The basis of Libertarian thought is that the individual should be as free from government and societal interference as possible. In other words, as independent as possible.
The following 4 stories all touch on this theme:
Story 1. A few days ago, the Toronto - Ottawa Via Train caught fire near Richmond just a few miles outside of Ottawa. To be precise, the engine caught fire.
All the passengers were evacuated by the Via personnel without incident. And yet, you should have heard the clamour.
From some of the comments made, you would have thought these passengers went through a living hell. Rather than thank the Via crew for handling the situation so well, all they received were complaints.
I would have thought the incident would have given them something of interest to tell their grandchildren.
But the most bizarre aspect of this was a complaint that not all the directions to pax were given in French albeit it was acknowledged that most were and indeed most of Via staff are Francophone. So here we have an emergency with the staff acting as best they can and everyone gets disembarked safely and the issue of Official Languages gets raised. Can you believe it?
Well our Czar at the Official Languages Commission can and does and has announced that he will be launching an investigation. Makes you want to throw-up.
Bottomline here - the tendency for our citizens to blame others rather than thank their lucky stars that serious injury did not befall them.
Story 2. Today's edition of the National Post announces that a woman in Chicago is suing the local zoo because she slipped and fell due t0 water laying beside the Atlantic bottlenose dolphins aqarium. Imagine!! In her claim she alleges the zoo was negligent because they "recklessly and wilfully trained and encouraged the dolphins to throw water as the spectators..". Sounds pretty serious? In fact that is why spectators go to see the dolphins.
This is just another case where the blame is wrongly placed on others.
Story3. A little different and again in today's Post. The Greyhound Bus Line was fined $1,500 in British Columbia for "forcing passengers to ride for 16 hours in an unheated bus" with temperatures ranging between "-26 and -30 degrees". It does not say whether the passengers in this case sued Greyhound but I would certainly understand it if they did. Here they were trapped on board and deliberately abused. A modest suit would seem to be in order especially given the small fine levied against the bus company.
In this case 'the other party' (i.e. Greyhound) rightly deserves the criticism.
Story 4. This one incenses me the most. A young mother - 25, left her baby in the car a couple of days ago for a few minutes while she bought something in a drug store. Unfortunately it was during the recent heat wave and a passer-by noticed the baby and removed her from the car. The story came to light and all hell broke out. Call-in radio and the local papers were inundated with citizens calling for the young mother's head. Jail was too good for her - at a minimum she should lose her child to Child Welfare.
Child Welfare did investigate the case and quickly concluded the mother was a good mother who had made a bad mistake.
That should have been the end of it, but not so. Two very serious criminal charges have now been laid against her for failing to provide the necessaries of life to her infant daughter. I suspect these charges resulted more from the local society's hue and cry rather than from the incident itself.
I think if these righteous citizens examined themselves for a minute they would see that a little human kindness toward the mother would not be out of the order. We all make mistakes and it is always easier to point at others for their mistakes then it is to recognize our own.
It brings to my mind the words of Jesus - whomsoever is without sin, should cast the first stone.
Enough said.
"Galagher"
Friday, August 21, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Greater Respect For Columnists
Something different.
In doing my little Blogs I have come to appreciate the work of Columnists who must write their pieces - often on a daily basis to severe time constraints.
But it is not that so much that earns my respect.
They bare their souls - so to speak, by telling the public what they believe and in doing so, open themselves up to criticism. They also can and do injure the feelings of some of those who do not concur with their writings. This must be a heavy toll for them to endure - especially over an extended period of time.
We though, the readers, are forever in their debt - regardless of what their positions may be, since their writings force us to think. The fact that we agree or disagree with them is not the issue.
For me it is much less an issue given my tiny following. But I do find myself second guessing myself often on what people may think of what I write and I struggle with that.
I will though perservere.
Now back to basics.
A friend sent me the following web address dealing with pizza purchasing in 2012. It can be accessed at: http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf
It's a good laugh but I suspect it is not too far off the mark.
From time to time I have had to go to the bank to arrange a loan - let's say for a new car. I am often surprised by what the bank knows about you - that you do not know or have even forgotten. "It says here that you have a line of credit with a competitor bank - is that true?" Now that you remind me - I guess it is - but I have never used it. Suspicious eyes glare over at you...
So I guess if the pizza purchase is an indicator it will only get worse.
I used to be and for that matter still am quite open when it comes to privacy on the basis of 'I really do not have anything to hide - so let it all hang out". But I am starting to rethink all of this and in that sense the pizza scenario is timely.
Enough said.
"Galagher"
p.s. did I tell you my new car is constantly tracked by satellite. If someone steals it, it can be demobilized and the police sent to aprehend the thiefs. In that sense, it can also be stopped and demobilized from above even if I was driving...K
In doing my little Blogs I have come to appreciate the work of Columnists who must write their pieces - often on a daily basis to severe time constraints.
But it is not that so much that earns my respect.
They bare their souls - so to speak, by telling the public what they believe and in doing so, open themselves up to criticism. They also can and do injure the feelings of some of those who do not concur with their writings. This must be a heavy toll for them to endure - especially over an extended period of time.
We though, the readers, are forever in their debt - regardless of what their positions may be, since their writings force us to think. The fact that we agree or disagree with them is not the issue.
For me it is much less an issue given my tiny following. But I do find myself second guessing myself often on what people may think of what I write and I struggle with that.
I will though perservere.
Now back to basics.
A friend sent me the following web address dealing with pizza purchasing in 2012. It can be accessed at: http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf
It's a good laugh but I suspect it is not too far off the mark.
From time to time I have had to go to the bank to arrange a loan - let's say for a new car. I am often surprised by what the bank knows about you - that you do not know or have even forgotten. "It says here that you have a line of credit with a competitor bank - is that true?" Now that you remind me - I guess it is - but I have never used it. Suspicious eyes glare over at you...
So I guess if the pizza purchase is an indicator it will only get worse.
I used to be and for that matter still am quite open when it comes to privacy on the basis of 'I really do not have anything to hide - so let it all hang out". But I am starting to rethink all of this and in that sense the pizza scenario is timely.
Enough said.
"Galagher"
p.s. did I tell you my new car is constantly tracked by satellite. If someone steals it, it can be demobilized and the police sent to aprehend the thiefs. In that sense, it can also be stopped and demobilized from above even if I was driving...K
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Post Script to Shareholders Can Also Vote
On August 7, 2009, a day infamous because of Hiroshima, I wrote the above-noted Blog.
A week later there appeared an article in the National Post which agreed with me in that there needs to be a way found to keep the Board of Directors and the Officers of Companies at arms length.
The Post article suggested that Boards of Directors be filled by "professional board members" and I like their idea. I had suggested that officers should not be allowed to own shares in the company and that they should not take part in the Board nomination process. However, anything that will result in an arms length approach I support. Without such, the public is doomed to further abuses of corporate power.
I feel somewhat comforted by this article and hence this post script.
But it also provides an opportunity to reiterate that the Free Market did not let the world down in regard to the recent financial collapse; rather it was the greed and lack of values possessed by those in a position of trust - (read the Madoffs of this world).
We were also let down by the lack of government oversight which should have ensured a level and honest playing field to protect investors / shareholders and beyond that the general public many of whom are now unemployed.
Capitalism has no soul nor feelings, it simply provides a cold and calculating way of doing business. Competition is encouraged and the best survive. And that is the way it should be.
The GMs and Nortels failed on their own and should not be propped up by government. Bombardier falls into that category as well.
The recent announcement, by the Liberal Government of Ontario, to subsidize GM's Chevy Volt to the tune of $10,000 per vehicle is a case in point. Where is the fairness in this, to Ford, Toyota and the others all of which have factories in our country and pay the same taxes and so do their workers. It distorts the process and in the end, results in inferior products being developed by the subsidized company since they are no longer subject to free market constraints. It brought down communism and will bring down GM (again) if this favoured approached continues.
Government has an important role to play in capitalism. It sets the rules for all. For instance, if emission standards are imposed, all manufacturers should be subject to those standards and the free market system will ensure that thsoe standards are met in the most cost effective manner. The public then will decide on best quality.
Those that suggest Capitalism has taken it on the chin are sorely mistaken. It has worked well for us and will continue to do so, if allowed.
More on this later...
"Galagher"
A week later there appeared an article in the National Post which agreed with me in that there needs to be a way found to keep the Board of Directors and the Officers of Companies at arms length.
The Post article suggested that Boards of Directors be filled by "professional board members" and I like their idea. I had suggested that officers should not be allowed to own shares in the company and that they should not take part in the Board nomination process. However, anything that will result in an arms length approach I support. Without such, the public is doomed to further abuses of corporate power.
I feel somewhat comforted by this article and hence this post script.
But it also provides an opportunity to reiterate that the Free Market did not let the world down in regard to the recent financial collapse; rather it was the greed and lack of values possessed by those in a position of trust - (read the Madoffs of this world).
We were also let down by the lack of government oversight which should have ensured a level and honest playing field to protect investors / shareholders and beyond that the general public many of whom are now unemployed.
Capitalism has no soul nor feelings, it simply provides a cold and calculating way of doing business. Competition is encouraged and the best survive. And that is the way it should be.
The GMs and Nortels failed on their own and should not be propped up by government. Bombardier falls into that category as well.
The recent announcement, by the Liberal Government of Ontario, to subsidize GM's Chevy Volt to the tune of $10,000 per vehicle is a case in point. Where is the fairness in this, to Ford, Toyota and the others all of which have factories in our country and pay the same taxes and so do their workers. It distorts the process and in the end, results in inferior products being developed by the subsidized company since they are no longer subject to free market constraints. It brought down communism and will bring down GM (again) if this favoured approached continues.
Government has an important role to play in capitalism. It sets the rules for all. For instance, if emission standards are imposed, all manufacturers should be subject to those standards and the free market system will ensure that thsoe standards are met in the most cost effective manner. The public then will decide on best quality.
Those that suggest Capitalism has taken it on the chin are sorely mistaken. It has worked well for us and will continue to do so, if allowed.
More on this later...
"Galagher"
O'Bama Health Care: Both Sides Are Right
Both sides are also wrong.
Let's deal with where both sides are right - maybe I should be saying 'correct'.
O'Bama / left wing America is correct that too many Americans either lack health care entirely or are under-provided for. For humanity purposes, this simply cannot continue. Everyone is entitled to basic health care.
The Republicans / right wing America is correct that the O'Bama plan is too expensive for America to implement. According to my research, we here in Canada pay 40% of all government revenue (read taxes) toward health care provision and that figure grows each year way beyond the rate of inflation / consumer price index. I also have checked and found that American's concurrently spend about 40% of government revenue on their military.
If they were to move to a Canadian style health care as O'Bama is proposing they would have 80% of their budget dedicated to just heath care and military spending. This can only be addressed in one or two ways or a combination of both: increase in the debt or massive income tax increase.
Now here's where they are both wrong.
First off each side calls the other "fascists / Nazis" when neither side is. Both have their legitimate concerns that need to be respected.
O'Bama's approach is wrong in that it dramatically increases the size of Government and looks to Government to run the new and enhance health care system while you and I know that Government cannot run a first aid station. It replaces private care with public care and as such removes the free market affect of providing timely, efficient and cost-effective care.
The Republican approach is also wrong in that it continues to deny coverage to millions of their fellow Americans. This simply cannot be allowed to continue.
Here's where the Humane Libertarian comes in:
Let's deal with where both sides are right - maybe I should be saying 'correct'.
O'Bama / left wing America is correct that too many Americans either lack health care entirely or are under-provided for. For humanity purposes, this simply cannot continue. Everyone is entitled to basic health care.
The Republicans / right wing America is correct that the O'Bama plan is too expensive for America to implement. According to my research, we here in Canada pay 40% of all government revenue (read taxes) toward health care provision and that figure grows each year way beyond the rate of inflation / consumer price index. I also have checked and found that American's concurrently spend about 40% of government revenue on their military.
If they were to move to a Canadian style health care as O'Bama is proposing they would have 80% of their budget dedicated to just heath care and military spending. This can only be addressed in one or two ways or a combination of both: increase in the debt or massive income tax increase.
Now here's where they are both wrong.
First off each side calls the other "fascists / Nazis" when neither side is. Both have their legitimate concerns that need to be respected.
O'Bama's approach is wrong in that it dramatically increases the size of Government and looks to Government to run the new and enhance health care system while you and I know that Government cannot run a first aid station. It replaces private care with public care and as such removes the free market affect of providing timely, efficient and cost-effective care.
The Republican approach is also wrong in that it continues to deny coverage to millions of their fellow Americans. This simply cannot be allowed to continue.
Here's where the Humane Libertarian comes in:
- Focus on those who lack or have insufficient health coverage (have-nots). Leave the remainder, the vast majority, who are satisfied with their coverage, to continue to obtain it through private sector sources.
- Offer the 'have-nots' a modest core coverage that will not break the bank and that will be provided, wherever possible, via the private sector.
This leaves the private sector approach in tacked - as it should be, while providing care to those who are currently in need (i.e. the humane approach).
To pay for it, cut out redundant programs and increase taxes only as a last resort.
Also, modestly reduce spending on the military. It is obscene that 40% plus of America's budget is consumed in this way. It is also obscene that the free world sits back and let's America do all the heavy lifting (pay the bills with loss of life and expenditure of monies).
More on this later...
"Galagher"
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Canada's Broken Refugee System
I was going to do my next Blog on the important issue of the future of Health Care but given that Canada's Refugee System has been topical of late, I thought it best to deal with that now.
Quite simply, our Refugee System is broken and has been since the mid-1980's.
As is happens, I worked in Legal Services with Canada's Refugee Board and as such have first hand knowledge of what I speak.
Recently I read that a liberal commentator had said that the favourable rate for refugee cases was a mere 6 to 7%. I am not sure what he was smoking but when I was there in the late 80's the acceptance rate was upwards of 70% and that did not include the 40% or so of refugee applicants who went 'missing" before their cases were even heard. Nor does it take into account the fact that seldom did applicants leave Canada after having received an unsuccessful decision.
I won't even deal with the appeal process used so effectively by 'immigration' lawyers to line their pockets while delaying final decisions indefinitely.
The figures I have quoted from personal knowledge may have declined somewhat under the Tories but from what I have read in the meantime, I suspect not.
From my perspective, for every 100 applicants perhaps 5% and more likely 1 to 2 % are legitimate refugees escaping persecution. The balance some 95% are merely shopping for a new home. In short, they are queue jumpers and make mockery of those law abiding people who apply for access to Canada through the normal immigration process.
Often those queue jumpers come without identity papers and little to nothing is known about them. The Refugee process is a non-adversarial one and hence, in most cases, there is little to nothing before the deciding Refugee Judge that would lead to a negative decision.
In a high per centage of these cases, the refugee applicant really is trying to enter the United States - hence the 40% that disappear before their cases are even heard. No wonder the US is concerned about its northern border.
A former head of the Refugee Board pointed out recently that it was the Tories and in particular, Barbie McDougall as Immigration Minister who brought in the Board by way of legislation in the late 1980s. She purposely pulled a provision before passage that would have given Canada the power to refuse applicants who came here from a safe-haven country. In other words, if an applicant originated in Asia and travelled to Canada via England, that applicant could be immediately be returned to England for their processing.
We therefore have the Tories of the 1980s to thank(?) for our disfunctional system.
This is another reason why I believe the current Progressive Conservatives / Conservatives are not 'realconservatives'. They are just another shade of red.
Having said that, Harper is finally on record as saying he will deal with this matter on an urgent basis and we have for the first time in memory a Minister - Jason Kenney who has the courage to follow through. I suspect though that Libs, NDPers and Blocists will join to defeat them.
More on this later...
"Galagher"
Quite simply, our Refugee System is broken and has been since the mid-1980's.
As is happens, I worked in Legal Services with Canada's Refugee Board and as such have first hand knowledge of what I speak.
Recently I read that a liberal commentator had said that the favourable rate for refugee cases was a mere 6 to 7%. I am not sure what he was smoking but when I was there in the late 80's the acceptance rate was upwards of 70% and that did not include the 40% or so of refugee applicants who went 'missing" before their cases were even heard. Nor does it take into account the fact that seldom did applicants leave Canada after having received an unsuccessful decision.
I won't even deal with the appeal process used so effectively by 'immigration' lawyers to line their pockets while delaying final decisions indefinitely.
The figures I have quoted from personal knowledge may have declined somewhat under the Tories but from what I have read in the meantime, I suspect not.
From my perspective, for every 100 applicants perhaps 5% and more likely 1 to 2 % are legitimate refugees escaping persecution. The balance some 95% are merely shopping for a new home. In short, they are queue jumpers and make mockery of those law abiding people who apply for access to Canada through the normal immigration process.
Often those queue jumpers come without identity papers and little to nothing is known about them. The Refugee process is a non-adversarial one and hence, in most cases, there is little to nothing before the deciding Refugee Judge that would lead to a negative decision.
In a high per centage of these cases, the refugee applicant really is trying to enter the United States - hence the 40% that disappear before their cases are even heard. No wonder the US is concerned about its northern border.
A former head of the Refugee Board pointed out recently that it was the Tories and in particular, Barbie McDougall as Immigration Minister who brought in the Board by way of legislation in the late 1980s. She purposely pulled a provision before passage that would have given Canada the power to refuse applicants who came here from a safe-haven country. In other words, if an applicant originated in Asia and travelled to Canada via England, that applicant could be immediately be returned to England for their processing.
We therefore have the Tories of the 1980s to thank(?) for our disfunctional system.
This is another reason why I believe the current Progressive Conservatives / Conservatives are not 'realconservatives'. They are just another shade of red.
Having said that, Harper is finally on record as saying he will deal with this matter on an urgent basis and we have for the first time in memory a Minister - Jason Kenney who has the courage to follow through. I suspect though that Libs, NDPers and Blocists will join to defeat them.
More on this later...
"Galagher"
Monday, August 10, 2009
Time to Axe the Reserves
In an earlier blog I called myself a liberal libertarian - I have had a rethink, primarily because the term 'liberal' no longer means what it once did. It used to be more or less synonmous with the term 'libertarian'. Today it connotes those who favour government intervention and are prepared to accept ever less freedom.
So - from henceforth on I will refer to myself as a 'humane libertarian'. 'Libertarian' in the sense that I believe the individual should look to himself first for help in improving his lot and 'Humane' in the understanding that in some instances an individual is simply not physically or mentally able to do that.
Modern western governments have subscribed to the belief that bigger is better and that freedom of the individual must be sacrificed for the 'benefit' of the majority. And, of course it is the government which decides what that 'benefit' may be.
What is lost in all of this is individual independence and our society is the poorer for it.
No where is this more evident than in the case of the Aboriginal. He or she is confined to a Reserve System that never made any sense. Politicians have been paralyzed from taking action for fear of being branded rascists. There is also a strong element of guilt attached to this issue as a result of the Indian's culture and way of life having been absolutely destroyed some 200 years ago.
But it is the native who has suffered and continues to suffer through Society's inaction.
Reserves are rife with alcoholism, drug and family abuse, suicide, poor health and diet.
Added to this is the ever growing problem of illegality. Smuggling in cigarettes, alcohol, guns and even in humans is an every day occurence - especially in those Reserve which border the USA. All seem to have casinos and on a per capita basis there are far more natives in our jails than any other race.
Their Leadership calls out for more money to be spent - yet billions are thrown at the problem yearly with no result. We know and they know that more money is not the answer.
The Reserve System must come to an end.
Imagine living in a reserve where nothing of substance occurs and where your main source of legal income comes from the government. You too would quickly be brought down to despair.
If I had the power, I would announce that systematically over a ten year period the reserve system in Canada would come to an end. Funding for natives living off the reserve would continue but for those on the reserve the funding would decline over the ten year timeframe.
At the end of ten years, the Reserves would be sold and the monies placed in trust for all natives
to be used to help them integrate into society. At some point, the funding for even those natives living off the reserve would come to an end as well.
Tough love - you bet, but sometimes tough love is all you are left with.
There would be a hue and cry from the native leadership and from our left of centre politicians but at the end of the day, the individual aboriginal would be so much better off.
Even more important, if we do not axe the Reserve System where government plays the tune through its funding and keeps people dependent, we will be all headed for our own Reserve System.
More on this later...
"Galagher"
So - from henceforth on I will refer to myself as a 'humane libertarian'. 'Libertarian' in the sense that I believe the individual should look to himself first for help in improving his lot and 'Humane' in the understanding that in some instances an individual is simply not physically or mentally able to do that.
Modern western governments have subscribed to the belief that bigger is better and that freedom of the individual must be sacrificed for the 'benefit' of the majority. And, of course it is the government which decides what that 'benefit' may be.
What is lost in all of this is individual independence and our society is the poorer for it.
No where is this more evident than in the case of the Aboriginal. He or she is confined to a Reserve System that never made any sense. Politicians have been paralyzed from taking action for fear of being branded rascists. There is also a strong element of guilt attached to this issue as a result of the Indian's culture and way of life having been absolutely destroyed some 200 years ago.
But it is the native who has suffered and continues to suffer through Society's inaction.
Reserves are rife with alcoholism, drug and family abuse, suicide, poor health and diet.
Added to this is the ever growing problem of illegality. Smuggling in cigarettes, alcohol, guns and even in humans is an every day occurence - especially in those Reserve which border the USA. All seem to have casinos and on a per capita basis there are far more natives in our jails than any other race.
Their Leadership calls out for more money to be spent - yet billions are thrown at the problem yearly with no result. We know and they know that more money is not the answer.
The Reserve System must come to an end.
Imagine living in a reserve where nothing of substance occurs and where your main source of legal income comes from the government. You too would quickly be brought down to despair.
If I had the power, I would announce that systematically over a ten year period the reserve system in Canada would come to an end. Funding for natives living off the reserve would continue but for those on the reserve the funding would decline over the ten year timeframe.
At the end of ten years, the Reserves would be sold and the monies placed in trust for all natives
to be used to help them integrate into society. At some point, the funding for even those natives living off the reserve would come to an end as well.
Tough love - you bet, but sometimes tough love is all you are left with.
There would be a hue and cry from the native leadership and from our left of centre politicians but at the end of the day, the individual aboriginal would be so much better off.
Even more important, if we do not axe the Reserve System where government plays the tune through its funding and keeps people dependent, we will be all headed for our own Reserve System.
More on this later...
"Galagher"
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Needed A Truck...Bought A Cadillac
My wife and I live with our cat Snick on a small hobby farm where having a truck is most handy.
My current truck a 2007 Ford Ranger is on lease and the lease expires at the end of this month. It has been a good vehicle and my only complaint is that it is very hard on gas. This is the second pick-up truck that I have owned or leased.
And, they have certainly come in handy. Our kids and friends have found them to be most helpful as well.
Just yesterday, I went to town with my son-in-law to purchase lumber for a deck my son-in-law is kindly building us. Some of the boards totalled 16' and the truck to them without complaint. Anyway, they always seem to come in handy.
That is why I started several months ago to find a replacement truck to my Ranger.
I looked at several "used" models but could not seem to find the 'right one'. One used car dealer was so honest with me that he suggested I buy new since new trucks were selling for about the same price as older models. I started looking at new.
And, I found the perfect one. It too was red - a colour I get teased about from time to time due to my right-wing bent. It too was a Ranger but had more features than my current truck and sold for the same price as under my current lease. It was a no-brainer - this new Ranger was made for me.
Rather than tell the dealer I'd buy it then and there, I told him I would think about it over the weekend and let him know "first thing on Monday".
Then I got thinking. I did not want another truck regardless of how convenient it was around our farm; I wanted a car - and I wanted one with all the 'bells and whistles'.
Saturday I was off to see the local cadillac dealer. I picked one out and he let me take it home over night. My wife loved it too but she was quick to point out that I was so much like my late father who also loved nice cars. A week before he died, he told me that he was thinking of buying a new buick. This despite the fact that he was living in a nursing home and that his doctor had taken his licence away some five years earlier.
So I asked my father the obvious question: "what would you do with a new car that you were not allowed to drive?" Without missing a beat, he replied: "I'd sit in it".
You know, I understood what he was saying, there is nothing in life better than sitting in a new car - with that new car smell. It even beats driving it. I told my father he should go for it and he might well have done so if his worn out heart had gone on a little longer.
The next day, I took the cadillac back whereupon I broke all rules - I told the salesman immediately how much I loved the car. No hard sell for me.
So here I am, with a car that I really don't need and I truck that I do need but will be returning to the ford dealer in a matter of days. It really makes no sense, but life is often like that.
Did I mention, my cadillac is the colour 'blue'.
"Galagher"
My current truck a 2007 Ford Ranger is on lease and the lease expires at the end of this month. It has been a good vehicle and my only complaint is that it is very hard on gas. This is the second pick-up truck that I have owned or leased.
And, they have certainly come in handy. Our kids and friends have found them to be most helpful as well.
Just yesterday, I went to town with my son-in-law to purchase lumber for a deck my son-in-law is kindly building us. Some of the boards totalled 16' and the truck to them without complaint. Anyway, they always seem to come in handy.
That is why I started several months ago to find a replacement truck to my Ranger.
I looked at several "used" models but could not seem to find the 'right one'. One used car dealer was so honest with me that he suggested I buy new since new trucks were selling for about the same price as older models. I started looking at new.
And, I found the perfect one. It too was red - a colour I get teased about from time to time due to my right-wing bent. It too was a Ranger but had more features than my current truck and sold for the same price as under my current lease. It was a no-brainer - this new Ranger was made for me.
Rather than tell the dealer I'd buy it then and there, I told him I would think about it over the weekend and let him know "first thing on Monday".
Then I got thinking. I did not want another truck regardless of how convenient it was around our farm; I wanted a car - and I wanted one with all the 'bells and whistles'.
Saturday I was off to see the local cadillac dealer. I picked one out and he let me take it home over night. My wife loved it too but she was quick to point out that I was so much like my late father who also loved nice cars. A week before he died, he told me that he was thinking of buying a new buick. This despite the fact that he was living in a nursing home and that his doctor had taken his licence away some five years earlier.
So I asked my father the obvious question: "what would you do with a new car that you were not allowed to drive?" Without missing a beat, he replied: "I'd sit in it".
You know, I understood what he was saying, there is nothing in life better than sitting in a new car - with that new car smell. It even beats driving it. I told my father he should go for it and he might well have done so if his worn out heart had gone on a little longer.
The next day, I took the cadillac back whereupon I broke all rules - I told the salesman immediately how much I loved the car. No hard sell for me.
So here I am, with a car that I really don't need and I truck that I do need but will be returning to the ford dealer in a matter of days. It really makes no sense, but life is often like that.
Did I mention, my cadillac is the colour 'blue'.
"Galagher"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)