View From the Homeless Streets

I butted into a loud discussion outside the library because the line about shooting down those who use illegal drugs in public contained a level of stupidity that exceeded a level I could tolerate. It turned out that he was upset about those who feed their illegal drug addictions in public and were not being rounded up and tossed into jail. I assume he saw the news reports about the Economist article about the drug use and poverty on the east side and in a unthinking, knee-jerk reaction decided the solution was to retreat into stupidity and avoid the pain of actually thinking about such things as cause and effect. The way so much of the public chooses to react unthinkingly to complex issues would almost make you think that using their brains for something other than a spacer between their ears caused them great pain.

From what I could determine from his ravings, he was upset that this illegal drug use was taking place in public and that something should be done to drive this activity out of sight. I have to agree that it is an unpleasant sight, but I would argue it is necessary that it occur out in full view for it is this openness that denies the majority of public their favourite refuge from complex, messy, thought requiring issues - Denial. For all too much of the public out of sight is also out of mind. Even if we must endure the ignorant and feebleminded ramblings of those who are unable to understand complex problems and that the complexity of the problem is going to require creative and many faceted approaches in address these complex problems. This in your face openness generates discussion – some of which will be cognizant and directed to taking effective actions.

Locking the drug users up is not a cost effective approach to reducing the scourge of addiction and the side effects caused by our current drug policies. I say cost effect as failing to consider costs vs. benefits not only results in the waste of vast sums on money, but prevents basing actions on approaches that can be effective. In calling for the police and courts to be throwing all the drug users in jail the question becomes “who is going to pay all the costs”, the $1,000.000,000s needed. When I posed the question of paying to the “shoot ‘em” advocate above, once he had shifted to the “I only want to shot ‘em because the courts will not lock them up” line of defending his demonstrated lack of ability to cogitate, I got a tirade about government waste. All of this taking place as he stood in public feeding his addiction, which fortunately for him is nicotine and legal (at least at this point in time).

They speak of a “drug problem” and a “drug war” Some are wrong or some are lying (or spinning the truth) in order to pursue their agendas or protect their vested interests. Have you ever seen drugs run up someone’s body and force themselves up their nose? When was the last time you saw a drug turn itself into smoke and force its way into an innocent bystanders lungs? No this is a people problem. When you wage this war you are waging it on people, as though their addiction was not enough of a burden and punishment. Reality is that because at its very roots this is a people problem, it is going to be extremely messy and lacking in neat, easy answers. In truth, given the nature of people, there is no actual solution. There are decisions we can make and actions we can take that will be more effective than others – provided we are willing to see the reality of the situation for what it is, and not as we want it to be. Without any solution, outside of human extinction, we have to look at what set of problems we can best achieve effective actions against and what set of insolvable effects we would rather live with.
It is not neat, tidy and definitely not a reality we like – but that is Life.

Question of the Week: “Do you think the Legacy Plan to build several new Abbotsford projects, including a multiplex facility, will be approved when it is finally put to a public vote?

Could you have asked a more banal question? Frankly I cannot think of a more pointless question on this matter. Especially in light of the quote in your paper of the same date (Tuesday August 1) about “… the referendum is not about whether these projects will happen”. With all the issues that this quote raises, you considered the question of approval germane? Because if a yes or no vote does not really matter, then is not the question of approval moot? Now questions about what Mr. Beck’s statement implies about the City administration’s and Council’s attitude to the wants, needs or opinions of the citizens would be news worthy.

While on the subject of the city’s capital plans I would like to enquire why the News has failed to address


Since I have raised the subject of pointless behaviour, why choose to waste valuable editorial space on an opinion about another moot point, as you did with the “opinion” piece on the strike by city staff? If the News had chosen to print that piece earlier it would have been an opinion. Now it is just old news, although it does serve to underline the questions raised by the fact that during the strike the News chose to print only letters portraying CUPE as poor, under paid, misunderstood victims of terrible HR policies on the part of the city. I find it extremely hard to believe that no taxpayers wrote in to suggest that if they did not like their overly generous salaries, they should quit and let someone familiar with the real world enjoy the wages and benefits.

Vibrant communities need ideas and vision. A curious, undaunted local paper is needed to give voice to questions, facts, opinions, discussion and happenings around the city and in local politics. If you are going to claim to be the “news leader”: less drivel, more hard news, asking the hard questions, timely positions and opinions, a willingness to charge Hell with just a water bucket if necessary and above all the desire to engage your readers in their community issues and decisions.

“Methinks it’s time for some serious debate in City Hall” trumpets Mr. Rushton, ignoring the fact that what passes for public debate these days is what has lead Abbotsford to its dubious #1 status and is at the core of many social problems across Canada. Debate has become about “spin”, allowing the public to hear what they want to hear OR to hear something that sounds good (because they want simple, easy answers to complex questions) and to avoid having to actually LISTEN and THINK. Our current #1 ranking, which you rail against, is the result of formulating public policy on what people believe or would like to believe as opposed to what REALITY is.

Debate as practiced in the political and public arenas is about winning, whether it is your point of view or an election. It has nothing to do with defining the issues, understanding the reality of the situations or of considering the consequences and outcomes of proposed actions. Instead it is about “spin” and waging a “war of words”, in the process ignoring the fact that basing public policy on mirages built of words guaranties not only failure to obtain your goals but also substantially increases the chances of negative consequences.

I watched that new TV commercial that implies that chocolate milk comes from brown cows and wonder how many now believe that chocolate milk comes from brown cows because they “saw it on television so it must be true”. We are dealing with people so nothing is going to be neat, easy or cut and dried. If your goal is to address crime effectively you should have called for examining the current state of affairs to gain an understanding of what the actual facts are; for the setting of realistic goals; for thinking through what the actual consequences of proposed actions will be (as opposed to what you would like them to be) and for making our decisions based on reality (no matter how unpalatable that reality may be) not upon wishful thinking.

Methinks it’s time for some serious though in our City, Province and Canada as a whole. Then we can decide on appropriate actions to pursue and have a reasonable expectation of attaining positive results.

This is in response to Mark B. Toth’s diatribe against Jack McEwen.

There are certain agendas that are indeed harmful to children, and I’m certain most people in Abbotsford and across Canada would agree that the campaign of intolerance by the religious right is one of them. To call such people “narrow-minded” and “bigoted” may not convince others of similar dogmatic and closed minds, but it is accurate and such language is necessary to draw attention to their behaviour.

People who believe in God's love and His cherishing us all, must express their views with the hope their comments will improve the lot of those groups of God’s children the religious right choose to persecute.

In this connection, we cannot allow God to be usurped by the religious right to further their campaign to assume God's right to judge the actions of His people and to guide our individual spiritual journey's. In the same way we demand the followers of Islam stand up and speak out against the actions terrorists commit in the name of Islam, we must stand up and speack out against the actions of these misguided people in their attempt to impose their beliefs and relegate our moral consciousness to some dark closet.

In speaking of totalitarianism Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr said “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul”. Thus it is we need to guard against the religious rights attempts to "seize the human soul” by crushing all those who do not argee with the views they seek to impose upon us all. In guarding our souls and spirituality from this attempt by those of the religious right to exercise absolute and centralized control over our personal relationship with God, one must confront their attempts to surpress opposing cultural, political and spiritual expression.

If Mark B. Toth finds the fact that those of us with deeply held spiritual beliefs are standing up to expose and stand against the unwholesome agendas of the religious right so upsetting, he should stop reading the letters to the editor.

“At the end of the day the referendum in the fall is not about whether these projects will happen, it is about whether or not it make sense to accelerate the time frame” – councillor Bruce Beck.

Do I understand correctly? We are wasting thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of taxpayer dollars and countless thousands of hours that city employees could use to accomplish something useful (like catching up after the recent labour strife) on a referendum where we, the taxpayers who foot the bills, will not be allowed to say either build or NO! DO NOT BUILD?

Sense: something wise, sound or reasonable

All this money is being flushed down the drain to decide: If it makes sense to build these projects in an overheated construction market where building costs will be maximized in an artificially high market, rather than waiting until the boom has passed and value for money would be maximized.

If it is sensible to rush into the projects without taking time to consult the end users, to plan out the project and carefully select your contractor on their ability to deliver quality work on time and budget – avoiding situations such as ripping the roof off ARC in the winter monsoon rains, allowing the leaking water to soak everything inside, instead of planning and doing it during the DRY summer days. To say nothing of the massive cost overruns the arena project at ARC incurred, for overlooked items such seating for spectators, I mean who would have thought that spectators would prefer to sit through games.

If it is sensible to allow, in then name of hubris, “Pet Projects” to be built while badly needed projects and the services they would provide are ignored and go un-built. To allow decisions about building priorities to be made behind closed doors at City Hall rather than through open and public discussion, input and thought. Having the referendum about these “Pet Projects” rather than it being about thinking and setting the City’s priorities based on the City’s needs.

I have no idea what kind of “sense” Mr. Beck is speaking of. Perhaps he is speaking of some kind of warped politicians idea of “make sense”, since it is clear that this referendum and its outcome have nothing to do with common sense. Then again, when one is speaking of the actions of City Hall and all too many of our local politicians and leaders, one has come to expect this kind of nonsense.

I was sitting the other day when a rather surreal conversation about a plague of squirrels broke out. It seems these rodents are driving gardeners and bird lovers…. Well… Squirrelly. Whether eating plant roots or bird seed both groups are being driven to contemplate squirrel-cide,

Hmmm. A rather interesting question of poetic justice occurs to me. Is this plague a result of a population explosion or a population displacement? In the mindless drive to drive the homeless anywhere but in my backyard many patches of trees and brush were ripped out and left bare. Trees and brush that also served as home to wildlife such as – squirrels.

If this habitat destruction is in fact contributing to this plague of squirrelly behaviour it serves to underline the dangers of unthinking reaction. No one bothered to ask just where it was they expected the homeless to go when driven from where they were residing. Their habitat destruction just forced the homeless into view on the streets and into residential neighbourhoods. Just as the homeless were forced into residential neighbourhoods, the squirrels were forced to relocate as well.

When you do not think about how to actually accomplish the results you want, all to often you waste resources and at best accomplish nothing or set in motion a whole series of new, more aggravating and complex problems. Which suggests the police may want to seriously reconsider their return to harassing and moving from one spot to another the homeless. Otherwise they will just have to live with any unwanted or unintended consequences, running the risk of driving themselves squirrelly.