Olympics On time and On budget?

213 posts / 0 new
Last post

You have a real tendency to misrepresent others' opinions and make huge leaps of illogic by attempting to infer motivation.

If those aren't your opinions, maybe you shouldn't state them as if they were.

Maybe you should stick to the issue instead of trying to characterize motive or emotion.

F'rinstance. I don't have a hate-on for the middle class just because I ridicule your lament of oppression.

or this:

"You state it's enough when we see results? That's great news! Let's take away ALL social spending, since you obviously don't believe any of it is achieving any results at all."

Just a kinda stupid exaggeration. Why bother to engage you if that's the kind of silly stuff you're going to bring to the discussion.

I find it rich that you haven't touched the subject of discussion in the last 20 posts, and you should be so bold as to suggest I stick to the subject. Rather than personal attacks on me, you could try addressing some of the issue's I've raised. Or maybe you could just go on posting erroneous political paraphrases and try to pass them off as quotes.

As for your latest 'contribution', that stupid exaggeration is in response to your overly vague and completely useless assertion that "when we see results" is enough.

There are only 2 possible states for that

(1) We see results

(2) We don't see results.

If we are currently seeing results (1) then we have finished by your own definition. If we are NOT seeing results, then it is clear that the money being spent (BILLIONS PER YEAR) is completely wasted as they produce no results, thus we should discontinue those programs.

Furthermore, I never lamented any oppression of the middle class (your words, not mine) I merely pointed out that what are considered middle class in our society pay a huge portion of income tax and are also completely valid stakeholders in our collective society. If you do not agree with that then I think it's fair to say you have a "hate-on" for the middle class.

Being a stakeholder in our collective society the middle class deserves to share in the wealth generated from that society. I believe and provided numbers to show that we are already spending a large enough portion of our tax revenues on addressing low income families and issues around homelessness. I believe that it is fair that the pie gets sliced so that middle income households also enjoy some of the benefit. That is, in part, being provided by funding these Olympics. I believe is going to benefit our society more than it is going to cost. Also, this is a one time event for Vancouver, it costs far less (by an order of magnitude) than what we already spend on low income issues. I also note that a LOT of money from the Olympic budget is further going towards addressing assisting the poor, including housing and transportation. Furthermore the poor will be able to enjoy many events for free including public performances and free tickets to families who could not otherwise afford to attend.

I realize that you're not a "low income" family, however one of the things I dislike about our conversations is that your attitude makes me feel less sympathetic to those who are. The constant entitlement that you demonstrate on behalf of the poor is simply disgusting, and it saddens me that I project your opinions onto them. I hope other people don't feel the same, since I fear your sense of discussion would turn more people to voting ultra-conservative than the other way around. But don't worry, I always reflect afterwards that you don't speak for anyone other than yourself and neither do I.

that's a whole lot of words.

Here's some deed.

Stelmach pledges $196M to aid the homeless

full story linked below

"The constant entitlement that you demonstrate on behalf of the poor is simply disgusting."

I don't think I've suggested we do anything more than that outlined in the U.N.'s universal declaration of human rights... particularly Article 25.

2010 is little more than a wealth transfer from taxpayers to corporations and connected individuals. When will that become obvious to you?

"If we are NOT seeing results, then it is clear that the money being spent (BILLIONS PER YEAR) is completely wasted as they produce no results, thus we should discontinue those programs."

How ludicrous. One might as well suggest that since a car's gas tank can't carry enough gas to get from L.A. to New York, the trip is impossible.

"2010 is little more than a wealth transfer from taxpayers to corporations and connected individuals. When will that become obvious to you?"

When it becomes true, which is to say, never. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true Stump. You might as well be asking why someone doesn't believe in any given conspiracy. When will >conspiracy X< become obvious to you?

And as for your other post "How ludicrous. One might as well suggest that since a car's gas tank can't carry enough gas to get from L.A. to New York, the trip is impossible."

I am simply refuting your idiotic measure of when enough is enough. It seems like you're agreeing with me, or are simply willfully being ignorant. You still haven't addressed any of the points I've brought up, so I think you're just trying to Troll now. Feel free to post something useful if you have the time or inclination, but your last 3 have been as useless as your previous 10. Without at least some facts you should probably just crawl back under a bridge and troll from there.

"Feel free to post something useful "

www.olyblog.com - facts behind Oly games, ways to profit from 2010, lots of great info.

Maurice Cardinal ticks off 2010 acolytes and Anti-Olympic harridans alike. He must be doing something right

Check it out. Lots of facts. I can't recommend it highly enough for anyone wanting an unbiased assessment of the 2010 Games and it's likely effects on businesses large and small, the average BC resident, and the region as a whole.

linked below

emd By emd

Neat site...thanks Stump

"I can't recommend it highly enough for anyone wanting an unbiased assessment of the 2010 Games"

Interesting site, but hardly unbiased...

emd By emd

Hey Leon, was that you protesting the Spirit train?

emd By emd

With Glowing Hearts(tm). Nice.

Should probably see a doctor about that, it might be serious

"Hey Leon, was that you protesting the Spirit train?"

Hell no. I have an alibi and everything. Eating fatty food in the USA.

emd By emd

So Leon, what are your thoughts on your hard-earned tax dollars going to bail out Millenium Devleopment?

When you owe the bank $100,000 it's your problem.

When you owe the bank $100,000,000 it's the bank's problem.

The taxpayers are the bank in this instance and we're pretty much SOL. Can't very well let the athletes live in tents can we? Since we'd fail in our legal obligations and end up probably paying even more.

It's almost as if the entire idea was a stupid one. You can do a lot with a couple billion dollars. Parties for white people who like to slide downhill wouldn't have been my first pick.

Having said all that, I don't see why the deal had to be secret. There were no negotiations between competing parties or human resources issues to deal with (the usual caveat with in camera meetings).

The real question is where's the Mayor? Has he been kidnapped? Who's actually running this town?

emd By emd

Ya, a billion here and billion there and pretty soon you're talking about some real money.

How many 'ours' in overrrrrun? If you're a BC taxpayer looking at Olympic bills... all of 'em!

What no bites? No leaping to the defense of the big Games?

Howz the kool-aid taste suckers? At $6 billion a jug that's some mighty pricey flavoured water!

Shall we calculate how many buses, schools, daycares, detox beds, cops on the beat we could
have had? Better not, your head will explode faster than a teenage nose zit on prom night.
Faster than your car window would get smashed on the DTES if you left a bag of meth on the
front seat. Faster than the rate at which we're accumulating bad debt to pay for the
Overrunlympics. OK, well not that fast.

There's no point 'biting' stump. you're right, us uneducated, ignorant, kool-aid drinking suckers are clearly always wrong.

how about leaving it at 'you win'.

will you then stash the ego on another planet where it might fit?

Ain't about me. Show me where I'm tooting my horn. Or saying anybody is 'always' wrong.

I didn't win a goddamn thing except higher taxes down the road to pay for Vanoc's party.
Awesome. If you supported it and bought the lie, you deserve to be reminded that you bet on a
long shot with someone else's money.

also, this is the politics forum on an ultimate site. There will be heckling.

I guess I just try to look at things optimistically. You look pessimistically. You see money flushed down the toilet at every turn, I try to see the infrastructure, buildings and future earnings possible.

Is this the best way to spend money? No. Would this money have been around to spend if not for the Olympics? No. So you take the good with the bad.

Also, where you're tooting your own horn? I wouldn't even know where to start.

" Would this money have been around to spend if not for the Olympics?"

Where did it magically appear from then? It came from tax dollars and the marketing budgets
of the companies we support with our spending power. It wasn't just printed up or conjured
from thin air. It was diverted from other equally effective areas (in terms of economic effect)
and has trickled upwards into the wallets of those in power and those who they choose to
bless with contracts and bloated salaries.

I don't look pessimistically. I look realistically. This was a giant snow job (pun intended) from
start to finish. An optimist (me) would point out there's better ways to stimulate the
economy and plan for the future. A pessimist would rely on the same-old, same-old and
claim that we can't do better.

Infrastructure? O rly? How does a RAV line when we really need an Evergreen Line help? What
possible benefit is there to the Okanagan in a speed-skating oval in Richmond? Where's the
environmental benefit in another ski hill in the Sea to Sky corridor just encouraging more
vehicle trips and greater opportunity for a minority to recreate?

The ideology is flawed. The economic benefits are proven to be non-existent, and the
foresight is lacking. As for my horn, it's actually a bike bell (Of course it is. I'm a smug
cyclist donchaknow? The worst kind of eco-freak) and you should consider how weak your
argument is, if all you can do is accuse the messenger of hubris and recycle the infrastructure
argument, which has no foundation whatsoever (pun intended).

The reason I didn't bite is because in all of the threads I've engaged with you, you never respond to the points posted, or more frequently, you pick a couple of points out of context and focus on them leaving the real discussion untouched.

So why bother? It's not even a discussion.

Frankly, if you never respond intelligently to the points posted, don't expect people to keep posting them.

For examples feel free to read through any of the following threads:

Olympics On time and On budget?

How 'gay' became children's insult of choice

Animals in the news

Bike to work ?

Once you address the questions you've blatantly ignored in all those threads, then you have some reason to bitch when people don't respond to your posts.

Yes, some of my best work. All good stuff. I must be king of the trolls if I 'never' respond intelligently and yet these threads go on for post after post. Or perhaps there's another explanation. I'm going to go with, because I don't give the answer you want, that somehow you appoint yourself the decider of what's relevant and what isn't.

I might suggest we all scroll back to the top of this thread and see who originated this discussion eager to dish out 'crow-cake' to everyone who thought overruns were 'imminent' less than two years ago. Since that is the topic at hand. Or would you rather not?

No, the money didn't just appear out of nowhere. Surely you understand my point and are just being argumentative cause you can.

Yes, the infrastructure is needed. The rav line AND evergreen AND rail to the valley AND more light rail in vancouver are all needed. I don't know what the benefit, if any, to the people in kelowna the richmond oval would have. Nor do I know what benefit all that money spent on that new bridge in Kelowna has for anyone in the lower mainland. If something like the olympics gets some of that done where I live, so be it. That's reality. That's politics.

I couldn't care less about the olympics for the actual 2 weeks, I don't plan on being here and probably won't watch. But if them being here gets a few things done (and even if it means a luge track as well), like i said, so be it.

Would I rather see the money put to the uses I see as priorities? Of course (and I can assure you the olympics would not be on that list). But that's not the way it works. perhaps you need to run for office and make the change you want to see. Otherwise, stop pissing and moaning cause you don't like it.

Pissing and moaning? I'll speak my mind as long as I like. I don't need to run for office to do so and you've got some gall telling me to shut up because I don't hold or run for office. Guess what? It's called democracy and every citizen has a right to take issue with government, on voting day and any day afterward. Acquiescence to the status quo breeds apathy and totalitarianism. So, stop pissing and moaning because I choose to speak up about what I believe in. Stop telling me to shut up because I dare to question the idiocy of the "that's politics, that's reality' mentality, esp. from someone who claims to be an optimist. You've given up. If you're willing to be a sheep, then you're going to get shorn again and again. Not me.

Now to the point in your first sentence. I'm not being argumentative. I'm questioning your assertion that the money wasn't available without the Olympics. Think about it. There's more money available if we DON'T buy into the Olympics at its attendant expenses that provide zero benefit to taxpayers. Esp. if enough people stand up and say the Olympics aren't 'on that list' of priorities to which we would like our money allocated. But if people are just going to roll over and say, "Well, what can ya do, that's politics." then you've played right into the hands of the people who will abuse their power and spend your money.

Yeah, I get it. I'm noisy and confrontational and questioning everything that you (seemingly) don't want to think about. I'm 'that guy' and I just don't care too terribly much if you find it rude that I dare to speak my mind in my own manner. Don't feed the troll my friend and perhaps I'll stay under the bridge. Or perhaps I'll just keep showing up and speaking my piece without opposition. I'd prefer that. Repetition of a message is essential in garnering belief and buy-in. A lack of rebuttal just lends credence to any position. So, if you disagree, you have to try to argue against me. That's reality. That's marketing (and politics). Sucks. Sorry about that. If you are going to resign yourself to Realpolitik, then you have to accept it's methods, and can't bitch when those you don't agree with decide to use them too.

Think of me as the Head-On commercial of anti-Olympic sentiment. You hate my style and my message, but you sure as hell know what I'm all about and every time you hear about the 2010 Games, there's going to be little Leon's voice in your head.... "The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping... Why is that?"

(Yes, I know Leon doesn't actually say that)

You're not helping either genius.

You don't even point to a single cost overrun, so if that's the discussion you want to have, why don't you even provide evidence of one? All you DO is bitch and moan. So please, STFU.

Oh yah, you're a useless troll.

Link below. Security is way over budget. One bill among many.

What does crow taste like anyhoo? Enquiring minds want to know.

See, the first sentence of your third paragraph. That's why I've generally stop replying to your threads. You assert I'm dumb/ignorant/don't think because I disagree with you. You couldn't be more condescending. I'm fine with you having a different opinion, it would be quite boring if we all agreed. However, you need to learn to accept other people's opinions and stop viewing your opinion as fact. That's what you have, an opinion. So do I, neither is right or wrong, especially in murky waters like our discussion.

As for being a sheep, I have a job in government working to make the change I would like to see. It's a slow process, but as you say, that's democracy. So please don't lecture me on 'giving up', I'm just getting started.

As for your second paragraph. "There's more money available if we DON'T buy into the Olympics at its attendant expenses that provide zero benefit to taxpayers."

--How can we even have a discussion about this if your opinion is that there is ZERO benefit to taxpayers. You've already made up, closed and shut your mind to the possibility that somebody could benefit from them.

I said "if". It was a rhetorical question to some extent. As for opinion vs fact... if you allow
yourself to be fooled again and again by the same players playing the same game, wouldn't
you agree you're letting yourself be fleeced?

I'm telling you what I think. If you think these games were a good idea, then I think you've
deluded yourself. My opinion? Damn straight. If you don't think that's the case, then
convince me otherwise. I'd be happy to hear we're not throwing our money away.

You've as much as admitted you've given up when you say "that's politics, what are you
going to do?" (I paraphrase, please correct me if that's not what I should have inferred from
your previous post).

Your quote: "If something like the olympics gets some of that done where I live, so be it.
That's reality. That's politics."

If that's not your opinion, and you think there are things one can do to effect change to the
process, then good for you (and all of us who might benefit), but please don't mislead
me and then claim I'm misrepresenting your position.

When it's your opinion, we all have to have kid gloves. When I say something, it's stop
'pissing and moaning'. You give as good as you get. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and
making you participate, so why the whinging?

"--How can we even have a discussion about this if your opinion is that there is ZERO benefit
to taxpayers. You've already made up, closed and shut your mind to the possibility that
somebody could benefit from them"

Maybe you have to work harder to change my mind? I can remain skeptical to a point, but if
it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... How many times should I look at 2 + 2 = 4
before I'm convinced it's a fact?

To the point about zero benefit... if we end up way over-budget on this thing (sure looking
like it), throwing good money after bad just to service the debt, then you're going to have to
tell me how this event is providing any benefit whatsoever to taxpayers. Leaders with
foresight wouldn't put us in this position. That money could have been invested far more
sensibly than fueling another boom and bust unsustainable growth cycle.

"I'm telling you what I think. If you think these games were a good idea, then I think you've deluded yourself. My opinion? Damn straight. If you don't think that's the case, then convince me otherwise. I'd be happy to hear we're not throwing our money away."

I've told you twice now I don't care about the games. I don't think it was a smart way to spend money. BUT, there is money being spent on games related infrastructure, etc... that would have otherwise not been spent in BC. I take the good with the bad. I have absolutely no need for a luge track so that money is completely wasted on me. But, I will use the canada line probably daily when it is complete. So I take the good with the bad. Just as I accept that bridge in Kelowna that does not benefit me one iota yet I had a hand in paying for it.

"You've as much as admitted you've given up when you say "that's politics, what are you going to do?" (I paraphrase, please correct me if that's not what I should have inferred from your previous post). If that's not your opinion, and you think there are things one can do to effect change, then good for you (and all of us who might benefit), but please don't mislead me and then claim I'm misrepresenting your position."

I just told you I'm working in government trying to affect change in the small little manner I am able. So, no, I have not given up. I am playing the game. The game is democracy, that's the way it works. If you have a workable alternative let's hear it.

"When it's your opinion, we all have to have kid gloves. When I say something, it's stop 'pissing and moaning'. You give as good as you get. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you participate, so why the whinging?"

I only replied cause you called this board out for not replying...I am currently wondering why I bothered.

"To the point about zero benefit... if we end up way over-budget on this thing (sure looking like it), throwing good money after bad just to service the debt, then you're going to have to tell me how this event is providing any benefit whatsoever to taxpayers. Leaders with foresight wouldn't put us in this position. That money could have been invested far more sensibly than fueling another boom and bust unsustainable growth cycle."

I agree that this money could have been spent in many other better ways. I also agree about the leaders with foresight which is why I encourage you to join up and make the change you want to see.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush
fires in people's minds." -- Samuel Adams"

Got a match?

You said:
"I agree that this money could have been spent in many other better ways. I also agree about
the leaders with foresight which is why I encourage you to join up and make the change you
want to see."

Why do you presume I'm not? Extend me the same courtesy you ask for yourself. Link goes to
one of my pet causes.

"BUT, there is money being spent on games related infrastructure, etc... that would have
otherwise not been spent in BC"

So what? Because we throw away the money in our province rather than Alberta or Quebec, or ?
that somehow makes a stupid plane palatable? Makes zero sense to me. Sounds like exactly the
kind of "I got mine Jack, too bad about you." mentality that is destroying our planet. I find it
revolting.

"I only replied cause you called this board out for not replying...I am currently wondering why I
bothered."

Because the boosters don't have the courage to admit their mistakes, so I thought I'd heckle
them. A tactic I plan to continue to do until they go away and take their rationalizations with
them, or I get banned for being a dick. Somebody should start a pool.

""It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." -- Samuel Adams"

Got a match? "

How many times do I have to tell you I AM working to 'set brush fires' if you will. I choose to spend *most* of my energy at work doing that rather than on this board.

What do you do for that pet cause? (I agree with it btw)

"Because the boosters don't have the courage to admit their mistakes, so I thought I'd heckle them. A tactic I plan to continue to do until they go away and take their rationalizations with them, or I get banned for being a dick. Somebody should start a pool."

Well a quick little search finds that I never supported the olympics or even participated much in this thread prior to our current little tete a tete. So, I hope you don't lump me in with the 'boosters' of the olympics of which I am not.

"So what? Because we throw away the money in our province rather than Alberta or Quebec, or ? that somehow makes a stupid plane palatable? Makes zero sense to me. Sounds like exactly the kind of "I got mine Jack, too bad about you." mentality that is destroying our planet. I find it revolting."

I enjoy how you pick out specific lines rather than addressing the entire point....but anyway...

Alternative? You have fun slagging other people's ideas, how about some of your own?

Maybe you don't realize that not everyone's priorities are the same? Oh that's right, because if someone doesn't agree with you that 2+2 = -13 then they're an idiot.

K and D:

You know what you wrote. I won't bother to preface each response with your names.

"What do you do for that pet cause? (I agree with it btw)"

I help it. Why do you ask? What does it matter? Let's not get into a holier than thou pissing
match over this mmmkay? I don't think it would be fair to compare what I do as a volunteer
to what you do as part of your job.

"I enjoy how you pick out specific lines rather than addressing the entire point....but
anyway..."

Glad to brighten your day. Are you implying you address every one of my points in each post?
I'd probably disagree but I can't be bothered to check.

"I just told you I'm working in government trying to affect change in the small little manner I
am able. So, no, I have not given up. I am playing the game. The game is democracy, that's
the way it works. If you have a workable alternative let's hear it."

The game is rigged and you're not playing, you're getting played IMO. That' 'game' is not the
way democracy works. When government's main job seems to be rewarding the people who
put it into power, it's an insult to democracy and fertile ground for civil unrest. The game
you're describing is called oligarchy (because the person with the most money gets elected
and most of the money is in the hands of a very small minority) and/or plutocracy
(government by the wealthy). You can't effect change if you play by their rules. I challenge
you to show me one example of this so-called democracy being put aside from within, for a
truly democratic representation of the people's desires? Democracy needs accountable
government, an educated populace, a watchdog media, habeas corpus (can you say security
certificate?) and politicians who don't allow their advisors to work as lobbyists at the same
time. In short, we have a sham of a democracy.

con't next post

Why would I slag my own ideas when I have my good friend Dugly ready and willing?

"Maybe you don't realize that not everyone's priorities are the same? Oh that's right, because
if someone doesn't agree with you that 2+2 = -13 then they're an idiot."

Show me where my numbers don't add up. I know $800 million is a lot more than BUDGETED
for security for the Olympics. You said show a "single overrun" and I complied. Not even a
peep about that eh D? Honestly, some people are downright rude! Didn't you learn to say
thanks when you get what you ask for? I didn't mention the Athlete's Village, but it's over
budget too ($125 million). I didn't mention how we are eating big dollars every day on the
debts incurred due to our currency dropping compared to the USD. Or the Trout Lake rink
costs, which have tripled. Then there's the Sea to Sky upgrades, budgeted for $600 million,
now estimated to cost $1.96 billion.

Don't forget the Canada Line, a replacement for lower-cost, direct coach-style buses for
municipalities south of the Fraser (the trip now requires transfers... a proven disincentive to
take transit) and the subsidies it requires (numbers as high as $20 per rider are bandied
about) and the popular 98-B line which will be phased out. Of course we're not counting the
losses suffered by businesses along the Cambie Corridor after the plan to bore the tunnel was
changed to cut and cover, with no compensation for the affected businesses. Maybe they
should have set up shop under Tsawwassen power lines? The Convention Centre, built at a
time when international travel is under scrutiny by sensible corporate accountants everywhere
(Canwest just issued a sweeping memo limiting travel budgets) and the convention business
is feeling the pinch, is of course over-budget as well. Not included in the Oly budget, but
necessary as the media centre for the games, just as the Canada line wasn't 'necessary' for
the 2010 Games, but suddenly took precedence over the much more necessary Evergreen
Line.

Shall I go on, or are you feeling as queasy as I am, looking at all those zeros?

"If you have a workable alternative let's hear it."

Blow the whistle on your bosses every time they put their desire to stay in power ahead of the
right thing to do. Risk your career on principle. Tell every person you know about the short-
comings of our government. Tell them again. Write letters to the editor and put your name on
them. Refuse to play the game by their rules and follow your heart.

Sounds hard and it is. But, it works.

"I help it. Why do you ask? What does it matter? Let's not get into a holier than thou pissing match over this mmmkay? I don't think it would be fair to compare what I do as a volunteer to what you do as part of your job."

You mistook me, wasn't try to get in a pissing match, relax. I just wonder if you are out there on the bridge educating, lobbying politicians, spending time/money or if you just link to their page and call it support.

"The game is rigged and you're not playing, you're getting played IMO. That' 'game' is not the way democracy works. When government's main job seems to be rewarding the people who put it into power, it's an insult to democracy and fertile ground for civil unrest. The game you're describing is called oligarchy (because the person with the most money gets elected and most of the money is in the hands of a very small minority) and/or plutocracy (government by the wealthy). You can't effect change if you play by their rules. I challenge you to show me one example of this so-called democracy being put aside from within, for a truly democratic representation of the people's desires? Democracy needs accountable government, an educated populace, a watchdog media, habeas corpus (can you say security certificate?) and politicians who don't allow their advisors to work as lobbyists at the same time. In short, we have a sham of a democracy."

You don't know what I do or where I do it so I find it interesting that you presume to know that I'm being 'played'. I am out there every day educating, planning and working.

Like I said, I can only do so much within the context of my minor position, but I do it. Do I think democracy could be better? Sure, but I'm not here crying that it's a sham, I'm doing something about it while I work to change it. If there were a better, practical alternative, I'd be up for that too.

"Blow the whistle on your bosses every time they put their desire to stay in power ahead of the right thing to do. Risk your career on principle. Tell every person you know about the short- comings of our government. Tell them again. Write letters to the editor and put your name on them. Refuse to play the game by their rules and follow your heart.

Sounds hard and it is. But, it works."

This sounds fantastic stump and would put me in the poor house. I do stand up when I think it's appropriate, but unfortunately the reality of it is there are bills and life to live and I'm not willing to sacrifice it all for my 'heart'. Sure, that sounds cold, but probably not as cold as living under the Pattulo bridge every night.

Again, if you have an alternative and a practical means of getting there let's hear it.

Why must I present you with options you deem suitable? You figure it out for yourself, just as
I choose my own path. Whether or not one method or another will be the one that works,
we'll never know, because by the time there's enough evidence to judge, we'll be long dead.

If you feel you're doing enough, you don't need my approval. You don't approve of my p.o.v.
or methods. That's fine by me. Don't adopt them. I do however resent the attempts to
silence me because I present an extreme view. I'm not advocating violence or breaking the
law. I'm saying we need to hold our politicians accountable. When barely 50% of the
population can get off their ass to vote, are you surprised that someone with my outlook
would be ranting at people to wake them from their somnabulance? Hell, I know plenty of
people that would say I'm a sell-out and a Quisling for attempting to mesh my politics with
some level of financial security, and they are just as entitled to their opinion too.

I don't care what they think anymore than I care how you or Dugly see the situation. It's not
a popularity contest. I'm not running for office. I believe we are in a battle for stolen dignity,
our most basic rights, and our children's future. I'm not the least bit polite or conciliatory
when it comes to people who try to take those things from me. Both our major governments
(prov and federal) are failing us in those regards IMO and making things worse with circuses
and spectacles. So, I plan to keep on pointing that out. At least municipally, we have some
hope, scant as it is.

That's B.S. (to call my p.o.v. pissing and moaning and try to silence me) and you should
apologize to me for doing that.

Please don't tell me that extreme views make your tasks harder either. They don't. They
make it easier for you to be a 'moderate'. Every rant of mine makes your call for incremental
change easier to swallow. You're welcome. :-)

"You don't know what I do or where I do it so I find it interesting that you presume to know
that I'm being 'played'. I am out there every day educating, planning and working."

I don't presume to know. I stated it was my opinion. I don't see how working within
government as a civil servant (if that's what you do) engenders much change. If it does, it
does so at too high a cost in compromise for my tastes. Again, why do you care what I think?
My opinion of your work is irrelevant, esp. since you don't approve of my methods. I'm OK
with that. I'm not complaining that you must like the way I speak or think or work for
change. I just don't get it (why my opinion is such a big deal... unless you actually do care
how I view your efforts). I find worrying too much about what other's think of me as
unproductive and stifling. I prefer to look to my beliefs and measure my efforts against those
benchmarks.

You asked for a practical method and I gave you one. You don't want to use it because it's
uncomfortable. Fair enough. That's entirely your decision. You asked for an alternative that
got results. Whistle-blowers get results. Letters to the editor get results. Standing up and
being counted gets results. The more people that do it, the safer we all are (in our jobs). You
say we have democracy. I say if someone fears for their job because they profess their
beliefs or disagree with those in power, then our democracy is a sham and we are slaves,
because you can barely survive in these times without a job or some way to make money. As
soon as our livelihoods can be used as a blunt instrument to force us to profess to think a
certain way, our freedom is illusory.

Personally, I've tried the 'change-from-within' way in my old job and it didn't get results. I
chose to leave rather than continue to participate. And no, I won't elaborate on this forum
except to say it's costing me an arm and a leg. Probably at least $60k so far in lost wages
and spent savings, but I no longer live with the gnawing feeling that I'm complicit in a system
I find objectionable and destructive. (If you want evidence I'm walking my talk)

Anyway, this is all mental masturbation. The topic is the Olympics. Are they on budget? Are
they on time? I think we know the answers to at least one of those questions. If Dugly had
any facts to bring to the table, he'd do so rather than focusing on my style or lack of tact.
The reason he's in a tizzy is because he knows his original post at the top of the thread looks
ludicrous in the face of the evidence and worse, I've been calling him on it for over a year.
Let's face it, the facts out there for anyone who wants to look.

The Olympics are corrupt. Do you dispute this? They turn tax dollars into corporate profits, at
the expense of vital social programs. Do you dispute this? I say we should toss the "leaders"
who put us in this mess out. Do you dispute that? Let's focus on the issues, not your
assessment of the size of my ego? Nobody cares really, least of all me. Cuz I'm so gosh-darn
humble. And funny. And handsome.

Fair enough?

"Please don't tell me that extreme views make your tasks harder either. They don't. They make it easier for you to be a 'moderate'. Every rant of mine makes your call for incremental change easier to swallow. You're welcome. :-)"

hahahaha good one stump, you make me laugh. Extreme you are not. Although I guess I don't know what your definitions of extreme or moderate are.

"I don't presume to know. I stated it was my opinion. I don't see how working within government as a civil servant (if that's what you do) engenders much change."

Either you change it from within or...revolution?

"The Olympics are corrupt. Do you dispute this?"

Nope, never said I did. As are all governments.

"They turn tax dollars into corporate profits, at the expense of vital social programs. Do you dispute this?"

No, but I do think they provide some services. Perhaps just services you don't view as priorities.

"I say we should toss the "leaders" who put us in this mess out. Do you dispute that?"

Nope, and I certainly didn't vote for anyone who is currently in power...and come to think of it I don't think I've ever voted for someone who won anything. Such is democracy... Problem is, if we toss the government every time they screw up, we won't have a government.

Darn I lost my last post

"Extreme you are not. "

Really, I must try harder. "Death to the... something or other!" :-)

"Either you change it from within or...revolution?"

I believe there is a middle way.

"They turn tax dollars into corporate profits, at the expense of vital social programs. Do you
dispute this?"

No, but I do think they provide some services. Perhaps just services you don't view as
priorities.

"I say we should toss the "leaders" who put us in this mess out. Do you dispute that?"

Nope, and I certainly didn't vote for anyone who is currently in power...and come to think of
it I don't think I've ever voted for someone who won anything.

I was speaking about the Games and current provincial/federal gov'ts in this regard. Then I
mentioned how our media are sponsors of the games and can't be trusted to present the facts
objectively, but I'm not going to type it all out again.

"Such is democracy... Problem is, if we toss the government every time they screw up, we
won't have a government."

We existed for thousands of years without central authority beyond the people we knew
personally. There's a school of thought that says this should be our preferred system (Neo-
Tribalism). Wiki link below. I think it's a compelling argument. I'm still learning about it, but
think it addresses the needs of people without oppressing them. I strongly believe we are
oppressed by the current system of governance which has become co-opted by the economic
interests of a small cadre of wealthy people, delivering a society which has become toxic both
to our lives and that of the biosphere in general. This belief coupled with deep ecology (can
also be wiki'ed for a general understanding of the precepts) may present the path to our
survival IMO. Failing a major shift in process and attitude I would say that human beings have
less than two hundred years before society's complete collapse and the end of 'life as we
know it' if not complete extinction.

I hope that explains why I get all fired up about seeing 6 - 7 billion blown on a two week
party, and infrastructure that's not going to help solve any of the big problems we face.

"We existed for thousands of years without central authority beyond the people we knew personally. There's a school of thought that says this should be our preferred system (Neo- Tribalism)."

That's a fanciful idea but completely unrealistic. What could possibly bring about that change short of some complete planet wide meltdown of our social structure coupled with an eradication of many modern technologies?

Societies don't 'devolve' in structure unless compelled by a massive external force--and if that's the case than this whole argument is moot.

"I strongly believe we are oppressed by the current system of governance which has become co-opted by the economic interests of a small cadre of wealthy people, delivering a society which has become toxic both to our lives and that of the biosphere in general."

I don't disagree. But short of a revolution and or catastrophe how else to change than from within? Explain your middle way?

Pages