Trevor Dailey's Weblog

***SCENE***

[Werewolf in human form. To woman] Vampires have kind of levels. The ones on the top are like, well, kind of like the Count Dracula in the movies. The ones on the bottom, those are sorta like the ones on Buffy The Vampire Slayer. See, with Vamps, the ones on the top are the real ones, and the ones one the bottom, the people who get bit by the ones on the top, are just sorta minions. We don't like the ones on the bottom.

[Woman] Why?

[Werewolf] Long story. We allied ourselves with the Vamps because we had a common enemy at that time.

[Woman] Us?

[Werewolf] Yeah, you humans. Well, anyway, that alliance fell apart. Nobody knows why really anymore, it happened centuries ago. At least I don't know why. The point is, we started going after the Vamp minions to try to keep the Vamps on the top from taking over, the bad ones that is. You may thank me for that if you want to. The problem is you humans never stopped killing us or the Vamps, good or bad for either of us. So, we evolved to take human form, and try to hide among you. Of course, we aren't human, Werewolf or Vamp, so we go back to our true selfs whenever.

[Woman] Are there more like you?

[Werewolf] Werewolves? I haven't encountered another of my kind in a very long time. I can thank you for humans for that, I suppose. However, we can detect our kind in human form. We know our own kind. We also know the Vamps in human form. That's why you need me find this Vamp you are hunting, before it finds you. I don't need to tell you this one isn't one of the good Vamps.

***SCENE***

© Trevor Dailey

Disappointed. That is the answer I would give if asked my reaction to the London 2014 Municipal Election. From listening to a talk show today on AM 980, and from checking the result in my Ward, I am disappointed with the results.

It seems to me, London voters did not vote for change by leaving only three incumbents in office, and bringing in 11 new Councillors and one new Mayor. The City Of London voted against something, not for it. They voted against the previous Municipal government. That, in my opinion, is a mistake.

I certainly wanted to see change, but I voted for something when I voted for my choice of candidates for Ward Councillor and Mayor (neither were incumbents), and not against something. I voted for policy. I voted for the candidates (Ward, Mayor) who I thought had good ideas.

I did not think that I would vote for someone just to get another person out of office. I did not vote for a new person just to take me farther down the same road the person I voted against was taking me. I did not vote for someone just becasuse that person was was in opposition to the person in office. I did not vote just to punish a person in office by getting him or her voted out. 

We get the government we deserve; like it or not. 

© Trevor Dailey

Back around 2006, London City Council got this idea that erecting metal trees of various colours which are of a design of austere simplicity was going to attract tourists to the City downtown.

Coun. Cheryl Miller, who has long championed the core's revitalization, said the tree art could even draw more tourists.

"I think this could put London on the map," said Miller.

- London Free Press, November, 2006

Funding for this project came from the downtown improvement tax on the business owners of downtown London by the London Downtown Business Association.

The brainchild of architect/developer Andy Spriet, and funded with $200,000 mostly from the London Downtown Business Association, it's part of the city's effort to promote public art in the core area.

- London Free Press, November, 2006

After approximately 14 years and approximately $500,000 tax money dollars later,  the metal tree project has long been a failure.

On October 19, 2014, 2,300 people, double what was expected, turned out for a Comicon event organized by L.A. Mood Comics And Games, one of the downtown business that must pay the London Downtown Business Association tax. The event was an overwhelming success without any metal trees.

Forest City Comicon Delivers Double Projected Attendance

Need I say more?

© Trevor Dailey

Audio: Just Right: (32:20) BIA agenda – out of bounds: 

I will be voting in the October 27 London (Ontario, Canada) Municipal Election. As I am sure many other eligible voter have, I received pamphlets in the mail from some of the candidates running in my Ward in the weeks prior to the October 27 London (Ontario, Canada) Municipal Election. The number of Ward Candidates, 3 out of 7, who sent me something through Canada Post did not impress me as a voter, but I was pleased they sent me their information through the old fashioned, obsolete, snail mail. This is the only way I might have known about them. Currently working 46 hours per week does not give me much time to spend on the Internet searching out my Ward Candidates. Ironically, I did do this, and I found one Ward Candidate that I have decided to vote for. Had I not done this search, and I almost did not, I would not have found this Ward Candidate. This Ward Candidate has nothing but a Facebook page, and I really dislike Facebook. I find Facebook to be cluttered, confusing to navigate, and it looks similar to the abysmal looking websites of the 1990s. I just try to stay away from Facebook.

Some other non candidate pamphlets came in the mail with some good information on the Municipal Election. Why these arrived in my mailbox on October 25 and not much earlier I do not know. The information was interesting. One gave information on a free public bus service on election day, but only for one City Ward. I wonder why just this one Ward needs free access to the public bus on election day?

Another pamphlet gave information on the three levels of government in Canada, and what each is generally responsible for. It also contained information about what a Municipal government is responsible for. I felt this was very good information to get into the hands of voters, and many candidates, because many people are not correct about which elected official does what job. I hear federal, provincial, and municipal politics being mixed up together by voters, candidates, and even elected officials.

What are the levels of Government and what do they do?

Federal Government (Canada)

Radio and Telecommunication

Food Safety

Agriculture

Transportation Safety

National Defence

Postal Services

Banking

Provincial Government (Ontario)

Environmental Services

Energy Production

Provincial Court

Health Care

Charitable Institutions

Driver's Licences

Municipal Government (City)

Water and Sewer Services

Garbage Collections

City Parks

Fire Prevention

Roads and Sidewalks

Public Transportation

Building Permits and Zoning

Police [Municipal]

Recreation Services/Community Centres

Ontario Works [Welfare]

Social Housing [Subsidized Housing]

- Municipal Election Fact Sheet

The responsibilities of a municipal government is very important to know in the election if you are like me and you think some municipal governments are greatly over stepping their bounds with many of their policies. Unfortunately, too many municipal politicians do not know this, or worse, do not care, and get involved in areas of politics they have no jurisdiction. London (Ontario, Canada) and Toronto City Councils are notorious for this. In a nut shell, Ontario (Canada) municipal governments are simply the managers of cities and towns on behalf of the provincial government.

What do I expect of my City Councillor/Mayor?

Provincial (Ontario) law governs the duties of Council:

Represent the public and to consider the well-being and interests of the municipality

Develop and evaluate the policies and programs of the municipality

Determine which services the municipality provides

Maintain the financial integrity of the municipality

Carry out the duties of Council under legislation

- Municipal Election Fact Sheet

Something I learned was in Ontario all municipal elections take place every four years on the last Monday of October. This explains why other municipalities are also having elections at this time.

A great disappointment was I received no literature in the mail from any of the 15 Mayor Candidates. It is true many have done radio interviews, and other media interviews, but in my case, I am not able to listen to these interviews because I work all day. When a pamphlet comes in the mail, I am able to read it after I walk in the door. It is right in my hand. I read all of them to educate myself before I go to vote so I can make an informed decision on who I will vote for. It is my opinion that a voter should always make an informed choice when voting for the candidate of his or her choice, but I also think if one is going to run for public office then one needs also to work to get one's message out to voters. For me, mailing me a pamphlet is the best way because I will receive it, and I will read it. I rarely forget to check my mailbox, but I often forget to go online and search for candidate information at election time.

© Trevor Dailey

I am certain there is already a debate about polls being released before an election vote is completed. Prior to the voting, the news media tells who is going to "win" the election based on some polling of eligible voters. This is what has happened here in the 2014 London (Ontario, Canada) municipal election.

After an election, the only voters who "won" are the voters who voted for the candidate who won the election, and everyone else lost. To quote Mr. Brown from the movie The Big Combo (1955): "First is first, and second is nobody", and nobody wants to be the loser in an election.

Exactly why the news media reports these pre election polls, I do not know. What influence it has on the average voter I am just as unsure of. I do know what effect it has on me. It makes me want to vote even more.

Voting for a "loser" has never bothered me, and I have voted for my share of election "losers". I will certainly be voting for a "loser" this election too because the person I support for Mayor only 5% of those polled also support under the definition "other". I will not vote or not vote for someone based on an opinion poll. I will vote for whom I choose to vote for after my own evaluation of the candidates I have to choose from. If the polls say 45% of those polled support Candidate A, and only 5% support the candidate I do, I will be more determined to cast my vote for my candidate. I realize opinion polls are not how we elect people; marking a selection on a ballot is.

© Trevor Dailey

Thanksgiving is traditionally a time when we get together with friends and family and enjoy eating a feast. The Autumn harvest was once all the food one had to live on until crops could be harvested again in the new year. Of course, things have changed since the days we had to live on the Autumn harvest through the Winter. Food is plentiful throughout the year, and if there is something to be thankful for on Thanksgiving then I suggest this would be it. Unfortunately, people today are turning on their food in greater numbers than ever before.

One of the most persistent attacks on our food is objections to additives and preservatives. These two things are considered by many to be harmful, and should be removed from foodstuffs. Without offering a shred of scientific evidence, some people claim our food is poison. These people do do not know what it was like to live without the additives and preservatives in food we have today. Back then, sometimes people really got sick from eating their spoiled food, and sometimes people starved from not having enough food to eat. Lets look at a few of the reasons safe additives and safe preservatives are added to our food today.

An additive might be mixed with the bread dough so that the bread rises to a higher volume than regular bread giving a better value to the consumer. An additive could be a vitamin that is added to increase the nutritional value of the food. Fortified cereal is an example of this. Your body does not care where the nutrients come from, nor whether the nutrients are natural or synthetic or not. An additive can also be a flavouring ingredient, or a food colouring. We like to eat food that tastes and looks good.

Preservatives are most important for health reasons. Some preservatives, for example, inhibit mold growth in bread. Some types of mold can create toxins harmful to human health. This was a serious problem in the past. Our bread does not go moldy after a few days. Preservatives might also help keep insects from contaminating foodstuffs by keeping the food from spoiling sooner. Our biscuits are not crawling with bugs after a while. There is also the change in habits of the shopper. Most of us do not buy food each day, we buy our food usually once per week. Because of this, food needs to last longer in our cupboards, and on store shelves. Many of us tend to buy more food than we can eat before it would normally spoil. Mechanical refrigeration and canning has gone a long way in foodstuff preservation, but not all our foodstuffs is refrigerated or canned. Preservatives, and additives, are used in minuscule amounts in our food because that is all that is needed. This is a long way from the days when meat was coated with salt and packed in brine to persevere it. This required a lot of salt, time, and expertise because if not done correctly the meat would still spoil.

Too many people today believe in the false conclusion that additives and preservatives in food are harmful despite the stringent burden of proof requirement before any food additive or preservative is approved to be safe, and the scientific evidence. Just because one can not pronounce the scientific name, or because one does not know what the additive or preservative is, or its purpose, or something was on the Internet, or in a book, or was said by some person, is not proof anything in the food is harmful.

© Trevor Dailey

Excessive Water Consumption

The excessive water consumption in Canadian cities constitutes a very serious problem. The average daily consumption in the Dominion is one hundred and eleven gallons per capita; in individual provinces it reaches as high as one hundred and forty-three gallons per capita, and in certain centres of fairly large size attains a maximum of two hundred and ninety-two gallons. There is no doubt that those figures can easily be lowered. The consumption in Great Britain is below twenty-five gallons in several cases, and the highest rate is only seventy gallons per capita.

That the more extensive use of meters would remedy conditions to a great extent is shown by two of our prairie provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where meters are more widely used than elsewhere, and where the average consumption falls to fifty gallons and fifty-five gallons, respectively - less than half the average for the remaining provinces. Nor would the introduction of meters mean an increased cost to consumers. The average estimated cost of water for Canada is ten and nine-tenths cents per thousand gallons, the only provinces materially exceeding this being the two prairie provinces, where meter rates have already been widely adopted. The rates charged on the meter basis could be adjusted to meet different local conditions, so that the amount paid by each consumer would be practically the same as at present, but all wastes would be avoided. Many Canadian municipalities have both flat and meter rates in force, the consumer having the choice between the two, but as a rule the meter rates are so ridiculously high for the average consumer that there is in reality no choice. For instance, although the estimated cost for Canada is ten and nine-tenths cents per thousand gallons, numerous cities and towns charge thirty cents and over, with several charging even over one dollar per thousand gallons. Our excessive consumption is not due to the liberal and beneficial use of water, but to the careless waste by a few consumers in each community. Meters will not effect former but will effectively check the latter.

Construction: November, 1916, Vol.9, No. 11, page 389.

The Monday, September 22, 2014 edition of the London Free Press OP/ED, "Flush With Successes" by Norman De Bono made me roll my eyes on reading it; and it was not just because of De Bono's bad and immature puns.

Prominently pictured on the newspaper page is the image of a presumably low-flow toilet with across it the words:

Upgrades at the Greenway pollution control plant and a big dip in the amount of water Londoners use mean the city [sic] can put off building a new $80-million sewage plant in southwest London for at least 20 years.

Although the article does mention the fact that advances in technology have allowed the current plant to expand and become better, most of this is ignored, and much of the article implies the feel good green low water use toilets and showers have saved taxpayers $80 million.

As City Engineer, John Braam is quoted:

We dropped water consumption since 2000 by almost 30%, that is huge. We have more efficient toliets, showers. There has been a big change.

Many years ago, London had a flat rate for water usage. Then one day, London City Council decided it wanted more money from the tax on water use, and so the City moved to a pay-as-you-go system where consumers are charged for what they use. Of course, water use dropped, and then the water charge increased, and water use dropped again, and so on.

One thing missing from the article to explain the 30% drop in water consumption is the state of London's economy over the last years. The biggest single users of water in a municipality is industry, and many industries in London have closed (Beta Brands - McCormicks, Electro Motive, Kellogg). It seems nobody has thought that maybe all those "efficient" toilets one must flush at least twice, and are at times disgusting to use, and those "efficient" misting showers that require twice as long to wash oneself, are not the only reasons London is using less water. 

Londoners are not going to see a nickel in savings on their water bills from not building a new $80 million sewage plant. London is not going to be in a better position 20 years from now when the plant might have to be built. Not having a plan for the long term future, and putting things off is one of the biggest problems with London City Council. London City Councillors are only concerned with what happens in their terms of office and if it benefits their political careers. In twenty years London may need this new sewage plant, and the question is: who is going to build it? 

© Trevor Dailey