The human mind is extremely buggy. For example, 1 in 4 Americans have a mental disorder at some point in their lives. Even the average person will misremember simple events in their past. Consider the extremes of the human mind. You can be anywhere from completely coherent and aware of your surroundings with a very advanced intelligence, to living only in your imagined perception of the world around you, aka a 100% hallucinatory state. With these extremes of the human mind, it’s easy to conclude that we would find ourselves somewhere in between these extremes. The challenge is simple. How close to each end would you find yourself?

Consider a topic you feel like an expert in. You feel confident in what you know, and also in the fact that your knowledge on that subject is superior to the average person. Now lets throw in a hallucinogenic mental illness. With that, how confident are you that you are as intelligent as you believe, and that the level of knowledge of those around you isn’t simply conjured up by your mind? What proof do you have that the interactions you have with others aren’t simply lucid hallucinations created by your mind?

All your senses are connected to your brain. “That’s real because I can feel it/see it/smell it/taste it/hear it” is not a valid statement. The only way that would be accurate would be adding in “to me”, as in “That’s real to me because I can feel it/see it/smell it/taste it/hear it”.

Asking someone else to confirm your observations is still flawed. Who are you asking? Is that person real or fabricated by your mind? If you had a mental illness, would you know the difference between a real person and an imagined one? Therefore, even asking a million people would carry no more weight than asking 1.

The point is that even if you were the human on the most intelligent end of the spectrum, with a flawless brain, you would not be able to confirm that it was flawless because you would not be able to confirm the reality of any of your observations.

So we know nothing. All we have is what is true or real to us, and therefore, that is all we can go on. This means it is essential to realize that what any one of us may hold to be the most truest of truths, may very well be a complete fabrication in our minds. At the same time, the most absurd concepts to us may very well be closer to absolute truth than we realize.

Imagine a world where you don’t pay any taxes at all. A world where all that matters from the perspective of law, is a person’s life, property and liberty. Nobody could force you to follow their own moral code. Nobody will steal your money in the name of the “Law”. Nobody would care if you started your own business, or worry about you making too much money. You could use your own property however you see fit. You answer to nobody except those who you choose to answer to.

Health care, road development, mail delivery, and many more currently government controlled services would be privatized. This would be a welcome experience, as competition would arise to provide the best services at the best price. Citizens would have the money to afford these services, since they would not be paying it all to the government. Charitable organizations would not vanish, but would thrive due to the excess wealth now in the hands of the people.

Socialized services could still exist. One could CHOOSE to pay a monthly amount into a health insurance plan that allows them to go to a hospital and not worry about the expenses associated with it. A community could CHOOSE to pool their money to provide a publicly accessible road instead of leaving it as a toll road. The price of gas would immediately plummet with the absurd amount of taxes no longer being a factor. This world I’ve described is NOT a democracy.

They are either ignorant or evil

Election time is coming up, and some are campaigning to get people voting. One of the most noticeable attempts has been done by Rick Mercer:

He noted at the very beginning that “Canada is one of the world’s greatest democracies” and at the end, he says to “do what young people all over the world are dying to do, vote”. These two points are very interesting, since, first of all, any reasonable evaluation of democracy will prove that it has, not, does not, and cannot honestly represent the people. Second, the people around the world are not dying for democracy, they are dying for freedom, and democracy does NOT equal freedom (http://mobiustech.com/?p=51).

Politicians have done an excellent job of convincing this country that democracy IS freedom, therefore opposing democracy must mean you oppose freedom, and anything a person opposing democracy says must be considered radical, extremist, and evil. What else would you expect them to say? Like any human being, their primary interest is in protecting themselves and their cushy nonsense jobs, and if democracy falls, so does their entire career, and they would have to start an honest job. Heaven forbid! Democracy is not good or evil simply because someone says it is. The moral state of the political system is absolute, and an individual’s understanding of it, is what varies. Forget what you’ve been told, and honestly analyze the history, statistics, and facts about democracy, and you will see it is not what we’d hope it would be.

Why would we settle?

In many situations, democracy is a better solution than what already exists. In many countries, they don’t even try to disguise dictatorships as democracies. While democracy may provide a nice illusion of the people having control, this doesn’t mean it’s even a good practice. Getting stabbed with a knife is better than getting stabbed with a sword, but it doesn’t mean we should all be excited to get stabbed with a knife!

Many people claim that democracy is the ONLY way for the people to have a say in how their country is run. These people believe exactly what politicians are trying very hard to keep them believing. Unfortunately, it turns out that not only is democracy NOT the only solution, it’s not even a good one. Consider this to easily see the fairness of the democracy:

Proof of democracies failure

There are approximately 33,739,900 people in Canada. In the 2008 federal election, 13,686,146 people voted at all. Out of those people, 5,209,069 people voted for the conservatives. That means that 5 million people decided that Steven Harper would rule over almost 34 million people. 29 million people never consented to the Conservative party rule at all, but are completely convinced that this is fair, and everyone had their say and still has their freedom.

Many people are beginning to notice the foolishness of such a system. The only problem is that there is no solution as obvious and simple as marking off a ballot. This should come as no surprise. If you want to be part of building a new world, you can’t expect it to be easy, but you can expect it to be well worth it. How can we hope to get to this truly free society?

Building a better world

There are probably several methods people could use to change a country. The most obvious one that the rest of the world is very familiar with is the threat, or actual use of force. While this is something people should be willing to do to attain freedom, it should not be considered as anything but an absolute last resort. We want to protect our rights to life without taking it from others. One possible series of effective events could be the following:

1. Stop participating in anything that supports the state
2. Gather in a single province or territory and simply live the life of freedom without political approval
3. Continue to grow in numbers until the government no longer has any financial support and inevitably collapses

An examination of these steps shows exactly what an individual could be doing to contribute to this change.

Stop participating in anything that supports the state

There are many ways that one can cause trouble for the political system without risk. The first, and easiest way is to simply stop voting. Voting, even by rejecting or spoiling your ballot, shows the politicians that you approve of the system. By not voting, you can honestly say you never supported the government, and any action they may pursue against you regarding the violation of any law, would be completely against your will. This would not persuade your captors, but it would be recognized by your fellow citizens.

If you have control over your money, and when you pay your taxes, simply don’t. Make the CRA do as much work as they can to claim your money. Do not simply hand it over. It takes several years of not paying taxes for the CRA to even notice you haven’t done so. Even more time after that before they would consider any legal action or penalties. The point is, if they want your money, they should be forced to actually steal it, instead of the blackmail methods they currently use (Pay us taxes, or go to jail).

Do not make it easy to collect census information. When threatened with legal action, consider the following before giving your information:

“No person has ever been sentenced to jail for failing to complete the census. In the majority of cases referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, the individual completed a census questionnaire. A very small number of individuals were fined.” -http://communities.canada.com/vannet/blogs/commcons/archive/2010/08/04/has-anyone-ever-been-jailed-for-not-filling-out-the-long-form-census.aspx

Anything you can do to demonstrate that you are not OK with being forced into any action at all, is commendable.

Gather in a single province or territory and simply live the life of freedom without political approval

Joining together geographically not only gets the attention of other citizens, but also makes it harder for the government to do anything about it. If our numbers are substantial enough, the would need to imprison all of us to stop any of us. Should they try any action, since we would be pursuing peace and freedom, we would gain even more support from the rest of the public, as well as other countries.

The challenge would be in the gathering itself. If we slowly come together, one at a time, then we can easily be stopped, one at a time. Coordination and planning would be necessary to come together at the same time, in the same area, in great numbers, and we would be unstoppable.

The location for this gathering could be anywhere, however for the greatest political impact, and to “take over” a province or territory, the ideal locations would be Nunavut, Yukon, Northwest Territories, or PEI. Even though having claim to a province would be a useful asset, as long as we form a community, we can be located anywhere in the country.

Continue to grow in numbers until the government no longer has any financial support and inevitably collapses

With all of us together, we can establish our own way of life, with no concern of our liberty being attacked. People will want to join us when they see the freedom we would enjoy. The growth of such a society would be inevitable. With a government relying completely on public verbal and financial support, as time goes on and their revenue is cut off, they will be forced to disband and work as normal people, unable to rob and imprison in the name of their “law”. At this time, we would truly be free.

As I said, this is simply my thoughts on how to actually make a difference. A strategy that is low risk and easy to accept. We only need to start by taking the first and easiest step, by not voting. As we show the world that we will not allow others to take away our ability to make our own choices, we will find support, and we will find that the work was worth it. This is the world I dream of, and I would hope you do too.

If you think there is no God, then it is very likely that you are defining God in the same way many religions and individuals do. Many believe that he is a mystical formless wizard that conjures up miracles in ways too advanced for our minds to even begin to comprehend. This premise would lead any logical mind to abandon any possibility for the existence of such a being.

It may seem strange, but I find greater evidence of God in science, than I do in religion. To determine if there is a God, one must first determine what makes one a God. To me, there are at least 2 important characteristics to be evaluated:

1. He must have the ability to create life

2. He must have absolute power and knowledge, from the perspective of the life he has created at the very least.

I’ll start with what I believe is the weakest argument for our creation, which is one of the multiverse hypotheses of quantum mechanics. This specific theory states that there are an infinite number of parallel universes, which inevitably allows for an infinite number of permutations of any given situation. To summarize, if any situation even theoretically could exist, it does exist in a parallel universe. If this theory is true, than in 50% of all parallel universes, we were created by an intelligent being/beings. Therefore, there is at least a 50% chance that we have a creator. Like I say, a weak argument, to which I don’t necessarily submit, but felt it was at least worth mentioning.

For a much stronger evidence of our creation, we can look at our own abilities to create. Take, for instance, the video gaming industry. Each year, the artificial intelligence of video game characters increases more and more dramatically. Following this pattern, it stands to reason that, eventually, their intelligence will inevitably reach the same level as an actual person.

Would you argue that a computer simulation of intelligence is not true intelligence? I would ask you what the difference is. Our minds are a collection of electrical impulses, just like a computer. Our decisions are based on information we gain through experience and genetics, aka “pre-programming”, both completely reasonable expectations of a computer. We are simply very complicated logic engines with an element of randomness. This could easily be the way simulated intelligence would operate.

The only room for debate is consciousness, and I don’t think there is much room at all. We feel like we have this undefinable consciousness that could not possibly present itself in something we create. I propose that this sense of consciousness is simply our ability to reason and evaluate, which are actually integrated in the nature of a computer program.

How about the physical nature of our existence? One does not simply walk through a wall, or take off flying on a whim as one could do in a video game. Do you notice, however, that you cannot fly in a game where flying is not permitted, nor can you walk through walls if that ability is not permitted. The potential abilities and physical restrictions of a character in a game are determined by the programmer.

It’s hardly a stretch of the imagination at all to believe that computer graphics capabilities will eventually reach the point of indistinguishableness from “real life”. This would complete the successful creation of an intelligent being.

After successfully creating one intelligent digital being, you could another. These 2 digital beings could be programmed with the understanding of how to reproduce, and thus begins your intelligent race of digital beings. On the same premise of being able to create life as intelligent as our own, it makes sense that we could create animals and plants, all bound by the laws of physics that we establish.

Now comes the very interesting part! Allow this “simulation” enough time to run, and, inevitably, they will discover the exact same thing I have explained. They could then use their technology and create their own version of simulated life, which, once again, would be indistinguishable from their own. Then that simulation would create another, then that one, another, etc. This could logically continue on infinitely as a chain of existences.

If we are able to create an infinite chain of existences, then it is much more likely that we, ourselves, are not the start of the chain, but rather a link in it. It makes even more logical and probable sense that we were therefore created by another superior intelligence. Our chances of being at the beginning of an infinite chain of existences is literally 1 in infinity. Not the best odds. The level of certainty this statistic provides is dramatic. Compare the following odds:

1. Odds of being hit by lightning, 1 in 500,000
2. Death by fireworks, 1 in 615,488
3. Death by Asteroid, 1 in 200,000 to 500,000
4. Death by dog attack, 1 in 146,717
5. Odds of there being no creator of our existence, 1 in ∞

With these odds in mind, one can be as certain about the existence of a creator, as they can be about any other event they’ve ever experienced or expect to experience. This proves the first of the evaluated characteristics, “He must have the ability to create life”.

On the exact same note, a programmer that creates an existence would be able to modify absolutely any element of the simulation at any given time. He knows the code, he has a perfect understanding of how everything works inside the simulation he designed. A programmer could pause, slow down, or rewind the simulation, without affecting any of the beings’ ability to think or choose. This makes time an element that only the beings in the simulation would experience. This then allows for the ability of a creator to actually observe and learn about every single being in the entire existence. If our existence could achieve this, then this trait would be shared with each existence created after us, and therefore, logically, the creator of our existence could do this as well. This then proves point 2, “He must have absolute power and knowledge, from the perspective of the life he has created at the very least.”

I don’t want to make it seem like God is sitting at a laptop, typing away. In fact, the most incredible notion for the source of the computing power of this simulation is that there is no actual equipment necessary to perform a simulation like this. Since we’ve established that the simulation could be created in a computer, since the minds of the simulated beings are based on electrical impulses, then why can’t a simulation be run in an advanced mind?

The amazing thing is that this knowledge requires no religious opinion to believe. The question that one must consider at this point is no longer whether God exists, but his nature, his intentions for us, and what we should actually do about the information we learn.

With the revolutionary attitudes we see overseas, we inevitably are prone to evaluate our own political situation. At first glance, we say “We aren’t taken from our homes at gunpoint, so our government is wonderful!” but how true is this preliminary evaluation?

Freedom is the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints. It is nearly impossible to force a person to truly think a certain thing against their will, but I would not find the immorality of such an action to be beyond that which government is capable. I would suggest that, should the technology be available to change ones thoughts, it would be harnessed by government. Fortunately this is not the case, and we are free to think and develop our own opinions on topics. It is easy to see government officials use persuasive and powerful influencing techniques that are commonly used by salespeople, but we all have our ability to analyze the logic of any statement or situation, and should do so much more often.

We can speak our opinions, but beware of what your opinions are. If it is your opinion that the government should tax the rich the same as the poor, then you will be accused of being insensitive to the “less fortunate”. If you feel the government should not provide financial support to First Nations, then you will be accused of being racist. This is not an exclusive fault of the government. It has been ingrained in our society to avoid the appearance of insensitivity at almost absurd extents.

We are far from free to act freely. There are 3 areas in which a person should be entitled to absolute freedom at any cost. These areas concern life, liberty, and property. Think about this analogy concerning freedom of property.

I see that you have a lot of money, and I see the person next to you has little. Without thought for your intentions, or towards the true needs of the person next to you, I steal some of your money and give it to the person next to you. I’m not even discrete about it. In fact, I tell you that if you try to protect your money from me stealing it, I will hold you prisoner.

Is there anything wrong with this? If you support your government, if you ever cast a valid vote, then you inevitably must say that this is perfectly acceptable as taxation results in this exact scenario.

How would I or the government know what you would do with your money? Perhaps you would have provided a job for the person with less money. Perhaps this career would have afforded that poor individual to become rich like you, and therefore able to employ another financially-lacking citizen. Sure, employing a person may be mutually beneficial, and you would both prosper from the arrangement, but I don’t trust you to be smart enough to recognize that, so I will steal from you and give to the one with less. The government must, like me in this situation, consider those with money to be fools, incapable of making smart decisions. It is not a matter of philanthropy, it is a matter of financial benefit to the rich person, and the fact that this also financially benefits the poor is simply an unavoidable and fortunate byproduct.

The only way to be fine with the transfer of stolen funds is if you are the beneficiary. It would be very reasonable and understandable to accept this money. In fact it is human nature to want to get the most reward for the least effort, and if I were in a similar situation, I would be prone to accept the money as well. You cannot, however, evaluate this scenario and honestly make the claim that it is fair or just. I want to state right now that I do not think a lack of money automatically indicates laziness. I would hope that this is not the case, as I currently am not exactly swimming in a pool of money and feel like I am always working. I am also not necessarily against the idea of charitable organizations, especially those with a focus on educating. What I am opposed to is this system being forced on us all, eliminating our freedom to act.

I do not want to be punished by the government someday for becoming financially successful.

Maybe you still don’t have a problem with this theft. Perhaps you consider this immoral action by the government to be a necessary evil for the continuation of our society. If that truly is your opinion, well… you’re a fool, but fortunately, there is still far more proof that you are not free to act and your political system is failing.

Are you, or would you like to be a home owner someday? Well unfortunately, this will never happen in Canada. Property tax ensures that you are never truly the owner of your home. Should you decide to completely stop allowing the theft of your money for a home that is rightfully yours, you will be evicted from your home, and the house will be auctioned off at the financial benefit of the government. Sure, your taxes go for things that you may use. We all benefit from having fire and ambulance services available, and we are also able to enjoy public roads, traffic control, and other regional benefits from this stolen money.

Story time:

Company A and Company B both build and maintain roads. Company A is guaranteed to get paid no matter how good their service is, and has absolutely no risk of losing their clients. Company B is in a situation where they have competition, so must make their roads the best they can and the most affordable they can to be successful.

Which of these 2 companies would you want to have building your roads? It should be no mystery that Company A is government controlled roads, and Company B is privatized. Is it any wonder that Canadian roads are so poorly maintained? There is no real incentive to improve this. What about those who decide to walk? Would they not object to the government stealing their money to pay for our roads?

Next scenario:

You’re poor and you want to change that. You have a lot of trouble finding a job, so you decide to just make some money on your own. You manage to develop a product and you want to sell it! Very good! Congratulations! Now pay me some money for me to let you sell that, and then pay me some money every time you successfully make a sale. Now pay me some more money for me to let you keep selling. I see you’re doing well, I’m going to need some more money to let you continue to succeed.

Man, I’m a jerk! Here you are, completely broke yet determined, and I refuse to let you succeed too much. In fact, all I’m getting from you is protection money that ensures I won’t punish you for making money “on my turf”. So is everyone comfortable with this mafia mentality? If you want to operate a business, it must be registered, which costs money. If you want to sell anything in your business, you must charge taxes. If you want to continue operating, you must pay the government each year. If you end up doing very well in your business, all these costs increase. Just seems impossible to get ahead doesn’t it. Is anyone really surprised that the majority of businesses completely fail in the first 5 years? This taxation is the most amazing since there is literally nothing provided in return for these fees.

I hope I’ve made my point that taxes are not only an annoyance, but are actually theft, and if any other group or individual was caught doing the same thing as the government, they would be put in jail.

K, scenario time!

You own a home, you have a business, you are taxed like crazy. Now you want to go on a trip. That’s all there is to it. You want to visit another country. You’ve paid thousands to your current country in taxes, but until you pay a little bit more, you cannot leave. Should you manage to sneak out, you cannot return, unless you find a way to sneak back in. Best of luck!

In this situation, I am referring to passports and other licensing. In my opinion, far less evil than taxation, but still illogical. You are easily and eagerly accepted as a Canadian citizen at tax time, but should you consider travel, they’ll want money to prove you are who you say you are. This proves that we can’t even come and go without the government saying we’re allowed.

Alright, last scenario:

You come home from work and find a strange car in front of you house, and your door slightly ajar. You are certain nobody should be there, and you quickly find a weapon, just in case. As you carefully and quietly walk through your house, you hear someone upstairs, going through your things. The staircase is dim, and you don’t turn on a light as this might draw attention to your presence. You are still not sure whether you are in danger or not. You approach the bottom of the staircase just as the suspect appears at the top. He sees you and comes charging down the stairs. This is not a person you recognize. You use your weapon, and the mystery person falls to the ground unconscious. You immediately call the police. Later you find out that the man you injured would survive, but the injuries were life threatening.

Would you be justified in this action? Is there any scenario imaginable that you would not have the right to defend yourself and your home? Yes there is. It’s called the law, and it’s nonsense. The lawmakers have decided that your home and your life not yours. Since your property is not yours, and your life is not yours, you don’t get to make the decision about whether or not you felt threatened. If your actions conflict with the “laws”, you will be punished. Later, in court, all the mystery man has to say is that he was trying to rush out of the house, and he was assaulted by you. You are charged with assault, and punished more severely than the man who threatened your safety and property.

Now this exact scenario may or may not arise, but similar situations have been recorded, and laws regarding self defense are gray at best. This invader was a threat to you and your home and it should be obvious to all that you were justified in your actions, yet in an easily manipulated legal system, with laws that protect criminals, often more than victims, we are not free to defend out lives or property with out the risk of punishment.

We are all conditioned to believe that because it is a law, it is right, and should be obeyed. This absolute blindness to the validity of a law is what make so many ridiculous  laws commonplace. The laws are created by people and people are imperfect. Whether these laws are made by the foolish or the corrupt is irrelevant. The problem is that they are made and are enforced and violate the fundamental rights of us all.

What is there to do about this? How do we change? Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to this. The fastest change would come from an all out revolution. This would very likely involve violence and loss of life, and is the least preferred solution. We could hope for the impossible, that politicians realize the errors of the past, eliminate  all laws that restrain our freedom to act, and properly implement laws that only relate to the protection of life liberty and property and that these 3 keystones will be respected by all, and those with power to create new irrelevant laws, will not. Appeal to your local representative as much as you want, you will not see change as your representatives, no matter how noble their goals, are trying to succeed in a very broken system.

There are many other ways to implement change. While I do not have a perfect solution, I suggest that we must rebel as a group. The public body that wants to make change will have to simply change. For instance, if we all object to taxes, we stop paying them. How could a government combat an entire population that refuses to pay taxes? If they can’t get our money, then they would have nothing to support them, and politicians would have no choice but to abandon their job for another. There would be a transition period where we would still be benefiting from government controlled services, while being able to save our money for the time of privatization, where we make the decisions for our money.

A governing body is meant to represent the will of the people. When it evolves into a beast that controls the people, it must be destroyed. I dream of a day when we truly do experience the freedom all mankind craves. I fear it may be far off, and the transition will be difficult for many of us, but I’m willing, and eager to adapt, if there is even the hope of true liberty. What about you?

Gas prices across the world are going up. Corporations are taking advantage of the incredible demand on this limited resource by increasing the price, as they should. If they have the supply and people are willing to pay it, it is good business to raise the price, and in no way can they be faulted for it. That being said, these supply and demand conditions may not always be the case.

It should be said that my opinion of the price increase of this widely used commodity is no indication that I enjoy paying these high prices. What I do see is an incredible opportunity for innovation. As gas prices rise, people will have no choice but to seek out alternative sources of fuel, or transportation in general. You could say we are on the verge of a revolution in this sense.

As gas prices reach a breaking point, innovators will create impressive alternatives. More emphasis would be placed on electric vehicles, hydrogen power, permanent magnet motors, even vegetable based fuels. This will provide the market with options, and with options comes competition. Even for the oil and gas industry to survive, they will have to become competitive. If their costs outweigh the price they need to charge, then the industry will fail, which is fine, as the decision regarding it’s success was made by the market. The motorists will decide who succeeds and who fails, by where they spend their money.

Caution would need to be taken by those in political power. By investing tax dollars into a potentially failing industry, they are fighting against the will of the people. If people move to an alternative fuel source, and gas fails, then it is the opinion of the people that gas should fail, and the government shouldn’t fight the people’s decision. If the government even subsidized the gas industry, that’s not helping! In fact, that’s forcing those who don’t drive to pay for gas for those who do. Corporations should be left to succeed or fail as the market dictates.

Unfortunately, I doubt that this breaking point, or transportation revolution is coming as soon as we’d like it. Until a courageous mind steps forward to say “I have another idea”, we have to accept the gas prices as what they are. We can all keep in mind that, as dependent as we are on our cars, we don’t need them. Transportation to almost any location is possible without driving your own car. If these prices really bother us, we can always travel by bus or taxi, or heaven forbid we use the vehicles attached to the ends of our feet!

Personally, I am excited when I see gas prices start to rise. The future of transportation should be an incredibly interesting one, and I can’t wait to watch it all unfold.

Sorry about the pun title, but it had to be done!

For the past 2 years or so, I’ve been working on Day Media Inc with Shaun Dowell, Doug Campbell, and Amy Day, as well as some very helpful contributions from many others. We provide a sponsored parking solution for cities’ downtown areas. (check out daymedia.ca if you want to learn more about sponsored parking)

On Monday, Feb 7th, 2011, I made a formal proposal to Lethbridge city council on behalf of the business. I really enjoyed it! It was very good to hear the questions from the council and we definitely got some supporters out of it. In the end the council voted to file the presentation content as “information” and took no action either way. Mayor Dodic, however, encouraged us to get more details on which businesses would be interested, and get them a copy of our business plan, and return to council at that time.

After the presentation, I was met by a few reporters, and was asked a few questions. THAT was completely AWESOME! I don’t think it’s any secret to anyone that knows me, but I enjoy being in the spotlight. It only got better when the next day came and the morning radio shows were talking about how interesting the prospect of sponsored parking was, and we were the top story on the radio news, and on the front page of the Lethbridge Herald.

Ya… I liked that Excellent publicity for Day Media. I gotta say, I found it very strange buying a newspaper with my face on it… It’s still fun hearing and seeing “Steve Day told council” and “according to Day”.

Anyway, our next step is to get a business license, which naturally, the city has made more complicated and more expensive than it really needs to be. Then we’re going to talk to businesses to find out who wants this, and who would actually pay for it. Once we have that data, I’ll be talking to each member of the Heart of the City Committee. We had tried to talk to them before, however we were denied the opportunity to present. It’s actually quite frustrating because they didn’t let us talk to them, but they were convinced they had enough information to make the decision to reject our idea. Fortunately, they are allowing us to do a formal presentation to them in April. We hope that talking to them individually will help us find out what the real objections are, and try and find ways to make our business work around them.

So, all in all, the results of the council presentation were excellent. We got the word out that we are doing this, and we’ve received a lot of attention for it. Now we know exactly what is wanted from us, so when we go back, we should have no trouble gaining even more support.

It’s also been quite interesting watching the media respond to the story. There have been some very slight misquotes that portray certain people’s opinions as being a little different from what they are. We often take news reports to be completely true, and incapable of making mistakes, but there have been a couple I’ve noticed, and it makes me think about what other news stories I’ve read/heard/seen that may not be entirely accurate.

Still, all things considered, this attention is excellent, and we’ll be able to use it to gain even more support, and I’m glad those that covered the story did so at all.

If you’re interested in reading what Country 95 FM says about us, you can find it here ->Lethbridge’s Own Dragon’s Den Rejects Free Parking Scheme

Here’s the story the Lethbridge Herald ran:

Parking meter proposal gets hearing, little else

Herald photo by Ian Martens Steve Day, of Day Media Inc., is hoping council will consider the implementation of sponsored parking hoods on the city¹s parking meters.

LETHBRIDGE HERALD

A company proposing to sell ads on downtown parking meters will have to do more homework if it hopes to get city council’s okay for such a venture.
The owner of Day Media appeared before council members Monday, seeking approval to sell business sponsorships on parking meters. Company president Steve Day told council the sponsored spots would provide free parking for downtown patrons, and a portion of the advertising revenue would be returned to the city to offset any potential losses of parking revenue.
Once a parking meter was sponsored, a special advertising shroud would be placed over the meter head, eliminating the need for users to plug coins into the device, according to Day. Enforcement could still be done by chalking tires, as is already done in one- and two-hour parking zones in the city, he said.
After listening to Day’s pitch, only a minority of council members were convinced the idea warranted referral to city administration for further study. Instead the proposal was simply filed as information.
Council would have to amend the city’s land use bylaw before such a venture could go ahead.
Mayor Rajko Dodic said it would set “a bad precedent” to allow advertising on meters, which are technically a public right of way, and he suggested the company has done too little in terms of market research so far for council to give the idea serious consideration.
Ald. Jeff Carlson also said he felt it would be inappropriate to allow advertising on publicly-owned meters and that doing so could lead to problems with enforcement.
“It’s a frustrating response,” Day said afterward. “We strongly feel we have a solution that can benefit not only the city but the motorists and businesses.”
He described Lethbridge as the perfect city for such a venture because of the number of parking meters about 1,600 and the size of its business community.
The proposal has so far failed to gain the backing of the Heart of the City revitalization committee but it did receive a written endorsement from Ted Stilson, executive director of the Downtown Lethbridge business association.
But he added he wasn’t surprised by it and intends to pursue the issue further with the Heart of Our City committee in the hope of returning to council within a couple of months with a more detailed proposal.
Day acknowledged his company had little in the way of market research to go on given the fact he hasn’t obtained a business licence yet and therefore couldn’t do any direct soliciting to gauge interest from local businesses.
“What we will most likely do is go and get our business licence, we will solicit businesses and officially get feedback as far as who would be interested,” he said. “This is similar feedback to what we were kind of expecting. We expected them to defer it to another committee.”
Meanwhile, Ald. Joe Mauro was among the few council members who felt the concept merited a closer look by administration.
“I think we haven’t given it a fair chance. I feel council is making a decision without having all the facts,” he told his fellow council members.
He also asked council to consider waiving the business licence fee for the company, an idea that didn’t sit well with some members of council, including Mauro.
“We did get some support out of it, and it’s very, very encouraging to see that,” Day said.
Day isn’t based in Lethbridge, but he said his company has established a home-based office in the city.

I have this awesome little office in our new house, and it’s pretty perfect for what I need. Big windows, teddy bear ceiling fan, white board wall, door to nowhere. Everything the work-from-home man needs. While I love the teddy bear ceiling fan, we did want to do something about that door to nowhere. Fortunately, Amy, being the genius that she is came up with her brilliant idea (wording included for legal reasons) that we turn that space into a “built-in bookshelf”.

Pretty awesome eh? See how it looks like the shelves are actually sliced into the door frame? Well they’re not. Stop being so ridiculous!

The first step to any good built-in doorway bookshelf is to take off the door.

Yup, that’s the doorway that leads straight to a wall. It was actually a good move by whichever of the previous owners decided to do this. On the other side of that wall is our bedroom, and that closet space was used to make the master bedroom closet much bigger. While that’s all great, this space needed to be dealt with.

Since there used to be a door attached to that frame, I had to fill in the various door-related holes. Of course, they were right on the edge, making this particularly tricky to get shaped properly, but I think I did ok.

With a couple coats of paint, the patch jobs were pretty hard to find. Once my arm pain was gone from all the pats on the back I gave myself, I painted the shelves.

No, we didn’t just magically get these perfectly cut shelves to fit our needs. Since we wanted the shelves to look built in, we wanted them to be wider than the door frame. To avoid actually cutting into the door frame and risk the house falling down on us, we opted for the illusion of the shelves being a bit inside the walls. After checking and rechecking the measurements to make sure they were right, we took them to Poppa to cut, since we didn’t have anything sharper than a steak knife (although they’re pretty good steak knives).

The shelves were originally black, and at the last second, we decided to go with white, so I got to painting them with multiple coats. While I was at it, I thought I might try to put the trim from inside the door frame to good use.

By this time, I had invested in a saw, so I cut the pieces to be supports for the shelves and painted them up.

There are 2 things to note in the picture above.

1. My hands were pretty dirty at this point, so there are smudges everywhere.

2. There are some pretty noticeable chunks missing from spots around the door frame.

Well, I figured I’d do a clean up at the end, so easily disregarded the fingerprints. As far as those chunks are concerned, that’s the secret to the “built-in” look. When it’s all done, those little chips will make it look like the shelves are slid right into the wall. You’ll see…

After a lot of hammering and chiseling, the frame was ready for shelves. See those little pieces of wood that were going to be used as the back supports for the shelves? Well, turns out they suck, and all had to come out. Fortunately one of the reason they sucked is because they didn’t stay in very well, so it was pretty easy to pop them all out. We had already bought brackets, so I just ended up using those.

There you have it! See how it looks like the shelves cut into the door frame? Sneaky eh? Now all I need to do is buy a whole bunch of crap I don’t need, and load up the shelves with it!