(Aired on July 26, 2010)
There has been much discussion in the past week centering on motorcycles. In particular, the noise the bikes make and whether or not there should be restrictions placed on that noise. Some suggest the decibel rating is beyond acceptable limits.
For me, the issue is not the noise level per se, it's where the noise is made. If there are mufflers and noise kits put on bikes that put the level above the danger rating for a person's hearing, that's obviously something that needs to be examined. But the bigger issue is whether or not bikers should be exercising some common sense and decency in dealing with motorcycle noise.
Out on the highway, noise shouldn't be an issue. Let it fly. In the City, that's another story. In my opinion, bikers need to be educated to rein in the noise when traveling down quiet residential streets. If they don't, fine them.
I know full well that bikes can be kept quiet. Even the big bikes that we traditionally blame for the problem. I live on a street right now that has bike owners, and in the past, one particular home used to have lots of the big Harleys come to visit. We never, ever had a problem. The bikes came into the cul-de-sac behind us, noise down, and you didn't hear them any more than you would a car or truck. Other people have totally different issues. People come riding down their streets early in the morning, full bore, and there's no excuse for that.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the city's noise bylaw. It has simply to be enforced strenuously when there are complaints.
One final note - I don't know why owners of the big Harleys seem to be the focus of much of the discussion. They aren't the only bike that makes noise. In fact, much of the noise I hear from the arterials and the highway nearby my home come from those crotch-rockets as they're called, the smaller street bikes that whine like a banshee when they're going at full tilt. They're much worse than any Harley I hear.
Noise is always an issue. And for some, it's much more concern than for others. Common sense is the order of the day here. If the bikes make unreasonable noise, fine the owners. Make them pay for their stupidity. But a certain amount of noise is going to happen. That's the nature of an urban neighbourhood.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
What to do with $50-million
(Aired on July 23, 2010)
What would you do with $50-million?
The Lotto Max draw will take place in about a half an hour. The jackpot is back up to $50-million, and with multiple spinoff million dollar prizes thrown in for good measure. And even though it may not be smart to come within shouting distance of anything connected to BCLC right now, I must admit, I've bought a ticket. I only tend to buy tickets when the prize is obscenely large - which doesn't make sense, I know, but leave me be.
Buying a ticket gives you license to dream. It's like voting gives you license to dream about good government. Just the other day, the people in the office were fantasizing about what they would do if they won the big prize. Would you keep working? Most people wouldn't. Of course everyone would help out friends and family, and make sure the people they care about are taken care of. How much would you donate to charity, and to which causes would you donate? How would you protect yourself from people trying to take advantage of you?
And finally, how much would instant wealth change the actual substance of your life? I look at friends and acquaintances in upper income brackets, and it quickly becomes evident that money doesn't solve all of a person's problems. There is as much misery and unrest among the rich as there is anywhere.
So to the person who wins the big prize tonight - or whenever its awarded - try to keep some perspective. And if you'd like, I'd be willing to discuss this further, for a small fee.
What would you do with $50-million?
The Lotto Max draw will take place in about a half an hour. The jackpot is back up to $50-million, and with multiple spinoff million dollar prizes thrown in for good measure. And even though it may not be smart to come within shouting distance of anything connected to BCLC right now, I must admit, I've bought a ticket. I only tend to buy tickets when the prize is obscenely large - which doesn't make sense, I know, but leave me be.
Buying a ticket gives you license to dream. It's like voting gives you license to dream about good government. Just the other day, the people in the office were fantasizing about what they would do if they won the big prize. Would you keep working? Most people wouldn't. Of course everyone would help out friends and family, and make sure the people they care about are taken care of. How much would you donate to charity, and to which causes would you donate? How would you protect yourself from people trying to take advantage of you?
And finally, how much would instant wealth change the actual substance of your life? I look at friends and acquaintances in upper income brackets, and it quickly becomes evident that money doesn't solve all of a person's problems. There is as much misery and unrest among the rich as there is anywhere.
So to the person who wins the big prize tonight - or whenever its awarded - try to keep some perspective. And if you'd like, I'd be willing to discuss this further, for a small fee.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Moving Companies Need Better Standards
(Aired on July 22, 2010)
Canada's moving companies are trying to decide if they want to adopt a bill of rights to protect customers. The proposal would ensure customers receive a written quote and get plenty of notice about delays. The bill would also ensure movers are trained, bonded and have adequate insurance. The new plan would weed out operators who have victimized families moving from one place to another.
But there has to be more than that. Moving is a much more difficult situation than it used to be. Consumer advocates say customers have the responsibility to hire ethical and above-board firms. But how do you know that anymore? It used to be that you could look in the phone book and pick one of the big names you recognized and you could pretty much rest assured you were going to be okay. Not so anymore. Even many of the big moving companies subcontract out the work and there are often all sorts of delays that create nothing but problems.
One of my kids has moved several times because of her husband's job, and each time there have been problems. Frantic phone calls to find out why no one showed up as promised. It added a lot of stress. No matter what firm they picked, they had issues. Most of it had to do with the company keeping their promises to do things by a certain time. There were always delays. And that just isn't good enough. I realize these cross-country haulers can run into problems.
But it seems there are more and more issues trying to get companies to commit to a time line that customers can rely on. I don't know if some kind of bill of rights will help. But it sure can't do any harm.
Canada's moving companies are trying to decide if they want to adopt a bill of rights to protect customers. The proposal would ensure customers receive a written quote and get plenty of notice about delays. The bill would also ensure movers are trained, bonded and have adequate insurance. The new plan would weed out operators who have victimized families moving from one place to another.
But there has to be more than that. Moving is a much more difficult situation than it used to be. Consumer advocates say customers have the responsibility to hire ethical and above-board firms. But how do you know that anymore? It used to be that you could look in the phone book and pick one of the big names you recognized and you could pretty much rest assured you were going to be okay. Not so anymore. Even many of the big moving companies subcontract out the work and there are often all sorts of delays that create nothing but problems.
One of my kids has moved several times because of her husband's job, and each time there have been problems. Frantic phone calls to find out why no one showed up as promised. It added a lot of stress. No matter what firm they picked, they had issues. Most of it had to do with the company keeping their promises to do things by a certain time. There were always delays. And that just isn't good enough. I realize these cross-country haulers can run into problems.
But it seems there are more and more issues trying to get companies to commit to a time line that customers can rely on. I don't know if some kind of bill of rights will help. But it sure can't do any harm.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
F35 Purchase Process Flawed
(Aired on July 21, 2010)
Doug Collins told us earlier this week that it's about time Canada spends billions of dollars on new fighter jets to replace our aging fleet of CF18s. Unlike Doug, I'm not going to jump in with both feet.
First, I'm not the happiest about a multi-billion dollar contract going to Lockheed Martin without a bid process. Even at the local level, it's important that significant contracts be put out to tender. I'm aware that their aren't too many companies in the world that make fighter planes, but some sort of competitive process would have been helpful. Lockheed Martin has been criticized, and in fact penalized by the US government, because this F35 program has been racked with cost overruns and delays. Unhappily, it appears Prime Minister Stephen Harper's tendency to simply follow Washington's lead is coming through here. The United States has ordered 2400 F35s for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy.
But more than that, I'll agree with the columnist in the National Post who said the Harper government needs to give Canadians a full and complete vision of what the role of our armed forces will be going forward before making these purchases. If the war in Afghanistan is the new model for what we can expect in world conflict in the future, we have to realize that our country didn't use the CF18s in Afghanistan.
However, if the primary mission for the new F35s will be to defend the homeland, is that really the best use of taxpayers' money? I think the smarter money would go into beefed up security at ground crossings and airports. Even smarter money would go into promoting diplomacy as a means of diffusing conflict. If we really want to eliminate our enemies, the best way to do it isn't killing them, but by turning them into friends. Call it naivete, but too many of us are outgrowing our idealism.
Doug Collins told us earlier this week that it's about time Canada spends billions of dollars on new fighter jets to replace our aging fleet of CF18s. Unlike Doug, I'm not going to jump in with both feet.
First, I'm not the happiest about a multi-billion dollar contract going to Lockheed Martin without a bid process. Even at the local level, it's important that significant contracts be put out to tender. I'm aware that their aren't too many companies in the world that make fighter planes, but some sort of competitive process would have been helpful. Lockheed Martin has been criticized, and in fact penalized by the US government, because this F35 program has been racked with cost overruns and delays. Unhappily, it appears Prime Minister Stephen Harper's tendency to simply follow Washington's lead is coming through here. The United States has ordered 2400 F35s for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy.
But more than that, I'll agree with the columnist in the National Post who said the Harper government needs to give Canadians a full and complete vision of what the role of our armed forces will be going forward before making these purchases. If the war in Afghanistan is the new model for what we can expect in world conflict in the future, we have to realize that our country didn't use the CF18s in Afghanistan.
However, if the primary mission for the new F35s will be to defend the homeland, is that really the best use of taxpayers' money? I think the smarter money would go into beefed up security at ground crossings and airports. Even smarter money would go into promoting diplomacy as a means of diffusing conflict. If we really want to eliminate our enemies, the best way to do it isn't killing them, but by turning them into friends. Call it naivete, but too many of us are outgrowing our idealism.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Changes to Family Law Act Bring it Into the 21st Century
(Aired on July 20, 2010)
It's certainly about time that B.C. Family Law Act was revamped to take it out of the Stone Age. Many of the measures introduced yesterday will go a long way to solving family difficulties. One of the biggest changes will change the way property is divided in common law relationships. Living together outside of marriage will have much more definable boundaries. Another area will bring same-sex marriages under the Act with respect to determining who the legal parent is. The thrust is to make the law more realistic given the changing nature of marriage and family relationships.
The Act hasn't been changed in 30 years, but relationships sure have. The courts will now not be the only primary source of resolving disputes. There will be much more emphasis placed on mediation and a broader range of non-court dispute resolution options. Less adversarial terminology is being advocated.
But in making all these changes, let's continue to remember that family disputes are just that - dispute, and in most cases they are adversarial in nature. When couples split up, the issue of property, of access rights to children, all take on a highly explosive role, and just changing things on paper doesn't mean the changes will make their way down the line when people are arguing over which days a parent gets access to children.
I have watched with increasing sadness the number of children torn apart by their parents splitting up. By having one parent in Trail, another in Kitimat, and the child having to split time with both parents, going to school in two cities, and so on. The split is bad enough, but the way courts rule in many of these cases is just plain stupid. So with the rewriting of the act has to come a new approach, new points of reference. If the child's interests are going to be paramount, as the new act states, a whole lot of people behind the bench, a whole lot of people in Family Services and a whole lot of support services personnel have to change the way they think too. Otherwise, all the work put into the changes will be just a waste of time.
It's certainly about time that B.C. Family Law Act was revamped to take it out of the Stone Age. Many of the measures introduced yesterday will go a long way to solving family difficulties. One of the biggest changes will change the way property is divided in common law relationships. Living together outside of marriage will have much more definable boundaries. Another area will bring same-sex marriages under the Act with respect to determining who the legal parent is. The thrust is to make the law more realistic given the changing nature of marriage and family relationships.
The Act hasn't been changed in 30 years, but relationships sure have. The courts will now not be the only primary source of resolving disputes. There will be much more emphasis placed on mediation and a broader range of non-court dispute resolution options. Less adversarial terminology is being advocated.
But in making all these changes, let's continue to remember that family disputes are just that - dispute, and in most cases they are adversarial in nature. When couples split up, the issue of property, of access rights to children, all take on a highly explosive role, and just changing things on paper doesn't mean the changes will make their way down the line when people are arguing over which days a parent gets access to children.
I have watched with increasing sadness the number of children torn apart by their parents splitting up. By having one parent in Trail, another in Kitimat, and the child having to split time with both parents, going to school in two cities, and so on. The split is bad enough, but the way courts rule in many of these cases is just plain stupid. So with the rewriting of the act has to come a new approach, new points of reference. If the child's interests are going to be paramount, as the new act states, a whole lot of people behind the bench, a whole lot of people in Family Services and a whole lot of support services personnel have to change the way they think too. Otherwise, all the work put into the changes will be just a waste of time.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Billions for War Planes Well Spent
(Aired on July 19, 2010)
I know there are lots of people wondering why we're going to spend $16-billion buying 65 new fighter jets. I'll tell you why. Because we have to.
This country spends precious little on defence. Even countries that are considered "neutral" countries spend more on their defence budgets and have better armies and air forces than we do. Our aging CF-18's are about done. We recently spent over $2-billion on a refit, which was probably money poorly spent. But we have to improve.
And it won't be the last time a huge sum is spent on our Armed Forces. We desperately need to improve our naval strength. At this point, a group of Somalian pirates could probably overrun our navy, and take hostages. As our Arctic sovereignty becomes more and more an issue, as our government more and more needs to take a stand against countries which are trying to claim mineral rights and water passage rights over the Arctic circle, we need to be prepared to deal with these kinds of issues. How do we do it? We have to spend money. We have to have destroyers, we have to have aircraft, we have to have an army.
We have relied so much on our neighbours to be there for us in time of trouble, but they're kind of getting tired of it. Will the U.S. and Britain be there in time of war? Of course they will. They're protecting themselves as much as us. That's why the U.S. invested so heavily in the Pine Tree and Dew Lines during the cold war. They knew we couldn't do it, they had to do it to protect their interests. But at the end of the day, we need to put some of our money where our mouth is, and having an Armed Forces that at least gives us a minimal strength is critical to our future. I'm not a war monger in any way, shape or form, but we have to protect ourselves, and despite the cost, I believe this is money well spent.
I know there are lots of people wondering why we're going to spend $16-billion buying 65 new fighter jets. I'll tell you why. Because we have to.
This country spends precious little on defence. Even countries that are considered "neutral" countries spend more on their defence budgets and have better armies and air forces than we do. Our aging CF-18's are about done. We recently spent over $2-billion on a refit, which was probably money poorly spent. But we have to improve.
And it won't be the last time a huge sum is spent on our Armed Forces. We desperately need to improve our naval strength. At this point, a group of Somalian pirates could probably overrun our navy, and take hostages. As our Arctic sovereignty becomes more and more an issue, as our government more and more needs to take a stand against countries which are trying to claim mineral rights and water passage rights over the Arctic circle, we need to be prepared to deal with these kinds of issues. How do we do it? We have to spend money. We have to have destroyers, we have to have aircraft, we have to have an army.
We have relied so much on our neighbours to be there for us in time of trouble, but they're kind of getting tired of it. Will the U.S. and Britain be there in time of war? Of course they will. They're protecting themselves as much as us. That's why the U.S. invested so heavily in the Pine Tree and Dew Lines during the cold war. They knew we couldn't do it, they had to do it to protect their interests. But at the end of the day, we need to put some of our money where our mouth is, and having an Armed Forces that at least gives us a minimal strength is critical to our future. I'm not a war monger in any way, shape or form, but we have to protect ourselves, and despite the cost, I believe this is money well spent.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Dam Collapse a Massive Boondoggle
(Aired on July 16, 2010)
We all forget things. It's not hard with the busy life we lead for things to slip through the cracks. I've done it many times, despite my best efforts, and fortunately, it's never come back to bite me seriously. We regroup and try to do a better job next time.
But it's hard to believe that something like that which happened in Oliver could have slipped through the cracks for 40 years, with, I'm sure, many different people responsible, and several different governments in place. A report released yesterday outlines a continuing series of gaffes that ultimately led to a mudslide June 13 that wiped out several homes and a large tract of farm and orchard land. The dam is privately owned, and as far back as the 1960s, the government ordered the owner to make repairs and improve the dam. Those repairs, apparently, we never done. And worse, there was never any followup to ensure the repairs were completely.
That's hard to believe. No one, in all those years, ever checked to see if the guy completed the work. And then there's the case of a phone call from a hiker, who reported the lake behind the dam was overflowing after recent rains. Police called the Ministry, but left a message on an answering machine that wasn't heard until the day after the slide.
I don't want to be overly critical here, but that just seems like a whole series of incomprehensible screw-ups that led to people possibly losing their homes and the life they have built for themselves. They will never get the compensation they deserve, and they could have lost their lives.
This is a massive boondoggle of the highest proportions. Not only should the dam's owner pay if he's found negligent, but the government needs to have a major ministry reorganization so there's proper followup when repairs are ordered. I guess we should be happy no lives were lost, but try to tell that to the families who now have to start over.
We all forget things. It's not hard with the busy life we lead for things to slip through the cracks. I've done it many times, despite my best efforts, and fortunately, it's never come back to bite me seriously. We regroup and try to do a better job next time.
But it's hard to believe that something like that which happened in Oliver could have slipped through the cracks for 40 years, with, I'm sure, many different people responsible, and several different governments in place. A report released yesterday outlines a continuing series of gaffes that ultimately led to a mudslide June 13 that wiped out several homes and a large tract of farm and orchard land. The dam is privately owned, and as far back as the 1960s, the government ordered the owner to make repairs and improve the dam. Those repairs, apparently, we never done. And worse, there was never any followup to ensure the repairs were completely.
That's hard to believe. No one, in all those years, ever checked to see if the guy completed the work. And then there's the case of a phone call from a hiker, who reported the lake behind the dam was overflowing after recent rains. Police called the Ministry, but left a message on an answering machine that wasn't heard until the day after the slide.
I don't want to be overly critical here, but that just seems like a whole series of incomprehensible screw-ups that led to people possibly losing their homes and the life they have built for themselves. They will never get the compensation they deserve, and they could have lost their lives.
This is a massive boondoggle of the highest proportions. Not only should the dam's owner pay if he's found negligent, but the government needs to have a major ministry reorganization so there's proper followup when repairs are ordered. I guess we should be happy no lives were lost, but try to tell that to the families who now have to start over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
