Nickel dumpster-diving

Here goes another try at maintaining my blog....clearly it's been a year since I've dusted off the old 'login' button.

Sure, some of the greatest treasures are buried beneath piles of trash, but are they really? Is it worth losing the shame and dignity to jump into a dumpster?

For about the last month, I have been experiencing the apartment lifestyle living in Red Deer's low-rise hell. Outside my building and about a dozen others in my neighbourhood are big dumpsters and recycling areas. I would probably bet 3, 4, maybe 5 times a day, the local 'bums' if you will swing by for their daily dumpster diving fun.

They're rummaging through cardboard, plastic, and garbage looking for pop bottles, liquor bottles, milk jugs, and anything that could net them five cents or more at the bottle depot.

I'll admit, I hate going to the bottle depot. I cannot be hassled to stash my bottles until I have enough to make a worthwhile trip to the bottle depot. I consider paying the five cents a cost of doing business. I would much rather leave my bottles in the blue box and let the recycling people take care of it for me.

I continue that Ontario practice because it's a) far more practical and b) far more convenient. It didn't take me long to see the local 'bums' rummaging through the dumpsters and blue boxes. I didn't mind at first because at least they're doing the hard work and they can keep the money as a reward. Even last week when I was riding the bus around town, a bum was digging through the garbage at one of the bus stops. It's when I realized five or six different bums would come by at different times during the same day I had a change of heart.

It looks unsightly and gross when somebody is standing in the dumpster, reaching into the dumpster, or doing other acrobatics to find the bottles. For the amount of money they probably end up collecting, it's not worth the shame and dignity to stand knee deep in a trash bin with god knows what in there. As I see it, if they're that dedicated to the job, I'm sure they could hold a real one that pays them a hell of a lot more money with a lot more dignity.

And that leaves me with my final point, aren't there laws that say it's theft to steal garbage?

God's Country

, originally uploaded by haurez.

Lake Louise

Lake Louise, originally uploaded by haurez.

A Badge of Honour or Primal Stupidity?

Sleeping with several women or having self-respect and dignity for oneself? Which is better? If you ask my roommates, sleeping around. If you ask me, dignity and self-respect. Granted, sleeping with at least 15 women by the time you're 19 is an accomplishment, but it why strive for that if not more? Twenty minutes later, especially if it's a one-nighter, you're no further ahead in life and your ball sack is a little lighter. Repeat that several times, and the end result is you've laid 9 random women.

On the women you date, do you necessarily need to jump into bed right away? It sets the tone of the relationship. Sure it might be fun, and you get to see her again, but do you get any further in life? The last time I checked, relationships were based on how well two personalities got along and how well they communicate, not how much sex they have. It's an empty relationship. Holding off does one of two things: a) shows you respect her and b) makes you more desirable.

When you add up the one-nighters and the women you've dated, is there really anything to be proud of? I ask this question as my roommates wonder why I haven't brought home some woman to forget about the next day after living here for almost seven months. They also ask why I lay the woman I dated for a month. It's simple, I don't feel the urge to get in the sack ASAP. As far as I'm concerned, it makes things more awkward than they need to be. The next woman I'll be sleeping with must be a serious girlfriend, not [insert name here...if you can remember it] from that bar I forgot I went to last night.

Even if I do bend my rules, it isn't something I'd go bragging about. I've got better things to do with my life than make the Guiness Book of World Records for most number of women laid by one man.

Life Through Beer Goggles

Getting wasted...what's the attraction? It's a question I've asked myself for the past four years. Is there any benefit to it? Is there anything to gain? I tend to think there's more to lose. Friends, dignity, self-respect, etc. Is there really anything cool about being an ass and doing stupid shit because you can? I tend to think not.

Getting wasted is alright once in a while. Every now and then, you've got to celebrate achievements or just have a good time. When I ask the question, what's the attraction, I ask it in this context: why do it regularly?

I was talking with my roommate the other night about some staff functions coming up, which usually means drunk-fest with the co-workers. I work early mornings on the weekend so staying out late and drinking lots on a Friday night is a no-go for me. My roommate says to me you only live once. Upon hearing that, I thought, do I need to be wasted all the time? Isn't there more to life than trying to keep track of how many drinks lead you to the porcelain throne? I do like to have a few drinks, but I hate waking up feeling gross, especially when I have to work. It's bad enough I hate working when I'm not well rested. A few co-workers have told me I haven't worked a weekend unless I've worked half drunk or hungover. It works for them, it doesn't work for me. I want to perform to the best of my ability and it would seem irresponsible of me to get drunk in front of the boss, even if it's generally accepted. Even if my boss encouraged it, I would still hold back. I'm in a field I want to move up in, not some retail job where half my brain can get me through the day. On the other hand, if I wasn't working some unholy hour the next day, I'd probably take it further.

I digress. I'm also faced with a few other soirees in the coming months where alcohol consumption is encouraged. I don't see any need to do so, but I'm always faced with people who want to push it. Nothing gets accomplished other than a contribution to the sewage plant. You're out of commission for a half day, wasting most of it away. Why do it regularly? There's too much life to experience and too much to do. Sure you do stupid, amusing things, but are any of those things something to be proud of? I'd rather have a good time with friends, have just a few drinks, and remember what happened. I'm never in a race to see if I can drink more than the next guy, because that's just dumb.

Overall, more harm than good comes out if it. Once in a while is fine, but regularly is just dumb. I'm sure the next time I see some of my best friends from home, it'll be a night to (or not) remember. But that's ok, because how often do I see them?

The Price of History

Earlier this year, the City of Red Deer announced its intentions to purchase the Arlington Inn. It's an old hotel that dates back over 100 years and is of historical significance to the Province of Alberta and the City. It was in this building where one could argue that Alberta was born. Today, the Arlington hosts a pub and provides affordable housing to those with low income.

The City says it wants to purchase the building in an effort to revitalize downtown Red Deer. It would like to demolish the building, sell the property to a developer, and see a mixed commercial-residential building erected on the site. Residents were recently given eviction notices for November 14th.

The City's course of action is not the best way to revitalize the downtown. The building has historical significance, and more importantly, the building has character. It calls back to Alberta's early history and it would be a shame to see the building disappear. Good revitalization may include restoring the façade of the building, retrofitting the inside of the building, and even turn the residences into office space. The City should also aid residents of the Arlington in their search for a new home and should hold off on any work until they've found a place to live. Perhaps a municipal or provincial museum is in order given the building's historical past.

Architecture gives cities character, and the Arlington is no exception. Only one block away do the street signs read 'Historical Downtown.' Those signs may need to be replaced if buildings like the Arlington disappear if the area becomes overrun with skyscrapers. For example, it's difficult to find several historical buildings in downtown Calgary. I'm sure at some point in time they were abundant.

Progress may be the flipside of the argument, and I agree. Cities are living, breathing organisms where older buildings will eventually be knocked over. But that begs the question, do all historical buildings need to be demolished in the name of progress? A person I ran into on the street mentioned a historical building was demolished to make way for the bus terminal. Progress should honour history while looking to the future. One city planner who presented a plan to London City Council last year said a good city mixes the old with the new. Skyscrapers and tall office/residential buildings should be built behind older buildings. It gives city streets charm, while realizing the need to densify the city's core.

Revitalization doesn't always equal demolishing old buildings. It means incorporating them into the grand plan, unless of course you could kick it and it would fall over...the Arlington is not faced with that situation.

A Case for Fair and Balanced News on the Fox News Network

No, I'm not ingesting a narcotic. It is a rational argument. My argument does not try to justify any of Fox News' journalistic practices. It merely intends to explore why Fox might be able to use such a statement and how the network can get away with it.

Most importantly, Fox News wants you to believe that all of its reporting is fair, balanced, and just. Reporters are supposed to be flies on the wall, waiting for news to happen. They report on the events when they do materialize. They tell us the fallout of the event any other relevant information. To keep their objective position in the news world, Fox proclaims that "We report, you decide." That statement gives Fox some buffer room to say whatever they want to say. As a viewer, I decide whether the story is true, whether the facts are accurate, and whether I want to believe what I'm being told. On this statement alone, Fox lets go of some of their authority or integrity and places it upon the viewer. If viewers don't like what Fox told them, well it was up to the viewer in the first place to decide if the facts were correct. It keeps the fly on the wall effect if you will.

A perceived liberal bias in the mainstream media may also drive Fox to declare themselves fair and balanced. It is quite clear that their stories are not fair and balanced. More often than not they leverage the republican or conservative cause and dismiss the democratic or liberal one. The liberal point of view may not even get airtime, but if it does, the story is framed in a manner to undermine liberalism and praise republicanism. Fox may do this to counter its competitors which it views as liberal. Therefore, Fox News is balanced... it balances the other networks, but it does not balance its stories. Thus, it is also fair. If other networks can "do" what they "want," why can't Fox, it's only fair.

Historically, journalism was NEVER ever objective. It was ALWAYS biased. Newspaper barons like Hearst and Pullitzer developed a mainstream newspaper market in order to increase circulation. If you didn't offend anyone, you might get more readers. It also meant more advertising dollars because there are more readers. Journalism was political before that newspaper revolution. Perhaps Fox news is returning to a time when news was not an objective source of information.

In a nutshell, that is my argument for Fox being a fair and balanced network. It doesn't mean that Fox is a genuine source of news, it just means that the network may be trying to tackle a larger issue instead of making sure each and every story doesn't offend anybody.