Wednesday, September 27, 2006
A rather interesting response ...
In response to Mark B. Toth’s letter of Sept. 2, 2006, I would like to suggest that he read his own words - with an open mind. He states "I wrote…," "I honestly believe…" and "I added…". "I, I, I" states Mr. Toth then protests Mr. Lanning attributing to Mr. Toth his own words. I draw Mr. Toths attention to the definition of the word I - "the nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself". Mr. Toth was speaking of himself personally and I would like to know how anyone was to reply without also speaking of his self stated personal profanities.
I also draw to Mr. Toth’s attention the fact that words such as Bigoted and Narrow minded are adjectives. To address Mr. Toth’s obvious lack of understanding of the concept of adjectives: n. 1: a word that expresses an attribute of something 2: the word class that qualifies nouns. These words are descriptive of the noun, which in this cases happens to be Mr. Toth’s mindset as demonstrated by his own words.
I believe that any reasonable Canadian reading Mr. Toth’s original letter would agree that it clearly demonstrates: Bigoted: blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others as well as Narrow minded: 1) having or showing a prejudiced mind, as persons or opinions; biased. 2) not receptive to new ideas; having a closed mind. 3) morally self-righteous.
Trying to suggest that he cannot be held responsible for his clearly demonstrated bigotry and narrow mindedness if he attacks a caste as opposed to an individual is pure sophistry.
The most interesting aspect of Mr. Toth’s letter is his apparent concession to being "bigoted, narrow minded", in that he offers no defence of these descriptions of his character, but attempts to hid behind word games. Unfortunately for his attempts at deception those reading his diversionary tactics, for the most part, posses a degree of literacy that denies him this dishonesty.
.
I also draw to Mr. Toth’s attention the fact that words such as Bigoted and Narrow minded are adjectives. To address Mr. Toth’s obvious lack of understanding of the concept of adjectives: n. 1: a word that expresses an attribute of something 2: the word class that qualifies nouns. These words are descriptive of the noun, which in this cases happens to be Mr. Toth’s mindset as demonstrated by his own words.
I believe that any reasonable Canadian reading Mr. Toth’s original letter would agree that it clearly demonstrates: Bigoted: blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others as well as Narrow minded: 1) having or showing a prejudiced mind, as persons or opinions; biased. 2) not receptive to new ideas; having a closed mind. 3) morally self-righteous.
Trying to suggest that he cannot be held responsible for his clearly demonstrated bigotry and narrow mindedness if he attacks a caste as opposed to an individual is pure sophistry.
The most interesting aspect of Mr. Toth’s letter is his apparent concession to being "bigoted, narrow minded", in that he offers no defence of these descriptions of his character, but attempts to hid behind word games. Unfortunately for his attempts at deception those reading his diversionary tactics, for the most part, posses a degree of literacy that denies him this dishonesty.
.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Just what does binding mean here?
It there some secretly enacted bylaw in Abbotsford making it illegal to ask Councillors or City Staff probing, hard or difficult questions? As part of this hidden bylaw are staff and politicians exempt from answering, except when and where they feel like it? These questions popped into my mind upon reading “Beck stays mum on Big 3 details…”. Since I am posing questions just what does binding mean as used here?
A few weeks ago Mr. Beck was quoted in your publication as saying that the referendum was only about timing, not about if the proposed projects would get built. Now it is said to be binding. So which is it? Is the referendum a pointless waste of taxpayer dollars because these projects will be built no matter how loud the public’s NO is? Or is it binding and does binding mean that when people sensibly vote NO council will turn from this “Big 3” and address the many pressing small facility needs?
If the strike has caused problems in adequate planning and preparation exactly why are we rushing to hold the referendum in November? Oh wait; this is typical behaviour of council and staff, rushing in without thinking. Don’t think it is typical behaviour that has caused massive cost overruns, resulted in construction of facilities lacking needed aspects such as adequate seating for spectators and being a little short of what they should be because of such peccadilloes such as running out of room for the ice surface and having to cut it short of Olympic size? Just ask anyone who is familiar with the true tale of the building of the rink at ARC, at least those with nothing to hide about oversights.
This giving the bums rush to taxpayers seems likely to prevent thoughtful consideration of the plans and the City’s true needs as to facilities we need to build. Why the rush? Are there details and costs that will be kept hidden by forcing a rushed decision? Would taking a look at setting priorities based on what the City really needs get in the way of councillor and staff pet projects?
If we are to be rushed to judgement can we add the requirement for council and staff to act with careful planning and consideration, due consultation with the users of the facilities and prudent management?
Once these ill-considered, unneeded projects representing a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars are defeated with a loud, resounding NO we can get on with choosing and planning badly needed capital projects. Assuming that staff and council can recognize that NO means NO, that binding is binding and that the taxpayers who foot the bills have a right to set priorities for their City’s facility development and needs.
A few weeks ago Mr. Beck was quoted in your publication as saying that the referendum was only about timing, not about if the proposed projects would get built. Now it is said to be binding. So which is it? Is the referendum a pointless waste of taxpayer dollars because these projects will be built no matter how loud the public’s NO is? Or is it binding and does binding mean that when people sensibly vote NO council will turn from this “Big 3” and address the many pressing small facility needs?
If the strike has caused problems in adequate planning and preparation exactly why are we rushing to hold the referendum in November? Oh wait; this is typical behaviour of council and staff, rushing in without thinking. Don’t think it is typical behaviour that has caused massive cost overruns, resulted in construction of facilities lacking needed aspects such as adequate seating for spectators and being a little short of what they should be because of such peccadilloes such as running out of room for the ice surface and having to cut it short of Olympic size? Just ask anyone who is familiar with the true tale of the building of the rink at ARC, at least those with nothing to hide about oversights.
This giving the bums rush to taxpayers seems likely to prevent thoughtful consideration of the plans and the City’s true needs as to facilities we need to build. Why the rush? Are there details and costs that will be kept hidden by forcing a rushed decision? Would taking a look at setting priorities based on what the City really needs get in the way of councillor and staff pet projects?
If we are to be rushed to judgement can we add the requirement for council and staff to act with careful planning and consideration, due consultation with the users of the facilities and prudent management?
Once these ill-considered, unneeded projects representing a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars are defeated with a loud, resounding NO we can get on with choosing and planning badly needed capital projects. Assuming that staff and council can recognize that NO means NO, that binding is binding and that the taxpayers who foot the bills have a right to set priorities for their City’s facility development and needs.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
What Kind of politicians are THEY?
The Whistler city council said NO to building a sports/arena complex, even though part of the price was to be borne by the province and the 2010 Olympic Committee. Why did they say no? Because they felt that building the complex was not in the best interest of the taxpayers of Whistler. There was no demonstrated need for the complex other that the one time usage as the venue for Paralympics sledge hockey (which can and will be held at another location), the costs just kept rising and the City’s money could be better spent on needed projects.
What is the matter with those people? To actually consider the taxpayers best interests and apply the idea of responsible spending of taxpayer dollars – what a concept. Councils around the province must be lying low and hoping fervently their taxpayers do not notice such behaviour, lest their taxpayers adopt the attitude that they have the right to demand that their councils spend the taxpayer’s dollars wisely, effectively and with due care and diligence.
Members of Abbotsford’s current council have to be praying that local citizens do not call on councillors to explain their massive capital plans. How could they possibly explain the nonsensical wasting of taxpayer dollars for a referendum that according to Councillor Beck is not to give taxpayers a say as to whether these are projects our City needs, but only to decide if Abbotsford should rush madly into these projects so as to: waste even more taxpayer dollars on skyrocketing costs in an over heated construction boom, fail to be able to adequately plan and design the structures to meet the needs of our community now and into the future, deny the citizens (who foot the bills) any input into setting what our community needs and priorities are for capital projects (i.e. fire hall; a library building whose wiring is not hazardous to electronics and serves to encourage and enable students/citizens to research and writing tools such as the internet and word processors).
Why, if council was to be held to a standard where they had to consider taxpayers best interest – councillors and city staff members under such a standard would not be building their own pet projects and wants, but be required to build projects that the citizens and the City really need. Next thing you know the taxpayers would be demanding their civil servants be both Civil and provide actual Service.
What ever could the city council of Whistler have been thinking to actually consider the best interests and needs of their citizens? How heretical can you get? Take the needs, wishes and best interests of the citizens into consideration while having to think and act with due deliberation – politicians and City staff must be trembling at the thought of actually behaving rationally and in the best interests of their citizens.
What is the matter with those people? To actually consider the taxpayers best interests and apply the idea of responsible spending of taxpayer dollars – what a concept. Councils around the province must be lying low and hoping fervently their taxpayers do not notice such behaviour, lest their taxpayers adopt the attitude that they have the right to demand that their councils spend the taxpayer’s dollars wisely, effectively and with due care and diligence.
Members of Abbotsford’s current council have to be praying that local citizens do not call on councillors to explain their massive capital plans. How could they possibly explain the nonsensical wasting of taxpayer dollars for a referendum that according to Councillor Beck is not to give taxpayers a say as to whether these are projects our City needs, but only to decide if Abbotsford should rush madly into these projects so as to: waste even more taxpayer dollars on skyrocketing costs in an over heated construction boom, fail to be able to adequately plan and design the structures to meet the needs of our community now and into the future, deny the citizens (who foot the bills) any input into setting what our community needs and priorities are for capital projects (i.e. fire hall; a library building whose wiring is not hazardous to electronics and serves to encourage and enable students/citizens to research and writing tools such as the internet and word processors).
Why, if council was to be held to a standard where they had to consider taxpayers best interest – councillors and city staff members under such a standard would not be building their own pet projects and wants, but be required to build projects that the citizens and the City really need. Next thing you know the taxpayers would be demanding their civil servants be both Civil and provide actual Service.
What ever could the city council of Whistler have been thinking to actually consider the best interests and needs of their citizens? How heretical can you get? Take the needs, wishes and best interests of the citizens into consideration while having to think and act with due deliberation – politicians and City staff must be trembling at the thought of actually behaving rationally and in the best interests of their citizens.
