Just hours before I wrote this, the United Nations Security Council voted down a resolution that would have set a two-year deadline to end Israel's "occupation" of so-called Palestinian territory. The resolution faced a veto by the U.S., but that wasn't needed because the resolution fell one vote shy of the nine it would have needed to pass. This resolution was just the latest in a series of countless resolutions chastising and condemning the only democracy in the Middle East. And like all anti-Israel resolutions made at the U.N., its supporters reek of hypocrisy.
So who supported the resolution? The countries of Jordan, France, China, Russia, Luxembourg, Chad, Chile and Argentina. Jordan's delegation was the one that brought the resolution to the floor of the Security Council. How hypocritical can you get? This is the regime led by the Hashemite dynasty that rules over territory that was once part of the former British mandate of Palestine and that was intended to be the homeland of the Holy Land's Arab population. But instead, the British handed it to the Hashemites, whose origins are in what is now Saudi Arabia rather than the Holy Land itself. How this tyrannical regime can accuse Israel of illegally occupying Palestinian land when it is the real occupier of Palestinian territory defies any sense of logic. But unfortunately, this hypocrisy didn't stop seven other countries from voting for the Hashemite-sponsored resolution.
In fact, several of the other seven states that supported the resolution are just as guilty of hypocrisy as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Israel's presence in the West Bank is in no way illegitimate. The West Bank, more accurately called Judea and Samaria, is part of the Biblical homeland of the Jewish people, and since Israel is the embodiment of Jewish independence, it has every right to this territory. But let's just say for the sake of argument that Israel's presence in the West Bank was illegitimate and that there was actually an illegal occupation taking place. Even if this were all true, the governments of countries like France, Russia and China are in no position to condemn Israel because they themselves are perpetrators of illegal occupations. Perhaps someone should put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council setting a deadline for France to end its illegal occupation of Brittany, Occitania, Corsica, and Polynesia, which are just some of the territories that were unlawfully conquered by the French. How about a resolution setting a deadline for China to end its illegal occupation of Inner Mongolia, East Turkestan (in northwest China), Manchuria, and Tibet? We can top off the list with a resolution calling on Russia to end its illegal occupation of - well, over half of the land mass that it now controls - in two years or less. Of course, none of these resolutions would ever come to the floor of the Security Council, let alone be supported by anyone - unless perhaps it was Jews that occupied the aforementioned territories instead of French, Chinese or Russians. Oh, the hypocrisy!
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Thursday, December 25, 2014
Voice Mail: Press 1 For Aggravation
There are a lot of things that annoy me and near the top of the list is something I have to deal with on an almost daily basis: voice mail. Anyone who has ever made a phone call knows exactly what I'm talking about. I can still remember the old answering machines. Whenever you called and no one was there to answer the phone, you would get a voice recording of the person you were calling telling you to leave a message, then you would hear a beep telling you to begin recording. Plain and simple, right? But now, for some stupid reason, getting a voice recording of the person you're trying to call isn't enough. Now you often get a voice recording, then a really annoying automated message telling you something like this: "At the tone, please record your message, when you are finished your recording you can hang up, or press pound (#) for more options. To leave a callback number that you can be reached at, press 1." What a mouthful! What's the point? Is the voice recording telling you to leave a message not enough? Are we so stupid that we need another automated message telling us how to leave a message? The answer to these questions is definitely not. People have been using voice mail since the 80s, or maybe even before. It's not like we don't know how to leave messages and we need some annoying machine to tell us how to do it. Though just to be fair, at least most people leave a personal recording on their voice mail.
Some people don't even bother leaving voice recordings on their answering machines. At most, when you call them, you might get an automated recording that says, "you have reached," then you hear the voice of the person you're calling saying their name followed by another automated voice telling you to leave a message. And then there are the folks that want to remain anonymous, where you get an automated recording saying, "You have reached," followed by the machine reading out the phone number then telling you to record a message. This drives me nuts! Okay, I understand if people want privacy, but how am I supposed to know if I'm calling the right number when I can't hear anything that tells me who it belongs to? As you can tell, voice mail belonging to individual people is annoying enough. But what about when you're trying to call a company? Oy veh!
I'm sure that everyone reading this has had to go through the aggravation of calling companies like Rogers, Bell or Telus whenever you have a problem with your phone, cable or internet. We all know that before you can speak to a real person, you have to go through their annoying automated service. "For customer service, press 1. For technical support, press 2." You get the idea. Unfortunately, pressing one number on your phone usually leads you to another automated message giving you another set of options, then another, then another. Is rage building yet? Well I hope you packed some patience, because when the company's automated system finally tells you that it's transferring your call to someone with flesh and blood, that message is usually followed by another telling you that all representatives are assisting other customers and that you have to hold for the next available representative. If this isn't bad enough, they usually put on some really crappy music for you to listen to until a human being finally takes your call.
Even smaller companies will often have annoying and unnecessarily complicated voice mail. It usually begins with an automated voice telling you to begin speaking after the tone and press any key when you're done. Once you've recorded your message and pressed a key to finish recording, you have to listen to more automated mumbo jumbo telling you to press 1 to send your message, press 2 to re-record your message, press 3 to mark your message urgent...Oh man, enough already!
Unfortunately, I don't see any of this changing any time soon. In fact, it will probably get worst since we seem to be replacing everything that used to have a human touch with machines.
Some people don't even bother leaving voice recordings on their answering machines. At most, when you call them, you might get an automated recording that says, "you have reached," then you hear the voice of the person you're calling saying their name followed by another automated voice telling you to leave a message. And then there are the folks that want to remain anonymous, where you get an automated recording saying, "You have reached," followed by the machine reading out the phone number then telling you to record a message. This drives me nuts! Okay, I understand if people want privacy, but how am I supposed to know if I'm calling the right number when I can't hear anything that tells me who it belongs to? As you can tell, voice mail belonging to individual people is annoying enough. But what about when you're trying to call a company? Oy veh!
I'm sure that everyone reading this has had to go through the aggravation of calling companies like Rogers, Bell or Telus whenever you have a problem with your phone, cable or internet. We all know that before you can speak to a real person, you have to go through their annoying automated service. "For customer service, press 1. For technical support, press 2." You get the idea. Unfortunately, pressing one number on your phone usually leads you to another automated message giving you another set of options, then another, then another. Is rage building yet? Well I hope you packed some patience, because when the company's automated system finally tells you that it's transferring your call to someone with flesh and blood, that message is usually followed by another telling you that all representatives are assisting other customers and that you have to hold for the next available representative. If this isn't bad enough, they usually put on some really crappy music for you to listen to until a human being finally takes your call.
Even smaller companies will often have annoying and unnecessarily complicated voice mail. It usually begins with an automated voice telling you to begin speaking after the tone and press any key when you're done. Once you've recorded your message and pressed a key to finish recording, you have to listen to more automated mumbo jumbo telling you to press 1 to send your message, press 2 to re-record your message, press 3 to mark your message urgent...Oh man, enough already!
Unfortunately, I don't see any of this changing any time soon. In fact, it will probably get worst since we seem to be replacing everything that used to have a human touch with machines.
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
The Holidays: A Time of Joy or a Time of Misery?
Have you ever seen that movie, "Christmas Vacation" with Chevy Chase? Remember that part where Audrey, Clark and Ellen Griswald's daughter, complains to her mother about having to sleep with her brother Rusty because their grandparents are staying over for the holidays? At the end of the scene, Ellen says to her daughter, "I don't know what to say except it's Christmas and we're all in misery." In my opinion, "Christmas Vacation" is one of the best Christmas/holiday movies ever made. At least it was for my generation. I mention it here because although the movie is meant to be a comedy, it does touch on a theme from real life; the theme being that although the holiday season is supposed to be a time of joy where you get together and celebrate with family and friends, it can also be a time of inconvenience and pure misery at worst. But what could be so inconvenient and so miserable about the holiday season? Believe it or not, lots of things.
When I think about who could possibly be miserable during the holidays, my first thought is of the downtrodden - people who are poor, especially families, whose parents can't afford to buy their kids gifts for the holidays. I can't even imagine how hard it must be for a mother or father to explain to their children that Santa Claus isn't coming with presents this year. I can imagine, however, that being poor probably hurts a lot more during the holidays, especially now when the holidays are less about charity and spending time with loved ones, and more about buying the latest gadgets, the nicest clothes, or the fanciest jewelery. For those of you who celebrate Christmas, do any of you remember when Christmas was simply about spending time with family and friends, going to church and celebrating the birth of baby Jesus? My guess is you probably don't, because as time has passed, the holidays have become more the presents that are under the Christmas tree rather than why Christmas is celebrated in the first place. I'm not a Christian, but I do know a bit about Jesus Christ and what he taught. My guess is that if he could see what Christmas and the holiday season have become, his reaction would probably be very similar to that time he trashed the stalls of the moneychangers in Jerusalem. In other words, he would be disgusted.
And I wouldn't blame him. If you do anything to celebrate the holidays, much or even most of your time is probably spent buying things. Oh the joys of holiday shopping! Driving in winter gridlock to get to the mall, the endless wait for a parking spot, navigating your way through the seemingly never-ending crowds of shoppers and feeling like you're in a mosh pit at a Metallica concert. You would think that the gridlock and the crowds would subside with the growth of online shopping. Fat chance! And before you even head out the door to do your holiday shopping, chances are that you've been bombarded with one advertisement after another from retailers fighting for your holiday dollars. You're probably recycling a lot more too because your mailbox and newspapers are filled with flyers advertising everything from the newest cars to the latest iPhones.
The worst part about holiday shopping is that much of what you're buying may be for someone you really don't like or could care less about. But of course, you know that if you don't buy presents for your in-laws, no matter how annoying you find them, your spouse is gonna kill you. And God forbid if you don't get a gift for the boss. "Put it over there with the others, Griswald." By the time you're finished buying gifts for your in-laws and co-workers, then having to tolerate them at the various holiday functions that you have to attend, you probably want to breathe a sigh of relief. "Oh, thank goodness, the holidays are over!" Not so fast, buddy. Because by about a week or two after the holidays have ended, you get to open one last present - your December credit card bill! Aren't the holidays great?
Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit. Maybe the holidays aren't so bad because you do most of your shopping online, you happen to like your in-laws and co-workers, and you're not too scared to open your credit card bill come January. Chances are that for most people, the holidays are a mixed bag. You have the inconveniences associated with the holidays, but you also have the positive aspects. Heck, even with one fiasco after another, the Griswalds of "Christmas Vacation" do end up having a very Merry Christmas. And if there's any real life lesson to be taken from the movie, I think it's that we should take the good with the bad and just try to have a happy, healthy holiday season.
When I think about who could possibly be miserable during the holidays, my first thought is of the downtrodden - people who are poor, especially families, whose parents can't afford to buy their kids gifts for the holidays. I can't even imagine how hard it must be for a mother or father to explain to their children that Santa Claus isn't coming with presents this year. I can imagine, however, that being poor probably hurts a lot more during the holidays, especially now when the holidays are less about charity and spending time with loved ones, and more about buying the latest gadgets, the nicest clothes, or the fanciest jewelery. For those of you who celebrate Christmas, do any of you remember when Christmas was simply about spending time with family and friends, going to church and celebrating the birth of baby Jesus? My guess is you probably don't, because as time has passed, the holidays have become more the presents that are under the Christmas tree rather than why Christmas is celebrated in the first place. I'm not a Christian, but I do know a bit about Jesus Christ and what he taught. My guess is that if he could see what Christmas and the holiday season have become, his reaction would probably be very similar to that time he trashed the stalls of the moneychangers in Jerusalem. In other words, he would be disgusted.
And I wouldn't blame him. If you do anything to celebrate the holidays, much or even most of your time is probably spent buying things. Oh the joys of holiday shopping! Driving in winter gridlock to get to the mall, the endless wait for a parking spot, navigating your way through the seemingly never-ending crowds of shoppers and feeling like you're in a mosh pit at a Metallica concert. You would think that the gridlock and the crowds would subside with the growth of online shopping. Fat chance! And before you even head out the door to do your holiday shopping, chances are that you've been bombarded with one advertisement after another from retailers fighting for your holiday dollars. You're probably recycling a lot more too because your mailbox and newspapers are filled with flyers advertising everything from the newest cars to the latest iPhones.
The worst part about holiday shopping is that much of what you're buying may be for someone you really don't like or could care less about. But of course, you know that if you don't buy presents for your in-laws, no matter how annoying you find them, your spouse is gonna kill you. And God forbid if you don't get a gift for the boss. "Put it over there with the others, Griswald." By the time you're finished buying gifts for your in-laws and co-workers, then having to tolerate them at the various holiday functions that you have to attend, you probably want to breathe a sigh of relief. "Oh, thank goodness, the holidays are over!" Not so fast, buddy. Because by about a week or two after the holidays have ended, you get to open one last present - your December credit card bill! Aren't the holidays great?
Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit. Maybe the holidays aren't so bad because you do most of your shopping online, you happen to like your in-laws and co-workers, and you're not too scared to open your credit card bill come January. Chances are that for most people, the holidays are a mixed bag. You have the inconveniences associated with the holidays, but you also have the positive aspects. Heck, even with one fiasco after another, the Griswalds of "Christmas Vacation" do end up having a very Merry Christmas. And if there's any real life lesson to be taken from the movie, I think it's that we should take the good with the bad and just try to have a happy, healthy holiday season.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
My Own Personal Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan
With the Israeli-Palestinian peace process all but dead, I think it's time that somebody put forward some new ideas to resolve this seemingly never-ending conflict. I have my own idea of what a peace agreement should look like. I know that I'm not a diplomat or world leader, but I would like to share my own personal peace plan with anyone that reads this. My plan involves a type of Palestinian-Jordanian confederation where the Palestinians and the Hashemite dynasty would share power. Those of you who have read some of my previous blogs about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict know that I am no fan of the Hashemite regime in Jordan, now led by King Abdullah II, and in an ideal world, the Hashemites would be overthrown and the Palestinian majority would assume control of what has always rightfully been theirs. But of course, we don't live in an ideal world and I believe that a compromise can be reached that would allow power-sharing between the Palestinians and the Hashemites.
Framework for the Government of the Palestinian-Jordanian Confederation
My plan would re-work the Jordanian parliament so that the lower house would be chosen based on direct elections using the same method of proportional representation used to elect the Israeli Knesset. As it stands now, the lower house of parliament in Jordan is theoretically based on representation by population, but in practice its electoral districts have been rigged so that the Hashemites' supporters, most of whom live in the south of the country, are overrepresented. My plan abolishes these electoral districts and makes all of the Palestinian-Jordanian Confederation one electoral district so that the end result is actual majority rule. And since the Palestinians are the majority, they would ultimately control the lower house of parliament.
The Palestinians would also control the government, as is not the case today. Although today's Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan's lower house is elected by the people, the parliament's other chamber, the Senate, is appointed by the king. Moreover, it is the king and not the parliament, which rules the country in practice. He is the one that chooses the prime minister, whereas in all free parliamentary democracies, including Israel and my home country of Canada, the common practice is that the leader of the party with the most seats, or at least the leader who is most likely to be able to form a government, is the one selected as prime minister. The Hashemite king even has the power to dissolve parliament as he pleases and rule by direct decree, which has been done throughout Jordan's history. None of this would be allowed under my plan, which would have the prime minister chosen the same way he or she is chosen in all genuine parliamentary democracies. The king will not be able to dissolve parliament unless requested to by the prime minister. He will still be official head of state, control the Senate and remain commander of the military, but these will be the limits of his power.
The Status of the West Bank
The West Bank will be subject to a joint sovereignty arrangement between Israel and the Palestinian-Jordanian Confederation, hereafter known by the initials PJC. The arrangement will see Israel maintain security control of the territory, however, the government of the PJC will control the civil affairs of its Palestinian citizens, most of whom hold Jordanian citizenship from before the 1967 war when Jordan controlled the West Bank. The PJC will also be responsible for local policing in the Palestinian cities, towns and villages, as is done today by the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Accords. As for the Palestinian residents of the West Bank, they will all be given the status of permanent residents of Israel. The will be given Israeli ID cards, but will not receive citizenship. And since they will not be Israeli citizens and not have any representation in the Israeli government, they will not pay be required to pay Israeli taxes. Instead, they will pay taxes to the government of the PJC and will have the right to vote in PJC elections and to be represented in its parliament just as if they were within the borders of today's Jordanian state.
Prior to the implementation of the agreement, negotiators for the Israelis, Palestinians and Jordanians would map out the areas of the West Bank in which both Israel and the PJC could create new communities or expand current communities. They would also agree on a registry of private property that all parties would abide by so that no illegal seizure of private property, Jewish or Arab, occurs.
This arrangement is similar to the arrangement that is now in place in some parts of the West Bank known as Area B. Under my plan, however, there will eventually be freedom of movement for all goods and people within and between pre-1967 Israel and the West Bank.
The Status of the Gaza Strip
Under my plan, the Gaza Strip will become part of the PJC. It will ultimately be up to them to decide whether or not they want to use its military forces to gain control of the territory. The military of the PJC, by the way, will not be allowed to deploy west of the Jordan river without the consent of the Israeli government. In the future, an above or below ground highway and/or rail network under PJC sovereignty could be built to link the Strip and what is now the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
The Status of Jerusalem
Jerusalem will remain under full Israeli control. As a gesture of goodwill, however, Israel could allow a new PJC parliament to be built on the eastern side of the city formerly controlled by Jordan. The grounds of the parliament would be considered PJC soil. This arrangement would resemble the one in Rome where the grounds of the Vatican are not considered part of Italy, but rather a sovereign state in and of itself. Hence, the PJC could proclaim Jerusalem as its capital, even if its sovereign control is limited to the parliament.
Palestinian Refugees
Since there will be free movement within and between pre-1967 Israel and the West Bank, Palestinian refugees residing in the West Bank will be allowed to live wherever they want therein. They may even be able to return to their actual homes if Israeli law allows it. For those who cannot return to their actual homes, they must be given just compensation subject to agreement between Israel and the PJC. Palestinian refugees living in what is now the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Gaza Strip or anywhere else will also receive just compensation, but will not be allowed to enter the West Bank or pre-1967 Israel without the consent of the Israeli government. These refugees will have to be resettled either within what is now Jordan or the Gaza Strip as these are the territories over which the PJC will have full control.
Conclusion
Again, I am not a diplomat or world leader, nor am I a security expert of any kind. I'm just an ordinary person presenting a blueprint for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement that I will be fair and work for both sides. As you can imagine, there are plenty of details that would need to be worked out by the negotiators, such as special security arrangements and the division of natural resources in the jointly administered West Bank, especially water. But when all is said and done, I think that my framework would be a good starting point.
Framework for the Government of the Palestinian-Jordanian Confederation
My plan would re-work the Jordanian parliament so that the lower house would be chosen based on direct elections using the same method of proportional representation used to elect the Israeli Knesset. As it stands now, the lower house of parliament in Jordan is theoretically based on representation by population, but in practice its electoral districts have been rigged so that the Hashemites' supporters, most of whom live in the south of the country, are overrepresented. My plan abolishes these electoral districts and makes all of the Palestinian-Jordanian Confederation one electoral district so that the end result is actual majority rule. And since the Palestinians are the majority, they would ultimately control the lower house of parliament.
The Palestinians would also control the government, as is not the case today. Although today's Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan's lower house is elected by the people, the parliament's other chamber, the Senate, is appointed by the king. Moreover, it is the king and not the parliament, which rules the country in practice. He is the one that chooses the prime minister, whereas in all free parliamentary democracies, including Israel and my home country of Canada, the common practice is that the leader of the party with the most seats, or at least the leader who is most likely to be able to form a government, is the one selected as prime minister. The Hashemite king even has the power to dissolve parliament as he pleases and rule by direct decree, which has been done throughout Jordan's history. None of this would be allowed under my plan, which would have the prime minister chosen the same way he or she is chosen in all genuine parliamentary democracies. The king will not be able to dissolve parliament unless requested to by the prime minister. He will still be official head of state, control the Senate and remain commander of the military, but these will be the limits of his power.
The Status of the West Bank
The West Bank will be subject to a joint sovereignty arrangement between Israel and the Palestinian-Jordanian Confederation, hereafter known by the initials PJC. The arrangement will see Israel maintain security control of the territory, however, the government of the PJC will control the civil affairs of its Palestinian citizens, most of whom hold Jordanian citizenship from before the 1967 war when Jordan controlled the West Bank. The PJC will also be responsible for local policing in the Palestinian cities, towns and villages, as is done today by the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Accords. As for the Palestinian residents of the West Bank, they will all be given the status of permanent residents of Israel. The will be given Israeli ID cards, but will not receive citizenship. And since they will not be Israeli citizens and not have any representation in the Israeli government, they will not pay be required to pay Israeli taxes. Instead, they will pay taxes to the government of the PJC and will have the right to vote in PJC elections and to be represented in its parliament just as if they were within the borders of today's Jordanian state.
Prior to the implementation of the agreement, negotiators for the Israelis, Palestinians and Jordanians would map out the areas of the West Bank in which both Israel and the PJC could create new communities or expand current communities. They would also agree on a registry of private property that all parties would abide by so that no illegal seizure of private property, Jewish or Arab, occurs.
This arrangement is similar to the arrangement that is now in place in some parts of the West Bank known as Area B. Under my plan, however, there will eventually be freedom of movement for all goods and people within and between pre-1967 Israel and the West Bank.
The Status of the Gaza Strip
Under my plan, the Gaza Strip will become part of the PJC. It will ultimately be up to them to decide whether or not they want to use its military forces to gain control of the territory. The military of the PJC, by the way, will not be allowed to deploy west of the Jordan river without the consent of the Israeli government. In the future, an above or below ground highway and/or rail network under PJC sovereignty could be built to link the Strip and what is now the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
The Status of Jerusalem
Jerusalem will remain under full Israeli control. As a gesture of goodwill, however, Israel could allow a new PJC parliament to be built on the eastern side of the city formerly controlled by Jordan. The grounds of the parliament would be considered PJC soil. This arrangement would resemble the one in Rome where the grounds of the Vatican are not considered part of Italy, but rather a sovereign state in and of itself. Hence, the PJC could proclaim Jerusalem as its capital, even if its sovereign control is limited to the parliament.
Palestinian Refugees
Since there will be free movement within and between pre-1967 Israel and the West Bank, Palestinian refugees residing in the West Bank will be allowed to live wherever they want therein. They may even be able to return to their actual homes if Israeli law allows it. For those who cannot return to their actual homes, they must be given just compensation subject to agreement between Israel and the PJC. Palestinian refugees living in what is now the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Gaza Strip or anywhere else will also receive just compensation, but will not be allowed to enter the West Bank or pre-1967 Israel without the consent of the Israeli government. These refugees will have to be resettled either within what is now Jordan or the Gaza Strip as these are the territories over which the PJC will have full control.
Conclusion
Again, I am not a diplomat or world leader, nor am I a security expert of any kind. I'm just an ordinary person presenting a blueprint for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement that I will be fair and work for both sides. As you can imagine, there are plenty of details that would need to be worked out by the negotiators, such as special security arrangements and the division of natural resources in the jointly administered West Bank, especially water. But when all is said and done, I think that my framework would be a good starting point.
Monday, December 22, 2014
Toronto's Parking Policies Just Plain Unfair
This past weekend, my father went to park on St. Clair Ave. He went to the parking meter to pay, only to find that the meter was out of order. As a result, he had to walk more than a block away to the next closest meter. The same thing happened to him just hours before I wrote this post. My father is certainly not disabled, although he is in his late 60s, so he's no spring chicken either. But just imagine this kind of thing happening to someone who does have mobility issues and for whom walking a block or more to the next meter could be quite difficult. Not that Toronto Parking Enforcement cares. So the meter's out of order? No excuses! You have to find another one, no matter how far it is. If you don't, you'll end up with a nice, shiny yellow ticket. The same goes for those of you who thought you found the perfect parking space and paid the meter, only to get back to your car to find a ticket on your window saying you parked too close to a fire hydrant. Never mind that the hydrant is hidden in the bushes and no one can see it. But of course, the blue hornets know it's there and they'll show you no mercy. Unclear signage as an excuse? Forget it. As long as Toronto Parking Enforcement knows how to read them, you're busted! For all they care, the signs could be written in gibberish. And how about those jerks amongst the blue hornets who will do almost whatever it takes to make sure you get a ticket. I've heard all sorts of stories. My mom once told me about an officer who literally stood by a person's car looking at his watch until time was up and he could write up a ticket. I can also remember a news crew that got stuck with a ticket - before their time had even expired! Then there was that time when a parking enforcement officer wrote someone a ticket for not paying the meter, even though the ticket from the meter was clearly displayed on his dashboard. I'm sure everyone in the city who drives has plenty of stories of their own to tell about the merciless officers of Toronto Parking Enforcement.
Want to fight a parking ticket? Good luck! First, you have to show up in person at one of the city's far-flung First Appearance Facilities, wait in line for what can seem like an eternity just to spend a minute or two to tell some civil servant that you want to contest your ticket - unless you're fortunate enough to have access to e-mail and a scanner or fax machine in which case the city will allow you to send your ticket and any other supporting documents in order to issue a challenge without having to appear in person. But for those of you who did something more serious, like park near one of those concealed fire hydrants, I'm afraid this probably won't work (click here for information on parking ticket disputes). When you finally get your day in court - albeit several months after you got the ticket (at least) - you'll probably have to shell out a small wad of cash if you want to park anywhere near the courthouse. Having fun so far? Next, you get to sit in the courtroom and wait forever while all the other poor saps who got tickets get their hearing. Finally, it's your turn. You plead your case, then the JP gives you grief and tells you that you entered the wrong plea and instead of pleading not guilty, you should have pleaded guilty with explanation. Personally, I don't like being talked down to whether you're a judge or not. By the time your ordeal is over, you may have spent a lot of time and money just to get your ticket reduced by a few bucks, depending on how generous the JP happens to be that day. It's bad enough that Toronto's parking rules are unfair, but it gets even worse when you realize that City Hall will do everything it can to make fighting a parking ticket as inconvenient as possible. Why? Because parking tickets are a big cash cow for the city. All of us who drive know this. So what should we do about it?
The short answer is that we need to change some of Toronto's parking policies and ensure that those policies are enforced fairly. And when I say fairly, I mean that the folks at City Hall need to tell the blue hornets at Toronto Parking Enforcement to use some common sense. So for example, if someone parks too close to a fire hydrant, but the location of the hydrant is not clearly marked, the first instinct of a TPA officer should not be to write a ticket. It should be to let someone at City Hall know so that they can make sure the hydrant in question is properly marked before any other blue hornet starts handing out tickets to any offending parties. And of course, let's not forget the example of my father's misfortune with the parking meters that I started this post with. The rule about this should be that whenever the meter closest to you is out of order, you can park for free so long as you parked legally, until the meter is fixed. Otherwise, what incentive does the city have to fix its meters in a timely manner?
Finally, whenever someone wants to contest a parking infraction, he or she should not have to go through the inconvenience of going out of their way to go to some municipal office to stand in line forever just to challenge a ticket. While allowing people to contest their tickets via fax or e-mail makes the whole dispute process less onerous, I think that people should just be able to go onto a city website or call a dedicated municipal phone number, enter the number of their ticket and indicate that they want to challenge it in court. A similar process already exists for people who just opt to pay their tickets without contesting them. But God forbid if they want to challenge a ticket. The folks at City Hall need to get it through their thick skulls that parking enforcement needs to be about enforcing the law, not using the rules to grab as much cash from Joe Taxpayer as possible.
Want to fight a parking ticket? Good luck! First, you have to show up in person at one of the city's far-flung First Appearance Facilities, wait in line for what can seem like an eternity just to spend a minute or two to tell some civil servant that you want to contest your ticket - unless you're fortunate enough to have access to e-mail and a scanner or fax machine in which case the city will allow you to send your ticket and any other supporting documents in order to issue a challenge without having to appear in person. But for those of you who did something more serious, like park near one of those concealed fire hydrants, I'm afraid this probably won't work (click here for information on parking ticket disputes). When you finally get your day in court - albeit several months after you got the ticket (at least) - you'll probably have to shell out a small wad of cash if you want to park anywhere near the courthouse. Having fun so far? Next, you get to sit in the courtroom and wait forever while all the other poor saps who got tickets get their hearing. Finally, it's your turn. You plead your case, then the JP gives you grief and tells you that you entered the wrong plea and instead of pleading not guilty, you should have pleaded guilty with explanation. Personally, I don't like being talked down to whether you're a judge or not. By the time your ordeal is over, you may have spent a lot of time and money just to get your ticket reduced by a few bucks, depending on how generous the JP happens to be that day. It's bad enough that Toronto's parking rules are unfair, but it gets even worse when you realize that City Hall will do everything it can to make fighting a parking ticket as inconvenient as possible. Why? Because parking tickets are a big cash cow for the city. All of us who drive know this. So what should we do about it?
The short answer is that we need to change some of Toronto's parking policies and ensure that those policies are enforced fairly. And when I say fairly, I mean that the folks at City Hall need to tell the blue hornets at Toronto Parking Enforcement to use some common sense. So for example, if someone parks too close to a fire hydrant, but the location of the hydrant is not clearly marked, the first instinct of a TPA officer should not be to write a ticket. It should be to let someone at City Hall know so that they can make sure the hydrant in question is properly marked before any other blue hornet starts handing out tickets to any offending parties. And of course, let's not forget the example of my father's misfortune with the parking meters that I started this post with. The rule about this should be that whenever the meter closest to you is out of order, you can park for free so long as you parked legally, until the meter is fixed. Otherwise, what incentive does the city have to fix its meters in a timely manner?
Finally, whenever someone wants to contest a parking infraction, he or she should not have to go through the inconvenience of going out of their way to go to some municipal office to stand in line forever just to challenge a ticket. While allowing people to contest their tickets via fax or e-mail makes the whole dispute process less onerous, I think that people should just be able to go onto a city website or call a dedicated municipal phone number, enter the number of their ticket and indicate that they want to challenge it in court. A similar process already exists for people who just opt to pay their tickets without contesting them. But God forbid if they want to challenge a ticket. The folks at City Hall need to get it through their thick skulls that parking enforcement needs to be about enforcing the law, not using the rules to grab as much cash from Joe Taxpayer as possible.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Cyclists vs. Motorists: The Neverending Struggle for Space on the Road
If you drive on a regular basis, chances are you've had negative altercations with unscrupulous cyclists. And if you cycle on a regular basis, then chances are that you've had plenty of bad run-ins with careless drivers. Whether you're a regular cyclist or a regular motorist, you've probably also heard the usual complaints from both sides. From motorists, it's usually something like this: "Cyclists don't obey the traffic signals, they get in your way, you never know when they're going to make a sudden move and maybe cause you to hit them, they want to take our road space to make way for bike lanes," and so forth. From cyclists, the common complaints about drivers are: "They hog the roads, they don't check to see if there are cyclists around them, they have more than enough space whereas us cyclists don't have enough bike lanes and cycling alongside cars is dangerous," etc.
I myself am a regular driver and I never use a bicycle, so I obviously have my own biases when it comes to the seemingly never-ending struggle for road space between cyclists and motorists. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't sympathize with cyclists who brave the mean streets of my home city of Toronto every day, because I have enough common sense to know that whenever motorists and cyclists collide, often literally, it's usually the cyclist that gets the worst of it. You can get a sense of this simply by looking at the website, doored.ca, which catalogs reports of cyclists getting the so-called "door prize" whenever a driver opens his door and some unsuspecting cyclists smashes into it, often leading to serious injuries. It's no surprise to me that most of these reported incidences occur in or near the downtown area where competition between cyclists and motorists is the most fierce.
But on the other side of the coin, I always get the sense that cyclists are rarely held to account for their transgressions. Those of us that drive often resent the fact that an arrogant cyclist almost always gets away with damaging a person's car. As little as two weeks ago, one of my Facebook friends posted a picture on her page of a broken mirror on her car, captioned with the sarcastic phrase,"Thank you, cyclist." As most of you can probably guess, whichever cyclist smashed and broke her mirror was not held to account. Why? Because unlike drivers, who must be licensed and have proper license plates to identify their vehicles, there is no such requirement for cyclists - a fact that many drivers, including myself, strongly resent.
The Political Struggle
Most of us who either drive a car or ride a bicycle know that the fight for road space doesn't just take place on our streets, but also in the halls of power, usually at the municipal level. Just look at what's been going on at City Hall in Toronto lately. When left-wing mayor David Miller was in power, he and the bicycle-friendly councillors took to making Toronto a more friendly place for cyclists, pushing large-scale transit plans that included bike lanes, and installing new bike lanes that took lanes away from motorists. Anyone remember the heated debate over the bike lanes on Jarvis? Those lanes were put in during the Miller administration. But soon, a new mayor came to power; Rob Ford, who after being elected promptly declared that the war on the car was over. One of his first acts: getting rid of the recently installed bike lanes on Jarvis.
What is most unfortunate is that the better part of a resolution to the conflict between cyclists and motorists is going to have to come from our politicians - the same politicians who are so polarized on the issue. On one side are the bicycle-friendly councillors and their supporters, often referred to in the Toronto Sun as the "bicycult", who want to do everything to encourage cycling no matter how much it inconveniences drivers; and on the other side are people like Rob Ford, who live and die by the car, won't give it up for anything, and the cyclists be damned. There's got to be a happy medium somewhere. Here are some ideas of my own:
1. Build More Bike Lanes Without Giving Motorists a Headache
I agree with the cyclist community that there should be more bike lanes, but I am not in favour of creating new bike lanes by taking away lane space from motorists, especially downtown where traffic is already at a standstill. More bike lanes in place of lanes for motor vehicles downtown will just lead to bigger traffic jams and a lot more idling and pollution. Bike lanes are more easily built in the city's suburbs. I've seen plenty of roads, even major roads, where bike lanes could easily be built without taking lanes away from motor vehicle traffic. As for the downtown core, more innovative solutions are likely required. One of these innovative solutions involves elevated bike lanes. Yes, I'm serious. There are folks who have drawn up plans to build bike lanes above the ground so that they don't take space away from cars. An example of this can be seen here. Furthermore, whenever bike lanes are built adjacent to car lanes or pedestrian sidewalks, it is vital that they be separated, either by building them at a different grade or placing a physical barrier between them and the car lanes. Most of the few designated bicycle lanes that do exist in Toronto are haphazard, consisting of paths that are at the same grade as the motor vehicle lanes next to them, separated only by painted white lines. Motorists routinely take advantage of this by standing in bike lanes or using the extra space provided by them to make turns. This endangers cyclists significantly and ironically can lead to more conflicts between them and motorists as they violate each others' space. But this would not happen if there was a significant physical barrier separating the motor vehicles from the cyclists.
The fact of the matter is that motorists and cyclists cannot and should not share the same road space, because there will always be conflict. The overwhelming majority of Toronto's roads were never built to accommodate both motor vehicles and cyclists at the same time. Furthermore, it makes absolutely no sense for a vehicle weighing in at several tons to share the same road space with a mode of transportation powered only by the muscles of the operator and weighing in at less than a hundred pounds. There's just too much room for accidents, some of which turn out to be fatal for cyclists, because in a collision, the vehicle weighing several tons will always come out on top.
But of course, the only way we're ever going to prevent motorists and cyclists from sharing the same road space and coming into conflict with each other is by building a vast network of separated bike lanes. And although Toronto has begun to build some of these, there's still an incredibly long way to go, not to mention the fact that what little bike infrastructure is available in this city is poorly maintained. I can't even count how many times I've driven on streets with bike lanes after a big snowstorm only to find that those bike lanes have not been plowed and are hence unusable for cyclists. Yes, believe it or not, many folks still ride their bikes in the winter. Bikes are after all a cost-effective way from getting from point A to point B, which is why more and more people are opting to use them.
2. Better Regulations for Cycling
I'm not really a fan of regulation because for me regulation usually equals more nanny statism. But let's face it, sometimes regulation is necessary; and I believe more and better regulations for cycling is warranted. I believe, for example, that all cyclists should be required to where helmets. Now I know that there are a lot of cycling advocates out there that will say requiring helmets is unnecessary and that it discourages people from taking up cycling. I do not buy this argument and quite frankly, I think that the second part of it is a load of crap. Making helmets mandatory does not discourage cycling any more than making drivers where seat belts discourages driving. People are not going to be put off of cycling just because they have to wear a helmet.
I also believe that all cyclists should be require to buy license plates for their bikes just as drivers have to buy them for their motor vehicles. Why? Because just as car license plates help authorities to identify vehicles involved in driving offenses, so to should license plates on bicycles be used to help authorities identify bikes involved in such offenses. Right now, unscrupulous cyclists know that they will almost always get away with damaging the vehicle of a driver they don't like. But once you put a plate on their bike that can identify them, chances are they won't be so quick to try and smash a motorist's mirror whenever they feel like it.
Some people have even called for making cyclists carry licenses the same way drivers do. This is not something I support, because although I do believe cyclists should be aware of all regulations before they get on the road, I also believe that motor vehicles and bicycles are not in the same league, even if they often share the same road space. A motor vehicle is a piece of heavy machinery that is capable of causing major property damage and potentially fatal injuries, while a bicycle is a small mode of transport powered only by the muscular capacity of its operator (with the exception of E-bikes, but that is a whole other issue that I don't want to go into right now). And although it is certainly not unheard of for a bicycle itself to fatally injure someone, the chances of it doing so are astronomically smaller than if a motor vehicle is involved.
3. Just Obey the Law, Dammit!
Let's face it, there are bad drivers and there are bad cyclists and both are responsible for exacerbating the conflict between motorists and cyclists. The careless cyclist who rushes past a stop sign is just as guilty as the idiot driver who blows by it. And in the same respect, the motorist who fails to signal while making a turn is just as much of a moron as the cyclist who suddenly veers into the path of a vehicle without signalling his or her intentions. So it's vital that until we see the separate bicycle infrastructure I mentioned above built and the current bicycle infrastructure properly maintained, we all do our best to obey the rules of the road.
I myself am a regular driver and I never use a bicycle, so I obviously have my own biases when it comes to the seemingly never-ending struggle for road space between cyclists and motorists. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't sympathize with cyclists who brave the mean streets of my home city of Toronto every day, because I have enough common sense to know that whenever motorists and cyclists collide, often literally, it's usually the cyclist that gets the worst of it. You can get a sense of this simply by looking at the website, doored.ca, which catalogs reports of cyclists getting the so-called "door prize" whenever a driver opens his door and some unsuspecting cyclists smashes into it, often leading to serious injuries. It's no surprise to me that most of these reported incidences occur in or near the downtown area where competition between cyclists and motorists is the most fierce.
But on the other side of the coin, I always get the sense that cyclists are rarely held to account for their transgressions. Those of us that drive often resent the fact that an arrogant cyclist almost always gets away with damaging a person's car. As little as two weeks ago, one of my Facebook friends posted a picture on her page of a broken mirror on her car, captioned with the sarcastic phrase,"Thank you, cyclist." As most of you can probably guess, whichever cyclist smashed and broke her mirror was not held to account. Why? Because unlike drivers, who must be licensed and have proper license plates to identify their vehicles, there is no such requirement for cyclists - a fact that many drivers, including myself, strongly resent.
The Political Struggle
Most of us who either drive a car or ride a bicycle know that the fight for road space doesn't just take place on our streets, but also in the halls of power, usually at the municipal level. Just look at what's been going on at City Hall in Toronto lately. When left-wing mayor David Miller was in power, he and the bicycle-friendly councillors took to making Toronto a more friendly place for cyclists, pushing large-scale transit plans that included bike lanes, and installing new bike lanes that took lanes away from motorists. Anyone remember the heated debate over the bike lanes on Jarvis? Those lanes were put in during the Miller administration. But soon, a new mayor came to power; Rob Ford, who after being elected promptly declared that the war on the car was over. One of his first acts: getting rid of the recently installed bike lanes on Jarvis.
What is most unfortunate is that the better part of a resolution to the conflict between cyclists and motorists is going to have to come from our politicians - the same politicians who are so polarized on the issue. On one side are the bicycle-friendly councillors and their supporters, often referred to in the Toronto Sun as the "bicycult", who want to do everything to encourage cycling no matter how much it inconveniences drivers; and on the other side are people like Rob Ford, who live and die by the car, won't give it up for anything, and the cyclists be damned. There's got to be a happy medium somewhere. Here are some ideas of my own:
1. Build More Bike Lanes Without Giving Motorists a Headache
I agree with the cyclist community that there should be more bike lanes, but I am not in favour of creating new bike lanes by taking away lane space from motorists, especially downtown where traffic is already at a standstill. More bike lanes in place of lanes for motor vehicles downtown will just lead to bigger traffic jams and a lot more idling and pollution. Bike lanes are more easily built in the city's suburbs. I've seen plenty of roads, even major roads, where bike lanes could easily be built without taking lanes away from motor vehicle traffic. As for the downtown core, more innovative solutions are likely required. One of these innovative solutions involves elevated bike lanes. Yes, I'm serious. There are folks who have drawn up plans to build bike lanes above the ground so that they don't take space away from cars. An example of this can be seen here. Furthermore, whenever bike lanes are built adjacent to car lanes or pedestrian sidewalks, it is vital that they be separated, either by building them at a different grade or placing a physical barrier between them and the car lanes. Most of the few designated bicycle lanes that do exist in Toronto are haphazard, consisting of paths that are at the same grade as the motor vehicle lanes next to them, separated only by painted white lines. Motorists routinely take advantage of this by standing in bike lanes or using the extra space provided by them to make turns. This endangers cyclists significantly and ironically can lead to more conflicts between them and motorists as they violate each others' space. But this would not happen if there was a significant physical barrier separating the motor vehicles from the cyclists.
The fact of the matter is that motorists and cyclists cannot and should not share the same road space, because there will always be conflict. The overwhelming majority of Toronto's roads were never built to accommodate both motor vehicles and cyclists at the same time. Furthermore, it makes absolutely no sense for a vehicle weighing in at several tons to share the same road space with a mode of transportation powered only by the muscles of the operator and weighing in at less than a hundred pounds. There's just too much room for accidents, some of which turn out to be fatal for cyclists, because in a collision, the vehicle weighing several tons will always come out on top.
But of course, the only way we're ever going to prevent motorists and cyclists from sharing the same road space and coming into conflict with each other is by building a vast network of separated bike lanes. And although Toronto has begun to build some of these, there's still an incredibly long way to go, not to mention the fact that what little bike infrastructure is available in this city is poorly maintained. I can't even count how many times I've driven on streets with bike lanes after a big snowstorm only to find that those bike lanes have not been plowed and are hence unusable for cyclists. Yes, believe it or not, many folks still ride their bikes in the winter. Bikes are after all a cost-effective way from getting from point A to point B, which is why more and more people are opting to use them.
2. Better Regulations for Cycling
I'm not really a fan of regulation because for me regulation usually equals more nanny statism. But let's face it, sometimes regulation is necessary; and I believe more and better regulations for cycling is warranted. I believe, for example, that all cyclists should be required to where helmets. Now I know that there are a lot of cycling advocates out there that will say requiring helmets is unnecessary and that it discourages people from taking up cycling. I do not buy this argument and quite frankly, I think that the second part of it is a load of crap. Making helmets mandatory does not discourage cycling any more than making drivers where seat belts discourages driving. People are not going to be put off of cycling just because they have to wear a helmet.
I also believe that all cyclists should be require to buy license plates for their bikes just as drivers have to buy them for their motor vehicles. Why? Because just as car license plates help authorities to identify vehicles involved in driving offenses, so to should license plates on bicycles be used to help authorities identify bikes involved in such offenses. Right now, unscrupulous cyclists know that they will almost always get away with damaging the vehicle of a driver they don't like. But once you put a plate on their bike that can identify them, chances are they won't be so quick to try and smash a motorist's mirror whenever they feel like it.
Some people have even called for making cyclists carry licenses the same way drivers do. This is not something I support, because although I do believe cyclists should be aware of all regulations before they get on the road, I also believe that motor vehicles and bicycles are not in the same league, even if they often share the same road space. A motor vehicle is a piece of heavy machinery that is capable of causing major property damage and potentially fatal injuries, while a bicycle is a small mode of transport powered only by the muscular capacity of its operator (with the exception of E-bikes, but that is a whole other issue that I don't want to go into right now). And although it is certainly not unheard of for a bicycle itself to fatally injure someone, the chances of it doing so are astronomically smaller than if a motor vehicle is involved.
3. Just Obey the Law, Dammit!
Let's face it, there are bad drivers and there are bad cyclists and both are responsible for exacerbating the conflict between motorists and cyclists. The careless cyclist who rushes past a stop sign is just as guilty as the idiot driver who blows by it. And in the same respect, the motorist who fails to signal while making a turn is just as much of a moron as the cyclist who suddenly veers into the path of a vehicle without signalling his or her intentions. So it's vital that until we see the separate bicycle infrastructure I mentioned above built and the current bicycle infrastructure properly maintained, we all do our best to obey the rules of the road.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Looking for Love But Coming Up Empty
I have been fortunate and blessed to have a very loving family, without which I would not be alive today. But when it comes to finding love from someone that isn't a blood relative, it just doesn't happen for me. I know that I'm certainly not the only one in this situation. In my own city of Toronto alone, there are countless people just like me who are single and lonely. What I find ironic is that it is supposedly much easier to find someone today than it ever was before. There's online dating, telephone dating, speed dating, traditional matchmakers, professional matchmaking services, and even smartphone apps designed for single people looking for that special someone. Yet in the industrialized world of today, people are staying single a lot longer than their parents did. Now I understand that there are other factors at play here, especially socio-economic ones, but I would think that in a world where finding people with whom to have a relationship is so much easier than it ever was, it wouldn't be so difficult to find a significant other.
I myself have tried to find that special someone using the methods mentioned above, but with very little success. So I remain single for what seems like an eternity. I believe that luck has a lot to do with finding the right partner with whom you'll have a long-term relationship - one that may even lead to marriage. And it's not like I haven't had any opportunities. They've just been very few and far between - and I blew it on every occasion. I'm still waiting for another opportunity to come around so that I can get it right for once.
To make matters worse, I'm not exactly a person who puts himself out there, simply because I just don't belong in any social setting. For example, I hate parties. In fact, I can't stand them. I just don't know what to do with myself when I'm at one. I feel like such an outcast. How about the bar or cafe? That's no better either. For one thing, I don't drink anything with alcohol, or tea or coffee. So what else is there? Well, plenty of things - at least if you have plenty of interests, which I don't. I actually have very few interests, and I'm not going to apologize for that. My biggest interests are politics, hockey and dogs. So why not get involved in politics here and maybe meet someone? Because politics here in Canada is a sleep fest at best and a big, fat joke at worst. And it's not like I haven't tried in the past. Hell, I even joined a political party and went to a couple of meetings. What a waste of time, not to mention the fact that ever since I became a party member, all they do is ask for my money.
That leaves my other two big interests, hockey and dogs. I actually play on a hockey team with two female members. Both of them are spoken for, however, and I was never attracted to either of them anyways. There are, of course, plenty of women out there who like hockey. The problem is that hockey is about the only thing we would have in common - very little on which to build a relationship.
So I'm left with my last major interest: dogs. The dog park used to be my only social hangout, where I saw the same people almost every day. Unfortunately, none of them were single females in my age bracket, and I eventually stopped going there anyways because my dog no longer enjoyed it, having gotten older and no longer interested in playing with other dogs. I do work with people in groups dedicated to rescuing dogs, but I rarely meet them in person, and even when I do, there are no single ladies in my age bracket among them.
Hence, I'm in a situation where I can't really hope to find a relationship partner through the few interests that I have. And in terms of expanding my interests? Highly unlikely. I'm not a person who can just spontaneously take an interest in something. In fact, I can't remember being interested in anything new in the past fifteen years.
There is still one other avenue for finding a relationship partner that I haven't mentioned yet - trying to find someone through friends or family. This is how many if not most people find their partners. But no dice here either, I'm afraid. You see, my family doesn't know anyone who would fit the bill, though it's not like they haven't tried. And friends? Well, the problem there is that over the past twenty years, I've had less friends than I do fingers on one hand. In fact, the last person who I would have called my best friend no longer lives in this country.
If you're still reading this, I should congratulate you, because as you can tell, my love life is just a miserable sob story, so I should be grateful to you for taking the time to read about it, especially since I'm sure you could be doing something a lot more enjoyable right now. I should also apologize if I have depressed you in any way. Although this story of mine may seem very depressing, please let me assure you that there are billions of people around the world who would gladly trade their lives for mine - even if they knew that my life was often one of loneliness and longing for that special someone that will likely never come.
I myself have tried to find that special someone using the methods mentioned above, but with very little success. So I remain single for what seems like an eternity. I believe that luck has a lot to do with finding the right partner with whom you'll have a long-term relationship - one that may even lead to marriage. And it's not like I haven't had any opportunities. They've just been very few and far between - and I blew it on every occasion. I'm still waiting for another opportunity to come around so that I can get it right for once.
To make matters worse, I'm not exactly a person who puts himself out there, simply because I just don't belong in any social setting. For example, I hate parties. In fact, I can't stand them. I just don't know what to do with myself when I'm at one. I feel like such an outcast. How about the bar or cafe? That's no better either. For one thing, I don't drink anything with alcohol, or tea or coffee. So what else is there? Well, plenty of things - at least if you have plenty of interests, which I don't. I actually have very few interests, and I'm not going to apologize for that. My biggest interests are politics, hockey and dogs. So why not get involved in politics here and maybe meet someone? Because politics here in Canada is a sleep fest at best and a big, fat joke at worst. And it's not like I haven't tried in the past. Hell, I even joined a political party and went to a couple of meetings. What a waste of time, not to mention the fact that ever since I became a party member, all they do is ask for my money.
That leaves my other two big interests, hockey and dogs. I actually play on a hockey team with two female members. Both of them are spoken for, however, and I was never attracted to either of them anyways. There are, of course, plenty of women out there who like hockey. The problem is that hockey is about the only thing we would have in common - very little on which to build a relationship.
So I'm left with my last major interest: dogs. The dog park used to be my only social hangout, where I saw the same people almost every day. Unfortunately, none of them were single females in my age bracket, and I eventually stopped going there anyways because my dog no longer enjoyed it, having gotten older and no longer interested in playing with other dogs. I do work with people in groups dedicated to rescuing dogs, but I rarely meet them in person, and even when I do, there are no single ladies in my age bracket among them.
Hence, I'm in a situation where I can't really hope to find a relationship partner through the few interests that I have. And in terms of expanding my interests? Highly unlikely. I'm not a person who can just spontaneously take an interest in something. In fact, I can't remember being interested in anything new in the past fifteen years.
There is still one other avenue for finding a relationship partner that I haven't mentioned yet - trying to find someone through friends or family. This is how many if not most people find their partners. But no dice here either, I'm afraid. You see, my family doesn't know anyone who would fit the bill, though it's not like they haven't tried. And friends? Well, the problem there is that over the past twenty years, I've had less friends than I do fingers on one hand. In fact, the last person who I would have called my best friend no longer lives in this country.
If you're still reading this, I should congratulate you, because as you can tell, my love life is just a miserable sob story, so I should be grateful to you for taking the time to read about it, especially since I'm sure you could be doing something a lot more enjoyable right now. I should also apologize if I have depressed you in any way. Although this story of mine may seem very depressing, please let me assure you that there are billions of people around the world who would gladly trade their lives for mine - even if they knew that my life was often one of loneliness and longing for that special someone that will likely never come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)