Thursday, February 21, 2008
Not an Eclipse - The Truth is Out There.
On Wednesday February 20, 2008 there was neither a lunar eclipse not a launch against a falling “spy satellite” as was widely reported. These stories were merely the attempt by the Powers That Be to keep the public in ignorance about the events that actually occurred on that evening.
Fortunately for the public and unfortunately for those attempting to perpetrate this deception, the stories and explanations they sought to use were so thin as to be transparent and readily seen through.
It was not a lunar eclipse that obscured the moon but an alien interstellar vessel whose path, size and close proximity to earth gave the general outward appearance of a lunar eclipse. The destruction of the starship and its subsequent break-up, clearing the line of sight to the moon, helped complete the illusion of a lunar eclipse.
It was against this inbound starship that the US Navy launched its attack, not some mythical “spy satellite”. Under the guise of shooting down a “spy satellite” with poisonous fuel onboard, the military destroyed our interstellar visitor.
No doubt the starship homed in on Earth because, on the basis of radio frequencies, Earth is a brilliantly lit up object as a result of all our media broadcasting signals into space.
Given the vast distances and travel times involved in voyaging between the stars the exploration crew and scientists would travel in some form of cold sleep or suspended animation. The fact the crew was not awakened prior to the ship heading for orbital insertion (why wake the crew up before it was definitely established the planet was of interest) supports the conclusion that our visitors were explorers and not hostile.
Why would a starship be destroyed?
Concrete proof of intelligent alien life together with whatever knowledge and ideas they may have chosen to share with the world would have had a profound effect on mankind. The effects would have had a high potential of causing massive social upheaval and change. Inherent in this change was the likely displacement of our current ruling class.
Unwilling to run the risk of losing their power and control of the people the ruling class destroyed the starship and the threat to their power. The need to act quickly resulted in the very thin stories of a lunar eclipse and “spy satellite” destruction to cover up their atrocity, greed and lust for power.
We will never know the knowledge, the glories that mankind would have gained from our visitors. What bright future for mankind was sacrificed just so the ruling class can continue to enjoy the wealth and privileges that comes from their rule?
Fortunately for the public and unfortunately for those attempting to perpetrate this deception, the stories and explanations they sought to use were so thin as to be transparent and readily seen through.
It was not a lunar eclipse that obscured the moon but an alien interstellar vessel whose path, size and close proximity to earth gave the general outward appearance of a lunar eclipse. The destruction of the starship and its subsequent break-up, clearing the line of sight to the moon, helped complete the illusion of a lunar eclipse.
It was against this inbound starship that the US Navy launched its attack, not some mythical “spy satellite”. Under the guise of shooting down a “spy satellite” with poisonous fuel onboard, the military destroyed our interstellar visitor.
No doubt the starship homed in on Earth because, on the basis of radio frequencies, Earth is a brilliantly lit up object as a result of all our media broadcasting signals into space.
Given the vast distances and travel times involved in voyaging between the stars the exploration crew and scientists would travel in some form of cold sleep or suspended animation. The fact the crew was not awakened prior to the ship heading for orbital insertion (why wake the crew up before it was definitely established the planet was of interest) supports the conclusion that our visitors were explorers and not hostile.
Why would a starship be destroyed?
Concrete proof of intelligent alien life together with whatever knowledge and ideas they may have chosen to share with the world would have had a profound effect on mankind. The effects would have had a high potential of causing massive social upheaval and change. Inherent in this change was the likely displacement of our current ruling class.
Unwilling to run the risk of losing their power and control of the people the ruling class destroyed the starship and the threat to their power. The need to act quickly resulted in the very thin stories of a lunar eclipse and “spy satellite” destruction to cover up their atrocity, greed and lust for power.
We will never know the knowledge, the glories that mankind would have gained from our visitors. What bright future for mankind was sacrificed just so the ruling class can continue to enjoy the wealth and privileges that comes from their rule?
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Grant's Law - legislating human stupidity.
“Grant’s Law” is inconvenient but what else would government do if it was not filling our lives with inconvenience? Surely one would not expect them to address such issues as poverty, affordable housing, homelessness, addiction or mental illness? No, that would require thought, hard work and leadership. It is so much easier to pander to the public with “Grant’s Law”, than to tackle pressing social issues.
The Liberal government pays lip service to capitalism and letting the markets decide – until it is politically convenient for legislation or to avoid enforcing the laws protecting workers. All the government had to do was use the existing labour standards to prevent employers from deducting the cost of stolen gas from employees or from firing them because they were intelligent enough to do the smart thing – nothing.
But enforcing labour standards in this instance would have set a precedent and the government could have found itself under pressure to enforce all the labour standards, areas such as farm workers. Or even worse, find their selves under pressure to deal with issues such as keeping employees as “part time” to avoid the rights and benefits that accrue to full time employees.
My sympathies may go out to Grant’s parents, but this law still exasperates me. Not because I resent being treated like a criminal and inconvenienced every time I purchase gasoline, but because at its core it is a law legislating about human stupidity.
With apologies to Mr. De Patie, rushing out to confront a criminal armed with a high powered weapon weighing hundreds of kilograms is not an intelligent action. And a car, despite the way the laws deal with drivers who kill people (drunk or sober drivers), is a lethal weapon. A criminal or an idiot armed with a car is as deadly lethal as if armed with an AK-47 and confronting them, whether armed with a car or AK-47, is less than intelligent behaviour that is likely to prove fatal.
What this law is about, besides inconveniencing and treating as criminals the pubic, is preventing people from behaving stupidly.
If government is going down that path, it better get right on legislation governing the use of ladders; since in North America nearly a person a day dies and there are 100,000 injures from falling from ladders. Legislation is obviously needed, even though research shows that 100% of ladder accidents might be eliminated with proper attention to the application of equipment.
If we are going to legislate about human stupidity where do we stop? After all, as Albert Einstein noted “Only two things are infinite, the Universe and Human Stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”
The Liberal government pays lip service to capitalism and letting the markets decide – until it is politically convenient for legislation or to avoid enforcing the laws protecting workers. All the government had to do was use the existing labour standards to prevent employers from deducting the cost of stolen gas from employees or from firing them because they were intelligent enough to do the smart thing – nothing.
But enforcing labour standards in this instance would have set a precedent and the government could have found itself under pressure to enforce all the labour standards, areas such as farm workers. Or even worse, find their selves under pressure to deal with issues such as keeping employees as “part time” to avoid the rights and benefits that accrue to full time employees.
My sympathies may go out to Grant’s parents, but this law still exasperates me. Not because I resent being treated like a criminal and inconvenienced every time I purchase gasoline, but because at its core it is a law legislating about human stupidity.
With apologies to Mr. De Patie, rushing out to confront a criminal armed with a high powered weapon weighing hundreds of kilograms is not an intelligent action. And a car, despite the way the laws deal with drivers who kill people (drunk or sober drivers), is a lethal weapon. A criminal or an idiot armed with a car is as deadly lethal as if armed with an AK-47 and confronting them, whether armed with a car or AK-47, is less than intelligent behaviour that is likely to prove fatal.
What this law is about, besides inconveniencing and treating as criminals the pubic, is preventing people from behaving stupidly.
If government is going down that path, it better get right on legislation governing the use of ladders; since in North America nearly a person a day dies and there are 100,000 injures from falling from ladders. Legislation is obviously needed, even though research shows that 100% of ladder accidents might be eliminated with proper attention to the application of equipment.
If we are going to legislate about human stupidity where do we stop? After all, as Albert Einstein noted “Only two things are infinite, the Universe and Human Stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Educating Abbotsford City Hall
Annual: 1. of, for, or pertaining to a year; yearly: annual salary; 2. occurring or returning once a year; 3. Recurring, done, or performed every year; yearly.
I make available the above definition of annual for the education of Abbotsford City Hall which has, on several occasions, demonstrated their lack of knowledge as to what the term annual means.
When you have an annual fee increase you raise your fees ONCE a year and no other fee increases take place until a year has passed. It does not mean you have an annual fee increase in September 2007 following a fee increase in July 2007and then another fee increase at the beginning of January 2008 – which at a 100% was definitely the steepest of the increases.
Abbotsford Recreation Centre patrons have now (I say now as I have no knowledge of how many, if any, more annual increases will occur within the year) had three fee increases in this annum (noun (Latin) year; "per annum"). Annum: year; annual: yearly. So for the education of City staff and politicians I repeat the definition of annual.
Annual: 1. of, for, or pertaining to a year; yearly: annual salary; 2. occurring or returning once a year; 3. Recurring, done, or performed every year; yearly.
While on the topic of definition or naming of City programs etc.: Should not a swim where the price doubled be renamed from a loonie swim to a twoonie swim. It just seems somewhat loony to be paying a twoonie for a loonie swim. I do not imagine taxpayers/patrons find it at all amusing to go to a loonie swim and be charged $2. To stand in front of that flat, big screen TV mockingly labelling the swim costing you $2 a loonie swim.
As a final point on paying attention to the details: With Parks and Rec having taken over the public bulletin board for the stated purpose of promoting Parks and Rec programs; why did they then have to spend all those taxpayers dollars on two big flat screen TVs to hang at the front desk? Simply because, as is the case with their multiple “annual” fee increases, they can?
I make available the above definition of annual for the education of Abbotsford City Hall which has, on several occasions, demonstrated their lack of knowledge as to what the term annual means.
When you have an annual fee increase you raise your fees ONCE a year and no other fee increases take place until a year has passed. It does not mean you have an annual fee increase in September 2007 following a fee increase in July 2007and then another fee increase at the beginning of January 2008 – which at a 100% was definitely the steepest of the increases.
Abbotsford Recreation Centre patrons have now (I say now as I have no knowledge of how many, if any, more annual increases will occur within the year) had three fee increases in this annum (noun (Latin) year; "per annum"). Annum: year; annual: yearly. So for the education of City staff and politicians I repeat the definition of annual.
Annual: 1. of, for, or pertaining to a year; yearly: annual salary; 2. occurring or returning once a year; 3. Recurring, done, or performed every year; yearly.
While on the topic of definition or naming of City programs etc.: Should not a swim where the price doubled be renamed from a loonie swim to a twoonie swim. It just seems somewhat loony to be paying a twoonie for a loonie swim. I do not imagine taxpayers/patrons find it at all amusing to go to a loonie swim and be charged $2. To stand in front of that flat, big screen TV mockingly labelling the swim costing you $2 a loonie swim.
As a final point on paying attention to the details: With Parks and Rec having taken over the public bulletin board for the stated purpose of promoting Parks and Rec programs; why did they then have to spend all those taxpayers dollars on two big flat screen TVs to hang at the front desk? Simply because, as is the case with their multiple “annual” fee increases, they can?
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Severance pay? Really?
Severance pay: noun – A sum of money usually based on length of employment for which an employee is eligible upon termination.
I read that Abbotsford’s city manager Mr. Guthrie retired early. I do not recall reading anything about “dismissed” or “terminated”?
What is this golden handshake of a severance package? No employment contract has provisions for payment of any severance pay, much less such an extravagant amount, when an employee retires or quits. Just what is going on?
For the sake of transparency and giving taxpayers the whole story I think we need a great deal more information – without being forced to file Freedom of Information requests.
Did Mr. Guthrie retire or was he terminated? If he retired what is this so-called severance pay really about, since you are not entitled to severance pay if you retire or quit? If he was terminated, why was he terminated? More to the point, why the misleading public statements about retirement?
Does the timing of this sudden appearance of a “severance package” have anything to do with reports Mr. Guthrie was preparing to sue the city for wrongful dismissal? If in fact this “severance package” is to prevent or settle a potential lawsuit, why is it presented to the public as a severance pay?
What is really going on; what is the truth here? Taxpayers, as the ones paying for this “severance package” have a right to have these and any other questions they may have on this matter answered – fully and truthfully.
