"Green City" Pipe-Dream

It's most refreshing and truly gratifying to learn, that once in a blue moon our hard earned taxpayers money have been spend transparently and in the best public interest. But sorry, my friends Vancouverites, you'd better curb your excitement, because even if the above statement was plausible, it wouldn't apply to you. Your ambitious young mayor, supported by a horde of his "yes men" city counselors has some completely different ideas about it. His latest expensive obsession became a rather dubious vision of turning Vancouver into "the greenest city" in the world. How and by whom will be such indefinable achievements measured and judged and what they actually suppose to mean, only heaven knows.

When Robertson took over the Vancouver City Hall, he seemed to be "just the man for the job". Educated, charismatic, well groomed - overall impression: likable and perhaps even trustworthy. But today, without the rose-colored glasses, things appear quite different, don't they? He is still flashing his charming smile and saying all the right words when facing the media, but after the cameras and mics are turned off, then his true face get unveiled. Since I don't really know the man, I may be totally astray here, but I sense some serious signs of arrogance, ruthlessness, and shameless narcissism.

At this point, it needs to be noted, I know less than a little about managing the city affairs. In fact, I might not be qualified enough to run a successful hot-dog stand, but I do have one strongpoint at my disposing capacity. I know how to employ a basic common sense. And it tells me, it is hardly ever advisable to put the cart before the horse, which seems to be a strategy routinely exercised by the current Vancouver city council.

One of the classic examples of such an ill-conceived choice would be a downtown construction of the separated bicycle routes at the expense of the vehicular traffic lanes. The whole concept makes very little sense, considering that during the past two decades the city planners granted building permits to develop ten thousand condominiums in the False Creek area, another ten thousand in the Coal Harbour and a few thousand more in every square inch of remaining space available between those two. Each household, in my rather conservative estimate, owns at least one motor vehicle, which accounts to 25,000 additional cars embedded into the already insanely congested downtown streets. Removing traffic lanes inevitably creates series of gridlocks, where thousands of idling vehicles produce tons of that feared CO2 - yes, the same imaginary evil product used by the treehugges as their favorite scarecrow. So, how does it comply with the mayor's "greenest city" fantasy? I guess, you need to ask the fairy-tale teller himself.

In my respect, the greatest insult to the taxpayers must be the fact, that city bigwigs unanimously authorize these projects not only without any public consultation and input, but, what's even scarier than the previous - apparently without conducting a single study analyzing questionable benefits of the bike lanes versus the overall cost and indisputably devastating negative impact on the traffic flow (slowing down transit buses and blocking emergency vehicles routes), parking and taxi drop-offs, local businesses and even environment. Nope, its the same story again: a carriage first and a horse later. Take as an example the Dunsmuir Viaduct separate bike lane, which connects a shady, rough East Vancouver neighborhood, often dubbed as the "poorest postal code in Canada" with a wealthy Vancouver's financial and business district. Coincidentally, it also happens to be a part of my daily scheduled route, so I know from the first hand, this less than 1 km disaster project has not been utilized whatsoever. There are virtually no bicyclists to be seen anywhere close to this connector and there's no reason why they should be. What, on the earth were the city counselors thinking? That all of sudden, the East Side homeless people and drug addicts hop on their Schwinn bikes and start pedaling downtown to meet their bankers and lawyers? Or perhaps to spend an afternoon in the Art Gallery, or evening in the Opera? A reported price tag of the Dunsmuir bike lane: $350,000! Well done, indeed.

Any reasonable and responsible person would, after recognizing a problem, immediately put any similar future adventures on hold, at least until all the necessary data are collected and evaluated. Not in this case, though. Completely ignoring obvious failure to utilize the viaduct lane, city approved and promptly built its extension all the way to Hornby Street (at the cost of $810,000). The next step for the city council would be to decide on a north-south route along Hornby Street, Burrard Street or Thurlow Street. Their meeting is scheduled for the middle of next month, but the word on the street is, those planned projects are already "done deal". Considering a well known bullying and pretentious attitude of the Vancouver municipal leaders, such an undemocratic governing methods should be surprise to no one.

Milo.

Milo's Laid-Back Observations: Boxing Gloves

Milo's Laid-Back Observations: Boxing Gloves

Milo's Laid-Back Observations: My Morning Prayer

Milo's Laid-Back Observations: My Morning Prayer

Milo's Laid-Back Observations: Milo's Laid-Back Observations: Bleak Outlook for Mankind

Milo's Laid-Back Observations: Milo's Laid-Back Observations: Bleak Outlook for Mankind

Myths and Convenient Lies

People tend to believe just about anything they've told, no matter how far off the wall the idea might be. There are two major aspects in the play here: a magic power of the mass media that gives any information the affirmation of its authenticity and a pandemic lack of a brain employment among the general population. Why would you bother to take a stand or to produce your own point of view, if a panel of some shady, but "highly qualified" senior analysts does it for you? All you need is to adopt it as your own idea and repeat it with convincing enthusiasm. I picture those brainwashed poor lost souls walking around like a zombies, with a vacant expression in their eyes, murmuring phrases, planted firmly in their heads: "Follow the Leader...", or "Save the planet...", such is the case here. They don't understand the real meaning, of course, being brainwashed and in the state of trance, but they're willing and ready follow any given commands to the letter.

Hard to believe? I know, but that's your naked truth in a nutshell. Take for instance "The Earth Hour". It all started in 2007, when a bunch of retarded Aussies in Sydney turned their lights off for one hour to make some kind of lame, ridiculous statement about the fictional issue - man-made climate change. Only a year later the Earth Hour had become a global conservation movement with more than 50 million mentally challenged people across 35 countries participating. They all swallowed the bait from a handful of evil tree huggers who lured them into believing a silly notion they can change the world with a single flip of the power switch. They want to save some electric power? Fine, but what exactly are they planning to do with it? Take it to the power bank and deposit it to their power saving accounts? Or perhaps to capture it in a glass jar and store it in a basement to use it later?

Another outrages lie the very same sly environmentalists are shamelessly spreading around is their wild theory about shortage of water on the earth. How dare they fabricate such demented stories? About 71 percent of Earth's surface is covered by water or ice and it is here to stay. That's right - it's not going anywhere. Surely, water evaporates from the planet surface, but certainly not to disappear and escape to some other dimension, but just to fall back onto the earth from the sky in form of rain, snow, hails - depending what mood the good old Mother Nature on that particular day might be. So, give me a break with a water conservation nonsense.This whole misleading campaign has been created with a sole purpose: to convert ordinary water into a high priced commodity and subsequently convince people to start buying THEIR bottled water.

Well, I have to admit, there are some unfortunate irregularities in rain distribution - some regions receive way too much of it, while other parts of the world suffer from the adverse effects of drought. But I'm quite sure, this task cannot be too difficult for our advanced 21. century technology to tackle. Its hardly any serious brain-teaser for all those brilliant scientist and engineers to build a bunch of salt water filtration plants and deliver the fresh drinking water wherever its needed. Reliable technology, such as the sea water conversion systems have been available for years.

It is rather amusing, that the same egomaniacs who came up with their silly "water shortage" theory fell into ridicule by simultaneously inventing a contradictory bogey man, speculating that the ice caps melting would consequently cause the world flood catastrophe. Really? Now, lets look at the scientific data. If all the ice at the North Pole melted, sea levels would not be affected, simply because the ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If you missed your grade 5 science class on the Archimedes Principle, you can do a little experiment at home. Submerse a couple of ice cubes in the glass of water and wait till its all melted. You might be surprised, but the water level will stay unchanged. I know, there is the other Pole too, where the ice is not floating but rather sitting on land. But, the average surface temperature in Antarctica is minus 37°C right now, the ice is more than a mile thick and there is no danger of the ice melting any time soon (on contrary, the ice mass has been steadily increasing). And even if we experience some enormous changes in the weather patterns all over the planet, the ocean levels would be the last thing to worry about. Upon the International Panel on Climate Change request, the top scientists released their study, predicting that by the year 2100 sea level might increase by about six inches. So, I don't believe, there's any urgent need to start building your own Noah's Ark just yet.

And what about that the global warming and the carbon dioxide scare everyone's talking about these days? To borrow a phrase from the title of Martin Durkins remarkable and one of the most debated BBC documentary films - it's all the "Great Swindle". There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded - not resulted from - increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor is far, far more important than CO2. And as for the climate change itself - it is a natural phenomenon as opposed to being man-made and since the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot control the inconstant sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes for greenhouse gas reduction currently bandied from mouth to mouth will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive.

Not convinced yet and still thinking about saving the planet? Well, if that's the case, let me make one final note for you! The planet doesn't need your pathetic pleas and it couldn't care less about your pointless, inefficient effort to make some changes. The Earth is self sufficient entity with fully functional self preservation capacity and like it or not, it's existence is by no means dependent on us (or any other living form for that matter). We are just a visitors here and the planet will survive our temporary presence on its surface and it will continue floating in the space long time after we're all gone. So much for the Planet. No need to worry about it.

But if we were at least a wee bit concerned about all our cohabitants and their survival on the Earth, the best we could do for them would be to get out of here and make this planet 100% human-free. THAT would be by far the most unselfish and only effective, foolproof "green initiative" ever devised. Unfortunately though, I'm well aware, it's simply too much to ask, isn't it?

Milo.

My Literary Lapses

(A Mishmash of Incoherent Ideas for Sunday)

What would you say if someone asks you: "Who do you think you are?". Rather patronizing, but overall meaningless query, isn't it?. There's no intelligent answer to such an inane question, but it sure tells you a plenty about an enquirer. It usually bears testimony to his arrogance, self-importance and prejudice. A person, who only accepts the status quo and is unwilling or unable to think outside the box. Those are the people who have no doubts and they make most of the others at least uncomfortable, if not miserable. They truly believe, they're always right which by their reasoning gives them power to control and indoctrinate the others. The most scary part is, that repulsive human qualities such as these, combined with the limited intellectual faculties often produce a foolproof recipe for a success. A classic template for a ruthless jerk.

But enough of them, let me tell you about something far more interesting - about me.

Once in a blue moon I get blessed with an inspiring thought, appealing enough to sit down and unfold the initial blip into a short essay. I've never received a formal literary education and I'm not delusional enough to think I could ever became a real writer. I have no other ambitions than to share my ideas and observations with a few friends, who are patient enough to read them through. The subjects I choose for my stories are random and much diversified. At some occasions I'm trying to be funny or intentionally silly, and at other times I'm dead serious. To emphasize a satirical point or to push the readers buttons and provoke a debate, sometimes I resort to spinning the facts a little bit or I even make up a whole fictional circumstance from the scratch. And it works well to my advantage, that opinion articles offer vast creative possibilities and unlike a reporting journalism don't limit an author to stay within straight facts. Naturally, I never expect, people would always appreciate my sentiments or conform with my views, but I hardly ever seek out reader's approval. I just simply can't presume, everyone would see the world through my eyes. Years ago I've worked with an well educated female colleague, who scornfully resented any publications by one of the greatest Czech humorists Jaroslav Hasek. She described his work as vulgar, unfunny and overall poorly styled. Yet generations of readers including myself admire Hasek's brilliant literary talent and his ageless wit. Even the peerless American novelist Ernest Hemingway was once castigated by British writer Wyndham Lewis as "dull-witted and infantile". As the old proverbial saying fitly claims: different strokes for different folks.

For some time I've been in an infrequent long distance e-mail pen-pal relationship with a middle aged, well-read and slightly eccentric woman from across the world. We've never met and most likely never will, yet - based strictly on my various views and conclusions, she looks up to me in awe, declaring my ideas ingenious. Notwithstanding that such a statement sounds quite flattering, I know too well it takes much more than I have to be called a genius. Beyond doubt, there's no shortage of sophisticated people with far superior intellectual and creative abilities than those of mine, nevertheless, I'd like to believe, I'm not just a scatterbrained simpleton either. Over the years, I developed quite fair observation skills and I never rush to quick conclusions. When I'm confronted with a predicament, I prefer to "sleep on it". As I've learned along the way, almost nothing is painted only black or white. Therefore, in an effort to produce the most objective judgment I try to examine the issue from the different angles and all the available stand-points. And even than, no matter how strong my opinion might be, I never make it final. I'm always open for a discussion and if presented with a sound argument, I have no problem to revaluate and overturn my initial summations. In the same context, I highly disregard ignorant people who offer no opinion on their own, yet they have nerves to discredit anything anybody else have to say.

Just the other day, someone trashed my articles as stupid and stinky, failing to elaborate on his "constructive criticism" by presenting a single valid and unbiased feedback. Bothering to analyze his motives or to speculate on a state of his simple mind would be a waste of time. I only could feel sorry for him.

When thinking about human qualities, one could not ignore how intriguing this subject might be. Is there a reliable measuring stick to assess where the level of mediocrity lies, who falls in the average category, and who's above or bellow? These criterias can only exist in relation to some man-made standard norm. If we could disengage ourselves from these artificial models, we won't be able to compare anything to anything and for that our lives would be so much easier. Lets assume, you're the sole inhabitant of the planet Earth. How would you know if you're tall, short, fat or thin, clever or dumb, beautiful or ugly? A comparison evokes most of the negative human emotions: low self-esteem, envy, hatred, sense of inferiority and powerlessness. Pursuing these skin-deep concepts is clearly waste of effort and energy, which could be used better and in the much more productive ways. But... we're only humans, aren't we?

Milo.

Calgary Stampede Massacre

Six horses died needlessly last week while providing entertainment for a crowd of primitive rednecks at the Calgary Stampede Show. Doug Fraser, the spokesman for this outdated barbaric event, who didn't seem to be particularly moved by these sad accounts said that heart attacks in high-performance horses are "not necessarily unusual". Another ignorant goon, Renaud Leguillette, veterinarian who is volunteering at the Stampede, says: “They're like any other athletes. These horses are built for speed by nature. They are designed to be athletic.”

First of all, contrary to Leguillette's twisted logic, they are NOT athletes and this is NOT a sport. None of the horses signed up for this nonsense voluntarily, the decision to compete was forced on them. Furthermore, I don't have to be a rodeo expert to figure out, these magnificant creatures were certainly not designed to participate in a chaotic event, such as Calgary's chuck wagon races. The self proclaimed animal lovers tie 4 - 8 horses together and made them race as fast as they can. The animals are often being pushed beyond their physical limits and suffer heart attacks, sometimes taking the whole wagon of horses with them. If the middle horse collapses while running 30 km an hour, the horses behind him don't stand a chance. Dead tall at the Stampede reaches over 50 chuck wagon horses since 1986.

Perhaps even more horrifying was a death of the horse, named Sinder Mountainthat, who bucked so hard it broke its back and had to be euthanized. The bucking is a horse's defense mechanism, they resort to when feeling fear and anxiety. I can't even imagine, how frightened the animal had to be to self inflict such a major injury.

And how many roping calves suffer broken legs at this cruel event is probably something we'll never know.

Some mentally challenged PC advocates may question my comments on the Stampede organizers (and the spectators, who actually enjoy themselves watching this animal abuse) as too strong and pejorative. But if you're waiting for my apology - don't hold your breath! I have no kind words for arrogant people who disregard their duty to treat the animals with respect and dignity. The animals depend on us for their safety and well-being and they trust us with their lives. Taking care of them is a great priviledge, which comes with even greater responsibility. Using them selfishly for profit or amusement supersedes a last shred of decency and compassion human race may still have left.

Milo.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Virtually all animal welfare organizations in Canada oppose rodeo, including the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies and the Humane Society of Canada. Due to the undeniable cruelty, rodeos are completely banned in the U.K., Holland, and several other U.S. and European jurisdictions. It is opposed by the American SPCA, the Royal New Zealand SPCA and the Australian SPCA. In Canada, the City of Vancouver and the District of North Vancouver have banned rodeos.