for germ killing, but an obvious attempt it made... but not at the hospital that we all are forced to pay for - everyone in Canada that pays any form of taxes is forced to pay for these things for everyone and yet it's dirty and gross?? Something is wrong with this picture. They sit and wonder on the news how those nasty 'hospital viruses' can possibly go around so quickly and call for stronger measures to keep them at bay. How about CLEANING! My friend's parents have owned a reputable cleaning company for over 20 years and they do some doc offices as well as other places. They wipe every surface they can reach EVERY night. Doorknobs, plexiglass windows, ledges, chair tops bottoms arms and legs - everything. But I watched a janitor wander around in the hospital doing almost nothing - looking bored in fact. I said 'my god, maybe I should apply for a job here when our youngest is in school cos I will fricken clean everything I can think of cos I don't want to get sick MYSELF let alone anyone else there'. Even if just for the staff who have to deal on the front lines with diseases and bacteria and viruses every day all day long - why not clean the hell out of the place every 2-4 hours for THEM. But nope - apparently not in my hospital. My bf is going to write a letter there. It reminded me that even though I was happy with the care our preemie got when he was born and spent 15 days in NICU, I only once managed to see someone cleaning in there. I used to show up all hours to feed him or just visit but in 2 weeks only saw one cleaning crew. I also went out and bought my own breast feeding pillow because we realized the one left in the comfy room was not touched at all between the evening and the next afternoon. It was in the exact same position I left it in. We used to put a hospital blanket over it before feeding our son, but I could not stand to think how some other baby might have puked on it, or their older brother or sister might have laid on it, not to mention the fact that some other woman's breast was on it leaking milk. Ew. My god. Prems are so prone to infection but obvious things were not cleaned. Why not have 3 pillows and keep swapping them around while one went out to be disinfected? Something. Anything. But ewwww.

Anyway, it was an eye opening event. Our hospital ER is dirty, dusty, filthy so be careful. Don't touch anything you don't have to and perhaps let them know what you think about it because you are in fact paying for that place and it should work at top standard, not bottom.

random ghost stories

2011-09-06T23:00:00.000-06:00

I am bored of politics again. So instead I am going to write about the few 'strange encounters' I have had over the years. I'm sure there are explanations for them all but as each happened, I tried very hard to figure it all out and not jump to the conclusion of the paranormal immediately, and came up with zilch. I have always been interested in the paranormal, but really just 'in passing' like movies and such. The odd weirdo seance as a teen, etc. Lots of stuff happened back then that I can't explain, but there were also too many variables with other teens around so I put those at the bottom of my list of odd events.

The others have happened as I got older. The time when you should be less inclined to jump at bumps in the night.

A few years ago, my ex boyfriend and I were sitting on the couch at my old place. It was a duplex but the other side was unoccupied at that time. I can't remember the exact time, but it was evening. My duplex was owned by the Community Housing Agency and workers didn't do work there at night so that was the first thing I crossed off my list when 'the event' happened - that and the fact the worker van was not parked outside at the time anyway. So anyway we were sitting there talking, cuddling, watching tv when a door SLAMMED so loud in the basement, we both jumped. It was very loud and clear, and kind of like when you slam a car door while sitting inside, I felt the air pressure change in my ears. We both turned and leaned to look down the stairs behind us because it was a half-wall. We then looked at each other like 'what the hell was that?' and got up to check. My heart was thudding a mile a minute. The bang was SO loud. I figured I must have left a window open down there, though I was pretty sure I didn't.

We walked down the stairs and then just sort of stood there bewildered. None of the 4 basement doors were closed. They were all open. We looked around, like checking to see if maybe something had fallen against the furnace (no), or perhaps a window was open and the door banged in a cross-breeze and bounced back open (no, all windows were closed tightly), or something else had maybe fallen. No no and no. I didn't really have much in my basement, and nothing was out of place. All I really had down there was cardboard boxes and a toy room. Everything was fine. We had no idea what happened and we never figured it out. It bothered me, but what can ya do?
_____________
Later that same year, a week or so after me and that same boyfriend split up, I was on the computer talking to my friend about ghost stories. It was almost halloween, afterall. I well and truly freaked myself out so I slept upstairs on my couch to be near the kids' rooms rather than sleep in the basement alone. Earlier in the evening, I had put a load of clothes in the dryer to be ready for work the next day. I didn't go downstairs again. In the morning, around 6am, I woke up on the couch and headed down to grab my clean clothes for work. I stopped dead in my tracks at the bottom of the stairs because the door to the laundry room was closed. I almost never shut that door because I just don't. I don't like closed doors in a basement (see also above story - where I had all 4 doors open lol). I was a single mom and gone from the house all day and leave all doors open wide. I just do. Always have, always will. So anyway that was my first curious surprise - why was the laundry room door shut? But then my eyes wandered to my left and my bedroom door was shut as well!

That really freaked me out. I do not shut that door even when I am in there sleeping because I want to be able to hear my young kiddos upstairs during the night in case they have a problem. And I don't shut the door when I am not in the room - so what the heck? But my biggest shock came when I looked up and noticed that a latch was also closed over the door.

To explain, when I moved in, I noticed that someone had installed a latch/hook lock at the very top of the door and frame - the kind you would need to hang a lock through in order to actually lock it. I don't have a lock, and why would I do that anyway? My kids are good and don't go sneaking in my room but there is nothing fun to find in there regardless lol. But here the latch part attached to the frame was closed tightly over the hook part attached to the door. My kids were about 9 and 4 at the time - both too short to reach that latch, and no chair or box to stand on either. I was completely bewildered and could barely breathe. What was going on? Two doors shut, and a latch connected as well. I opened the doors after having a mild panic attack (okay - it was close to major lol) and then I realized another problem...

The latch on my door was really tight. I had to lift the door by the knob to get the latch to come off smoothly. That's when I ran some little experiments like slamming the door to see if the latch would jiggle enough to swing over on it's own (not even close, no jiggling at all), pushing the latch so it was almost shut and then closing my door to see if it would engage with the hook, (no, because again, I would have to lift the door by the knob to get them to line up correctly), etc. Nothing worked. I even took a video showing how hard it was to close the latch securely, as it was when I found it, so I could show my friends I was not crazy. About the only explanation anyone could come up with was that I was sleep walking after my ghostie chat with my friend, and went downstairs and closed the doors myself and engaged the latch. That is as impossible to prove as it is to disprove, so I had to just leave it at that. Two events with the basement doors within a few months of each other.
___________________
One other event happened at that house. When my daughter was almost 3, she and I were leaving the house to go for a walk. I was locking my front door when she suddenly blurted out 'Your dad says Hi'. My dad died in 1996 and this was 2004. I did not talk about my dad much because I didnt want to explain death to a young child. She had no real concept that I even had a dad - just my mom/her grammie. So I said 'ummm what?' and she repeated it, all nonchalantly "Your dad says Hi". I was stunned. I glanced at her and she was just boppin around on the sidewalk waiting for me. I said something like 'where is my dad?' and she looked all exasperated with me and pointed away from the house, like towards the road or across the road, and said 'he is right over there'. I was stunned back into silence for a few moments. I felt cold all over, all shaky and weird. I finally said 'WHERE is my dad?' and she got totally frustrated with me, like a 3 yr old bossy diva would, and pointed again towards the road and said in an exasperated diva tone "He is right over THERE, with your grandma!!!!". I nearly fainted right there on the spot. My dad's mother had passed away 4 years earlier and lived on the other side of Canada so my daughter had never met her. My other grandma lived on the other side of Canada too and again, had never met my daughter. As far as I will ever know, she had no concept that I had a grandmother at all. It was just too flippin weird. Then my daughter started jabbering other things like 'your dad says he likes you. he doesnt love you, but he likes you'. She sounded a bit more confused about that statement when compared to the sureness of her other statements, so I have no idea if she 'heard' something and didnt know how to express it to me or what. But I was completely freaked out at that point and just started on the walk with her. I dont know why, but I had the impression that my dad and grandma were standing on the other side of the road near some trees so as we passed that point I whispered 'Hey dad. Please don't do that to me again!'.

In hindsight, I wish I had never said that. The whole thing caught me SO off-guard, I didnt know how to react so I just blurted that out. I meant dont freak me out like that again lol, but it came out almost like 'dont come around me like that again'. That's not how I meant it, but what's done is done. I will never know what really happened that day but she never spoke of my dad again until she was older and asked me why I didnt have a dad. She apparently has no memory of that incident. One day when she is much older, I will tell her about it. It would be cool if she retained some sort of memory of it, but she was so young, I doubt it.
________________
In my new house, only a couple things have happened. One also involved my daughter. She was sitting at one end of the couch reading to me one night. The hall light was on behind her and we were just relaxing. But I noticed several times while she was reading, she was acting weird. I think she was about 7 years old at the time. She would slow her reading and glance slowly to her left, looking slowly over her shoulder. I didn't think much of it, I thought perhaps a hair on her head was sticking out and catching the light and she could see it out of the corner of her eye. But as she was reading more, she got more irritated and would turn her head very fast and suddenly to the right and look just slightly behind her shoulder toward the front door. It was starting to freak me out so I finally asked what the heck she was doing. She said 'that bright white light is ANNOYING me'. I looked around and said 'what light??' and she said 'the one I keep seeing beside me. it's really annoying me so I'm trying to catch it' (as in, catch full sight of it). I was stunned. There was nothing there. Just a dark blue couch with nothing reflective on it like papers etc, nothing behind the couch except the bare wall and floor, etc.... I watched her reading and she peeked furtively to the right again and I had the sudden impression for a split second that someone was standing there watching her read. My impression was of my grandma, white hair so that would probably be dad's mom, and all I said in my mind was 'If you are going to watch her read, maybe you could stand back a bit because she can see you'. After I had that loud thought in my mind, she never looked over her shoulder like that again. She kind of shrugged and wiggled a bit, and turned her head a couple times, but she was not focused on anything directly anymore. It was truly an odd moment. It was nice if my impression was correct, but it was also weird lol.
_____________________
The other thing that happened was when I was in my basement. I was doing laundry and everyone else was upstairs. You have to picture my basement - it's just an open unfinished space with 4 cement walls, a water tank and furnace sticking out toward the middle, and then my washer/dryer along the side. The rest is just boxes and such randomly placed around. Also, the stairs are open, meaning there is just a railing down the side not an enclosed wall, and you can see between every step from anywhere in the basement. My laundry stuff is only a few feet away. So anyway I'm standing there doing laundry and the water tank/furnace is behind me. I saw movement to my right so I turned just in time to see what I thought was my oldest son dashing behind the water tank. I had a clear impression of his upper arm, elbow, and part of his lower arm - bent like this < as he hid behind the tank. We all like to pop out and scare the crap out of each other so I decided to let him play his little prank and scare me. I waited and then wondered why I had not seen or heard him come down the creaky old steps right beside me. But whatever, I kept loading the washer and waited... and waited... and nothing happened.

I could not hear anything and got fed up. I hate being scared even when I know someone is going to jump out. I always scream lol. So I decided to sneak around the other side of the furnace and scare the daylights out of him instead lol. I was still totally convinced my son would be on the other side... So I crept around the furnace and saw nothing but the empty basement. I quickly dashed around the other direction thinking I would catch my son there but no one was there. Nothing. My blood ran cold, I threw the last of my clothes in the wash and slammed the lid, and dashed upstairs as fast as I could lol. I told my boyfriend that someone was trying to play hide and seek with me in the basement but it wasnt any of them - still sitting in front of the tv where I left them - and I didn't want to play anymore lol. He thinks I am crazy and that the house is not old enough to have any activity - but I cannot explain what happened that night. There is no way at all for car headlights to shine in the windows, there is no tv down there, nothing but the bare ceiling bulbs to give off light - so I don't know what I could have seen. Blah!
___________________
My boyfriend doesnt know what to think about the paranormal. He goes back and forth between logical explanations and otherwordly explanations. He had one strange experience before we met and that's his only real tie to the paranormal - He was living with his ex gf and they were sleeping in bed one night. He woke up hearing voices like women talking. It was muffled enough that he could not hear exact words, but loud enough that it sounded like it was coming from his house. It was a bitter cold night so no windows were open. He laid there listening to the talking and thought 'holy sh*t, someone is in my house!'. He got out of bed thinking someone was in the basement because the slight muffling made him think that must be the place. As he moved away from the bed and toward the sound, he glanced at his gf and realized she was awake. Her eyes were as big as plates and she was frozen in the bed. She managed to mutter 'Do you hear that???' and sounded terrified. He whispered yes, or nodded, and then went to walk out of his room. But as he passed the closet, he realized the voices totally sounded like they were coming from inside. The other side of his closet wall is the kitchen so he was bewildered. He opened the closet door and the voices ceased immediately. Just stopped dead. He continued to check out the rest of the house though and nothing was there. He looked outside and no one was on the street, the neighbour's house was dark, and he could not see any footprints in the snow between the homes either. Sometimes he says that it must have been voices outside, carried strangely by the cold night air, but most of the time he admits that something funky was going on. He said it sounded like several women, like you would expect to hear them chattering at a party or little get together or something. Talking, laughing, chatting - then poof gone as suddenly as it started. His gf was completely freaked out but he also knows from that that he was not the only one hearing it, it was not a dream, and she did not hear it coming from any window area either.

More Randoms

2011-08-31T23:33:00.000-06:00

Let's see.... well this morning I saw a link suggesting that a D-Senator in California was putting in a bill that, according to the wording, could end up with babysitters becoming part of a union that would require parents to pay them minimum wage and even make sure they had a break every 2 hours, etc. If this is indeed true - what are they thinking?? what the hell? I am not posting a link because I have not managed to read the whole bill myself yet, but the excerpts I read could definitely be interpreted that way 'caregivers'. I could not find anything in my first look at the bill that defined what exactly a 'caregiver' would be so at this point, I am going with the blanket possibility that even babysitters could fall under this. Can you imagine?

I'm not saying the old going-rate from my teen babysitting years be $2/hour lol but I think if you are looking after a child some evenings and weekends, you should be happy with about half of what minimum wage in your area would be. That would be about $4.50/hour for my province, which just so happens to be the hourly rate at my daycare center if a child is only going to be there a couple of days in a month. But anyway, imagine if that were to happen here and you had to pay a babysitter 9 bucks an hour AND provide them with a second babysitter so they could get a break. Every 2 hours? Um.... what are the labor laws in Cali? I can work under Alberta Labor laws for 4 to 4.5 hours before getting a break. When I worked 3 hour shifts at a grocery store, I didn't get a break at all. But now babysitters could end up with a break after 2 hours? Are you kidding me? That's crazy. So then you have to also pay the second babysitter... but wait.... under their labour laws do they have to pay someone a 3 hour minimum like here as well? Say goodbye to dinner and a movie once a month (or once a year like me lol). The cost would just be insane. Especially for those working lower paying jobs. Or let's say I wanted a sitter while I was at work. I might as well not even go in because my sitter would be making MORE than me (after you factor taxes and other deductions off my hourly pay)... so yeah that would not be cost efficient at all if i worked a min wage job and needed a sitter sometimes (let's say there is an overlap between a husband and a wife's job so they only need a sitter for a couple hours or so a day). What is this all coming to if that California bill is true and gets interpreted that way?

All of these things drive me crazy because I work in childcare and we and the parents feel the brunt of all these silly rules and regs all the time. I have started working on our yearly Accreditation and it's not even due til March, but I have so much paper work to do and little time to do it in, I have to start 6 or more months early every year. Why? It's crazy. This year seems to be all about the nitty gritty paperwork details too. I have to almost completely re-write our business policy book from start to finish! We have to have a concrete written policy for EVERYTHING. E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G. From wiping noses to wiping butts, from signing forms to who is in charge of making sure each and every single little tiny detail gets done. We now have to store all incident reports in the children's files for 2 years. So everytime junior needs a bandaid, we have to have the parents sign a form that we have provided explaining what happened, when, where, how, who was there, etc (which we have done for years), but then file it. Some kids will have files 5 inches thick because they like to fall down and get scraped on the rocks that we were forced to fill the playground area with years ago. But like policies for everything and anything you can think of - stuff that should be common sense to the vast majority of most human beings, but now we have to write it down. If we don't, we lose our Accredited status and that makes us look like a bad center when we are actually running the same as we always have, and the parents are happy. the kids are happy. but the govt wont be if we dont have everything in writing somewhere. I think it's going to almost double our current huge policy book. *sigh*

But, honestly, parents are led to believe this is for the protection of their children. I can tell you that my gut says No It's Not. It is nothing but a huge ass-covering episode by the govt. Why? Because there have been a few bad things happening at dayhomes and daycares around the province the past few years (one leading to the death of an 18 month old girl in my city... horrible horrible awful thing to happen)...... and the govt is the one that supposedly looks after us, overseeing things and making up the rules. So when something bad happens, people yell and scream at the govt too. They ask how this could happen. Why when the govt has vetted each person, why could this still happen. Etc etc. Well - now the govt is finding a way to pass the buck back down. If we all have a specific written policy about everything - the govt can say 'well look, the center had this policy, we approved it, but the center did not follow their own policy, so they are solely at fault. Don't look at us'. I swear to you, that's what this is about. They don't want to get their hands dirty any longer, so they are putting it all on the centers (which is actually where the fault would truly lie in the end, that's not what I am getting at). The govt is just tired of the blame also being put on them, so they are going all-out to wave the smoke away from their office desks and have reason to say 'no, we made sure they knew what they were doing. the director was supposed to make sure this was done properly, as it says in their policy book, and they didn't. so the director (or whoever is named in the policy clause) is at fault alone. not the govt'. The end.

Just like a few years ago when we suddenly had to alter all our signs to add a phone number that could be reached after hours. Not the center's phone number, but something else like the Director's home or cell number. It was kinda weird. We couldnt figure it out. Who on earth would be coming to the center after hours? If we are closed - we are closed. You can't bring your kid on an evening, weekend, or holiday - so why would having a phone number make any difference? We were baffled when we were told that people were contracted by the govt to come around by a certain date ALL ACROSS THE PROVINCE to check every center and ensure they had a number posted. It was mind boggling!!! But then, someone let it slip.

The summer before, an infant had been left in a center and all the staff had gone home and locked up!! The parent arrived to find the doors locked, lights out, and their child still inside. She didnt know who to call so she called 911. Of fricken course. But anyway, this govt official told us that they dont want that to happen. If a child is left at the center, they want the parent to be able to call a number to get the staff to come let their child out, so the media and police would not need to be called. That is a quote from this govt spokesperson. I stumped her because I said "well Im sorry, but I am a parent too, and after I called the staff to scream about my kid being locked in there, I would be calling 9-11 as well. Immediately afterward'. The govt lady's mouth dropped open. It was almost like no one had thought of that scenario. What are we paying these Children's Services people FOR??? omg.

Anyway so the number was not for the center or the child's safety, it was so that if an incident like that happened again, the parent could reach center staff and not call the cops. Ha. Fat chance on that!!! They are insane, they really are. Those at the top sitting behind a desk making up rules that really do not work in real life.

Another thing we are finding more and more is a conflict between standard basic important regulations like staff:child ratio and the paperwork we have to do all the time. If our primary job is to look after these kids and keep them happy and safe while their parents are working, how can we do that while sitting down to fill out reams of paperwork, daily activity lists, program plans and observations, parent communication books, etc. It actually says that we are to be focused on the children. We are not counted as focused on the children if we are cleaning (you need to have an extra staff person for cleaning times), so how can we be counted as in ratio if we are staring at pieces of paper instead of watching the children? And if centers have to start hiring more staff to cover for when main staff are doing paperwork, the fees parents pay are going to skyrocket. We have kids that leave at 230, 300, 330, 400, 430, etc- so would I just basically get to sit in a chair for 3 hours or so writing on papers and communication books to have them ready for when mom/dad come, making $14/hr, while a casual staff member comes in for that time, making $9.hour but actually doing MY job of looking after the kids? something isn't right about that at all! But that is what it is coming to.

I know I rant about this topic a lot, but it's my blog and my job and I'm also a parent of 3, so it hits home a lot. I sometimes hope that other parents will come across this and think about what they are asking of their childcare centers because in the end, it is parents who are requesting a lot of this stuff. It sounds like a super great idea to have a little communication book to learn what your kiddo did all day, what/how much they ate, if they went outside to play, how long they slept, etc. But you also have to think about when that book will be filled out. And think about how the caregiver probably has between 5 and 9 other children in their group to do the same thing for each day (depending on the children's ages).... so if it takes me 3 mins to fill out your child's page, it will actually take between 15 and 27 mins to do them all. What are your children doing during that time? Who is watching them? Could we have done a fun craft or story instead, enjoyed by all the kids? Or should I just let them run around largely unwatched while I fill out those books, along with all the other paperwork required by the govt (cleaning checklists, sign in-out pages, developmental observations, program planning observations, etc). That could take up to an hour a day instead of me directly interacting with your child, not to mention keeping a proper eye on your child. I'm not sure how I could fill out an Incident Report if I didn't get to see who bit your child or why, when my nose was stuck in a pile of 8 books (that's how many kids are in my group).

It's tough. I know it's hard to be at work all day while your child is with someone else. But - that's one of the cold hard facts of life. If you are not with your child, you do not know what they are doing at any specific time. We do have an activity calendar posted that only ONE parent has ever read on a regular basis in the 16 years I have worked at the center. In fact, we used to do one calendar for each of the 3 groups and no one read it apart from this one mom, so after 20 years of the center being open, we changed 3 years ago to making one calendar for the whole center. We all use the same themes now and just expand the activities based on our own age groups. And still, only that one parent reads it but her son's last day was today so he could go off to kindergarten - so I guess that means no parent will read it.

Right beside it we have a permanent list detailing everything we do each day and what time. Example 730 to 900 Free Play. 9-930 Circle Story Time. 930-10 morning snack (snack menus are posted and Ive only seen 2 parents look at it one time each in the past 7 years!), 10-11 Free play... etc. Everything we do for each time slot of the day has always been posted one foot away from the parent sign in book but no one looks at it. Ever. Oh tell a lie, I had one parent actually ask for a copy of it and I thought that was cool so I ran to photocopy the original. That's it though - one parent.

So really, at the end of the day, we've had numerous parents ask us for communication books over the years but none of them actually seemed interested enough to take 5 seconds to look at the calendar wall. If they can't take 5 seconds to read that, why should I spend a half hour every day filling out books? It just frustrates me sometimes. Parents are welcome to pop in or call whenever they like but guess what? None do, or maybe just during the first week to make sure their child is settling in okay. After that, we never get calls. and in the past 13 years, only two parents have ever shown up just to hang out for awhile and then go back to work. Two. Out of well over 150 sets of parents.

We also had our yearly issue of asking parents daily for over two weeks to please send a swimsuit with their child so we could enjoy the hot weather. Guess how many days in August we got to swim? Two. We;ve had 30+ degree weather for 3 weeks but only two days we actually had enough kids bring suits so we could go out and have some fun in the pools and sprinklers. We had extra suits, but not enough for half the center! And at the end of this month we still had 4 children who never did bring one in.

We try hard. We really do. We love the kids and want to do things for them and with them that will be fun, great learning opportunities, memorable, safe, and again - fun. But we are thwarted at every turn by a large number of parents. Those that are really great and truly do take an interest in what their children are doing each day do not go unnoticed by us and we strive to help them out such as by taking photos during activities and then emailing them to each individual parent - that's always been a hit. But only a small handful say thank you or even acknowledge that they got the photos at all. I have spent my own time during lunch hours downloading and emailing photos because I can't really do that during work hours or I'm not with the kids - and I only get 1-3 thank you replies. The same parents each time. Out of 21 we have about 3 that really appreciate and understand and love what we do and I am sorry, but those are the only ones I would ever consider doing a communication book for. But the govt wants me to fill them out for everyone each day, and then all of the parents are going to have to pay higher fees to do it if we are to keep in regulation ratios. Enjoy!

We have also had the teacher's union style regulations come in that the director has to provide paid time for each main staffer to be able to program plan for the month(s) ahead. While doing this, she has to bring in replacement staff. That has caused a fee hike. But it gets peddled to parents as being great. I used to spend one lunch hour a month making my next month's theme. It was no skin off my nose. I was happy to do it during my lunch break. I worked 21 days on avg each month, so I didnt mind spending one doing a bit of work. I loved making my calendar and sticking in any new ideas I had about a theme. But I no longer do that on my lunch hours because the parents have been forced to pay for my replacement to come in while I do it, along with my other staff members at varying times each month.

I am truly waiting for the day when we are told we should just close one day a month for a Professional Development Day as well, like the schools do. That way, we can do some course work or program planning on our own time while getting paid. So that means parents would have less hours of child care, have to pay someone else to watch their kiddo that day or book the day off work and lose pay - all while NOT receiving a lower daycare fee cos we are still getting paid. I already know of some centers in my region that just closed for this whole week to 'get ready for back to school'. What is that all about? And I know of some that have had a staff meeting day every other month! They close the center at noon. Why? Because we are required to have staff meetings. So far we have gotten away with only having informal staff meetings during nap time because we are so small, but I bet we will be forced to have actual ones in the near future and provide Minutes and such as well. Most people do not want to be forced to attend a staff meeting after work hours anymore (i know I dont, because I have 3 kids and a spouse at home that I want to be with) - so that's why so many staff meetings now lead to the business closing early or for a whole day. Parents will get to pay for that as well.

It really has become a mess. I am not as happy in my job now as I used to be because my brain is on other things half the time, and I am also getting too close to not being able to afford childcare at the very center I work at! What is that about?I work in the second 'cheapest' center in town and can't afford it. Wow. My spouse and I both work full time and struggle with the daycare bill. That's pretty sad. But it comes down to a combination of govt rules, and things that have been peddled to parents as being Best for Your Child, and also some parent requests - lobbying the govt for even more rules and regs. It's getting to be a pretty sad state of affairs and I already know that once my youngest is in school, I am moving on to a different job. That gives me two more years to at least TRY to tell people what is going on and make them think about it before jumping on yet another bandwagon. I love working with kids so much, that is all ive ever wanted to do with my life. Ive been working with kids for over 20 years and never thought I would tire of it - but now I am. I do not think it's about hitting 40 and wanting a career change - I happen to think my job is one of the most important on the entire planet. I am in charge of keeping human beings safe and happy every day, while their parents are out there working, so they do not have to worry about them. I had terrible things happen to me as a child and I dont want that to happen to anyone else. I have spent the last 2 decades helping hundreds of kids and their families and that was very fulfilling until things started to go pear-shaped to the point where I no longer want to deal with it anymore. I am working with the kids, they make me laugh every day, I love to meet them and watch them grow and send them off to school like an auntie (or gramma lol), but I dont like everything else that has come with the job and my coworkers feel the same way. That's pretty darn sad :(

A funny thing happened on FB....

2011-08-17T23:34:00.000-06:00

For once this is not really a rant... just a funky weird thing that happened tonight courtesy of facebook, google search engine, and Kijiji ads..... I noticed when I logged into FB that a friend of mine posted that her friend came home from work tonight to find a dog locked in her backyard. A special breed, not one that 'everyone has', but still kinda common. She posted his specs and I reposted them on my profile page because I have lots of friends in the neighbouring town where this doggie was found. I figured 'hey, it's worth a shot. Small town, might find someone that knows who the dog's owner is'.

Less than 1 minute later, one of my friends posted a link she found on a kijiji ad that was only posted 2 hours earlier, showing a male dog of the same breed and color that they were trying to find a home for. The family posted that they were moving to BC and could not take the dog. But since the ad was only just posted like maybe an hour and a bit before the dog was found, I thought 'nah... that cant be the same one! the family would literally have been posting an ad to find him a new home while he was actually off galvanting loose around town'. .... but then I thought 'it's a small town though, and it's a bit weird to have a black male dog of this particular breed listed at the same time'.... so I went ahead and posted the kijiji link on my other friend's page.

Meanwhile, myself and my ad-finding-friend were saying it would be sad if this was indeed the same dog, how freaky it was the ad was just posted this evening, etc and whammo - the response comes back that the found-dog answers to the name of the ad-dog! Thank goodness they posted his name because that was the ultimate best way to test. A bit of an odd name for this kind of dog (part of the name is Pug, and this dog is NOT a pug lol)... so it was almost too good to be true! It's the same darn dog!

So thanks to FB, the rightful owner was found, but at the same time, the owner might get a nasty surprise the next time they check their email. The dog has a bum back leg covered in abscesses and the person who found him is a dog lover/owner and is NOT happy. She is taking him to the vet in the morning and will probably end up contacting the SPCA to see if she has to give the dog to it's owners or if they have some advice. Would you want to give this dog back if you found him in this condition and then found out that the family wants to give him away anyway?

Then I go back to my page and find that another friend from that town sees that dog running loose, alone, ALL the time. Just saw him running around tonight in fact, but it's far from the first time. She has wondered many times why his family lets him out like that, where he could get hurt or worse - hurt someone else and end up getting put down (because he is normally a very friendly dog according to those who have now encountered him). And now here he is, in someone else's locked (???) backyard on the very night the family offers him up to a new home.

Ya, I don't think this pup will be going back to his current owners. I think he will be fast tracked to a new home and who knows, his current owners could end up with a fine or worse. Not that I love all the animal bylaws out there - my old neighbourhood kids used to let my old dog out when I was at school or work and I paid over $300 in fines when the SPCA picked him up. That ticked me off because in my opinion, those kids vandalized and trespassed MY property by jimmying the locks no matter what we put on there to stop them, and then let my dog go out running. Luckily he was never hurt, but I was some ticked to have to pay over $100 each time for 'Dog Running At Large'. My dog was big so I remember joking with one officer that perhaps it should be called 'Large Dog Running'. He didn't laugh. What a grouch!

anyway aside from allll that - I just thought it was a pretty cool thing to happen. By chance a few people see the post and the mystery is solved in less than 3 minutes! Some people hate the internet and think it's a bad seed but I love it. It's great. I have found family members from my dad's side that I never knew existed or never thought I would find, just by clicking a few buttons on FB. I have discovered that my boyfriend's great grandfather was an MP in the early 1920s, the first MP for a particular party at that time in fact, and we found photos, info, etc that was super cool. And we found out about a doggie who appears to have been mistreated and will hopefully be going to a good happy home very soon :) But what were the chances of that eh???

BachPaulRomPerrEtc

2011-08-17T00:01:00.000-06:00

I have been watching a lot of my online friends across Canada and the US debating the various Republican hopefuls for the 2012 Presidential campaign. I have thrown in my own two cents a few times, but mostly, I've been sitting back and watching. the most interesting debates seem to come from the Bachmann vs Paul camps. It has really got me thinking about a lot of things - and many of those things are not good.

First off, I have to go back to the 2008 election in which of course Obama won but going back even before that, during the primaries, a lot of people were saying 'obama who?' because he was so unknown. Here he pops up against Hilary Clinton, whom everyone knows, and a lot of my friends who are now touting Bachmann were raving on and on about how little experience Obama had, how unknown he was prior to the primaries, and how he should not have even been in there because he had so little political experience, and very very little on the federal level (I believe only being in the senate since 2006/07?? forgive my brain malfunction).

Anyhow, fast forward to today, and I have a lot of friends pumping Bachmann. Who? Did they even know who she was 2 years ago? 1 year ago?? Seriously - I do not see a whole lot of difference between her political experience and Obama's. Yes, she was in the state senate for many years, but she has only been at the federal level since 2006 - about the same time as Obama. Does that make her suddenly more experienced? Because 5 years have passed instead of 1-2? Woooooo big difference. I would bet $$$ that half the people (or more) supporting her right now had absolutely no idea who she was 1-2 years ago. Yet they somehow see her been voted as the President of the United States next year?? Wow. I really do find that shocking. Personally, I cannot see myself saying 'President Bachmann' anytime soon. So why does she have such a huge following already? I don't get it.

Now, Ron Paul has been around for a very long time. Maybe a lot of his media coverage and things known about him by the general public are not all that great - but he has been in the political game on the state level and I believe a short stint here and there on the federal level since the 70s - and directly on a federal level for about 14 years now. Yet the Bachmann supporters cannot see "President Paul" in the future and say he is unelectable. Why? He has been elected in his riding over and over and over since 1997. He was elected in the 70s and 80s at the state level. His name is getting stronger and despite Bachmann being born in Iowa and buying her fans tickets during the leadup to the Iowa straw poll this past weekend, she only beat him by a mere 100 votes. Yet her supporters stand strong and firm that she is the ticket, she is 'the one'. Wow. That really shocks me.

But all Ron Paul stuff aside - I really have to wonder why some people do not see their own double standards. Slam the current president into the ground because of his 'inexperience' and then turn around and tout someone else who has only been in federal politics about the same amount of time as Obama. Call Obama an ideologue and then turn around and tout someone who has tried relentlessly to make gay marriage illegal (attempting several bills at her state level to make marriage between hetero couples only, for example, but failing). Back to Ron Paul - while he has stated his personal views that he believes marriage should be between a 'single man and a single woman', he does not believe that the federal govt has any say in that matter. He has also stated that he does not believe someone should have to acquire a marriage license and in a sense, permission to get married, from the govt. He has his personal values and beliefs, but is very careful on what the federal govt should be allowed to do about it. But he is a nutjob while Bachmann is in line to be the President of the United States, next year! - if you go with many (most?) of her supporters. Okay. Gee. Well....

it just baffles me, that's all.

I grew up in a Christian household and have my personal beliefs about religion - but one thing I decided a very long time ago, when I was 14 years old, was that it was not my business to expect anyone else to believe the same as me, or for me to force my beliefs on anyone else. That is how I feel about leaders of our countries as well. I don't give a rat's behind what religion they are - as long as they can manage to keep their political actions in line with what the govt is or is not allowed to do - without their personal/religious beliefs getting in the way. I argue with my mother several times a year over what she says to my children. It has boiled up to the point where I refused to let her see them for over a month because she was telling them that if they did not accept God into their lives at some point, they would go to hell. I was LIVID. SEETHING with anger at what she was trying to do to my kids. I left the church at 14 because I got sick of them telling me how to think, how to interpret the bible, how to counsel others (aka turn others to God, etc), and decided that what I believed within my own heart and soul was important, and not pushing it on others or having them push it on me - so why on earth would I think it's okay for the leader of my country, or by extension, the leader of the US, to push religious values on everyone - including people who are NOT of that religion at all? If I can barely stand it in my own small family unit, how can I think it would work on a national and international scale?

So to have someone so overtly Christian trying to push her values on her state over the years now trying to push them on the country as a whole... that just doesnt sit right with me. That is not what the govt is there for. I do not like abortion, I wish it was not an option other than in extreme cases (rape, incest, medical emergencies, etc), but I am not about to expect millions of other people to agree with me. It makes me sad, it makes me sick, I have given abortion awareness speeches in the past while in high school - but that is ME and MY belief - not everyone else's. Actually while I am on that topic - I personally do not believe abortion is a religious issue at all, I think it is a human issue and an important one - but again, I do not expect everyone to agree with me. I do not think the federal govt should be jumping around on the issue. How can the US possibly think that over 300 million people will eventually agree on it, or that their tiny percentage of representatives should decide it for them? But it becomes a hot button issue on both sides..... 'the left' saying that a woman's body is her own and she decides what to do with it and suffer no political or criminal consequences - akin to not wanting the fed govt to be involved - yet there is a huge cry-out if FEDERAL funding for planned parenthood or other women's clinics offering abortions is pulled. Sorry but you cannot have it both ways - you cannot say the feds should stay out of it, and then flip out if federal funding is cut. Duh?? Then 'the right' says abortions should be illegal - some riskier people saying even in rape cases, an abortion should not be legal because it's not the child's fault. Well I'm sorry but that should be up to the person involved. What if a married woman gets raped - she and her husband are supposed to go through this daily reminder of the assault by watching her stomach grow with 50% of the perpetrator's DNA growing inside? Gosh I can't imagine... each situation is case by case, individual - and while I cannot stand the idea in most cases, I cannot decide someone else's life for them. And neither should the government.

Everything has gone off the railes. the government has become the answer for everything! If there is a flood, in a low-lying area that has experienced floods before over and over, the people on tv say 'I hope the govt will provide aide'. Oh? Will that solve everything? Fix the house up so that it can be flooded out again next year? Yippppeeee! Somalia has been in turmoil for more than a decade and people forgot about it until it started showing up on the news again, so calls are coming in for aide. What happened to the aide that was sent years ago? What happened to the aide that has been sent every year since? If it didnt work 10 years ago, is it going to work now? Oh but the Canadian govt will match donations again! That worked for Haiti right? We sent about 150 million bucks there and it's all better now, right? What? It's not? It's still pretty much the same as it was 18 months ago? What? Oh and then there was the former Yugoslavia. I know that was going on for a few years before my oldest child was born because his father was sent to Bosnia for 6 months in 1997 to help with cleanup and restore things like telecommunications lines that had been destroyed. It's all better over there now though, right? What? There has been unrest brewing and fighting going on again? I saw that on a news ticker sneaking across the bottom of the screen last night - shhhhh don't tell anyone that our efforts over there 15 years ago have gone poof down the toilet, okay?

It's just relentless. Over and over. War, religious ideals, plain old regular ideals, rules, regulations, on and on it goes. When does it stop and how much are we supposed to allow or expect the federal govt to do, and how much are we willing to pay out of pocket for? I am mean - when people ask me if I am donating to the various 'Cause of the Week's, I say ' No thanks. I already did. The federal govt is sending my money over there on my behalf'. I get nasty stares but it is TRUE. I choose to donate locally, which may end up going to people who already receive govt assistance, but that is my choice. The feds and provincial and municipal govts already use some of my money however they see fit,giving it to various organizations I may or may not wish to support, so I think it is entirely fair to use more of my money how I see fit. Is that really so terrible?

Which brings me to my final rant - rules and regulations. Today my daycare had it's semi-annual inspection and we passed with flying colors, as usual. But at the end, the licensing officer made an interesting comment... we had 15 children (due to so many being on holiday, normally we have 21) and while we had the kids outside in the playground, she said 'It's a good thing you only have 15 today. 16 is the limit'.

I thought 'what the heck is she talking about?'. She pointed to a section on her list showing that we are only allowed to have 16 if we have a mixed age group. After she left, I dragged out the official Child Care Act and tried to make sense of what she said. Sure enough, buried deep in the umpteen zillion sections, I find a list showing that since we have a few children aged between 19 months and 3 years, when they are mixed with an older group of children, the total number cannot exceed 16 children - no matter how many staff we have on hand. Ok... but we are licensed for 21. So how does that work? It actually says that any group of children using any space in the center cannot exceed 18 (for the oldest children we can care for - up to age 6). So even if we only took children aged 4.5 to 6, we could not have more than 18 in 'a space'. Well - we have been open for almost 23 years now and we have never ever ever been told we cannot have more than 16 or 18 kids outside playing together at the same time. I have read those passages before, but I thought it meant in a group activity, or like in a classroom, etc. We split into groups of 6, 7, and 8 for our crafts, stories, etc. But when we play outside, we all go, or else the kids who are left indoors feel like the earth is falling down around them, or like they are being punished, left out, etc. We have a very small center with only one big room and 2 smaller rooms to play in - we all eat in the same kitchen area at 4 different tables, but still one 'space'. So what the heck does this regulation mean?

I would assume that in some centers, it has become a problem that older kids are barreling over toddlers and now they are cracking down on everyone and enforcing this regulation to the teeth - but how does that fare for a center who has NEVER had a child injured by a bigger kid running amuck? 23 years of doing this, and now we may be forced to change our tactics because of a few lines on a piece of paper? It is truly mindboggling.

This will also cause us some logistical problems. Let's say we split the groups and only send each out for a half hour. That does not work in a small center because, for example, if the carer outside has to use the washroom badly, she has to bring in all the children because there are no other adults outside to watch them. If the person left inside with a small group of children (ex, the toddlers) has to use the washroom, the same problems arises - no one is there to watch the kids. God help you if you have a sudden bad tummy and must dash to the potty! You cannot leave the kids alone, and you cannot take them outside or the other staffers will be 'over their limit' of 16. ARGH. Nothing in these kinds of regulations reflects real life. We only have 3 main staffers, one per group, and one part timer (me) who comes in from 11 to 3 to help with the lunch time rush, cleaning, and covering staff breaks. If my boss has to bring me in full time every day in order to keep up with this 'new' enforcement, the parents will have to pay a higher fee yet again. Maybe you don't care, but I do, because the govt is the one who made that regulation, not us. We try very hard to keep things as cheap as we can for parents but it's just not working anymore. We've had to increase fees 5 times in the last 5 years after going a decade without increasing ONCE! All largely thanks to govt interference. Now we may have to do it again. It's aggravating. I work there and bring my son there and can barely afford it already. How sad is that?? So after 22-23 years of service to the community, we are now left floundering a bit because of govt regulations that have never been brought up in the past. Were they not doing their job? Were we not doing our job? What happened? The licensing officer has been there before when we were totally full with 21 kids and all playing outside and she never said a thing. She sat right there on a bench watching us all and nope, nothing mentioned. The first thing they ask is how many kids we have, and how many of them are under 3, so it's not like they couldn't count or didn't realize. That has always been a standard Q when they show up. But today, for the first time ever, I was asked how many under 3, how many between 3 and 4.5, and how many over 4.5 I was like 'what? I don't know' and had to look at all the 4 year old's birthdays to figure out how many were over or under the 4.5 mark lol. I told her I have never been asked that EVER before and she just nodded. I know why - because they have only recently been told to take that regulation and enforce it to it's fullest, but she won't admit that out loud. No way. So she just pretended it was an every day normal thing instead. Our ratios at the center are always perfect or UNDER - never ever over, so I was thrown off. We can have 6 kids under 3 per staffer, so we only ever put 6 of them on our roster. We can have 8 between 3 and 4.5, and we can technically have ten between 4.5 and 6 but we only ever have 7 or 8 due to our space restriction of 21 total kiddos. So we have never been considered 'over ratio' in more than 2 decades - but suddenly now we are? WTF? I don't get it and it's going to give us a major headache until we can work around it.

Oh crap, now I thought of another rant. I was watching news about the horrible stage collapse in Indiana and it immediately reminded me of a similar event in Alberta a few years ago where the stage collapsed during the Big Valley Jamboree near Camrose, just as Kevin Costner and his band were set to perform in fact. A huge burst of wind tore it apart, injuring band members and killing a woman. Kevin Costner visited the injured people. I remember all that. But just in this past couple of weeks, a court found that the stage company was at fault, due to some whatever they found - perhaps some shoddy workmanship on the stage? some regulation they didnt' follow? Who knows - but whatever the case they are in trouble. And I wondered immediately if the same would happen to whoever put up the stage for the Sugarland concert. They should be warned! That's all I can say - but here is my rant. People were angry that the concert was not evacuated sooner. Um - were they all blind and deaf? No disrespect to blind and deaf people meant here - but those attending the concert were most likely capable of seeing the storm moving in, hearing the weather forecast before they left, checking their cell phone apps for the instant weather warnings and updates, perhaps getting IMs or emails on their cells from concerned family/friends - yet THEY CHOSE TO STAY THERE. I am not saying the people who were injured or died deserved what they got - it was a horrible thing to watch on the news. Unreal! But people are blaming the concert organizers? WHY? Do you need a concert organizer, a state fair rep, to come out on stage and tell you to evacuate? Or do you open your eyes and your ears and get the hell out of there all on your own with that awful black sky moving in over your head? Seriously people - not only are we hoping the govt is going to save us, but we are standing around like a bunch of cattle waiting for someone else to guide us, even if it's a concert rep at a state fair. PLEASE tell me I am wrong about this?? Big Valley Jamboree was the same - weather people had been watching this storm move in and warning that it might hit around Camrose during the concerts, but people chose to stay. I remember because my friend lived there at the time and was going to go but decided not to chance being stuck with thousands of other people during a storm, in the middle of a big field.... But with others, they stay and hope that they wont waste their ticket money, you stay because you really wanted to see 'that band', but when the crap hits the fan because a big storm is moving in and you can SEE it, you blame someone else for your misfortune? I really do not understand that. It's a terrible tragedy, but it's not like the stage fell down in the middle of perfect weather for no reason other than shoddy workmanship- the sky on those news vids is BLACK and rolling and horrible looking. I read that the wind might have been as high as 60-70MPH! Why do you need some announcer guy to come out to tell you to run? It reminds me of someone buying hot coffee and spilling it on their crotch while driving, and blaming the restaurant. Sorry - but it does.

Ok I should have made several different posts but it's too late now, and even though I thought of one more thing, I have to go to bed. Gotta work in 7 hours!

Cripes

2011-08-11T23:11:00.001-06:00

It has been so long since I posted, I don't even know where to start. I keep thinking 'i should blog about that', but then I don't get around to it and I forget lol. Oops! Too much going on - my brain goes into overload and then shuts down.

Some remarks that do come to mind though center around the markets - I wonder if the family members who laughed at my partner for saying gold would hit $2000 in the next few years are eating crow yet. My bf was quite offended during a normal conversation about politics, markets, etc when he was nearly laughed out of the room by two family members when he said that. This was about 2.5 years ago. Now gold is hovering between $1700 and $1800. Are they watching? Or are they secretly reiterating to others what my bf said and claiming it as their own prediction? Gee I wonder. My bf based his comment on listening to various people interested in this sort of thing, their predictions about the american dollar losing ground and gold rising steadily in response (to that and other events), but he was laughed at in front of a whole group of other family members at a holiday gathering. They said he was full of sh*t and then cut out of the rest of the conversation and even told that he was crazy. It was quite a rude night.... but now... hmmmmmmm CAW CAW.

Postal Strike - I read something maybe 2-3 years ago about Canada Post workers complaining about having to deliver so much 'junk mail' and how they thought it was bad for the environment because they know most of it just gets thrown out. Well, then it comes to pass that more and more people are sending emails instead of hand-written letters, more businesses are offering billing online instead of mailing them out, coupon places are offering online printing of select coupons so they do not have to waste money putting out mailers, not to mention all of the above hold environmental concerns for many - paper waste, extra garbage, etc... so then what happens? The possibility of cutting Canada Post delivery to 3 days a week comes up. Why? Because there is much less mail volume now and it's costing too much money to pay workers and their benefit and pension plans when not near as much money is coming in from people mailing items. Shouldn't those same complaining workers be HAPPY about this? After all, they were mightily concerned about the environment just a couple of years ago. They should be thrilled that so many people and companies are avoiding sending out unnecessary paper items in favor of saving the environment, right? Oh wait - noooo apparently they just meant that they want other people to lose their jobs in the name of the Planet - not them. Not the postal workers! No way! They do not want their pensions and work days reduced in order to save cost in response to lower mail volume. They want people to send less mail but the workers themselves to get more money and remain gainfully employed no matter what. "It's not for them, it's for YOU" ©Andrew Wilkow.

US Debt Crisis. Wow. It's a staggering amount of money. People have started throwing around the word 'trillion' as though it doesn't mean much more than 'billion'. Think Austin Powers movies here " I want one billion dollars!"...... "billion? Ha! That doesnt even exist yet in the 60s!". Well 50 movie years later we are now saying Trillion and letting it roll off our tongues like it's some normal number. When I was a kid in school, trillion was only something we learned a tiny bit about when learning what a million was, then a billion, and then it was like some space science lesson to learn about trillions and quadrillions. It was a fantasy number 20 years ago. Now it's 'just another number'. SCARY. But I have heard some people around the world, friends in Canada, Europe, Australia, etc laughing about it. Saying the US is getting what they deserve. Are these people on crack? For Canadians especially, the Americans are our bread and butter. A huge amount of what we make and process here goes to the US. We have a teeny tiny little population, the US has ten times that amount, and we sell our goods to them. If they are unable to buy it for much longer, what the hell are we going to do? Who are the car parts manufacturers in Ontario going to sell to? Alberta? Ummm no. Cos our truck fleets are greatest in the oil and gas industry and who do we sell to? Oh - the US. So if our rigs go down to skeleton crews or close, why would we be buying new fleets of trucks every couple of years from Ontario? Who are we going to truck our food items to? Our beef, grains, our water even? I am very worried about our American friends and neighbours, and ourselves. And I think everyone else should be as well.

No Smoking Laws. In September, my city is going to implement a bylaw that disallows smoking inside a vehicle where children under the age of 16 are present. I believe the fine will be $100. the original bylaw was supposed to be anyone under 18, and a $200 fine but it would not pass at that level so it was reduced slightly. My city will become the largest municipality in the province to do this, and the hopes are that it will be Alberta wide in due time. What is my problem with this? Well - it is further encroaching on private property for one. Your own car that you paid for, and you are being further dictated to about what you can and cannot do in it. How long before someone says that you cannot smoke in your home if you have children under age 16 or 18 living there? If people shake their heads and say that will not happen - think back 20 years and see if anyone back then thought that eventually they would be told not to smoke in their cars with their children. I bet you would see just as many head-shakes. So that is my first issue with it. But next, I wondered about how it will be enforced. My truck has tinted windows and you can vaguely see a car seat outline, but cannot tell if a child is actually sitting in the seat unless you get right up to the window and peer inside. We do not smoke in the truck when the kids are there - we didnt need anyone else to tell us that, it's just a choice we made. But what if my partner is driving to work one morning and a police officer sees the carseat, sees a smoke in my bf's hand, and puts on his lights and pulls him over. Why should that happen? He could be driving perfectly safely, not making any traffic violations, and still get pulled over because the officer sees a ciggy (oh no!) and then spies the outline of a carseat through the darkened windows (gasp! shock! horror!). Why should by bf be pulled over at the side of the road and approached by an officer with a gun at his hip just because he was holding a cigarette? I saw a car drive by me when I was walking, and a man was smoking while driving, and even standing right beside the car, I could not tell if there were kids in there or not because the windows were dark. Should that guy get pulled over too? Seriously - it's getting ridiculous and be assured they are not done yet. There will be more rules and bylaws and fines places on people in their own private vehicles (or homes). there WILL be. At what point do we draw the line? As someone in my city pointed out in a debate - if the issue is second-hand smoke, what difference will it really make if the child is in a home all day where the parent smokes like a chimney, and in the 2 min drive to the store and back, mommy and daddy don't light up, but do immediately upon returning home again. So - that is where this will come in eventually. No smoking in homes that have children. How will they enforce this? I have NO idea. But I am still not sure about the smoking in car thing either... they don't seem to catch the speeders or the people who practically run my kids and I down in crosswalks weekly, so how they will catch all those naughty smokers is beyond me. It's just another form of control, mind control, and a way to make a few bucks for those they 'catch'. Spare me.

Check Stops. The smoking thing brought another issue to my mind again. Check Stops. For years I didnt mind them - I just thought they would get a few more drunk drivers off the streets and that is good right? But now I think about the millions of law abiding citizens who are pulled over every year in North America, delayed on their journeys, questioned about where they are going and where they just came from, lights shined in their eyes and around the interior of the vehicles, all in the name of 'safety'. I read recently on a long weekend in my city that they stopped 1200 cars and found no one over the limit. They were happy to see that people were not drunk driving through that check stop... 1200+ people stopped for NO reason. 1200+ people questioned and 'detained' against their will for NO reason. Yes it is detained against their will cos just try driving straight through a check stop without stopping one of these days and see what happens :) Or try turning your car around when you see it - and watch an officer jump in his car and chase you down to see why you turned. Maybe you turned cos you fricken wanted to get to your friend's house for coffee and are tired of this sh*t - but you tell them that and they think you are being unruly and beligerant. Gee thanks officer. As for me, I've never drank and drove ever ever ever in my life. Not even after one single drink, let alone more than that. But I could theoretically be stopped every weekend for 50 years just to make sure I didnt decide to tank up and drive one night. Is that necessary? Is that fair and just? To be PRESUMED ahead of time to be a potential drunk driver, even if you never have in your life and never plan to? I've had flashlights half blind me on several occasions as a passenger, let alone as a driver. Why do we put up with this stuff, seriously? My friend's husband is a cop and he admitted several times that they very rarely catch drunk drivers at a check stop. Most of their calls come in from the public, reporting an erratic driver, or from police themselves seeing an erratic driver. IE - someone who IS violating traffic rules or weaving back and forth across the road, or accelerating and deccelerating for no apparent reason, or any number of other cues that the person might be intoxicated. Not people out for a Sat night drive and getting stuck in a Check Stop. The great majority of collars are found by other means.

there are Apps out there that list where check stops are, and some govt and police agencies want these Apps removed. Well since the majority of people going through them are NOT drunk drivers, why not let those people avoid a potentially long delay and take a different route to their friend's house for coffee? If I have been out for a long day with my kids and am just trying to get home and put them to bed, why shouldn't I have the chance to know that I shouldnt take 13th street because I will be held up for 20-30 mins while they stop everyone? And a lot of drunk drivers are so drunk, they dont even see the problem with driving, so are they going to check their App and say 'oops, I am really drunk, so I better avoid 13th street on the way home'? I mean, really. The majority of people these Check Stops check are law abiding honest citizens who really should not be pulled over by gun toting police officers. At least, that is my opinion.

And before you think I am heartless and don't care about drunk driving incidents - Two of my high school friends were killed by drunk drivers, as well as a friend's younger brother. It was a horrible few years. Funerals here there and everywhere. Awful painful horrible stuff..... But today I watched a news piece about a woman driving while wearing flipflops and it appears that her flipflop fell off and got stuck around the gas pedal. She accelerated and crashed into three elderly people and KILLED them all. How shocking and horrific must that have been? I have heard many stories over the years about shoes getting caught up under gas pedals and bad things happening - so perhaps we should think about making it against the law to drive while wearing shoes. And while we are at it, maybe get rid of floor mats too because they have caused problems as well if they ride up under the gas pedal. Those new laws would save lives every year too. Would you like to go through a checkstop where they looked at your feet and your eyes? Two for one check stops!

Soy?

2011-06-16T23:42:00.000-06:00

I had an interesting chat with a friend's mom today. My friend had breast cancer in her early 30s and now one of her friends has a whole host of cancer running amuck in her body, in her mid-30s. Apparently a few weeks ago while my friend was visiting her other pal in the hospital, the oncologist came in to have a little discussion about their diets. Both women started being vegetarians in their teens and consume a great deal of soy products such as soy milk, soy 'cheese', tofu, etc. He talked to them about soy being high in estrogen (or, to be more precise, the plant's version of soy) and apparently over the years he has been seeing more and more young women being diagnosed with estrogen-based-cancers who are also living a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. He is taking a closer look at this, I think on a personal level for now rather than a full scale medical study. But this is an oncologist and he is starting to wonder what's going on.

I don't really like soy products. I've tried to be on the bandwagon a few times since it's been so heavily advertised as being healthier for the body, so I've bought soy milk, ate tofu, 'garden burgers', etc... but I never like it that much so I gave up eventually. Because of that, I've never really looked into it either. But to be honest, it would not surprise me in the least if something happened eventually to show that 'whoops, too much soy can cause problems'.

Another interesting story came from yet another friend. Her husband became lactose intolerant suddenly about 18 months ago so he immediately changed to soy products. About 6 months later, his wife noticed that he had little boobies. She didn't say anything at first, just thought that he was perhaps showing his age and less active due to his job (long hours driving).... But then the little boobies were sticking out (and hanging!) enough that he started to get embarrassed and would wear two shirts - a tighter tshirt or sleeveless shirt - under whatever else he was wearing because he didn't want anyone to see his new rack. They were just little, floppy things, but finally his wife went up to them and flicked them around and said 'what the hell are these things???'. Something weird seemed to be going on. He was not gaining weight and is actually very thin and tall... but here were these boobies and he was only 35 years old..... active when he wasn't at work (baseball, soccer, hockey, etc).... She started looking online for hormone problems and stumbled across an article about soy and estrogen. Upon further checking, she found that there doesnt seem to be any real consensus on the subject but decided to err on the side of caution and threw out everything soy in their home. She switched to buying Lactaid for his intolerance and other products for that affliction that do NOT include soy..... and within 6 weeks, his boobies were completely gone and have not returned in the past almost-year.

Could it be a coincidence? Maybe. But it sure seems a bit odd. I did a little looking around online tonight and found the same thing - some sites cautioning about injesting too much soy, and others saying that there is no proof. What seemed to be a common 'reason' for soy being safe was it's widespread use in Asian countries. Well hey, they don't seem to be having an issue, so it can't be true, right? Those naysayers must just be cattle owners in disguise, trying to sell their beef by scaring people about soy, right?

Well I found a link that seems to be very fair and interesting and also covers that common 'reason'. Soy:Friend or Foe? at Earthsave Canada. In there, it discusses that overseas, many people (or most?) use soy products as a side-dish, a condiment, an extra part of their main meal. Not THE main meal like so many over here seem to be doing. I had dinner at my friend's house (the breast cancer survivor) one night and she made spaghetti with tofu chunks instead of meat. Then we had soy milk and a small soy shake, the 'cheese' sprinkled on the meal was grated soy cheese something-or-other, and we had soy based 'ice cream' for dessert. She eats like that all the time. Every single day. For the past almost 20 years. I always thought she was the healthiest person in the bunch until I read some things online. If this Friend Or Foe article is correct, she could be injesting entirely too much soy as well as causing possible blockage of certain nutrients if she is not watching the products she buys. I *think* she buys all organic but I don't stick my head in her fridge and cupboards and read all the labels, so who knows. But it's just something interesting.

I am a meat eater. I eat some sort of meat every single day. So do my kids. We eat beef and pork on a weekly basis, and throw in chicken at least 2-3 times a month (used to be more but it's dang expensive these days). Sometimes I think 'my god, am I doing this right??' because I hear so much anti-meat and especially anti-red-meat media out there... but then I look back. My oldest is almost 14 years old and has literally not been to the doctor in 7 years. My doc saw him in 2004 for a checkup and bloodwork but that was the last time. Oh tell a lie, he went to the walkin clinic twice for an ear infection that same year, but that was the last incident of that. He has only missed 3 days of school in the past 7 years due to illness as well (the flu kicked his butt once). He is 5'10 and weighs 172lbs and is a size 11 shoe. He eats as much as a full grown man easily (and more).

My daughter is almost 9 and has missed 2 days of school in 4 years due to illness. She has never even met our family doctor because I've only had to take her to the walkin clinic once in the past 6 years. In 2004 she had a nasty bout of bladder infections but she was still in diapers at the time and that can happen. She has only had one prescription medication in 6 years, and that was last month for an infected baby tooth socket. That's it.

My youngest is 3 and has had a couple ear infections and used to be on inhalers for his lungs, but he was born 7 weeks premature and that's not uncommon. He has never met our family doc and has not seen his pediatrition in 1.5 years. I missed one day of work in the past 2 years for him being sick (the flu) and that's it. He gets colds but nothing like when he was a baby and his bronchial airways were underformed. Now everything has been great (knock on wood).

So when I look at all that, I think that perhaps I am not doing anything wrong at all. The media and pressure to give up meat and 'eat healthy' is not going to sway me. I am not saying that eating tofu is bad but I think that some more research needs to be done. People worry about growth hormones in milk but what about estrogen levels in soy? There is a saying - 'too much of a good thing' that comes to mind here. It reminds me of the days when butter was on the chopping block - blamed for being too high in fat and blah blah blah so then came the big birth of Margarine. What happened decades later? Oh gee - margarine too high in transfats and being blamed for heart attacks and strokes and high cholesterol... Maybe we should have stuck with butter. Just in moderation.

Will it be the same for soy? Is eating it for breakfast lunch and supper every day a good thing? Or could it be posing a problem for people?

gee what a suprise... more daycare regulations? shock! horror!

2011-06-01T23:10:00.002-06:00

So, I was reading the news online tonight and what did I see? Some parents and daycare staff in an uproar in Quebec due to a new initiative/regulation where SUBSIDIZED daycares are no longer allowed to have any reference to religion in their teachings. You can read about it HERE.

Now, what have I been saying over and over in previous posts about a 'national daycare program' like Quebec's where parents may only have to pay $7 a day? Gee let me think......... oh yes, I was saying that the more you let the govt in, the more control they will take. I listed examples of what is already happening in centers that do NOT have this program, and said that it would allow them in even more. Why not? They supply the money, so they ARE going to want a say in how everything is run. This is another example - yet parents and directors and organizations are in an uproar.

Honestly - what the hell did they think was going to happen? Gee was that a religious reference because I said hell? But SERIOUSLY - what on earth did they think was going to happen?

Now those of you who really dont care if the kids are taught religion or not might not give a hoot. Many of you would prefer that they not teach it at all in any way, shape, or form. But take a step back for a minute and think about where a lot of daycares are centered - IN churches. So now, they are saying that even those centers based right IN a church can no longer talk about religion at all? Even though parents that take their children there may WANT that and that is why they chose such a place? Even if parents going there do not mind whether they are religious or not? What about those centers? If they bought into the $7 a day system, they can no longer do that. No more churchy sing songs with the kids. No more Nativity scenes, stories, plays, or music at Christmas. No more religious talk about Easter.

When do you think it will happen that centers wont be able to talk about any holiday at all, not even secular Santa or Easter Bunny or Leprechauns or Halloween.... if you are sitting there shaking your head right now and saying THAT will never happen ---- do you think church-run daycares ever anticipated the day they would no longer be allowed to reference religion under their own roof? And now think about how many schools have already changed - such as having a Winter Holiday Concert instead of a Christmas Concert. Or how about a news piece I read this Easter about a school district in the states that started making 'Spring Globes' instead of Easter Eggs? It's already happening more and more where so-called public schools that we all pay for are being forced to change their curriculum and tactics where holidays are concerned. So why not find out that your 2 year old can no longer talk about Santa with excitement at their daycare center because the government won't allow it?

I have warned and warned and warned people for YEARS about this, but they just go into it blindly and cheer about it... until something like this happens and then they act shocked. It's mental.

In a slightly related note, I also talked previously about daycare fees, costs, etc and there are rumors going around that Alberta may raise it's minimum wage again soon. BC and Sask are apparently raising theirs, which would officially make Alberta the lowest minimum wage province in the country. The talk seems to be about going up 20 cents an hour to an even 9 bucks.

Guess what the very first thing my boss said was when a coworker mentioned that this afternoon? She said she would have to RAISE THE FEES parents pay in order to make this work because we are on the breadline already each month, and two staff members are about to hit the 5 year mark which means an extra 2% is added to their cheques each month to cover Vacation Pay as per Alberta's labour standards. That coupled with a hike in min wage would us back in the red, so she immediately talked about raising the fee 10 a month and had me go online to see if I could find any information.

That may not seem like 'much' to raise it ten bucks. However let's break it down in accordance with our minimum-wage-earning parents. 20 cents an hour raise would mean it takes 5 hours to make a whole dollar..... if we raise our fees by 10 bucks a month, each parent will automatically be using 50 hours of their new 'raise' each month to pay for the fee rise. So, in effect, they LOSE 50 hours of their new min wage each and every month just to the daycare alone. That isnt counting if other places will end up putting their prices up too. Food, gas, clothing, utilities, etc. Who knows - it's anyone's guess every time min wage goes up. So is their 'raise' actually going to DO anything? Or are they going to be exactly where they have been all along - struggling month after month after month? I think the latter. If someone were to suggest that my boss not increase fees just because of min wage hikes, how do they propose she pay her staff and run the center then? If food and other such costs more, we get hit too because everyone else raised their fees except us, and us staffers dont get a minor raise to help compensate - so she could end up losing staff that have worked there for YEARS and YEARS and that's just not good business sense. That is why so many places end up putting up their prices when min wage goes up. They have to pay their workers, just like their customers are getting paid. It's not hard to figure this stuff out but too many do not connect the dots and it makes me crazy.

I have also posted in the past about how when min wage was around $6.50/hour in the late 90s, early 2000s, I was a single mom with one toddler. I paid for an apartment on my own, bought my bus pass each month, bought all my groceries, etc etc. Now if I was making the current minimum wage of $8.80/hour, I would NOT be able to do those things. How could I make over $2 an hour MORE and NOT be able to live like I used to? An extra almost $400 a MONTH but I could not afford an apartment on my own if I hoped to be able to feed my kid too? Why is that? Costs keep increasing, and raising minimum wage does NOT help. It is proven endlessly, yet it still keeps happening and people keep begging for it. WOOO an extra 20 cents and hour, to pay for the raise in price of everything, so I STILL dont have enough money to live on properly. wow. That's exciting.

It is all relative. The govt messes up almost everything it touches and people complain about it left and right, yet the very next day they will cry out for the govt to 'do something' and to 'help us' and somehow expect the outcome to be different this time. Isn't that the real definition of stupid? Doing the same thing wrong over and over, but expecting a different result?

The people of Quebec that supported National Daycare were clapping themselves on the back for their great accomplishment, their system has been used by the Liberals and NDP as an example of what they want for all of Canada - and now some are crying foul due to more regulations. I am still waiting for the answers to all of the questions I posted previously about the system and have received NONE from any of the readers (as in, no answers to the actual questions). And now I can point to a link proving one of the main things I talked about - more govt control over daycares and your children, instead of 'Choice for Childcare' that was aimed at parents. Choice my a$$.
______________
As a late addition, let me add that I have worked in childcare centers since 1993 or so, and I have never ever ever had a parent calling for a space ask me if we teach anything to do with religion. Never. I've never had a parent ask it after registering or at any time during the years the child is there either. Even parents who were JW just simply stated that they don't do birthday celebrations and would appreciate if we didnt do a little party like usual, and informed us that their kids would not be attending on Halloween party day or any other similar days. We were never specificially asked about our religious content. As it happens, we choose not to teach or read or sing anything about religion at all because none of us is very religious anyway and it's just the director's personal choice. There are plenty of other things to read and talk about. But when my kids went to summer camp, I put them in a program near my house and work that was based in a church. I knew they would probably learn about some religion here and there, and didnt mind. If I did not want them to learn about religion, I would not put them in a church-based daycare lol. Easy as pie. So why is it that the govt feels the need to step in like this? If parents are so concerned, they should add that to their list of questions when looking for childcare. If all the non-religious centers are full and only religious centers have spaces when a parent is looking around, then they have to come to a decision don't they? Shouldn't they? Either put their child in a church daycare and deal with it until they find a space somewhere else, or look for a dayhome or private sitter in the meantime. Why push ALL centers receiving this govt subsidy to be the same and take those choices away from ALL parents instead of the ones who have obviously been complaining about it and calling upon the govt to 'do something'? But that's what the govt does. Give an inch, take a mile, etc etc.

The Bag Lady

2011-05-24T22:40:00.000-06:00

Okay, so today my boss went to our local supermarket and got quite a shock. There was a new cashier on that she had never seen before. She was around age 40, my boss noted, because she was checking out the woman's various facial piercings. My boss totally dislikes all tattoos and body piercings, so she was paying attention to all that and then blind-sided by what happened next.

Keep in mind that this was a higher-end supermarket, not a cheap-o discount one. This place does not charge for its plastic shopping bags, just suggests via signs that people can pick up the 'enviro friendly' (ha what a joke) bags. So my boss was buying several heavy cans and two jugs of milk, and asked the cashier to please double-bag them.

The woman refused. She said it's not environmentally friendly and carried on packing. My boss was rather floored. She saw that the woman had put ALL the cans into one bag, so she asked again to please double-bag that because the plastic is so thin, there's no way it will hold. The cashier again said that it was 'not good for the environment' and carried on. My boss was stunned. She is a very friendly nice woman who hates to cause trouble (aka a wimp lol), so she didnt say anything.... but then the woman got to her milk and my boss asked her to double bag those as well. By this time my boss somehow thought the woman WAS actually double-bagging, assuming that she was making a tsk-tsk comment (still unprofessional, but whatever).... and paid the bill and left. At this store they still pack your cart for you too. It wasnt until she reached her car that she realized NONE of the stuff was double bagged.

And sure as sh*t, when she got home and grabbed the bag of cans, it ripped to shreds and sent cans rolling down her driveway and into the nice mudpuddle at the bottom. Yeah, she could have been more careful, but that's not the point. Those thin bags rip on me all the time if I forget my own bags, or they have a *gasp* cardboard box in there that slices through. But the point is that the cashier outright refused to follow a customer's request based on her own idealogy.

Boy I can't WAIT to go in there next time and see if that woman is there cos I will go to her till and request double bags and see what happens. My boss should have complained, asked to speak to a manager, pack up her stuff and go to another til, and/or phoned the store when she got home. She didnt because as I said, she hates to cause trouble, but that is her choice. My choice would be different.

What the hell is going on with people these days? That woman is paid to do her job, not tut-tut people for using plastic bags. If she doesnt like it, why is she even there? I would love to know if she does it to others and then gets the riot-act read to her. She should go work at a place that charges for bags, or does not offer plastic at all, if that's what she believes. I wish I could call about this myself, but I am just an ear. I was not there and didnt see it, but I believe my boss. She has never told a story like that before and still seemed stunned when she came back to work.

Give Them An Inch...

2011-05-24T22:09:00.000-06:00

You know that old saying - give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.

This always bodes true with the topic I covered in my last post (and several others), concerning the idea of Universal Daycare programming in Canada.

We had a lengthy chat about the idea at work today and the completely agreed idea between all staff members was that while it sounds like it would be a good idea for families who are struggling, they really have no idea what it could really mean to the whole system.

We started off discussing the fact that many families, especially ones in the lower end of the 'middle income' bracket, were having a hard time because the cost of childcare can take a huge chunk from their earnings and make it a continual struggle. For example, I work part time but the amount of hours my son attends the center each month hovers right around the 100 hour mark, which is considered full time. I bring home about $1000 to $1300 a month after deductions each month, but a full time space is $640. It seems ridiculous for me to work 21 days a month and only have $400 to $700 left after paying daycare. It is a constant struggle and I go through this every month just like everyone else.

But I see both sides of the coin, which is an uncommon perspective and I think it gives me a much greater understanding of how everything works. All talk of 'tax payers dollars' aside, this is what we discussed further: the after effects of accepting 'govt funding'....

About 6 years ago, Alberta started a program for Accreditation of daycares and registered dayhomes. In order to receive the Staff Wage Enhancement funding and other such funding goodies (like Program Funding, Technological Funding, etc), a center now needed to be Accredited. It was a choice - but at the same time, a campaign was started across the province to guide parents into looking for 'Accredited' centers.

What is accreditation? It's something above and beyond the regular, basic requirements for daycares and dayhomes. You pick some goals to achieve each year (which might be updating daycare furniture, buying more preschool toys and games, etc) and then prove that you have done this the following year. There is more to it than that - the first year and then every 3 years after that, 'Validation Experts' visit each center to check on everything and see if the proof is really there, blah blah blah. This is on top of and separate from the regular inspections that each center has each year from the Daycare Licensing Expert, Health Inspector, Fire Inspector, etc. This is to get centers and dayhomes to work 'beyond' the basic requirements.

Okay so we agreed to do it because it seemed like if we didn't, we would 'look bad'. "Oh - your center is not accredited? Well I won't have my child going to a place like THAT!". We worried it would effect our business AND that it could become something that turned into a requirement in the future, rather than a 'choice'. So we did it, ended up as one of the first 150 centers in the province to achieve it, and we are just into our 5th year now. Yay us, right?

Um... not always. It seemed like every time we improved or achieved a goal, they would just want more. For example - we used to have lots of cute little pictures up on the walls that we purchased in those typical school packs but they were like drawings, cartoony type pictures. For accreditation, we were told that it should be REAL photos of children, to help them 'relate' more. So down came our cartoons and we went around for the next year finding photograph-style posters. Yay us.

Oh - not quite. Next year, we were told that we did not have enough cultures represented in our photographs. So for our next goal, we made up all sorts of posters, theme walls, etc showing as many different cultures as we could possibly fit. We also bought more multicultural toys, books, instruments, costumes, dolls, etc. We bought display cases for those cute collectable dolls showcasing, again, as many cultures as we could fit on the 12 shelves. Yay us!

Oh - not quite. Next year, we were told that we didnt have enough 'differing abilities' shown on our walls, toys and books. So yes - off we went finding more. Pictures of children with seeing eye dogs, wheel chairs, leg braces, etc. Those went up on the walls too (with the added challenge of representing many cultures as well within THOSE specialized photos). We got out our books and toys to show that indeed we DID actually have things for differing abilities that the inspector had overlooked (and not asked for, only adding to the final report that we did NOT have them).....

So there we sat with umpteen zillion photos covering every piece of wall space. It was cluttered and made all the rooms look 10 times smaller. But yay us.

Oh - not quite. Next year, we were told that we did not have enough artwork done by the children showcased. Oh really? Well where the hell are we going to put it????? We were told that we should have more photos of the current children on the walls (we did this every year for the past lord-only-knows how long, but had run out of room with the new additions so were reduced to two story boards of our kids' photos)....

Now we are one year away from our next official site visit and you know what we did? We took it ALL down. Everything. All of the photos of various cultures, abilities, 'real' photos, are gone. We were repainting the daycare as another goal and decided that we were not going to put it all back up. Now we are back to nice clean walls with children's artwork displayed in appropriate places, and cute fun cartoony type things on the wall but NOT people/children. Only fun little animals, book-reading monsters in story corner, etc. We put everything else into little books and binders that are available for the children to peruse whenever they like. Small photos put onto jump-rings to make them into flip books. And we feel SO much better. It's not so claustrophobic in there now.

But we have to admit, we are a bit concerned about the visit next year. Will they notice? Will they complain? The way we see it, if we take it all down, they don't see all the different multi-levels to one-up us with every year. We are supposed to be concentrating on helping these young kiddos be ready for school, have a safe place to play and learn while their parents are at work, and help them with any of their difficulties. Why should we be freaking out about not having enough of whatever it is the inspectors decide we should have. It's nowhere in the regulations and I think we go above and beyond those basic regulations every single day as it is. Small center, more staff than required, extremely long-term reliable staff in fact, and a family atmosphere where every parent knows every staff member on site and vice versa. Is our center 'bad' or 'sub-par' because the walls are not buried under hundreds of photos from around the world? Is it below-standard because we like to have nice bright cheery walls that make the space appear even larger, and an easy focus on the kids' own work on the bulletin boards? It was like sensory overload in there for the past 5 years. It feels refreshing and light now.

So we shall see what happens. In the meantime, we spent almost a grand on new chairs and a new table, put in new carpets that are softer, bought a honking huge new train table, got cool coloured sand for the indoor tables, bought new science kits and magnet sets, we have books completely up the wazoo because we are addicted to Scholastic. And the three story gorgeous new play house for 12 inch figures (cant call it a Barbie house cos that's sexist, or something, even though all the kids and parents call it that lol).... we've bought new outdoor equipment, entirely new kitchen center sets, and so on - but all of that got ignored over the years because of the focus that was on our walls.

If we do not pass accreditation, we lose a lot of funding including the staff wage enhancement. Some might say 'oh well, too bad, it's tax payer dollars anyway'. Yes it is and I agree, but this is where the govt gets you over a barrel with enticing little games of funding and benefits - take it away and we either have to all take a pay cut that puts us dangerously close to minimum wage after being there 10 years each, or we have to increase the parent's monthly fee, which hurts their finances. Ouch. It SUCKS and I wish we had never gotten involved in the first place, but we felt forced. There are booklets out and about for parents detailing how accredited centers are so great, entire walls at parent groups detailing it, and we now get phone calls from parents asking if we are accredited.

Guess what? We are the same center with the same staff, in the same building, always purchasing improvements whenever money is available, the same in every way as we were BEFORE there was such a thing as accreditation - but parents are taught now to shy away from 'those unaccredited centers'. So here we are, and we are stuck. But we learned something - if the govt gives you money, they take more control with every dollar chucked your way.

The consensus at work today during this discussion was absolutely completely that if a govt gets in one day that pushes Universal Daycare, we will close. One staff member said "I am GONE" before the question was fully asked. We have lived first hand what can happen as more and more funding is promised and we felt like we were under a microscope for all the wrong reasons that whole time.... My question was "If we are feeling unreasonable pressure from what little amount of funding we get TODAY, what will happen if the govt is giving us over 90% of our monthly income?". And my coworker said "I am GONE" about 2 seconds before the director said "I will have to close my doors".

That is pretty darn sad.

&#%^&^&(

2011-05-22T23:43:00.002-06:00

Yes that is me saying a very very bad word. Several of them actually. I have to vent here because I have been unable to sleep for so many nights now, I thought perhaps complaining in here might help relieve my brain a little bit more.

I am SO sick of all the changes in various govt programs and having to wade through the mire while trying to get things done. This particular issue centers around getting my oldest son's passport renewal. This is something that I have done 3 times now (including his first one) and had NO problems in the past (as in, received on time, etc) but now things are going haywire and I think I'm about to end up with an ulcer and a hernia from the stress and anxiety and FRUSTRATION.

You see, my son was born in England while I was living there for a couple of years. I moved back to Canada with him when he was 9 months old and he has been here ever since. I have run into slight issues in the past when traveling with him overseas to visit his father because the initial customs folk would see my Canadian passport and his British one and then request uber amounts of documents proving that I am allowed to bring him into the country. That's fine, I always carry them with me when traveling anyway (notarized letters, divorce and custody papers, etc). They always send me to the longggg customs line up and when I finally get to the desk, that official always sends us through immediately because I am Canadian and by extension, so is my son.

I have had conflicting information over the years from various Customs and Immigration officials (oh gee - surprised? A govt organization giving out completely conflicting info? NO! That cannot be!! lol)... going from one saying that Canada does not allow Dual Citizenship with ANY country and I would have to formally recind his british citizenship before being to apply for Canadian on his behalf - even though at that exact moment I was staring at a webpage on the official Immigration website that listed dozens of countries under a heading saying Allows Dual Citizenship With..... lol.

Then I have been told that I do not have to worry about any of that, just to make sure I have other documents like my birth certificate, his birth certificate, etc while traveling.... Then I have been told that he has to be listed as a Permanent Resident and have a special card... then I have been told that he is NOT a 'Permanent Resident, he is considered Canadian due to my birthplace as well as him being naturalized for the past 13 years straight'. blah blah.

Basically a total nightmare so I have always just kept his British passport as his main form of travel ID. I would send off to the British High Commission in Ottawa for the renewal every 5 years and all was well.

Until now. Sometime since 2006, the UK decided to 'streamline' it's passport application system and now everyone outside of Britian has to send their application to the British Embassy in Washington DC. Now begins my nightmare.

A renewal is only supposed to take 4 weeks. They received the application on March 11 and it is still 'in processing'. I waited past the suggested time of 20 working days past the application's received date before phoning - only to find that the ONLY numbers you can call are premium rate and done by a company IN the united kingdom, and cost $3 per minute.

Yes.... I call the number and am ON HOLD for over 20 minutes before speaking to a human. The call cost me $60 before I even got started. This is very distressing to me. I already forked out $152 for the application (almost 4 times the cost of a Canadian Child Passport), $25 for the courier fee, and now I am forking out well over a hundred dollars so far for phone calls that are not getting me anywhere.

I have been almost sick about this because my son's flight is in 6 weeks. He is going to visit his dad for a month. This is something I fully support and am glad about because so many parents out there do not get along and one parent leaves into the sunset and the child is left blaming himself. I refuse to do that so I heavily support any and all time they get to spend together - but now this and $1800 in flight costs (paid by his father), and several hundred in costs to me for all this muck, is in trouble.

I have tried 3 other ways to contact the Embassy so far but each time I am given the message that the ONLY way to reach them is to call those ridiculous phone numbers that cost so much. The line that costs 69p plus VAT is by credit card only, the premium line comes on your phone bill. Eenie Meenie Minie Moe... which bill will I rack up today while trying to find out why my son's passport application seems to be stalled for 10 11 12 weeks.

But really, my frustration is over this whole system all together. You have to practically beat your own brains out to try to manouver around any govt program these days, whether it is Worker's Comp, EI, Retirement, Citizenship, Immigration, etc. And yet people want even MORE govt programs brought in? Are you freaking kidding me? I have been through the gambit in many different situations but this one takes the cake.

I cannot stand being alone when it's quiet at night time because my gut instantly turns inside out and I feel the anxiety pains rising because I feel completely out of control of this situation. They have MY money and MY original documents in their possession and I cannot find anyone who is willing to answer the simplest of questions. It is frustrating. No wonder it drives some people to drink or worse. Seriously.

I attempted to get my son a Canadian passport instead, because all these years customs officials kept telling me he IS Canadian... but I come to find that I need a special 'certificate of citizenship' first, that costs $75 and needs completely different sized photos which were another added cost of course - and this can take 10 MONTHS to complete unless they agree to an Urgency request via a letter I am supposed to include.... What takes 10 months to look at my original birth certificate, look at my son's, look at his Alberta Health Care card and know it was requested in the second week of May 1998, his school education number that shows he has been schooled in Canada every single year and is completing Grade 8 right now.... why would it take 10 months to do that? When I am the one who has to send in all these documents and they dont even have to look them up? Oh yeah - it's because it's a govt program.

I am going to attempt to call the British High Commission in Ottawa to see if they have any advice or pull, and see if I can contact the Embassy in Washington on their direct line for the same. But I am not holding my breath. Each time I call the crazy cost number, I am told it is still in processing and to call back 'in a couple of weeks'. How many times do I have to do that when I need this thing done, mailed back to me, etc in under 5 weeks? I am at a loss over what to do and it just makes me livid. As with everything else these days, the costs go up but the service goes down - and it effects people's lives but the govt doesnt take that into account. They hear all these sob stories every day and lose their ability for apathy and concern. But hey - let's just keep all that going and add even more programs all the time, because surely the govt has proven itself to be so good at their other responsibilities.

PS - I will not be able to get a Canadian passport in time for my son's flight so if the british one does not show up, I have no idea what we are going to do.

More on Universal Daycare

2011-05-21T15:22:00.001-06:00

This topic highly interests me so I have been spending ages looking for more information on the Liberal plan to have a Universal Daycare Program across Canada. I am coming up blank on some very important issues. Has anyone else found anything concrete or just 'numbers'?? I can find all sorts of mentions of various totals the program was supposed to have (anywhere from $500 million to $2 billion) but even then, I cannot find for sure if that was supposed to be yearly, over 5 years, or what.

But here are other things that concern me and I have yet to find any sort of answer for:

1 - Wages. If the vast majority of income for daycare centers will come from the government, who then determines the staff's wages? Staff that are casual, part-time, full-time; staff that are level one, level two, or level three educated; staff that are long term 5 10 15 20 years in the same center; staff that are new hires or working there less than 5 years; and so on. If a daycare can only charge $7 a day per space, that does not leave much room (if any) for control over how they pay their own staff. In my center, it would take about 15 spaces to make up ONE staff member's wage and we only have 21 spaces. Hmmm... not much elbow room. So should the government determine my wage? Will it increase? Decrease? Stay the same? If it stays the same - for how long? I have been at my center since 1995 - will they take that into account, or just pay us all the same? What about differing standards of living in each town, city, and rural area? Staff in Calgary make considerably more per hour than in my town because the costs are higher. Who in the wide wide world of sports is going to sit around and figure all of this out? I have yet to see any mention of it anywhere.

Note: Quebec has centers in this style but I do not wish to check out their funding because the province receives a healthy portion from the rest of us in Canada in order to be able to do what they do now, so it's moot point. If it goes across Canada eventually, those funds will be stretched thinner.

2 - Extra Activities. What amount of funding will go to each center to determine the amount of activites each place does? Will they all have to be stream-lined and offer the same? For example, we have offered Sign Language programs and field trips. Other centers have offered Music Appreciation and brought in puppeteers or story tellers. Some have toy and book lending libraries. Some have parents do volunteer work to lower their fees. Each place is unique and parents can shop around to find out what they like and how much they are willing to pay. But if the bulk of funds is coming from the government, will those differences and choices be removed?

3 - Education levels. I mentioned above that there are different education levels that affect pay rate, but there are also differences from province to province over what amount of education is required for daycare staff. When I lived in BC, I could not work in the local daycare despite 6 years of experience because I did not have my first year of ECD certificate. In Alberta and Saskatchewan, I could work there without the first year certificate, as long as I had completed a smaller course that is even offered for free at the colleges. So basically, in BC at least, all staff required an ECD certificate but in other provinces they do not.... will that remain the same or will everyone have to become the same and provinces no longer be in control. After all, if the bulk of the cash is coming from the Feds, what 'say' would each province have?

4 - Is $7 a day fair to those who only earn low incomes? That works out to about $140 a month for 20 days of care.... but that is almost $50 a month MORE than what current low income parents pay at my center who are subsidized. Will there be subsidy for those individuals again, or will they have to pay the same amount as someone who earns hundreds of thousands of dollars per year? Is that actually 'fair'? Fair to whom? The middle class would see a great change in their monthly finances that's for sure - it appears it would benefit them the most. However - will the costs show up elsewhere instead? Higher income taxes or taxes and prices on other goods and services? Will they REALLY save what they think they are going to save? Who has the answer for this? And then you have to picture the low income families again who may end up paying MORE in some regions than they do right now, and then also have to struggle with increased costs elsewhere in their lives. That doesn't exactly sound exciting.

5 - Food. Will the government take into account what the children are fed and how much it costs? Snacks and lunches are provided - but each region has different food costs and get their food from different places. Some make it on site, some have it catered. Will this change? What if one center currently charges a higher fee than mine does because the food is catered while we make it by hand... will they receive more funding than us each month? Is that fair? Who will determine this?

6 - Misc Costs. Utilities and operating costs will differ from region to region. How will funding for that work? Will each center have to hand in all of their receipts each month such as phone, utilities, internet, book keeping, lease or rent cost, etc and receive it back the next month in funding? Who will handle this? My boss does her books by hand each month and then employs an accountant once a year for the final income tax stuff while others hire book keepers each and every month to deal with bills, payroll, etc. Will they receive more funding than us? Is that fair? My center is actually in a home that my boss lives in, so who will decide how much of her combined utility bill pertains to running the center? Who decides all of this? Will the government (aka the taxpayers) be footing the bill for a center's accountant??? Seriously - how is this all going to work?? Does anyone have an actual answer?

7 - Late payments. Over the past 15 years, the govt has been notoriously late putting in the funding that we DO get (subsidies, staff wage enhancement, etc) and we have to work around that. What if the entire business's funding is coming from the govt aside from a piddly daily fee for the parents, and it is LATE? How will staff be paid, bills be paid, doors stay open, if this continues to be a regular occurrence? My boss made a phone call a few years ago after a disasterously late govt funding payment and was told that as the business owner, she should have something else set up for 'such occasions'. That was back in the day when less than half of the funding came from the govt via subsidized parents.... what exactly do they expect a business owner to 'have in place' when 90% of the funding is received that way? A second job? To cover for GOVT mishandling?? For many thousands of centers across the entire country? Are you kidding me? I would say that maybe 4 times a year, the funding goes in 'on time' right now. Are we ready for this to get scarier?

8 - Choice. I have been told, while questioning this idea in the past, that centers would have a choice whether to be part of the $7-a-day daycare program or not,,, they could remain completely private and separate if they wish, like in Quebec. Okay - so that would mean we would only be catering to the well-off families who are willing to pay $650+ a month instead of $140 a month, and give up our goal of trying to help local parents who are lower and middle income. We have the second lowest monthly fee in the city and yet have the lowest staff turnover by far. We have looked after entire families of 7 children, one after the other, and they come back to see us when they are grown and are now starting to come with THEIR own children. Makes me feel old lol, but it's also wonderful. So we would have to kiss that goodbye if we decided not to buy into this 'universal daycare' program nonsense. I doubt we would even go private, what would happen is we would close our doors and I am willing to bet money that we would not be the only ones by far. Once the newness wears off and people see what is really going on and directors see how they have lost control of their businesses, we will see doors closing or becoming private faster than you can blink, or treasured staff dropping out. Mark my words.

Okay so why am I ranting about this again when the Liberals suffered an historic defeat this month? Because the topic is not going to go away. The Conservatives have a majority right now but we cannot predict what is going to happen in the future. I received several emails at work before the election, from places like the Canadian Child Care Federation, willing staff to 'vote for Child Care' in the election. Those emails will keep coming every cycle and the topic will not just disappear. I would like the answers to each and every one of my questions answered by those who support the idea, those who hold office and tout the program. I do not want wishy-washy numbers thrown at me, I want to see their actual PLAN in detail. Why dont others who support this??? Have they even thought about any of the 8 points I listed above? Or do they think it's going to be a magical transition and all work out peachy?

PS - will this also be directed toward day HOMES? They have to be licensed in Alberta and other provinces, so would they be part of this $7/day thing as well? Or would they be forced out and lose their dayhomes to larger centers that have more than 6 children in them? If they are regulated and licensed much the same as any daycare center, would they not be part of this as well? That's another huge cost to tax payers to take into account.

Gene Simmons, Israel, Obama

2011-05-21T14:20:00.003-06:00

*the video doesnt seem to want to load on my page, so GO HERE to see it.

hat tip to Hot Air Pundit for the vid.

Make mental note of Mr Simmons saying he voted for Obama. I like Gene, but I have seen him make comments in the past about anti-Obama people and suggesting that they were being unfair... okay so now it's time for Gene to come out and complain that Obama is an 'idealist'? That's what those anti-Obama people said right from day one, providing endless lists of reasons why Obama and his ideals should not be allowed in the White House - but they were ignored. And yet bit by bit, little by little, big names are coming out against Obama for the very same things everyone else warned about from the start - BEFORE the election, and yet these big names plead ignorance. *sigh*. I guess it's a good thing that they are coming out of the corners and speaking out, but it seems too little too late.

Still, I liked this clip because when I read about Obama's words regarding Israel returning to pre-1967 borders on Thursday, my mouth hung wide open. It shocked me.... especially with Benjamin coming the very next day for a visit....

Senate

2011-05-21T14:15:00.000-06:00

The news this week listed 3 new senate appointees by Harper and well..... at least 2 are not-so-new. They resigned from the senate in order to run as MP candidates, lost, and are now back in the Senate. As with my dislike of my city mayor leaving office for 6 weeks to run as the liberal MP candidate, losing, and then waltzing back in as mayor - I did not like what Harper did with the senators either. Is there an ulterior motive to prove why he believes the senate should be elected? Perhaps. But whatever the 'reason', I dont think it looked very good to start off the new majority with negative headline making.

Taking Notice

2011-05-18T07:37:00.000-06:00

Just a few things I have made note of over the past few weeks ( I might add to this as I think of more that I forgot to include - I need a notebook to jot my ideas down in lol)....

First off, being a member of several health forums now for 'trigeminal neuralgia', I have run into several Canadians who keep mentioning that they are glad that we dont have a 'US-style' health care system (because of the cost).... but then as I read back through their own posts, I run into constant mentions of how the waiting list to see some neurologists in their areas are 12-18 months. This was in very urban areas, not rural. So they are glad they don't have to 'pay much' (see my note following this sentence), but they are okay with having to wait over a year for an appt to see a specialist? And that's just for a first consult - who knows how long it takes after that for followup appts. Ummmmmmm and they don't think they have to pay much??? They pay every single DAY of their lives through various taxes on just about everything. Higher taxes than the US has - so ummmmm yeah folks, you ARE paying a fair amount (and in one province in particular this was happening in - BC- they also have sales tax harmonized with GST, AND they pay a monthly premium to boot). So they ARE paying a lot AND they have a crappy waiting list to twiddle their thumbs to. That's just lovely. GREAT system. Blah! I can barely stand it! Another thing that surprised me is a woman living on 'the island' (Vancouver Island) who had a problem finding a specialist and when she did, it was a 1.5 to 2 year wait , and if she has to travel to Vancouver, the waiting list there was 12 to 18 months.... there are almost a million people living on 'the island' but not enough access to specialists?? Why not? Oh I know - because the provincial govt has not deemed it necessary. Well guess what, if we had a more US-style system, a neurologist might travel to the beautiful city of Victoria, or maybe Nanaimo, fall in love with it, and decide to set up shop there. Wouldnt that be lovely? He/she could take on patients that have been struggling with flight and ferry costs for appts (saving hundreds of dollars for many people per visit that they could instead put toward their direct health care costs through fee payment or private insurance), and do a world of good at the same time. But - that is not really allowed to happen here. The 'red tape' for opening up a private medical clinic is very tough to go through, from what I have read and heard over the years, so many do not bother. So - the citizens have to travel or not get treatment at all if they cannot afford all those ferry crossings or flights. Another thing many try to do is attend Pain Management Clinics in the meantime but there is a backlog there as well and when they finally get in, many find a replacement backup doc instead who cannot really do anything and is not familiar with the files. What a giant waste of time AND money. Another interesting thing to note - one patient tried to get an appt at the University of British Columbia Neurosurgery Dept but they no longer do facial nerve surgery - so where do you go?

Meanwhile, on the American members threads, I see no-end of lists of doctors and surgeons and specialists. Yes the population is 10 times higher than Canada, however it's not all about that. I have posted before that my friend lives in a city in South Carolina now and out of curiousity I looked up the number of allergy specialists there and there were 14 within an hour driving distance, but most right in the city. Her city is SMALLER than mine, smaller population and close to a few major urban centers, but they still had 14 allergy specialists in the yellow pages.... guess how many my city in Alberta has? NONE. We have to travel to Calgary..... but my city is larger than my friend's and they have 14 and we have 0. What's up with that? Is the US style system REALLY that awful? How is our's better? I'm not glad about having to wait several months or a year or longer for important appts and treatments. I would rather have the option to pay without having to travel half way across the country or down into the US. But I cannot do that. Even though I
pay for this system every day in several ways, I am not allowed 'choice' and have to endure waiting lists a mile long.
___________________________
Enough about that, it's like beating a dead horse.

Another thing I made note of was from Monday night's David Letterman show. My brother is in NYC right now and happened to win tickets to that taping, so I watched Letterman for the first time in probably 15 or more years lol. During the opening monologue, DL made light of the news that the US has 'hit the debt ceiling'... and then he proceeded to say that he has no idea what that even means. People laughed..... oh how hilarious! Let's just joke about the dire circumstanes the US is facing.

I tried to think of an analogy to help poor mr DL and immediately I came up with this: You are in a house when water suddenly rushes in and fills it up until you are floating and your head hits the ceiling. You are gasping for air in the shrinking space while water continues to flow in - but it is no use, you are now drowning. But suddenly - someone comes along and raises your ceiling! Cranks it up another foot and you are floating again,breathing in the sweet air ---- however the water is STILL flowing and it fills up to the ceiling again. You are drowning again.... and yet somehow someone still magically comes along and raises the ceiling for you and you float and breathe yet again.... Does that sound like it's going to ever solve anything? Are you going to get out of there alive because someone keeps raising the ceiling for you? Not if the water keeps coming and coming. You are going to be dead eventually. You;ve only been given a temporary teaser of air that will not last. The only thing that will save you is cutting off the water flow. Someone has to figure out how to stop it before you can be sure to have a chance...

Now back to the debt ceiling - if the US is oozing money, bleeding money, or completely out of money - is raising the debt ceiling (again) going to actually save anyone? If the problems that caused this in the first place are not addressed, it's just going to keep happening!

Real Life

2011-05-06T22:47:00.000-06:00

This mother's day weekend, I am thinking of three women facing impossible pain. One, a young single mom diagnosed with Stage 4+ bowel cancer a month ago, and now lung cancer this week. Her prognosis is not good right now, perhaps maybe a month left. I can barely think about it.

Next, a mom watching her 5 month old baby go through chemo for his SECOND bout with cancer since birth. He underwent a blood transfusion tonight after his second round of chemo. He is doing well, but he is so young.

And a mom who's 10 year old daughter is dying. After being born with multiple medical issues, this little girl surpassed the odds and lived twice as long, or more, than first imagined. Her family fought hard to get her treatments in the US, but now it seems that everything has come to an end and nothing more can be done. This will probably be their last Mother's Day together.

I am heart sick about these three families from my city. Two live elsewhere now, but their families and friends are still here and everyone is praying and hoping for miracles but sometimes you have to force yourself to face reality as well.

For those moms, please take a moment to think of them - Stacy, Misty, and Tammy. Just spare a thought for them and their children during those most difficult and gut-wrenchingly painful times. I am blessed to be able to spend another Mother's Day with my mom, but I will be thinking of the others who's hearts are breaking this weekend.

♥♥♥

Those Darn Albertans....

2011-05-03T23:51:00.002-06:00

What a riot reading posts today from my Liberal friends on FB, and random comments around the net. I saw such quips as "I knew Alberta would throw the rest of Canada in the pan again, but who knew it would be Ontario's fault too".

Really? So Alberta and Ontario are the Conservative strong holds that are to blame for this dastardly Conservative Majority govt, are they? Tsk tsk.

Well then let's see. My local paper printed the results of every single riding in Canada in today's paper so let's look at the provincial tallies first:

British Columbia 21 ridings voted Conservative MPs in
Alberta 27
Saskatchewan 13
Manitoba 11
Ontario 72
Quebec 6
New Brunswick 8
PEI 1
Nova Scotia 4
NFLD 1
Nunavut 1
Yukon 1
NWT 0

Yes, Yes, Yes Ontario filled 72 seats (forgive me if I counted wrong, I was going cross-eyed, but it must be close) and 27 of Alberta's 28 seats were filled with Conservatives, but the other provinices and territories combined filled another 67 seats. Heck, NB went 8/10 for 80% Conservative MPs. Looking at it another way, over 40% of the total Conservative seats were filled in provinces and territories OTHER THAN Alberta and Ontario. That's a pretty healthy chunk. But Alberta and Ontario will take the blame. A province of less than 4 million people (Alberta) always gets the blame for Conservative antics eh? At least now Ontario will get to know more of what that feels like, even though they have a much larger population. More people live in the GTA than in all of Alberta lol. But still, it's still nice to share the 'blame' for a Conservative majority. Why? Because I think it's great that Harper and Co finally get a chance at a majority. Hopefully they won't screw it up or next election will be completely terrifying if the NDP manage to keep all of their new voters and gain some more while they are it it. *shudder*.

Another topic on the run is the 'popular vote' of course. I find it very strange that when I have mentioned the 'popular vote' tally (referring to representation for the West) in past elections, I have been told that it 'doesnt matter because it goes by seats', 'suck it up, the Conservatives are the losers again' etc. Now this time around, I am hearing constantly about how the conservatives do not have the majority of the popular vote, how 'more than 60% of Canadians voted against them' and so on. Oh so now the popular vote IS important. Okay, so now the seat count DOESN'T matter because it didn't go the left-leaning parties' way. I see. Now it all makes sense.

So I took another gander at the Canada-wide riding tallies and saw that most of the places with a Conservative MP won by a great chunk of voting totals. Some races were VERY close, within hundreds or a mere thousand in large ridings. But in many of the other ridings, the Conservatives took a much larger win by several thousand, or 10 to 30 thousand. That's no chump-change, is it?

Are you bored yet? Im going through the provinces again to look at high and low win totals (at the time my paper printed them so not all were completely tallied):

British Columbia: There were 13 out of 21 ridings with Conservatives ahead more than 10,000 votes ( 6 of those being more than 15,000 votes ahead).
Alberta: 24/27 ridings more than 10,000 votes ahead
Saskatchewan: 5/13 more than 10,000 votes ahead, and 4 of the remaining were more than 5,000 votes ahead
Manitoba: 7/13 more than 10,000 votes ahead
Ontario: 49/72 were more than 10,000 votes ahead
Quebec: 2/6 were more than 10,000 votes ahead (very close polls in those ridings tho, holy moly)
NB: 5/8 more than 10,000 votes ahead
NS: 2/4 more than 10,000 votes ahead
NFLD: extremely close (only 200 votes separating Cons and Lib in that riding)
very very close in the territories
PEI: 1 seat, won by more than 5000 votes
In other words, only 3 provinces had less than 50% of their Conservative seats won by a large margin. Or, 7 out of 10 provinces had MORE than 50% of their Conservative seats won by a large margin. However you want to look at it.

Anyhow, my point is, popular vote or not, 65% of the ridings I looked at with Conservative MP wins had more than 10,000 votes above the runners-up. For a switch, I counted up ALL of the remaining ridings in Canada (aside from Quebec's which I will get to afterward), and out of all the seats going to Lib/NDP/Green, only NINE of them won by a margin of over 10,000 votes ahead of the Conservatives (even in the cases where the Con candidate was in 3rd place). NINE. That's it! So what's this about the popular vote again?

Oh so let's look at Quebec. A highly populated province with the second-highest number of seats in the House (about 75 I believe), a population of about 8 million people, 25% of Canada's total population, and that just literally turned Orange in a sea of NDP voters. When you add in their seat wins (NDP/Lib/Bloc), there are 56 (Fifty-Six) where the winner was more than 10,000 votes ahead of the Conservative candidate.

So when we are talking about the 'popular vote' in Canada, perhaps those who are whining and complaining should say that 'The majority of Quebec citizens voted against the Conservative party, but the majority of the REST of the citizens of Canada voted FOR the Conservative party'. Only NINE ridings outside of Quebec had conservatives lose by more than 10,000 votes. Within Quebec's invisible walls, 56 ridings had Conservatives tanking (and one didn't even run a candidate at all). Outside, not so much. So I just don't get it when I read posts today and late last night that complain and whine that the conservatives do not have the 'popular vote'..... it's more like they do not have the popular vote of Quebecers, and that's not a surprise anyway.

If you then go to the elections canada website and look at the popular vote by province, you find this:

BC 45.5%
AB 66.8%
SK 56.3%
MB 53.5%
ON 44.4%
NB 43.9%
NS 36.7%
PEI 41.2%
NF/Lab 28.4%
Nunavut 49.9%
Yukon 33.8%
NWT 32.1%
and finally Quebec 16.5%

It doesn't look so hot for the Conservatives on that list, but they still managed to pull off a majority due to the 'seat' system and representation by population blah blah rules. And you keep in mind that in most of them, the NDP had even lower totals.

Apparently the big deal with this popular vote is that more Canadians voted left of center than right of center. Well, the fact remains that there are several left-leaning parties and only one that is right-leaning. If the votes get split between the left-parties, and yet they still do not manage to pick up enough seats to force a minority Conservative govt or completely over-throw them, who's fault is that? The Conservative voters? The Conservative party? Or how about the voters who spread themselves between the Liberal, NDP, Green, Bloc, etc? YES more than 60% of Canadians voted for a party 'other than' the Conservatives, but that is how our system works and has worked all along, so if you don't like it - change it. Put forward the idea for change. It's been discussed before that we need a change, but then I continuously see people ranting about NOT wanting to go with a US-style system where two main parties have been at the helm back and forth for eons - Democrats and Republicans. Well what is the answer then?? Seriously - WHAT is the answer then? Our past majority govts were at less than 50% too, even the Libs (other than a Mulrooney time where he hit 50% popular vote).

You don't want two parties, but you don't like it when a majority of seats are taken by a party with only 40% of the popular vote while 60% gets spread between 2-3 other 'main parties'. Make up your minds please.

If the party with the highest popular vote won, who would that be then? In this election, according to the popular vote tallies, the Conservatives had about 5,832, 401 votes total across Canada, and the next runner up, the NDP, had 4,508, 474 votes total. 39.6% for Conservatives, and 30.6% for NDP. Neither of those is over 50% of course. You could throw in the Liberals with the NDP, but you would STILL fall short of 50%! That comes to 49.5% of the popular vote. Oh GEEZ that's still not a true majority. What DOES push it over the 50% magic mark is the 6% of voters who chose the Bloc - a party that cannot even be voted for outside of Quebec. I guess we better get out the Green Party's 3.9% then and throw it in with the NDP and the Liberals for a cool 53.4% of Canadian voters. Phew I feel much better now. That is a massive majority eh? Too bad it took adding 3 parties together to get to that magic majority number.

Why do I say that instead of pointing out that the Liberals and NDP have more of the popular vote together than the Conservatives do, even though it's still less than 50%? Because apparently Elizabeth May of the Green Party said that the Conservatives have a "false majority". If that means less than 50%, well, so? With so many parties up here to vote for, when are we going to have a 'true majority'? When was the last 'true majority'? I just went back to elections canada again and they have the tables back to 1997 and the highest 'popular vote' percentage is 40% for the Liberals in 1997. So we haven't had a 'true majority' in at least 24 years. And for all the Liberal voters I have read moaning about the 39.6% total for the Conservatives, well --- that's the second highest 'popular vote' I saw in the tables including when the Liberals had a majority govt. And back in those days, the NDP had a tiny fraction compared to this election, 10%, so that still didn't put them over 50% aside from ONE time. I could run around saying that for many years the majority of Canadians have been voting for a party 'other than' Liberal and bitch and cry about it, but I won't. That's for you to do right now instead and of course never ever see that you are the pot calling the kettle black each and every time.

Do you think if the NDP had somehow managed to slaughter everyone and steal more Conservative seats and win a bare majority, or a minority, that you wouldn't be saying 'suck it up' to Conservative voters? Of course you would - so then I say the same thing - suck it up. The votes were in and counted, and Conservatives won seats in every province. In 2 of the 3 territories. And it was enough to surpass the amount they needed to seal a majority of seats in parliament, just like the Liberals have done in past elections. But it was okay then right? Of course it was!

Election Day - Federal

2011-05-02T23:16:00.000-06:00

So the Conservatives have their majority, did you hear? And the NDP had an astonishing run, coming in farrrrrrrrrrrrrrr in the running to become the official opposition. Whoa. I almost choked 50 times watching the Liberal numbers stay low, the Bloc almost disappear, and the NDP swallow up nearly every seat in their path. It was so odd, watching the early polling results coming in and the Liberals were at around 20 when I tuned in... then 30... then pretty much stayed there the rest of the time. Wow. I am still shocked. I'm not sure how I feel about the NDP being the opposition, I've read some rather hard policies and ideas of their's over the years... but the C's have the majority so.... PHEW.

Anyway I have been rather saddened by some posts I have seen around the net from friends, musical interests of mine, etc. People have been told to get out and VOTE VOTE VOTE... but when it doesnt go their way, suddenly the claws come out calling the majority of voters idiots, fools, crazy, blind, stupid, etc. Why do that? When Harper only managed a minority govt these past elections, I didnt run around calling the Liberal and NDP voters idiots. I was just like 'oh well, them's the breaks'. I'm sure others called them names, but I didn't, so it makes me feel sad inside that despite supposedly being such nice calm people up here, there are some nasty ass comments flying around.

Such as (and I am just copying and pasting from public pages on FB/pardon the language too):

- I'm so fucking disappointed right now!
FUCK SAKES CANADA!
- We're so screwed. Canadians are obviously really out to lunch...
- Start saving for lube and get ready to bend over because we are about to take it straight up the fucking ass. I apoligize for the language but I'm flabergasted by the stupidity
- I guess Canadians are gluttons for punishment.
- I am legitimately frightened for the future of this country, and the sanity of a people who would trust a morally bankrupt, overtly religious, worringly secretive maniac and his corrupt party to lead this nation. Banner fucking day, Canada. Enjoy the next four years...
- I'm sad. I am sad for democracy, and I am sad for Canada.
- obviously us Canadians don't know what the fuck is going on!
- A majority of Canadians are BLIND...it embarrasses me.
- pretty disgraceful. apparently we didn't learn by watching our neighbours to the south. baby bush is alive and well. how long until we get our own obama?
- I'm not a violent person but I'd like to punch someone right now.
- we are truly living amongst a sea of retards, what a very sad day!!
- So Disappointing...yet oddly predictable. Canada's politics is a sad affair indeed.
- I think all people who didn't vote should be branded, do not complain people if you didn't vote, and those who did vote Harper, Thank for nothing (my note: ummmmmmm you want people to be branded who did NOT vote, but then the ones that did you are going to diss? that makes soooo much sense)
- I'm thoroughly disgusted with this country. I now know how Democrat supporters felt in 2004 with W. was elected for a second term.
- I am extremely disappointed with my countrymen tonight.

Okay so you get the idea. That was all actually from ONE fb page of a musician I like, but have never agreed with about politics lol. Anyhow I put a response there and someone just asked me if I thought it was okay that bush won re-election by a small margin. Ummmmm yeah I am okay with that actually lol. Obama won by a very similar margin and I pointed that out but of course that's different because he is a Liberal/Democrat, right? Geezus people... maybe face the music that Ignatieff stuffed up royally and people were not confident in him as a leader let alone a Prime Minister, and many were afraid of Jack Layton too, so they went a bit to the right and chose the Conservatives. That's how these things go. People tout democracy and try to force other countries to adopt the same system, but at the end of the day it hasnt been proven to work in any society over human history anyway, has it? 51% of the people can vote the rights of the other 49%... that's never going to make people happy.

then I see people complaining that we are going to end up with a 2 party system like the US ----- but having multiple parties isnt what it's cracked up to be either is it? The vote gets spread thinly sometimes and makes it difficult for any party, no matter who you support, to get their voice heard. Two parties seems wrong, but 3, 4, 5 parties aint doin so hot either. But even then, when the vote split ends up with a majority, you still see endless comments like I have pasted above. That is pretty sad, don't you think?

Election Day

2011-05-02T17:48:00.002-06:00

*Just to be clear, i am NOT posting results from today. I am posting the results of previous elections in my local riding so that I have them ready to go when the official results are revealed later today.

to recap a previous post, my local mayor, newly re-elected about 6 months ago, left his post in order to run as the LIBERAL candidate in my highly highly HIGHLY 'conservative' city. Fancy that, our mayor was a closet liberal alllll these years. Anyway, I wanted to post results from previous elections so that I can come back to update this later and post the current results (when it's legal to do so).

Last Federal election:
Con MP: 26, 949 votes
NDP 4, 187 votes
Lib: 2, 540 votes (ouch)
Green 2,338 votes.

2006 General Election:
Con MP: over 35,000 votes
Lib: 3,737 votes.

2004 % totals:
Con: over 60%
Liberals: less than 25%.

You get the idea. I am curious to see what numbers pop up with a more well-known person running in the Liberal spot, none other than our Mayor (taking an unpaid LOA), and former Police Chief in our city to boot. Let's see if he can manage to increase liberal support in the city (keeping in mind most of these voters have never marked an X beside the term Liberal in their entire lives), or if some will cave in thinking he will be a better rep for the city despite the party banner, or if he will get hosed and have his dignity slammed to the ground. But don't worry, he will be going back to his post as mayor and things will go on as normal (hmmmm really??).
_____________________________________
Update: 2011 Election
My locality:
Conservative MP: 30,720
NDP: 5,616
Liberal (our current Mayor): 4,420
Green: 1,859

So, I will give him a small gain in the usual totals, but he had 7366 vote him in as Mayor 6 months ago. Oopsy, I guess he didn't get as many as he thought he would. Reminder that he only won by 2% in the mayoral race (2nd place had 6923 votes).

Isn't it Ironic?

2011-05-02T17:37:00.000-06:00

A little tooo ironic.... oops sorry, got carried away singing Alanis Morissette. But anyway, I would like to know how many of the people who were outside the White House cheering and singing last night condemned 'that church' for burning the Koran recently, triggering some violence overseas. Did any of them, on the way out their front doors (or from the pubs), stop to think for a minute about how live images of them celebrating the death of OBL would be plastered around the world and THAT could also trigger some violence?

Oh but of course, it's not the same thing is it?

Child Support Issues - Getting Out Of Hand??

2011-04-29T16:08:00.001-06:00

I am hearing more and more over the years about the 'other side' of child support court cases - not the ones we usually hear about where a parent is trying desperately to get a few bucks in support on a regular basis from the other parent, but ones where it just seems freaking CRAZY how much they are going after. Most often you hear about women endlessly taking their exes to court to get more cash and I am starting to hear more often about how some dads are seriously considering walking away from the child sometimes because they just cannot afford to keep going to court, and keep getting hit up for more money. In some cases it's just one or the other blowing smoke, but I happen to know both parents very well in the story that will follow and I am increasingly at odds with the MOTHER.

First off, the child in question is 12. And that's about how many times the mother has taken the father to court. She lives in a very nice house in a very nice neighbourhood with her fairly well-off boyfriend, gets a widow's pension on top of her deceased husband's work pension - while the father of her 12 year old lives in an old cruddy house, drives an old cruddy car that is about to fall apart, and she is after yet again more money. I really don't understand it. She is now trying to get a chunk of his overtime pay because she feels she has a right to that along with a big chunk of his regular pay. Keep in mind that he has his son every other weekend and many weekdays each week, so the boy is spending about 40% of his time with his dad, who then feeds him, clothes him, etc. As well, he has to pay 75% of every extracurricular activity, school fee, etc on top of all that and started working more overtime whenever he could because half the time he is barely able to make his mortgage and utilities payments let alone anything else.... but now she wants some of that too. What does she do for a living? Nothing. All of her children are in school full days now (she had 2 with the deceased husband), and she still does not work. I see her all the time because her kids go to the same school as mine and I just want to reach out and rattle her brains when I pass her in the halls.

I have two exes and combined I get less child support than this man pays for one child, even though my exes make about the same. I don't ask them for more unless I really really need it because I figure the amount they pay is an equal share compared to what we put out for a bigger house, food, utilities, etc. I dont even ask for money for school fees (though I probably should), I just ask for half sports stuff now cos it's getting expensive. I just want enough to help raise the kids and also because I have the kids 99% of the time due to my exes living far away. If they had the kids more and were paying more directly, I would ask for even less in child support or at least not increase it very often. I have not gone to court even once for support or visitation issues. I realize some people have no choice and a personal agreement doesnt happen, but what about the ones who keep endlessly getting dragged into court over this stuff? Surely that cannot be good for the children either. Kids arent stupid, they can tell when there is tension even if they do not know directly what is goign on. It's aggravating to me.

But I also ask - why are courts allowing this to go on? I wouldnt survive long as a judge because I'd be ranting and raving at such plaintiffs and get kicked out of my robes lol. But seriously, why does this go on? It's such a waste of time and money all around, and drain on the other parent's finances just to satisfy some insane 'need' inside the custodial parent to prove a point or something. Crazy if you ask me.

Metals

2011-04-18T22:28:00.001-06:00

So it was exactly 2.5 years ago, mid-October 2008, when my spouse and his uncle were having a little chat about the price of gold.It was around $700 at the time, perhaps close to $800?? Anyway my spouse told his uncle that he wished he had money to buy gold because he figured it would hit $2000 in a five years or so. His uncle burst out laughing and said 'no way'. He actually argued, making my spouse feel like he was crazy. Okay, he is my 'boyfriend' but I'm almost 40 and I hate that word lol. So I'm using 'spouse' today ;) At any rate, the argument reached almost-heated status.....

Well here we are, mid-April 2011 and gold was $1493/ounce today. Seven bucks shy of $1500 only 2.5 years after the little chat with Uncle. Will it reach 2 grand in another year and a half? Who knows. We shall see.

But then I was looking at other metals and realized that our purchase of 3 American Eagle silver dollars about two years ago has more than doubled in value now. We only bought 3, because that's all the dealer had (the rest is probably buried in his cellar if he is smart lol)... but that $60 is now worth almost $130. Not bad, not bad. Wish we could have bought more tho because silver was about $18 when we bought them and today it was $43-ish. Oh well. Live and learn.

Then I was looking at copper. It was at just over $4/pound today. Pennies made between 1942 and 1996 in Canada were 98% copper, and before that was around 95% copper (from what I have found on various online searches). Well why the hell have I been giving our pennies away to school Penny Drives for the past 7 years straight? Yikes! I should have been paying more attention. I looked up penny weight and it appears that 4 rolls of pennies (so $2 worth) is about a pound. Today with copper being $4/pound, well gee whiz, that has doubled in price too. Should I put a bucket in my closet and start throwing in all my pre-1996 pennies just in case? I am going to do it because I don't want to sit around years down the line and kick myself like I have with silver (gold was too expensive for me to purchase even when it was a quarter the price it is now lol, but silver was very manageable). I think it would be worth it - especially since the rumor keeps going around that pennies are going to be exterminated in Canada.... the rumor is that pennies cost more to make and maintain in the market than they are worth in monetary value - but perhaps it's really because someone noticed that copper was rising and if they can get rid of pennies, trick people into tossing them away when they find one under the couch cushions, there will be less chance of people cashing in on the little devils one day.

I had read somewhere today that pennies have been made with zinc since 1982, but when I looked at some charts, it showed that zinc has been in them for many many decades, but only at 1% and it didnt change to using steel instead of copper until after 1996 (in Canada at any rate). I literally just gave every penny I could find in the house to my daughter 2 weeks ago for her school Penny Drive. Me cry. But I will start again. I will become a penny hoarder.

I don't feel as looney (pun intended) now because I decided to check out some coin geek websites and ebay, and people are selling copper pennies at twice face value all over the place. I might as well jump on the bandwagon and set myself up a penny bucket :) Yee haw. I missed out on gold by a long shot, have trouble kissing $40 goodbye for silver... so pennies it is!

I wonder if Dear Uncle will give us all his pennies eh? He certainly will not discuss the price of gold right now, but surely he would part with those annoying little pennies! After all, we just crazy folk.

Disability

2011-04-14T21:46:00.002-06:00

I joined a forum to learn more about Trigeminal Neuralgia after my recent diagnosis and I have been reading a lot of stories from Americans with this disorder... and wow, the stories about how long it takes to get social security disability are mind boggling. The general consensus is that you have to be out of work for at least 6 months before you can even apply, and then that process has taken up to 2 years before they are approved.

Now, I know a lot of people do not like these entitlement programs in the first place, but they are in place and people are paying through the nostrils in various taxes to fund them. And then they cannot get them without fighting tooth and nail sometimes. TN hits older people for the most part, I would be considered a rarer case because I am under 50/60 - so basically that means most of the people with TN have already worked and paid into the tax system by force for 20-30 years and then suddenly they need it - and they have to jump through hoops, pay lawyers, be out of work for 6-30 months, etc before receiving a dime of it back.

What is wrong with this picture,eh?

People in the forums who are newly diagnosed or are really starting to hit the bad stages of constant intense pain are now sitting around hoping that they can work their butts off to save up enough money to carry them through the long waiting period for receiving SS disability benefits. That just seems wrong. If we are all forced to pay for such programs, and taxes are increased more and more over time to keep up, then why is it so hard for the very people who have been paying into their forced retirement programs unable to get the money if they are forced to retire early due to medical reasons? The whole system is busted from top to bottom and it becomes more apparent all the time.

Meanwhile, there are multitudes of govt workers being paid to sort through, approve (or deny), claims, multitudes at the top who sit around making other decisions, those who are paid to keep an eye on the program, those paid to collect our taxes and pass the money along, etc etc who are PAID WITH that same tax money, and then get to retire with a pension also paid for with that same tax money - while others are waiting years to get a tiny piece of it. Waiting in pain and torture, getting fired because they have taken way too many sick days and the boss just cannot carry that load anymore either, or working despite being in dire pain most of every single day - and then finally, maybe, one day getting their disability checks.

This goes for all sorts of ailments of course, not just TN. What a crappy horrible system so many people seem to be supporting and wanting to remain. It needs a serious overhaul if it's going to actually do anyone any good. How much of that tax payer money (taxes, SS deductions from paychecks, etc) gets wasted in that 6 month to 2.5 year waiting period that could instead be going to the person who needs it? In this economy, how can normal regular average people go for that long with NO income?

Many would say you need a nest egg. Start saving right from age 16 when you start working so that one day if you need it, it's there. Yes, that is true. But then you come to those who are a lot younger when diagnosed with TN - like the 18 yr old I met online today. Or the 30 year old. Trusting that their stories are true, they are already struck so hard by TN, they can barely function to get out of bed in the morning without dropping to the floor in pain, let alone going to work to make some money to support their family. Those people have not had enough time to save up but they HAVE been paying into the insurance programs for every day, week, month, year that they have worked - and yet, they have to wait what seems to be extortionate amounts of time to get anything.

Just think if you bought a car, paid your insurance faithfully every month, and then an uninsured person crashed into you and you called your own insurance company and they said you had to go without your car for 6 months before you could apply to get some money, and then after 6 months you had to wait another 2 years before you could actually GET the money to fix your car or buy a replacement for a write-off. That would have everyone up in arms freaking out in 5 seconds flat. So now think about being FORCED to pay SS contributions and taxes, rather like an insurance program based on your ability to work, and then you cannot get it for eons. If you would be angry about car insurance taking 2.5 years to kick in, something that is taken out on a possession, something that you do not actually NEED to survive, then why not be ticked right off angry about those who cannot get disability after being forced to pay into the program for X number of years? You should be MORE angry for those people, or for yourself if you are in such a position.

It's just not working. Plain and simple. What could possibly take 2 years to work through? A specialist signs a note stating that your pain levels have exceeded any medication amount that is deemed a safe level by the federal drug agency, that your pain is crippling to the point that you are unable to work, maybe even a second specialist and your GP sign one as well. Your employer signs one stating how many days you have had off sick or for surgeries and recovery time. And tada - you send it in. Someone checks that it is official, maybe faxes the specialist to find out if they are a real person or whatever they need to do. And then out comes the red APPROVED (or denied) stamp. tip tap on some computer keys and tada - your check will be printed off and sent in the mail. All done.

Does that take 2 years? I mean, seriously, come on. Yes there are people out there who scam the system and they cause a big pain in the arse - but funnily enough, those are the ones who seem to get their money lickety split. Why is that? The system is broken. It's broken in Canada too but my gosh I was completely shocked to read how long it can take in the US, and how long you have to be out of work before even applying in the first place. With all the bickering going on down there over cuts here and no-cuts there, all I can think about is their terribly draining busted systems like Medicare/Medicaid/SS Disability and so on, and how much money would be saved by sorting that crap out. But my only conclusion is that they (govt) DO NOT WANT to fix it. What other reason could there possibly be to let things go on like that? They must not want to fix it, they must want people to rely on them more and more. Do those waiting for disability get to apply for welfare? I have no idea, I haven't seen that yet, but if they did then that's more people for the govt to say 'see, we have XX number of people living below the poverty level so we need to increase taxes on The Rich to pay for it'. Well how about fricken get your thumbs out of your hineys and do something about the current state of affairs that does not involve forcing people to rely on more aide? How about fixing the severely broken aspects and realizing you suddenly freed up billions of wasted dollars, and get it back to the people who have faithfully paid their dues all these years, so they can hold their head up high again and get on with life instead of hating themselves while they become yet another pariah, another statistic for govt fat cat officials to wave around during speeches. That sounds like a better plan to me.

Flooding

2011-04-12T23:19:00.001-06:00

So while people are flapping about trying to get canadians interested in going to the polls in a few weeks, many in alberta, saskatchewan and manitoba have other things on their minds. Much more pressing immediate matters - several states of emergency have been announced in various towns and cities including mine. A berm around a local lake started to crumble so water was being released this evening, prompting the immediate evacuation of a couple dozen homes, and voluntary evacuations of about 650 more so far.. But it was just announced a few mins ago that a resovior feeding into the same waterway has had to open it's gates to free flow the water... not sure what that will mean for all the people along that valley and here in the city. So while others were watching the debate and joining discussions afterward, people in places like Medicine Hat, Brooks, Swift Current and all around the Red River in Manitoba were busy sandbagging, packing up their possessions, watching the news for updates, and readying themselves for possibly having an extra wet start to spring.

It has made me focus on our local govt and the length of time it takes to let people know what is going on. I have seen multiple updates on the radio station FB pages, but very spaced out and sporadic on the City FB page. It says to look there for updates but there have been very few when compared to the tv and radio sites. What's up with that? Can't find a city worker willing to pull an all-nighter to update people in a fast manner? Type a sentence or two? They tell us to watch their page for the most up to date info, but leave it up to the radio stations instead. Um... okay. So really, things progress as normal - people look after each other much faster than the govt can/does. Is it a surprise? No.

They set up a hotline to call for information and to volunteer, but I kept seeing people posting that they couldnt get through, no operators were available, so they had to keep hanging up and dialing again. How many people did we have manning the phones? Did they have to get permission from a bunch of other govt peeps before starting up the line? Could they not afford a system where you get to be on hold until an operator is available? If this kind of control is put in the public's hands, they would have people lining up willing to man the phones all night just to help out and wouldnt have to ask everyone's permission to do so. They might need the phone number and line set up, but after that it would be no hold's barred. If a member of the public was in charge of updating the FB page, it would most likely be on there licketysplit... just like the radio and tv station sites. But no. It's boring and slow and I found much more info via other means.

So let's call for the govt to help us cos they are so fast and efficient.

a bit about me part 2

2011-04-08T23:13:00.001-06:00

Well, today I was diagnosed, officially, with Trigeminal Neuralgia. I hope that it won't be an unpleasant road ahead, but at least I can be at least slightly mentally prepared. Basically, something has happened to a major nerve in my face - the Trigeminal nerve (I believe named thus because it has three [tri] branches looking after various regions of the face). This has been causing pins and needles or shock-like pains in my face for about 5 years but it was sporadic and mild at first so I didn't really know that something was wrong. It has advanced a lot in the past 2 years, especially within the past few months so I talked to my doc about it more and had a CT ordered to rule out tumors, cysts, etc that could have been causing problems... and now I start Gabapentin medication. Fun stuff.

So in this 'part 2' of my life, I will cover a few medical issues I have had. Everything seemed to start after having my first child in 1997 lol. When he was 3 months old, I found a HUGE bald spot on my scalp. This grew to larger than the palm of my hand and I was diagnosed with Alopecia. I still have it almost 14 years later and probably always will, but it's patchy, not 'total' or 'universal'. I learned over the years that the group Locks of Love was actually started for children with Alopecia, whereas most people assume it is for cancer patients. Some do go to kids with cancer or other ailments requiring a wig/hairpiece. But the majority go to those who have severe forms of alopecia because they will never grow their hair back. As I said, mine is patchy and it's never been as bad as when it first started, but sometimes it causes me stress because my hair literally drops out all over the place and clogs up the drains, covers the floor couch and bed, my clothing, etc and it's rather embarrassing. But it's nothing fatal so I just get on with it.

When my son was about 2 years old, I was diagnosed with Hidradenitis Suppurativa. This can cause very very painful lumps in the inverse areas of the body like the armpits. I have had attacks where I could barely put my arm down at my side because lymph nodes in the armpit area would swell to the size of an EGG. Like a large egg. I havent had as many bad attacks the last few years but they can literally last 6 months, and therefore even if they are tiny, it's a pain in the neck. I was on medication for it for 18 months but that stuff was just plain nasty (monocycline) and made me sick, and couldn't be taken at all if you were trying to get pregnant (causes severe birth defects) and I decided to go off that crap.

I've had high blood pressure issues since the birth of my first child as well. He was born a bit early by induction because I got pre-eclampsia and my BP was 190/115 the day he was born. I felt like a ticking time bomb, waiting for convulsions or seizures to start. I spent 17 days in hospital before and after his birth and my BP was never the same again. I got it while pregnant with my second child so she was induced 10 days early and I was on the highest possible dose of medication but still had BP of 180/100..... and then I got it really bad with my third and final child, leading to his emergency birth at only 33 weeks and 1 day gestation. He weighed a whopping 3lbs 3oz. Three must be his lucky number tho.... 33 weeks, 3lbs, 3oz, 833pm birth time.... haha! He just turned 3 last month and has been doing great. Still on the small side but he makes up for it with speed ;)

So then we worked hard on my BP issues which would just not settle down until we found a combination of 2 medications that brought me down to 116/78 BP! WOOT! I havent seen those numbers since I was a teenager lol. At 37 years old, and after 13.5 years of struggling, it's finally at a normal level.

However, now I have to deal with this crazy trigeminal nerve damage. It may have been caused by shingles in my ear that I managed to get back in 2005. It's a very rare condition called Ramsay Hunt Syndrome. My doc had never even actually seen a case in person before so that tells you it's not very common. RHS can lead to permanent facial nerve damage but I thought at first that I had gotten away scot-free. I didn't connect the face tingling that started about a year later for some reason. I just thought it was something weird that was happening sometimes.

But about 18 months or so ago, when the tingles started reaching down to my cheek, my jaw started to spontaneously lock up. HARD. My teeth would ache from the pressure and then it would release in about 30 seconds. Sometimes less. Sometimes more. This started happening on a daily basis and I mentioned it to my doc, but we thought it might be related to blood pressure because I finally noticed that it happened whenever I had been sitting down for awhile, and then would stand up. He did mention trigeminal neuralgia to me last year and said I should look it up and see if that's what I think it is - but when I googled, i was not happy with what I found so I decided it couldnt possibly be TN. It was too scary to read about people being in such dire pain, they even had to quit work. Many could literally not even talk without triggering an episode, and things like chewing food or cold wind blowing on their cheek would set off extremely painful spasms. I refused to believe what I had could advance that far so I closed the webpages and never went back.

Now here I am a year or so later with it happening on a daily basis and getting more painful. It feels like someone is sticking dozens of little tiny pins into my face over and over,clustered together, only on the right hand side. My jaw locks up at least once a day, and it has progressed down my neck which makes me panic slightly because it feels like my breathing is being restricted. I've learned to talk myself through it but it's not fun. I had the CT scan on Saturday (yay they are starting to do them on evenings and weekends to clear the lineups!!! finally!!!), and it came back clear of anything else that could have been causing trouble... but that just leaves TN.

I have to admit it scares me. People have called TN 'the most excruciating pain known to mankind'!!!! Who the hell wants to deal with something like that in their future? UGH! I started taking the anti-convulsant medication today and have to slowly work up to a higher dose to see if that helps the nerves settle down a bit. I hope it works, but reading about others having such a struggle finding the right medication makes me freak out a little. I don't want to be a hypochondriac lol but so far in my life, every single time I've felt that something was wrong, I was right. I had a list of stupid ailments that are rare but not fatal, so it's hard to make other people understand that when everything is acting up at once, it can be quite debilitating. Now I understand the ads where people talk about 'invisible diseases' and how hard it can be to let people know you are struggling. If I were to have a week with a really bad hidradenitis attack, and then have a TN attack at the same time, I would just want to lock myself up in the corner and not come out til it's over. But life is not like that. You have to move on, keep on truckin, and try your best to get through each day.

Luckily, the TN is not 'excruciating' to me now, but it had progressed so quickly these past months, it is now at the stage where I feel the prickles and needles at any time, with no warning. Everyone has a different level of pain tolerance as well though, so what I feel is not too painful, someone else might find very distracting. What is the most annoying to me is the jaw thing. I can be talking to someone and them WHAM, my jaw is locked up tight and hard and I cannot speak at all. Just sorta mumble through incredibly clenched teeth that I can't talk. It's happened while I was on the phone a couple of times now, during important conversations, and trying to work my jaw loose brought tears to my eyes because of the frustration and the discomfort.

There is no cure, no tried and true set treatment, just a bunch of guesswork and possibly surgeries. Sometimes if they can zero in on the exact affected spot on the nerve with an MRI, they can go in and cut out that part of the nerve, or try to unwrap a blood vessel if it's squeezing it, etc but I'm sorry - that option does not sound like fun either. The nerve could be damaged even more, or you can lose total feeling in that region. Ugh no thanks. Not unless the pain does hit me so hard I cannot function... then I would have to weigh all the options. Until then, I will be trying out various anti-seizure medicines that have been found effective for treating nerve issues.

Why Do We Base So Much on Opinion Polls?

2011-04-08T07:11:00.000-06:00

I'm not just talking about pre-election polls, I mean any sort of poll or survey. They fully rely on the person giving the answers to be honest. But how can anyone be sure?

My 13 year old son, a Grade 8 student, was just telling me about a survey they all had to do yesterday that had questions that sound like it was mainly a 'mental and physical health' questionaire. He doesn't know a single solitary kid who filled their's out honestly, aside from himself. There were questions like 'Do you smoke?' and many of his friends checked off the answer showing the most amount of cigarettes smoked each day. There were mental health questions surrounding sleep - some of which were answered that the kids do not sleep very well and cry every night. Things like that.

So what is the school to glean from these surveys exactly? The kids were apparently all laughing and joking about them later, giggling together about the stupid answers they gave. Does the school look for ones where every possible silly answer was given, and then toss them out? How then do they get a good idea of what students in the school are doing, how they are feeling, etc if half the surveys have to be tossed aside. The whole thing seems pointless.

It also made me think of when Alberta Health and Wellness was calling around last year asking people if they wished to take part in a survey. I refused to do it when they called me, but my 23 yr old coworker agreed. Some of the questions made her very uncomfortable, and it made me think about how many people really answer those surveys honestly as well. It's not exactly an anonymous survey if they called you at home lol. They know your name, phone number, address, health care number, at the very least. Would you want to answer truthfully about suicidal thoughts, your lifestyle, etc when the surveyor knows all this information about you?? But the content of some of the questions also surprised me. She was asked things like 'When you go to bed at night, do you go to bed alone?". This came after being asked who she lives with already (brother). She started to get really annoyed with the questions and could not believe it was a govt agency doing the asking. How many others felt the same way and gave sarcastic untrue answers in 'protest' of the questioning? How can anyone rely on the results of such a survey? Why do we even bother?

Voting

2011-04-06T17:11:00.002-06:00

I was a bit annoyed this morning while listening to a woman who works at a parent/child playgroup in town, while she was asking people who they were voting for. Remember, this woman WORKS there - her job is 100% paid for by taxpayer funds through the Province of Alberta. She is also a single parent I have known for years and she receives some subsidies thanks to the tax coffers as well. Through her job, she also gets courses paid for and some travel expenses as well. But today she was asking people who they were voting for, somewhat in idle conversation but none of us were discussing politics before she came into the room, and then she proceeded to say that if anyone was going to vote Conservative, not to even bother going to the polls. Then she gave a little laugh. She went on to say that she thinks our Lib MP candidate, our mayor, would be a good choice. That's fair enough - but she was on the clock, on the job, and discussing politics with CUSTOMERS, and then telling them they should not bother voting unless they are going to go for the Liberal candidate. I found that very wrong. I am sitting in there knowing full well that MY tax dollars help support her job, her home, her food, her son, under a PC provincial govt and currently a Cons federal govt - and she is telling us to vote Liberal. Sorry, but I found that to be totally obnoxious.

What more can she possibly want???????? She gets rent subsidy, school subsidy, food subsidy, and her job is paid for by the current govts in power. All of her coworkers wages are paid in the same manner. It is a govt job through a govt sponsored program. But she is going to stand there and crap all over said-govt is she? Right in front of the patrons? That's just lovely.

Face it lady, you live in a region that heavily votes Cons and PC and so far it seems to be doing just fine for you, is it not? Everything you do in your life right now is paid for by fellow taxpayers under programs set up by these govts that you like to trash on your FB (yes I can see you on there, you forgot to make your page private), and are now trashing right out in public. You get paid even if no one wants this service, even if no one shows up. For most people, life doesnt work that way. You get paid to coordinate a preschool program even if no one signs up for it. What better job could you get, yet you seem quick to diss those who provide that job for you and your son.

Funny that you don't seem to recall trashing that very same man who is now our mayor and Lib candidate for MP..... I do. I remember when you were asking people who they were voting for in the city elections last fall and you raged and complained about the man who eventually won top spot - and here you are now touting him and telling us conservative voters not to bother showing up at the polls. Gee that's lovely! Thanks! Mentally noted.

Oh and if anyone asks if I said any of this to her face, no I did not. I have been battling laryngitis for over 3 weeks and pick and choose what I am going to shred my vocal cords apart for. But I did manage to croak out that whenever a Liberal tries to get me not to vote, it makes me even more determined to put my mark on the paper. Then I smiled a pretty smile and got ready to head to my own job.