Thursday, August 27, 2015

Urban Standards

The Leduc County is in the process of enacting Urban Standard Bylaw. It appears to be going to be imposed onto existing community. This is a bylaw that will force some preferences and prejudices of the present county officials on the citizens. It is another form of taxation, taxation by forced physical labor in some instances. This is another form of forcing compliance on the population.  

There is a difference between imposing a  "Urban Standard Bylaw" on existing community, and on a new development. In a new development, the prospective buyers can be informed of the requirements. In an existing aged development, changes will be required. Those forced changes have costs and labor. Forcing change will also cause resentments and reactions. Have you ever wondered why there is so much vandalism, resentment, and grudging compliance against the Governments?

Rules that have no value, are illogical, out of date, useless, wrong, pig headed, or based on someone private interests are not in "community" interests, but only marketed as such. These may set the "community" standards, but are generally the wet dreams of some bureaucrat. Consider the 2.1 meter above the water table in rural residential development. It may be suitable to avoid difficulties in convention basements, but it is easy to design and build homes with no basement. Most of the world does that, but not in Alberta due to government requirements that are wrong, just someones ego trying to control others. Consider the Counties 2 acre rule on subdivision, so that 3.95 acres cannot be subdivided except into clusters where it could be divided into likely 6 lots once the sewer gets close enough.  More of the bureaucrats telling us how we should live.      

Comply, be fined and comply or move out. Those are the choices.

The City of Edmonton has similar, and it has been used to force seniors from there homes as they are unable to either do the work or hire the work done due to slim incomes. It requires the home owners to clear snow from City owned sidewalks, even where there is no space for the snow to be placed. It is up to the homeowner to have the snow loaded and hauled away, and that snow is not permitted in City operated snow sites. Now it becomes a issue to find space to dump that snow.

This is not community, but rather a collection of ego, each primary looking out for there own interests. It places some highbrow individual in a place of authority to decide what is ok and what is an "eye-sore". Is it reality or individual prejudices?  How long will it be before an ugly truck, but a useful to the owner truck is not permitted?

Now consider the City of St. Albert, where the existing community would not allow a Habitat for Humanity development. What does that say about that collection of egos?  That is what Urban Standard bylaw will bring.

Will this bylaw be used to force seniors on inadequate incomes, from their homes, as it is in Edmonton? In the final years of our lives, many of us can expect to not have the income nor ability to keep up with the young, often deeply in debt, neighbors. 

Perhaps this is not community, but a collection of individuals, each looking out for their egos, wants, and prejudices?  Urban Standards are not "community" but rather the preferences and prejudices of the "authority having jurisdiction".

What do I know about this? Nothing. I am just an old civil - geotechnical engineer who has observed much bureaucratic rule following and the wrongness that goes with what should be exceptions to the rules.     

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Moral values

Ashely Madison store raises some moral questions of infidelity. Is infidelity wrong and who says so?
We need to separate nature, religion, cultural and economic dictates as to what morals are right. There is no god, only nature. So who is the authority?

From a genetic point of view, that is nature, there is nothing wrong with infidelity, unless there is offspring. The issue then is raising of the child. There is a VD question, and for those who are willing to take that risk, why should I care? Death by Aids, Hep C, Lyme, and the treatable VD's all must be considered, along with the parasites. For me, that alone would be too much.

Then there is the legality of pimping, which I understand that the site had become a Uber of pimping. The ladies wanted paying, so I understand. Oh well, it has nothing to do with me.

Then there is the issue of religion and cultural dictates of from the Catholic no birth control, not before marriage, the only purpose of sex is propitiation, to the control freak Islam, and back in history to the Native sharing of wives and husbands. Most of these traditions are based or it has been suggested that these are economic based morality. If you are unsure of who is the father, then you may be willing to share the support of the child, and there education. If you are unsure, you may be unwilling to pass on property to those you are unsure of. That may be the maternal inheritance cultures, You may be unsure of the father, but not of the mother. That property down the fraternal line may be part of what gave rise to the control freak Islam, and the rigid European morals of old, whether it was truly practiced or not. The Natives did not understand ownership, so there was no property.

Then there is the whole other side, the rights of other to impose there view on us. That is to become public control freaks. That is a big moral no no, if it does not go against nature or flourishing society. That is where the hackers are most morally wrong. But the government should have stepped in and shut down the pimping site first. They did not, so they are slow, or do not care. That should be the public concern, but it is not. Oh well.

It is like the youth that was turned away from public housing development for not being Islamic. We should be concerned if any public moneys went into that housing.

Religions often do not pay taxes, hence receive public support. They then must be held to a higher standard that private unfunded operations.

An then there is the most significant question, what does you mate thing about all this? If you are both in agreement, then swing, or not. It is your choice, along with all the risks. 

But then what do I know.        

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Roof Contractors

It is my opinion that roof contractors are a bunch of low life's.

One of the options is to place a new dripcap on the roof's edge. Nothing wrong with the old one. I put it on myself 35 years ago. The idiot roof contractor ripped it off anyway. and did not replace it. Idiots

It is to the point that one should just hire labor and do everything else myself.

Monday, August 3, 2015

Not Socially Acceptable vs Wrong

Not Socially Acceptable vs Wrong

Separation of these two concepts is important in analysis of any public statement. It has become apparent to me that the media is confused and does not separate these two. Further, the media would like belief and expression to be the same, and it is socially unacceptable to express socially unacceptable views, but it is often correct to have them. This is monitoring of expression, not free speech. We do not have free speech, that is a myth. It is free as long as it agrees with the current socially acceptable cultural meme.

There is a big difference between legal, right, and socially acceptable limits of any statement, but that is a different topic.   

It is not socially acceptable to call a gay person, a native, a black, a brown, a easterner what they are, but is it wrong? Being called what they are may be considered derogatory by them, but it is there culture that considers it to be derogatory, and I am not part of there culture.

We Albertans from and around the oil industry consider the term "Tar Sands" to be derogatory term, and stop listen at that point. Our oil sands industry is the basis of our economy. We live here. Other assholes can criticize, but you get to go home to your cushie life elsewhere. We live here among the oil sands, so you rich American Anti Oils Sands can f-off.

The natives want a inquire in to the missing aboriginal issue. It is a native cultural issue, so it is there problem. Logic dictates that predators exist. Predators "harvest" the ones that get there attention and that they can cut from the herd. It is a cultural issue that your native culture is unwilling to train it's youth of the facts of modern life and our modern society.  We would all like to see the predators jailed, but we need to identify them, find witnesses willing to testify, and find proof before that can happen. That is the job of police, not to keep your people safe from the population, which the natives are part of.

So when we are speaking about these foot in mouth politicians, Trump comes to mind, we need to separate wrong from those things we do not want to hear. He may not be wrong that the US has a issue with the Mexico border, security in general, but he has just over stepped socially acceptable expression of the reality or at least his opinion of reality. The ultimate purpose of humanity is to prosper, and many see Canada and the US as better places than from where they came from. We are trying to keep up our standard of life, and we see that threatened, correctly, from the influx of non-law-abiding immigrants. There presence here is evidence of the "non-law-abiding" status. We may not like to here this expressed but it will be hard to demonstrate it as wrong.

Opinions are like ass-holes; everybody has at least one of. Oh well, what do I know?