1 week Ago By Winnipeg Free Press
Saving money Read this article for free: Already have an account? To continue reading, please subscribe: * Saving money Read unlimited articles for free today: Already have an account? Opinion Saving money There’s been quite a few articles recently that try to justify increases in the taxes levied by the City of Winnipeg. May I suggest that before the city dips its sticky fingers into the pockets of this retiree, who lives on a fixed income, that it finds some savings through efficiencies in its own house? Here’s a perfect example. When we call for an ambulance, we also get firefighters because of a dispute between the paramedics and the firefighters that has been going on for over a decade.
This duplication of services is beyond wasteful. Settle the dispute and save hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars. Robert Collings Winnipeg Just joking around Maybe Canada should annex the territory south of us.
Many Americans and immigrants will be coming here regardless. We already have a pre-emptive force (a.k.
a. snowbirds) in Arizona, Texas, Florida and other strategic states. We would bring free health care and cannabis shops on every corner.
We would enjoy cheap liquor and a dollar would be a dollar. The lower 48 could be the 11th province while Hawaii could be our vacation territory and Alaska a wilderness territory. As for Puerto Rico, they can start their own country.
The possibilities are endless. (Just a joke. Right?) Allan Jakilazek Winnipeg American problems Someone please enlighten me.
How is the illegal entry of people into the U.S. a Canadian problem? Last I heard, each country is responsible for protecting its own border.
Why is the Canadian government so willing to roll over on Trump’s outlandish demands? Norm Bukoski Winnipeg Predicting Trudeau’s exit Re: (Dec. 10) With any luck our prime minister won’t have to worry about this for long. We do have a federal election next year so it won’t be his problem after that.
Brian Short Stonewall All things in moderation Re: (Think Tank, Dec. 10) Dr. Sri Navaratnam, CEO of CancerCare Manitoba, makes a compelling case for abstaining from alcohol to prevent cancer.
We have all seen the devastation of cancer, and anything to avoid it is advisable, but an “all-or-nothing” approach that researchers are inclined to take creates an element of fear which isn’t helpful. Are we to take from the research that a glass of wine at the end of a hard day’s work will inevitably lead to cancer? Are the small joys of life to disappear altogether? What about the coffee with Baileys around a summer campfire, or an evening of sipping an old single malt Scotch whiskey with friends? What about sharing stories on the deck on a hot summer day with a “cold one” in hand to beat the heat? Are there to be no more toasts for weddings, graduations or a new baby? Obviously, over-indulging or abusing alcohol is bad for one’s health, their families well-being and society in general, but to take away some of life’s small pleasures, which make us the social creatures that we are, may do more harm than good. Researchers have lead us down the “butter is bad, butter is good” path in the past.
We have all been through the “eggs are bad, eggs are good,” phase of life. We embraced the “a glass of wine is good for the heart” phase of research, only to now find out that that same wine may lead to cancer. Perhaps adopting a mantra of “everything in moderation” will help us to lead long, rich and fulfilling lives without the fear of some well-intentioned researchers taking all the fun out of it.
Wally Barton Winnipeg Non-motorized traffic trouble Re: “Lower limit won’t work” (Letters, Dec. 10) I concur with Geoff Ireland’s letter asking cyclists to “smarten up” and I agree that lowering speed limits won’t work either. The recent tragedy on Wellington Crescent proved that as the vehicle was going three times the speed limit.
So posting 30 km/h could see speeds three times the limit as well, equally fatal to pedestrians and cyclists. In North Dakota, sidewalks have signage imprinted on them, signs along the sidewalks clearly stating no cycling at all, no rollerblading, scooters, etc. You get the drift.
As for cyclists, my street has a 12-foot wide bike path on the south side, and cyclists and scooters (silent personal transportation vehicles) etc. continue to speed on the three-foot wide north sidewalk on my side. Working on my front yard is risky.
A few weeks ago I was walking home on my side and I was clipped by a fat bike and fell onto the neighbour’s yard. I chipped four teeth as the yard is not grass, but mulch and granite. The cyclist did not stop! I wrote to Bike Winnipeg — no reply.
I wrote to the mayor who had been on the news chirping about bike paths making the city safer. The usual reply came from his assistant, but no action thus far even with a followup. The mayor is very concerned about such incidents.
Bah humbug! R. Bodi Winnipeg Alternate options Re: “Lower limit won’t work” (Letters, Dec. 10) Geoffrey Ireland suggests more dedicated road bicycle lanes with curb separation and traffic signals as a preferred option for improved bicycle safety.
Edmonton has chosen a more economical option by creating 160 kilometres of shared, two-metre wide sidewalk pathways for cyclists and pedestrians. A shared pathway on the south sidewalk adjacent to the narrow segment of Wellington Crescent between Stradbrook and Academy would improve bicycle safety. It could link easily with the existing street dedicated bicycle lanes, while minimizing construction-related traffic disruption and save funds for our cash-strapped city.
Wayne Manishen Winnipeg On moral outrage Re: (Editorial, Dec. 10) The editorial board is correct to bring attention to the Orwellian notion of “safe” when the issue is the location of consumption sites. If the critics worry addicts will rob schoolchildren of their milk money, perhaps Premier Wab Kinew can start the right way by finding room in the Legislative Building or the new police headquarters for the promised supervised consumption site? Those two spots would be among the safest spaces Winnipeg has.
However, I believe what the morally righteous worry more about is your “moral safety,” i.e. protecting people from ideas like taking drugs that they find offensive, rather than protecting children from criminals.
So-called addicts must be hidden out of sight from school children and polite society in general if the moralists are to be appeased. Using contrived language which is both threatening and reassuring to the public, the government categorizes all illicit drug use as bad, and all illicit drug users as sick. Through their language, the government emerges as the primary authority on drug use in Canadian society.
Not only does this language shape political action, it also shapes the meanings that we hold about illicit drugs and their users. The government’s language on drug use helps to sustain the “symbolic allure” of prohibition. It also legitimates the control of the “therapeutic state” over the individual.
It’s all moral righteousness run amok and the sooner we start dealing with that truth, the sooner the so-called addicts shall all be set free. Repeal prohibition and leave those people alone. Chris Buors Winnipeg Advertisement Advertisement.
