Thursday, September 26, 2013

For Kikki.. some thoughts

I've been taking a bit of a twitter and #yegvote break, while enjoying the company of some American friends. I did peek from time to time (in the tag) and I do admit, it did "irk" me to see nasty comment after comment after comment coming from Ms. Kikki..

I remember (not that long ago) when I was like that in twitter. Just being upset, and bashing a lot... and I remember getting shit for being so negative. I have been trying to change, and when I do get into that 'attack' mode, I try to drive that with facts that are balanced. I'm getting better but of course, I am still a long ways away from being politically perfectly correct..

On Sept 13th just before 8 pm... (Oh oh.. a Friday the 13th day... sonofa....) I sent Kikki a tweet that read "Round 3 of 'how stupid I was'? Last 2 rounds you were out to lunch. This is no different. Used to think you cared. Egocentric."

A note of explanation... Kikki and I have this weird love/hate/curiosity type of friendship.. Sometimes we love to love, sometimes we love to hate (paraphrased of course, I'm pretty sure we don't really "hate" each other) and sometimes we make each other curious. We have had in the past, two really semi-major disagreements on politics... One over the Wild Rose, and one over Mandel. The bottom line in both of these was (no offense) I was right... and it created some 'awakenings' with Kikki... we had talks about both of these "after" and apologies were made. Best leave it at that I think.

And now we are into Round 3 of political ... words...

Kikki has made it clear she has a love for Karen, and picks and bashes at Kerry (it seems like every chance she gets) . She responded to my tweet with "I care that candidates tell the truth .. .. Dont lie to me..."

Seems fair, right? Ok Kikki... Lets look at Karen. But perhaps we should look at the truth. The whole truth... not just a slanted version of it. WE KNOW politicians will make a statement that is partially true. At least in their mind, based on twisted facts they choose to believe in, while ignoring the bad facts. You and I both know this is true, just look at all of the twisted and biased and INCOMPLETE facts the City AND council has been misleading the citizens of Edmonton over the Arena deal. And its the same bullshit they did with the airport as well. ..

So if you demand the truth, lets demand the FULL truth, not just a biased portion that fits within your agenda. Karen has clearly supported every ugly detail on the arena, and has supported misleading citizens on the terms and end results of the deal. Lets also not forget her HUSBAND had an association with the Katz Group at the time. Yeah yeah, the part he was involved with was sold... but to think that Katz has no involvement and no influence over him or her... I mean really...

I also noted Kikki would pound on the "look at their voting records" line, showing how much Karen voted for and all of the good things she did. .. I suppose if you really wanted to be fair, one would only look at her first term in office, and compare that to Kerry. But then times were different too. She voted for or supported a lot of stupid things that ended up costing taxpayers a huge pile of money. And to be fair, a lot of council members did the same thing because they got biased and slanted information from city administration folks. So I guess one can blame councils ignorance on administration ignorance. Meh... whatever.

Kikki also asked "what did Kerry instigate to make the arena deal better, what motions did HE bring forward" because apparently what you bring forward counts for a lot, even if its going to be shot down. Well, when you are forced to deal with a lot of council that has been (paraphrased here) "bought and paid for and mislead" by the Mayor... (and I have high level sources within the city that have suggested that many times and no, not one of those were from Kerry) ... then I would presume that to bring forward a motion you know most would not support, would be a "why bother" type of thing. Now I don't know for sure if that's what Kerry was thinking, I'm just guessing...

It's funny that the questions Kikki seems to ask and or demand from Kerry, she doesn't also ask those same ones for Karen... And this goes back to the "truth" part... if you want the truth, demand the FULL truth, not just a portion that fits within your biases or the biases of the person you want to support.

Anyway... To the "egotistical" word. We both started in twitter around the same time. Our reasons for being here are different, but we have a lot in common. I had long discussions with you some time back about my being screwed over and how it destroyed my life. You also said you had similar things happen. You've gone a different route than I have, talk a lot of "wine dipped" comments in the Kikki way of making comments. You've gained a massive following compared to me but again, our goals are different. As well, I've blocked thousands of people because they don't fit within what I want.

You've taken the "socialite" route, but I KNOW you have that caring background. And this is why I'm shocked that you support Karen. A person who has had or been influenced by ties with her husband and has chosen to take the "blind eye" approach to what I consider to be an outright theft of public dollars for a billionaire. If you support Karen (or Don for that matter) then you also support the theft of public dollars for education. You literally are supporting the robbing of your children's future. You are supporting not only the theft of (what will amount to) over 700 million taxpayer dollars for the arena and infrastructure costs AND the loss of (what has been estimated) over 700 million dollars in profits that the arena and concerts and parking will place into the PRIVATE pocket of a billionaire. EVERY penny of profit from events, EVERY penny of profit from retail rentals in the arena space, goes directly to Katz.

WE the people, get NOTHING... and pay for everything.

That's ONE POINT FOUR BILLION DOLLARS... down the tubes.

 .. .. And lets not forget that historically every deal of this type has proven over and over the taxes never pay for things the way they were "projected" to have. So while Katz will continue to rake in the profits, he isn't responsible for covering any of the tax losses. And lets also not forget that the taxes going to pay for the arena will HAVE to be made up by all of Edmonton because the arena district will still incur the same tax costs of service that every other area in the city has.

Often, politics is about choosing the lesser of evils. I can not support either Karen OR Don, because both of them think the arena deal rocks. Both of them could care less about taxpayers.

Let me make it clear... I don't think Kerry is the perfect angel by any means. There are things about him that I am not fond of. But he's taken the time to actually sit down and talk with me, and he's listened. Sometimes he comes up with some rather crappy suggestions on things but that has been to open up a dialog of discussions. I've often put forth stupid ideas within twitter. And I've seen some of those stupid ideas turn into some pretty amazing things. This is the part I like the most about Kerry... he's willing to put forward IDEAS to talk about, and see where they grow into. Unlike both Don and Karen, they put forward ideas to implement, and both of them have clearly shown that they, for the most part, don't really care what the public thinks, they just want to twist the words into getting their ideas done.

So yes, Kkiki... I choose to go with the lesser of evils... I choose to read between the lines of what politicians say, and not to be gullible in the words.

So the "egotistical" part for me, is you using your social influence to spread the partial truths. When I was hoping you would choose to be "less blindsided" ... like you were with the Wild Rose and Mandel.

Note to other readers of this post. You are not aware of the private talks Kikki and I have had. You are in no position to judge either me or her, good or bad... Just sayin

And despite anything you all may think, this post was created "with love"...


  1. Side note to this post. First, it sat here for several days, and Kikki was given the link to read it. I stated that I would be willing to modify anything that was inappropriate or incorrect, including deleting the entire post. With that said, I am going to ass in the following:

    Earlier this evening there was a discussion with respect to bikes, where @KWilson128 made a comment about "Drivers and cyclists need to be educated, aware, and safe. Banning cyclists from roads IS NOT the solution" and referenced a Kerry Diotte article here

    We had a few tweets about it, and then Kikki (and now several others) have started to chirp in. Kikki specifically stated "Actually, he did say "ban cyclists til we have bike lanes" & now wants no bike lanes OR cyclists." And then everyone started bashing away specific to this one line. Well, this line is the 2nd last line of the article Kerry wrote. It seems like everyone is missing out on the last line, which start off with a " or at least cops should crack down...."

    So once again, we have a selective partial truth being slammed down as a bad thing to say. Maybe you all should read the ENTIRE article. Apparently Kerry recently stated that he stood by it. I read the whole thing, and truth be told I'd stand by it to. Because Kerry is RIGHT. All of the things he says in there about what bikers do AND get away with, is the TRUTH.

    Again, people are going off spreading partial, out of context, words... and making selective statements made appear to be the entire issue.

    Above, I said "the whole truth"... so lets be honest here. The biking community must take responsibility for their part as well. And from the majority of bikers I've seen since spring, being on any of the major roads (especially Whyte Avenue) ... they do ALL of the things Kerry says. And it pisses off the majority of the drivers. And you damn well know it.

  2. Gary,

    You and I have had many political conversations, but I've never commented on you blog.

    There are times when cylists are on the road. According the Alberta Highway Traffic Act, they are to be treated as no different than anybother traffic on the road. Accordingly, they are to be treated no differently than any other vehicle on the road. That being said, to think it's a logical thing to apply minimum speed limits to cyclists is ignorant at best, for example. This is another example Mr. Diotte raises in his article.

    I live south and west of West Edmonton Mall. I occasionally cycle to places such as Jasper Place and even to downtown. Always on the road, always using my assigned lane of traffic. Never on the sidewalk. Should I be punished for nor being able to travel at the same velocity as a vehicle? No way.

    Should the police ticket cyclists for red light violations, failing to yeield to a pedestrian or other Traffic Safety Act violations? Absolutely. Does that mean bikes should be banned from the roads? Edmonton could theoretically do so by means of a bylaw, but I don't think a City of Edmonton bylaw could forbid something the Provincial law explicitly allows.


  3. Nice to see your comments Kyle. I guess a lot depends on just how you would "read" that 2009 story Kerry did. My take on it, as far as the "speed" side goes... I didn't get the impression Kerry was suggesting minimum speeds for bikes, but rather he was stating that (presuming a normal 50 kph road) that the bikes will get at least 20 kph under the limit. It's been ages since I have biked, but 30 kph seems pretty fast, at least for me (being the old man I am now... LOL).

    I think the point being made was, while bikes are supposed to follow the law, their ability to be in a required lane "driving" ... isn't safe for the bikers nor the motorists. Ages ago, council tossed bikers off the sidewalks for the most part (unless your bike wheel size was under a certain size.. can't remember, maybe 17 inches? whatever..) which put the bike folks in kind of a limbo state. They can't be on the sidewalks, and for them to be in the middle of traffic is also dangerous. Of course, this is just another example of how council doesn't think things out. They take something away, but offer no valid recourse. *sigh

    To me, the thing that Kerry was bitching about, was all of the bike folks zooming in and out of traffic, doing dangerous things, and pissing off motorists. Since he quoted some bike accident stats, it seems that's the direction he was leading in. Again, just a guess on my part, you would have to ask him directly.

    I can't agree with you more, bikers should not be punished for not being able to go as fast as a car. The big problem is motorists won't give when it comes to bikes. And bikes do that zoom in and out thing, which is technically illegal and it clearly pisses drivers off. Its also a huge safety issue too, especially when a biker thinks he has a spot to squeak into to zigzag and the driver doesn't see them coming and pulls up a bit, as drivers typically do. SPLAT! .. (sigh again)

    Anyway, getting back a bit to the 20 kph thing... Drivers have to realize that there is literally no "minimum" speed limit. No one is required by law do do 50 in a 50 zone. If you want to do 40, that's your right. Bikes (again, I think, by law) have the right to take that one full lane... and this is a part of the issue as well. People are so in the habit of just zoom zoom along, and to come up behind a bike going 20-30 kph under the limit... is dangerous. So I see his point about not wanting them on *major* roads (until proper bike lanes are made)... yet from a bikers standpoint, they legally have the right to do so. The issue is what's legally right versus whats really safe. Council has created a total catch-22 situation with their failures to address issues in a complete matter. Sadly, today... council has continued on in doing insane things without thinking about it AND without listening to the people. Sure, they held 'consultation meetings' where proposed plans were made for bike routes. Except they forgot to tell the people attending that the real thing happening was "this is what we are going to do, you have been invited here to see, and we don't give a damn about what your thoughts are on it"... And as a result, we have hoods where there has been a total loss of parking for residents, and bike lanes where the logic of the rules of the road are so totally out of whack for drivers, there is bound to be an increase in bike-car accidents.


    No, I don't have THE answer to this. But it CAN come from having proper discussions. Not from "this is the way we are going to do it and screw you" attitudes of the City.

  4. Last night, after I posted my first comment above, and then posted a link for the topic in twitter, Kikki went on a sort of little mini rampage against me.

    She seemed to be playing the "I have been hurt" card, complaining that I was inviting the public to attack her. And then there were comments about her husband being a lawyer, which seemed to imply she might take legal action, and then responded to someone else that it was all just a joke... and then started saying to others that I had blocked her.

    I guess it was her way of lashing out against me, and I get it. But let me make it clear, this IS a blog. I have 15 or so people that follow it, which means folks get notified even if I don't post a link for it in twitter or where ever.

    I gave Kikki around 3 full days to view this post, and ample opportunity to reply if she wished. I also stated that I would be willing to change anything she felt was wrong, as well as offering to delete the entire post.

    These were discussions WE had in DM's... and I've taken the opportunity to screen shot those as proof, if its ever needed. And last night BEFORE this "attack Kerry" stuff came up *again*, I sent her another DM, 3 days after our original DM's were done. I again asked if she wanted anything changed or the post pulled, and her response was "Friend, its all good".

    So I have no idea WHY all of a sudden the "hurt card" is being played, and I have no idea why she is telling others that I blocked her. I did tell her "". But I have NOT unfollowed her, and I have NOT blocked her. If she bothered to check, she would see that she still follows me and I still follow her... spreading more "un truths" and "partial" truths was what this entire issue was all about in the first place.

    I have not posted any lies. I only said what was, in my opinion, the things I felt she was doing 'in error'. On Sept 26th, I sent her a public tweet pointing out I send her a DM with the post. At 12:33 pm she responded in public "I'm always good with criticism ;-) I am not infallible, take no issue with being called on it. <3, friend."

    So, I called her on it, only AFTER she again continued to go with partial facts. And because this was exactly the thing I had tried to "talk" to her about, it only seemed fitting to create my first response above and post the link, because it was all part of the same discussion.

    This is *nothing* personal... it is NOT an attack against character or anything else. It's simply about being honest in discussions about politics, and NOT wanting to hear any of the typical political BS that you would expect from a politician. And of course, I get it... twitter limits and all... which is also why I chose to take this to my blog to start with, because it would have been far too complex to deal with in twitter.

    So are Kikki and I done? For me, at this point, I have to say yes. But I also know that the heat of the moment drives tempers, and I will allow substantial time to cool off, for both of us. What the future holds, I have no clue on. Some of what Kikki stands up for and speaks out about is pretty good. And I like to think that I try (more each day) to balance out issues based on facts. Not partial facts... SO here we go again, into another full circle of the entire issue. Going for the FULL truth, not just a portion that fits within twitter.

    Not sure what else I can say...

  5. Hi Gary

    I reread the column, and you're right, it depends on how one reads the tone of the author. If you ask me, that's why its very important to ask questions of the author in person.

    Personally I think bikes are certainly in limbo as you point out, stuck between two worlds. A cyclist zooming down a sidewalk at 20-30 km/h is nearly as dangerous to pedestrians as cars are to cyclists. Can you imagine a cyclist hitting a mother out walking with a small child? Serious injury to all parties is still likely to occur.

    I don't bike places because I want to save the environment or the planet. I bike places to save money. On gas (I also own a car) sometimes. Or because I want to have a drink at a friend's house and not have to worry about getting home (and precluding the chance of making a mistake and getting behind the wheel of a car, we can discuss the legality of riding a bicycle after drinking some other time, but if I'm too drunk to cycle I'll most likely be forced to walk.). Or sometimes just because I want the exercise. Or to get groceries.

    Your discussion of major roads is vague as well. Would you or I consider the Whitemud a major road? Absolutely, and I wouldn't feel comfortable riding on it. What about 170th street? Its really only less major in the sense of speed limit. But on feel very comfortable riding there. Its the preference of the rider, as always.

    So I absolutely agree that this is a discussion the you and I and Kikki and Mr. Diotte and Ms. Liebovici and Mr. Iveson and anyone else who's interested should have. And we're having it, or parts of it. Its the conversation that matters. Nobody is ever going to agree Edith everything someone says. But if we have the conversations we can hopefully reach points upon which we all agree. Should Edmonton be a car only city? Not a chance. Should Edmonton work to make people less dependent on personable vehicles? Depends on your perspective. But should Edmonton try and make traffic and the roads a little safer (now I sound like one of those people I dislike, who think everything should be be dependent on how "safe" things are and taking personal responsibility away.)? Probably. We should have more options to get around, not fewer.

    I think at the end of the day, that might be why I got involved in this conversation. More options, never fewer.