Pickle’s Perspective

Hard economic times?  Cars are lined up to the street at a Winnipeg Tim Horton’s drive thru…  I brew my own coffee, but I guess this is evidence that either times aren’t as tough as the media portrays, or people are just plain unwilling to sacrifice the most simple convenience.

Let me get one thing straight. I am no cop hater. I grew up around cops. Some of my best friends’ parent’s were cops. As a kid I wanted to be a cop. To this day I still know a few officers. I even applied to the service when I was 18. So, my issue isn’t with the cops. My issue is with a little device they use that’s more dangerous than we initially thought. The Taser.

(continue reading…)

For about 2 years now, MPIC has been pushing Immobilizers.  They are applying pressure to the driving public to retro-fit their cars with these anti theft devices.  There’s even been talk about mandating this retrofit.  I am completely against this.  Now before you make judgment and tell me I’m a wacko, let me explain my point of view.Recently a few cars were stolen in the city that were ultimately used to run down some joggers.  One jogger, last I heard, was still in hospital in serious condition.  The car, a Pontiac Sunfire, I believe, was not equipped with an immobilizer, despite MPI claiming they had sent six letters to the owner encouraging a retro-fit of an immobilizer.    Reaction from some people was that the car’s owner should be charged with negligence as their refusal to install an immobilizer facilitated this crime.  So why on God’s green Earth, would I advocate against such a device?  Well, honestly, I don’t advocate against these units.  I advocate against a required retro-fit of these units. First off; history has shown us that the only way to move the yard stick on vehicle standards and safety has been legislation.  The government mandated seatbelts be installed in all passenger vehicles.  Old vehicles were not required to retro-fit.  Same goes for the 3^rd break light, Airbags, and daytime running lights.  Similarly, this also applies to emissions etc. (If there’s ever been a mandate to retrofit a 60’s car with an O2 sensor and catalyst, I sure have never seen it.)  So based on that premise, there’s no reason to require it for an immobilizer.  All of these retro-fits would save insurers and other services money when it came to particular incidents.   I guess this argument is like the old analogy of a kid saying “Why can’t I go out and play today, Tommy’s mom lets him play.”  When a car is built, much like any other manufacturing process.  The assembly is streamlined, all parts are properly aligned and things are placed where they ought to be.  Retrofitting a vehicle with other options ends up being “open heart surgery” in an automobile.  Do you know anybody with power locks and windows, that’s decided to Retro-fit their car with a command start?  How many of those people haven’t had a single electrical problem with their car after 3 or 4 years that could be attributed to the installation of this command start.  I would say, from the people I know. Probably 30%-40% have had some kind of problem with an aftermarket command start.  It’s very simple science folks.  Immobilizers are electronic components.  They’re hacked into a car’s electrical and fuel delivery system requiring wires to be twisted turned, spliced, and soldered.  Each and every one of these weakens the wire.  Where the sheath of the wire has been exposed, you’re not increasing the susceptibility of corrosion with increases resistance and can lead to electrical failure.    If you buy a brand new car with an immobilizer, and it breaks after 3-4 years, there’s a chance that warranty will cover it. How about a retro fitted immobilizer?  Well, the warranty will be one year maybe you’ll be lucky and get two on parts, but definitely not on the labour.   Now where do you tow the vehicle for a repair?  To the dealer?   Well, I can guarantee you; they’ll charge you more to fix an aftermarket immobilizer than a factory one.  This all spells bad news.  For the DIYer, Just you try removing this bloody thing from your car.  It’s built not to be bypassed, good luck removing this thing without introducing more problems.  Problems do happen with factory immobilizers.  Do a Google search on “Immobilizer problems” and see for your self.  At least with a factory installed immobilizer the dealer has the knowledge and parts available to repair/replace the device.In my opinion, there are only two plausible solutions.  If an insurer is going to mandate such an item, they should hold the bag for its support and repair.  Arguably, this isn’t a safety device, it’s an insurance cost saving device.  My reply to MPI, “If you want to mandate it into my car, then you support it.”  The other option is already in the works.  Mandate all new cars to be equipped with a factory immobilizer if they are to be sold in Canada.  

While shopping during the holiday season, I saw a Brita ad on the front of a shopping cart. You know what I mean? Those poster holders at the front of the cage of a shopping cart. I don’t remember which store I was in, but that’s not important anyway.

This ad read, “You deserve better water than you mop with.”

This ad outraged me. I tried to find a copy of this ad to include in this blog, but I could not find it. Recently on the TV, I saw a Brita ad that showed a draining glass of tap water to which there was a sound of a toilet flushing.”

These ads are part of the “You deserve better Campaign” and I have a bone to pick with this campaign.

First off, We’re extremely lucky to live in a country where our drinking water is as safe as it is. We don’t need to worry about hepatitis in the water. And although we’ve had the odd e-coli scare in Canada in the past few years, our drinking water is still very safe. to compare our water to a cesspool or to compare it to dirty mop water. Yes, we pipe the same water into the whole house, but is this really a good idea?

Lets take the city of Winnipeg for example. Winnipeggers use an average of 400LCD (Litres per capita per day)1 To put this into perspective, If you are a family of 4, your household uses, per day an average of 1,600 litres of water. If you equate that into cans of soda, it works out to 4507 cans of soda every day, or 400 4Litre milk jugs everyday. 70% of this water is used, in order of most to least consumption 1. toilet, 2. shower, and 3. laundry1.

It’s no secret that we have a water shortage on a global scale. With pollution and climate change and other problems the world is running out of potable water2. So why do we waste water so much? Brita makes a very good point, but I see it differently. We shouldn’t be pumping the same water into our toilets and laundry rooms that we pump into our drinking faucets. We should be recycling water. Water run off that doesn’t come from our toilet; shower, sink run off, laundry, and rain run off could easily be reclaimed and pumped back into non-drinking water supplies. There are current systems that use sewage run-off, recycle it and use this water to irrigate crops3. Singapore uses this technology to supply some of their drinking water4.

So when I think of this Brita ad, I’m appalled. Simply because Brita is using the fear factor to sell a product. Furthermore, they’re corporation is doing nothing to further public knowledge. They want you go say “Ewwwww, I drink the water in my toilet!?!” and run out and buy a Brita.

In reality, we should be saying, “Yes our water is so clean and plentiful that we waste it by running it through our toilets.” Now think of the African kid that walks for miles each day to get contaminated drinking water each day.

Do we really have it so bad?

Should we look at re-claiming water?

At very least, shouldn’t we get ourselves informed before we buy into these advertising scams.

Stop, and think about things before you run out and buy.

Sources
1.http://www.winnipeg.ca/waterandwaste/water/waterfront/howuse.htm
2.http://tinyurl.com/qohm9
3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaimed_water
4.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEWater

Last night, while watching TV from a Maritime Channel, I saw a “News Update” during the commercials. The anchor mentioned that [don't remember the public building] had a Christmas tree standing in it. People apparently complained saying they were offended by the tree.

Hello? What are you smoking? What is offensive about a Christmas Tree? In my opinion, the two most abused phrases in our language are:
1. That’s Racist
2. That’s Offensive

The racist one is a separate issue and I won’t get into that now.

That’s Offensive!

Let’s look at the meaning of Offensive. (from dictionary.com)
of·fen·sive
adjective
1. causing resentful displeasure; highly irritating, angering, or annoying: offensive television commercials.
2. unpleasant or disagreeable to the sense: an offensive odor.
3. repugnant to the moral sense, good taste, or the like; insulting: an offensive remark; an offensive joke.
4. pertaining to offense or attack: the offensive movements of their troops.
5. characterized by attack; aggressive: offensive warfare.

Let’s pick apart the meaning of offensive.
First, a coniferous tree doesn’t give off an offensive odor, and if it did then people should complain about the species of tree in an urban area, not the decoration on said tree. So that rules out number 2
As for the repugnant, insulting etc. I didn’t see the tree look at somebody and say to them, “an Islamic and a Jewish guy went for a walk….” so no offensive jokes or bad taste. That rules out number 3.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve sure as hell never seen a Christmas tree roundhouse kick a passer by with Ninja precision. Nor have I never seen a Christmas tree Commando roll into the room and kill people with an assault Rifle, so Number 5’s out too.
Since we know Ninja trees don’t exist, there’s no need for them to advance across a battle field, so nope, number 4’s right out!

That leaves #1; Causing resentful displeasure; highly irritating, angering, or annoying. Okay. this must be what people complain about. Let me tell you what’s annoying. Being cut off in traffic is annoying. Let me tell you what’s irritating. People that need to make themselves feel better by attempting to oppress others. A Christmas tree is not either of these. Let’s look at a Christmas tree as a religious symbol. How is a Christmas tree any more or less offensive than The following.
1. A Statue of Shiva, the Hindu God
2. A Statue of Buddha Shakyamuni (Not the belly rubbing Buddha)
3. The Islamic Symbol of the Crescent moon and star.

Is it the fact that a person has a different point of view what makes it offensive? If so, does that mean that the other items on this list are offensive to if the person being offended is of none of these faiths? Does this “offended” person give any thought to how they may be offending other hyper-sensitive people with their religion/believe structure? this is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. I ask each of my readers to tell me how can a tree be offensive and not the other items shown above? careful how you answer that, ’cause I may call bullshit and then call you a hypocrite. If anybody out there believes in a Flying Spaghetti moster, cool, but I tell you a 50 foot statue of the spaghetti moster would prompt me to take a photo, not issue a public out cry that I was offended.

Heck, when I see and of these symbols of people’s faith; I think about how these religious influences help people lead a better life. I don’t say, “Hey I don’t believe in Buddha, it’s offensive get rid of it” It’s the most ridiculous thing to think. Each religion has it’s own values, and they’re own symbols and statues etc. Unless any of these items undoubtedly imply the persecution or destruction of others, I see absolutely no offensive meaning to them. I say undoubtedly because the swastika is recognized as a sign of evil, but is actually a very sacred symbol in Hindu belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika); therefore, people need to use something called “the brain” before they fly off the rocker and claim Offensive. Yes a swastika is offensive, IF and ONLY IF used in the context that refers back to the Third Reich.

There’s an age old saying. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. You won’t see a 25 Metre tall Christmas tree in Tiananmen Square, and you won’t see a huge Menorah lighting up this weekend in New Delhi. Why not? Simple the foundation of those countries values are not based on these religions. In North America, we are much more accepting than many nations in the world. People of different faiths are told to be proud and should be. All peoples human rights are observed and they may practise their religion. That right doesn’t just include non-Christian religions, It includes Christians too… Hmmm.. I guess therefore, the Christmas tree is just as protected as other symbols.

These people need to give their head a shake, isn’t there something better to spend your energy on? If you have that much energy to bitch and complain, go and help out at a homeless shelter; Do something that will better the life of others. There’s nothing “Offensive” in a Christmas tree. Quit trying to fill your own personal agenda and look at the bigger picture..

Sheeeesh….

In Ontario, it is illegal to put restrictions on gift cards from merchandisers.  Yesterday CJOB reported that Manitoba is seriously looking at following suit.    This legislation would be covered under the Consumer Protection Act.  If you ever have used a gift card, you are probably away of some of their restrictions.    Futureshop gift cards for example, can not be used to pay off your Futureshop card.   Some gift cards, expire after six months also.   As far as I see it.  Money given to the retailer in exchange for a certificate should be a binding contract.  An individual has given a retailer money in good faith that the voucher can be used for merchandise of the card holders choosing.  To put limitations of this is a crock.   Boy, do I hope this law passes!

A few days ago, this hit the news.   ” 17-year-olds Amy and Jesse Pasternak won their case in front of the Manitoba Human Right’s Commission last week, allowing them to try out for the boys’ team. They argued a rule preventing them from playing was discriminatory.”  The story is that the two girls mentioned went to the human rights commission because although a women’s team was available they wanted to play with the boys on the men’s team.  The human rights commission awarded them $7000 in damages to go toward coaching.  After all was said and done, they didn’t make the team  Yesterday, I heard on the news that boys are signing up to play on the girls team.  As the high school ridicule of “Steve’s playing on the GIRLS team” could be a major blow to the male ego; there’s only 3 reasons why I could see boys wanting to play on the girls hockey team.  Here they are from what I perceive to be most likely to least likely. 

1. They want to drive the point why Men’s and Women’s hockey has been separated, by playing very physical.
2. Plain and simple.  Many rinks only have 1 locker area per team.  Co-ed showering anyone?
3. A boy doesn’t make the cut on the boys team so decides to go to the girls team as the physical requirements are less.

 Knowing how my friends reacted in high school, I should have reversed option 1 and 2.  Nonetheless, doesn’t anybody else seem something wrong here?  Is it that bad that we reserve the right to separate certain things by gender?  Any woman that works out in a Women’s only club would most likely agree with me.  I could take the stand point that it’s against my human right to not be allowed to work out there, but realistically.  I know women have different needs then men.   How can two people that are physically different, be considered equal?  Scientific experiments have shown time and time again that there are cases where men excel and cases where women excel.  Why must we try to equalize something that Nature has made unequal.  Men and women complement each other, a woman makes up for a man’s short comings and a man makes up for a woman’s short comings.  By no means are we equal.  Not physically, mentally or in any other aspect.   Let me make one thing clear.  Now that I have completely shot down equality here; how do I feel about women in a workplace?  This is the simplest one to answer.  I haven’t shot down equal opportunity, I’ve only shot down the way governments, and social groups have defined equal opportunity.  Personally I can’t believe how this ever became an issue.  It’s quite simple.  A job opening exists as there is a need to fulfill a service.  A person with proper qualifications should fill this position regardless of age, religion, gender, size, color, etc.  Saying that Women are encouraged to apply, or minorities are encouraged to apply, is not equality, it is socially accepted discrimination.  But my explanation of that is another rant.

Found this on the CJOB Website.  “A man who burned his 2002 Ford Mustang in March 2003 has been convicted of Arson and Public Mischief, fined $1,200 and ordered to pay Manitoba Public Insurance $26,129.Danny Dimko Atanasovic, now 22, admitted to the offences when he appeared in Provincial Judges Court last week.Evidence showed Atanasovic was having trouble meeting the lease payments so he decided to burn the vehicle and claim it was stolen. He drove the vehicle to a remote location near Marquette and after setting it on fire, made a theft report to the local RCMP office and a claim for benefits to MPI..The charges were laid after a lengthy investigation by the Special Investigation Unit of Manitoba Public Insurance, working in cooperation with the Headingley RCMP.
Manitobans are reminded they can anonymously report fraudulent claims by calling 985-8477 in Winnipeg, or 1-877-985-8477 outside Winnipeg or email tips@mpi.mb.ca.CJOB’s Robert Holland reporting“

CJOB reports that Gary Doer favours higher speed limits on Manitoba highways in this article http://tinyurl.com/l5onw titled “Doer Favours Higher Highway Speeds” As much as you know that I enjoy driving on the highways, and that yes, on occasion I even let the pedal go down a little farther than I should, I would like to propose something other than faster speed limits on the highway. Lets take a trip from Brandon to Kenora as an example.   Driving at 110km/h for one hour instead of 100Km/h saves you 6 minutes.  However, having to slow down for a single red light on the highway robs you of half of that due to deceleration, stationary time and acceleration time again.   So, it’s pretty easy to see that it’s all about average speed not top speed.  Rather than increasing speed limits on the highways, why don’t we look at how to design the roadways more efficiently?  For example, Roads that don’t warrant an interchange should not be given direct access to the Winnipeg bypass (a.k.a. the Perimeter).  Roads that must have access to the by-pass should be upgraded to having an interchange.  Speaking of the perimeter highway; there is no reason why a driver should EVER have to reduce his/her speed on the bypass, barring weather conditions, obstacles (granny drivers for example) or debris.   The purpose of the road is to guide a driver around the city, and do it quickly.  Dangerous turns (like the ones near Hwy 15) should be removed, the speed should be a constant 100km/h and roads like Pipeline, Sturgeon and Brady should have no direct access to the highway.  Instead Service roads should connect these secondary routes to the primary route which then uses the interchange to route traffic onto the perimeter.   Roads like St. Mary’s and St. Anne’s need an interchange, and for heaven’s sake, Fix the partial interchange at #59 North! I know that for most the drive out West begins and ends in the ‘Peg, and these suggested modifications have next to zero impact on your holiday drives.  But the principal remains the same.  There’s similar things in other area.  Elie, Brandon, for example both have traffic lights, both see enough traffic to warrant an interchange.  Aside from fuel savings, it’s a safety issue also.  Slowing a vehicle from 100KM to zero has an inherent risk that is gone if you maintain speed.  I don’t know how many people smack into each other each year on some of these roads, but I have seen a few nasties on Pipeline and the Perimeter.  I wonder…  At what time does the province pay more on insurance claim payouts than just forking out the cash to build a proper road way? Once the roads are safer… lets boost the speed limit…  Well that’s how I see it anyway…

PDR_0340,
originally uploaded by GermanPickle.

Around quarter to six, I started hearing sirens outside. I live across from an apartment complex, so hearing sirens isn’t a big deal, there’s regularly a false alarm across the street. Today however the sirens didn’t stop. One truck after another.

Armed with my Toshiba Digital Camera I scooted out the door and jumped on the ole’ steel horse. I got to the end of the street and knew right away what the emergency was. The school across the street had an addition against the gymnasium and it was burning.

I cranked the throttle on the bike and got a better look. I took some photos. You can see them on my flickr account .
http://flickr.com/photos/59428674@N00/sets/743933/

I stuck around for 20 minutes or so. That’s when the roof caved in. I think the fire’s out by now as I heard some firetrucks drive by again. Although I was at least 100 yards away, I can smell the smoke on my clothing.