Great customer service is always refreshing. My two recent outstanding moments were at Applebees in Tacoma (on the I-5) and at Steeps in Calgary
I'm writing this from Steeps. I'm having a classic Earl Grey tea and a Turkey with Havarti sandwich (warmed). I needed a tie for a business meeting so they found me two menswear shops nearby.
Kudos also to Megatunes on 17th Ave here in Calgary for pointing me to Steeps.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Dr. Jim Henry is passionate about barbershop
And I agree with him.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=38F7BE0C6039A30E
Gold medal moments are important always.
You can be on a mission.
Sing-cerely,
Stephen
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=38F7BE0C6039A30E
Gold medal moments are important always.
You can be on a mission.
Sing-cerely,
Stephen
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Citizenship and Oaths of Allegiance
Over beer last night a friend of mine mentioned that his wife was not so keen on the Canadian Oath of Citizenship which is required to become a naturalized citizen in Canada
"I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen."
Her objection seems to be the "bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II,..." part.
She is a citizen of the United States of America by birth and probably has re-asserted their Pledge of Allegiance:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
It should (theoretically) be possible to fulfill both pledges, unless Canada goes to war against the United States of America. There is so much common ground in Canadian and U.S.A. law(s) that by working within the laws of Canada (as pledged), you can still ally yourself with a symbolic piece of cloth and the nation for which it stands without violating a pledge of allegiance to the Canadian head of state.
This is hardly different than the position expressed by Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, on Muslims and the Canadian Oath of Allegiance[1]
Just a thought about allegiance to a republic: Since a republic is (more or less) a state where the government's political power depends solely on the consent, however nominal, of the people governed, then if the citizens choose to withdraw consent or otherwise disagree with those elected, anyone who would faithfully uphold the pledge should immediately seek to change the government.
That must be why the U.S. Government works so hard to keep all the citizens "on-side".
God Save the Queen.
"I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen."
Her objection seems to be the "bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II,..." part.
She is a citizen of the United States of America by birth and probably has re-asserted their Pledge of Allegiance:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
It should (theoretically) be possible to fulfill both pledges, unless Canada goes to war against the United States of America. There is so much common ground in Canadian and U.S.A. law(s) that by working within the laws of Canada (as pledged), you can still ally yourself with a symbolic piece of cloth and the nation for which it stands without violating a pledge of allegiance to the Canadian head of state.
This is hardly different than the position expressed by Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, on Muslims and the Canadian Oath of Allegiance[1]
Just a thought about allegiance to a republic: Since a republic is (more or less) a state where the government's political power depends solely on the consent, however nominal, of the people governed, then if the citizens choose to withdraw consent or otherwise disagree with those elected, anyone who would faithfully uphold the pledge should immediately seek to change the government.
That must be why the U.S. Government works so hard to keep all the citizens "on-side".
God Save the Queen.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
About that Jesus guy...
'But what about you?' he asked. 'Who do you say I am?'
They answered, 'You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed.'
Jesus replied, 'What?'
They answered, 'You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed.'
Jesus replied, 'What?'
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Parliamentary Democracy
The name is derived from the French parlement, the action of parler (to speak): a parlement is a talk, a discussion, hence a meeting (an assembly, a court) where people discuss matters. (see Wikipedia: Parliament)
Canadian parliamentarians have got the talking down to a fine art, mostly, but have missed the rest of the definition. You know, the bit about discussion. In an good discussion people take turns talking and listening. The more people involved, the more time you spend listening.
In the next public forum leading up to a federal election, ask your incumbent M.P. if they have talked through, heckled, or otherwise ignored anyone in the House during question period. And preface it with my earlier comment about listening.
The concept of a federal Parliamentary Democracy has an excellent premise: Select a representative to discuss how to best govern the the country. By convention and like in most structured debates, some of the representatives argue "for" and others argue "against" legislation.
The discussion should be the most important shaping tool for the legislation. If our debates were not automatic "nay-saying" of what the Government (or Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition) are putting forth, but actual discussions of how to make the legislation best serve the country, Canada would likely be able to create the most supportive national milieu for people, industry, and the environment.
It might not work better, but it won't work any worse. And we'd could maintain our polite, Canadian ways.
Canadian parliamentarians have got the talking down to a fine art, mostly, but have missed the rest of the definition. You know, the bit about discussion. In an good discussion people take turns talking and listening. The more people involved, the more time you spend listening.
In the next public forum leading up to a federal election, ask your incumbent M.P. if they have talked through, heckled, or otherwise ignored anyone in the House during question period. And preface it with my earlier comment about listening.
The concept of a federal Parliamentary Democracy has an excellent premise: Select a representative to discuss how to best govern the the country. By convention and like in most structured debates, some of the representatives argue "for" and others argue "against" legislation.
The discussion should be the most important shaping tool for the legislation. If our debates were not automatic "nay-saying" of what the Government (or Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition) are putting forth, but actual discussions of how to make the legislation best serve the country, Canada would likely be able to create the most supportive national milieu for people, industry, and the environment.
It might not work better, but it won't work any worse. And we'd could maintain our polite, Canadian ways.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
New and Improved
Several people I know complain about the phrase "New and Improved", asking "How can it be improved if it is new?"
I used to be one of those skeptics, but I thought... what if "new" and "improved" refer to different aspects of the product.
Consider: "MaelichPetroChem presents New and Improved Maelich-Brand Echidna Milk Substitute."
The new refers to the brand or product in Maelich's product lineup, the improved because we took "I Can't Believe it isn't Echidna Milk" brand echidna milk substitute and made it better. Q.E.D.
I used to be one of those skeptics, but I thought... what if "new" and "improved" refer to different aspects of the product.
Consider: "MaelichPetroChem presents New and Improved Maelich-Brand Echidna Milk Substitute."
The new refers to the brand or product in Maelich's product lineup, the improved because we took "I Can't Believe it isn't Echidna Milk" brand echidna milk substitute and made it better. Q.E.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)