Politics is not always logical but logical politics are preferable to be logical politics. When a politician does not recognize this fact it is only a matter of time until the weakness of his position is exposed. A weak position might be adopted for tactical purposes, but it just might be an example of a poorly equipped politician who’s over his head. Given my opinion of politicians perhaps a poorly equipped politician is a good thing. I’ll let you decide.

A good example of a illogical politics is the role of shibboleths. Two modern shibboleths in Canada revolve around abortion and gay rights. Politicians on the left side of the spectrum are free to claim that politicians on the right side of the spectrum are opposed to both things.

These are shibboleths because they are not true; the facts on the ground do not support the claims. The Tories (who have a lot of supporters across the nation who are neither anti-gay nor pro-choice) aren’t going to come out against gay rights or abortion. To do so would lose them too many votes and they’d gain nothing by doing it. Politics in Canada is a fight over the center, and the center is tough to win.

It is logical for a politician to use them shibboleths, though. They can score points and keep the conversation going within safe boundaries.

It is illogical for a politician to believe that the shibboleths they utter are actually true. Justin Trudeau provides a good example of why.

He recently commented that he “always” says that if Canada becomes a country that he did not recognize anymore then he would consider supporting Quebec independence. He described this unrecognizable Canada as being one that did not support abortion or recognize gay marriage. In doing so he made use of another modern shibboleth, describing such and unrecognizable country as “Harpers Canada”.

The statement indicates one of two things: either Mr. Trudeau is unable to recognize and immediately correct a verbal gaffe or he actually believes what he’s saying. The first is bad enough in any politician. The second however confirms Mr. Trudeau’s status as an intellectual lightweight.

The logical implications of believing that there is a hidden Tory agenda designed to re-make Canada into “Harper’s Canada” are inescapable. Most of those implications don’t reflect well on the believer.

In this case Mr. Trudeau put himself in the position of making a hypothetical choice. This is stupid behavior for politician at the best of times. In this instance Mr. Trudeau places before himself
a choice between gay rights and abortion on the one hand and a united Canada on the other. He would apparently choose gay rights and abortion over Canada.

One must ask: is Mr. Trudeau a Federalist? If he is choosing an independent Quebec then the answer is that he is not a federalist. Rather than stay inside Canada and work to make it a better place he would simply give up and leave. That’s a fair position. Nobody can require someone else to work just because the first party thinks its a good idea. Still, it’s a poor position for a federal politician.

Is he a nationalist? If he chooses his moral position over Canada that he is not a Canadian nationalist. And if he will abandon Canada in favor of his morals how can anyone be sure he wouldn’t later abandon Quebec? Surely we can’t believe that a province that outlaws burkas and languages other than French is inherently tolerant. So, Mr. Trudeau, in choosing his morals over his nationalism, seems to implicitly be ready to jettison any group that does not agree with him. Those aren’t exactly leadership qualities. (To be fair, he’s a politician, not a leader. We have a surplus of the former and a shortgage of the latter, but that’s not his fault).

Is Mr. Trudeau a democrat? Does he believe Canada is a democratic country? If he is a democrat you’d think he’d respect the wishes of the majority (provided they respect minority opinion). If he believes Canada is a democratic country, ruled by elected representatives you’d think he wouldn’t worry about one man re-making the country in his personal image.

Perhaps, however, being the son of a man who was the most influential Canadian politician in living memory he thinks that one great man (or maybe just Stephen Harper) can remake the country regardless of what the populace thinks. As I recall his old man thought that way, with mixed results.

Still, I don’t like the implication from an MP that our government is a sham and I am a pawn. After years of Liberal rule with highlights like “pepper on my steak” and the long gun registry I kind of like the Tories having a kick at the can. Of course, that’s because I distrust both sides and like having newcomers having to learn the ropes. I think they do less damage that way.

So, not a nationalist, not a federalist, not a democrat, and not a person who respects the opinions of other Canadians. Not the kind of leader I’d welcome to 24 Sussex, were he smart enough to keep his cards close to his vest and actually make it there. Since he can’t hold his cards or his tongue I doubt he has much of a chance.

But I’ll let you decide. Can a guy who makes such a stupid political statement really be a saviour for anyone? If he’s not, fine. Everyone has to make a living and support their family. But Jesus, could we stop treating him as anything remotely resembling a serious person?

What Justin Trudeau said:
“I always say, if at a certain point, I believe that Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper – that we were going against abortion, and we were going against gay marriage and we were going backwards in 10,000 different ways – maybe I would think about wanting to make Quebec a country.”

My name is Rob Chipman and I’m a realtor, pilot and all around Curious George. I really enjoy flying, playing guitar and hockey, real estate and the Chilcotin. I think the internet and Web 2.0 offers all of us a great opportunity to communicate more, and improve the world by calling bullshit on bullshit whenever we are able. Do not hesitate to contact me by email if you have something to tell me, especially if its likely to be interesting.

I’m getting fat around the middle. I also like doing stuff online. The latter led me to Tim Ferriss, and Tim Ferriss says belly fat can be minimized by good eating habits and exercise.

I play a fair bit of hockey, so that gives me some exercise. It also serves as an excuse for the odd hockey party. A recent one required that I prepare some food, and for some reason I decided on pulled pork. I made it in a slow cooker and it was very successful.

One success means I have to have another, so I’ve been doing more slow cooking. It helps because when we create a good meal we can divvy it up and freeze it. We come home after a long day and have good tasting healthy food in no time. The Tim Ferris program is partly honoured (we’re eating a regular diet), the Greg Swann approach to splendorous living gets a nod (we’re eating better food and spending time together preparing and eating it, and the simple action of doing that is good), we save some money and I get to write about it online. It’s also somewhat sustainable, because I’m using something a lot of people just ignore. How can I lose?

We started using an old crock pot inherited from my mother-in-law. I was satisfied with that. I have an aversion to buying new stuff unless it’s a power tool or something for my guitars (I prefer used guitars to new, but new tuners, strings, capos and whatnot are fine).

Old Faithful

That didn’t stop my wife from buying me a new, bigger slow cooker while I was up-country playing pond hockey.

So, today I’m cooking some lamb necks. I get them from Supreme Meats, a store run by Robert Chow, a South African Chinese. It’s not your regular meat store. For example, it sells pork bungs. I’m pretty sure a pork bung is exactly what you think it is. It probably slow cooks very well.

I started going to Supreme for dog food. I feed raw food to my dogs, and Supreme is a good source of chicken carcasses, tripe, bones and …lamb necks.

Lamb necks are meaty, but they have neck bones right in the middle. I don’t know anyone who buys them for human consumption, and whenever I buy them at Supreme they expect to cut them up into dog food meal size chunks. But, carne’s carne, and today I’m slow cooking them.

BBC Food says “Lamb neck is a fabulously underrated and inexpensive cut of lamb. It is a tough cut that needs very long, slow cooking. It may look as though there isn’t much meat, but it yields a surprisingly generous amount once every scrap is tender. It can be bought on the bone, or off the bone as neck fillet. Both need slow cooking, so stew or braise until tender”.

EatMeDaily.com called it the hottest cut of meat this week in October 2009.

Cook(almost)AnythingOnce.com says “When it comes to cooking lamb it seems most recipes tend to deal with only a few types cuts like lamb racks or lamb legs but we should be looking at the less aesthetically pleasing but more flavoursome parts like lamb necks”.

Obviously my idea of buying a cheap cut off meat isn’t crazy. I’m not dressing mutton as lamb of making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Lamb neck is made for slow cooking!

I’ve started with about $9.00 worth of lamb necks. It looks to me like four complete necks. The idea here is too cook more than we need so that we can freeze some, save some money and create good food. We’ve already done pulled pork, pulled beef, and a ground lamb Moroccan stew, as well as a regular beef stew. I’m not sure what I want to make the necks into, but I’ll start with just cooking the necks and getting rid of bone and excess fat.

The four necks go in the crock pot. I throw them in frozen.

The web will tell you all kinds of spices that can go with lamb, but for that very reason we’re not spicing this at all. We’ll prepare the meat for use as the start of other meals. That means that all this dish gets added to it now is enough water to cover the necks. I don’t cover them completely, which in my case translates to 7 cups.

I’m doing 8 hours on low. Check back later…

My name is Rob Chipman and I’m a realtor, pilot and all around Curious George. I really enjoy flying, playing guitar and hockey, real estate and the Chilcotin. I think the internet and Web 2.0 offers all of us a great opportunity to communicate more, and improve the world by calling bullshit on bullshit whenever we are able. Do not hesitate to contact me by email if you have something to tell me, especially if its likely to be interesting.

Greg Swann recommends pursuing splendour – he calls it “splendorquest” – it seems to me that good food qualifies.

We’ve decided to organize 15 – 20 great tasting, healthy go-to meals that we can prepared in bulk, freeze and then have ready after a long day of working for the Man.

There are clear advantages to this approach:
-we have regular healthy meals
-we control all the ingredients
-we can find where to buy the best ingredients for the least amount of money
-we get to spend time cooking together
-we look forward to dinner together rather than dreading preparing dinner after a long day at work.

The first meal is Lamb Curry with peas. Nicole has made this several ties and it is wicked!

Lamb is good for you because….

This recipe takes 30 minutes. It makes 4 servings. We need to double that at least.

So, doubled, it is:

2 tsp canola oil
2 lbs ground lamb
4 cloves garlic, finely minced
4 onions, finely chopped
2 tablespoons grated fresh ginger
2 teaspoons ground coriander
2 teaspoons cumin
1 teaspoon cinnamon
1/2 teaspoon cayenne pepper
2 28 oz cans of tomatoes, diced
2 cups frozen peas (thawed)
6 tablespoons fresh mint

Get a large skillet and heat the oil over medium high heat. Throw the thawed lamb ins, breaking it up. Cook it until it is no longer pink, which should be about 3 minutes.

Add the onions, garlic, ginger, coriander, cumin, cinnamon and cayenne pepper, stirring occasionally until the onions are tender. This should take another 6-8 minutes. (Total time 9-11 minutes)

Add the tomatoes, stirring often, until the dish is drying out. This is another ten minutes. (Total time 19-21 minutes)

Stir in the thawed frozen peas. Remove from heat. Stir in the mint.

Per serving there is about 350 calories, 24 grams of protein, 18 grams total fat (about half are saturated fats), 20 grams of carbohydrates, 5 grams of fibre, 74 milligrams of chloresterol, 363 milligrams of sodium, 853 milligrams of potassium.

Eat some right now while it’s fresh and hot. Break the rest up into meal size servings and freeze.

My name is Rob Chipman and I’m a realtor, pilot and all around Curious George. I really enjoy flying, playing guitar and hockey, real estate and the Chilcotin. I think the internet and Web 2.0 offers all of us a great opportunity to communicate more, and improve the world by calling bullshit on bullshit whenever we are able. Do not hesitate to contact me by email if you have something to tell me, especially if its likely to be interesting.

Newt Gingrich wants to colonize the moon. The guys at the Slate Political Gabfest think that’s laughable.

I think differently. Whenever I hear someone talk about space two things come to my mind. One is the great Paul Simon line “Maybe not in my lifetime, but in yours I feel sure”.

The other is Burt Rutan and specifically a TED Talk that he gave. Rutan, a smart guy by any measure, connects two very significant dots. The biggest threat to sustainable human existence is human population. If you understand math and have seen a graph of population growth you understand how serious the issue is (maybe not in my lifetime…).

Rutan posits that we face the choice of colonizing space or killing people. It’s a stark image, but it’s hard to dismiss. World population will more than double during my lifetime. If this continues the day will come when the greatest source of water
will be human bodies. That’s just not sustainable.

Colonizing space really isn’t a looney tunes idea.

My name is Rob Chipman and I’m a realtor, pilot and all around Curious George. I really enjoy flying, playing guitar and hockey, real estate and the Chilcotin. I think the internet and Web 2.0 offers all of us a great opportunity to communicate more, and improve the world by calling bullshit on bullshit whenever we are able. Do not hesitate to contact me by email if you have something to tell me, especially if its likely to be interesting.

Stephen Rees, when I asked him to explain why Peter is entitled to Paul’s tax dollars, pointed me to his friend, Arzeena Hamir. I read the article Arzeena wrote, and (surprise, surprise) I’m unconvinced. Arzeena points out many services that she’s happy to pay taxes for, and compares that to societies that don’t have those services and don’t have taxes. She makes a fair point, and one that should be recognized. It doesn’t however, address the question of entitlement to tax.

Put another way:

In other words, we get taxed. Those taxes get used for everything the government wants to do. Transit. Clean water. Motherhood. Apple pie. F-35 Stealth bombers. Undeclared wars against Libya. Lawyers filing briefs against radical environmentalists trying to kill jobs and block pipelines and pesky foreign lesbians seeking divorces.

Shouldn’t this be questioned? Doesn’t it seem like a divide and rule approach to democracy?

Wait…

My name is Rob Chipman and I’m a realtor, pilot and all around Curious George. I really enjoy flying, playing guitar and hockey, real estate and the Chilcotin. I think the internet and Web 2.0 offers all of us a great opportunity to communicate more, and improve the world by calling bullshit on bullshit whenever we are able. Do not hesitate to contact me by email if you have something to tell me, especially if its likely to be interesting.

I ran across an interesting quote in the Georgia Straight today:

“I think it would be much fairer if the province raised income taxes and corporate taxes and used that to pay for public services that we need—not just transit but things like health care and schools and things like that,” Stephen Rees told the Straight by phone. “I mean, that’s what taxation is supposed to do, and taxation ought to be progressive and not regressive, the way we have it. We shouldn’t be raising fees and charging for things, expecting people to pay more on their medical-services premiums and all that kind of stuff. What we should be saying is, ‘No, we make the rich pay. It’s about time the buggers did.’ But we don’t do that because the rich pay for our governments.”

Stephen has a blog called Stephen Rees’s Blog.

What I found so interesting was the idea that he’s just so convinced that taxes are the solution to the public services that we need, with the stress, of course, being on “we” and “need”. Especially after I ran across the question posed by Bawldguy, who wrote a post entitled Attention Takers: Why, In Plain English, Are YOU Entitled To The Fruits Of MY Hard Work?

Now I have no problem with Stephen Rees’ opinion on what is and isn’t fair. And I’m not sure who he classifies as “the rich”. I pay lots of taxes and am not too angry about that – we live in a pretty fantastic place all things considered. I’m not about to credit the tax man for that, but neither will I sing the blues too loudly.

But I’m curious how much he’s thought it through, and so I pose Jeff Brown’s question to him: what entitles you to the fruits of my labour? We can spin the question around if we like and ask what entitles me to the fruits of your labour?

To be fair, Stephen Rees exemplifies one of my pet peeves. He seems to think we have a system that was somehow designed by someone in the know, rather than a system that has developed organically. My radar always goes off when I hear someone say anything along the lines of “that’s what [fill in the blank] is supposed to do…” It strikes me as way too simplistic.

And of course, when a simplistic explanation seems married to a request that I hand over some money because that would be fair I start pondering the meaning of “we” and “need” and “fair”. Especially when the warm hearted and fair minded seem to want to marginalize and exploit a specific group.

So, there are a few obvious questions for Mr. Rees:

1) Who qualifies as rich? How much money do you need to earn? How much wealth do you need to have?

2) Once we decide who the rich are, what entitles us to take their stuff? Is their agreement required or can we just take it by force because we want it?

I’m going to ask him to respond. It should be fun!

My name is Rob Chipman and I’m a realtor, pilot and all around Curious George. I really enjoy flying, playing guitar and hockey, real estate and the Chilcotin. I think the internet and Web 2.0 offers all of us a great opportunity to communicate more, and improve the world by calling bullshit on bullshit whenever we are able. Do not hesitate to contact me by email if you have something to tell me, especially if its likely to be interesting.

Edward R. Murrow

His name is Edward R. Murrow. He broadcast the words below during the Red Scare in the 1950s.

He was a man with pretty clear sight. When people lived in fear of communist subversion, when the government ruined people’s lives because of their thoughts and when citizen informed on citizen, he called bullshit on it. He’s worth knowing about.

“No one familiar with the history of his country, can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating. But the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one, and the Junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been confusing the public mind as between the internal and the external threats of communism. We must not confuse dissent from disloyalty. We must remember always, that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another, we will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason. If we dig deep into our history and our doctrine, we will remember we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Sen. McCarthy’s methods to keep silent or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom where ever it still exists in the world. But we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the Junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And who’s fault is that? Not really his; he didn’t create this situation of fear, he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassius was right: the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. Good night, and good luck.”

Fear of communism was a big deal back then. Things haven’t really changed. As Michael Moore pointed out in Bowling For Columbine, fear plays a huge role in modern life. But as Murrow said above, we are not descended from fearful men. He was talking about Americans, perhaps, but the statement is applicable to all Western secular humanists. And yet we fall prey to fear time and time again.

You have to wonder why. And while you’re wondering, think about two other great statements- one by Benjamin Franklin, and one by Bruce Cockburn:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Don’t let the system fool you All it wants to do is rule you

My name is Rob Chipman and I’m a realtor, pilot and all around Curious George. I really enjoy flying, playing guitar and hockey, real estate and the Chilcotin. I think the internet and Web 2.0 offers all of us a great opportunity to communicate more, and improve the world by calling bullshit on bullshit whenever we are able. Do not hesitate to contact me by email if you have something to tell me, especially if its likely to be interesting.

Taxes are a reality of modern life. Here’s what I know about them:

• Some of us pay them.
• Some of us do not.
• Of those that do pay taxes, some pay more and some pay less.

Clearly, taxes are not the price of admission to modern society. Anyone is allowed to participate in modern society and enjoy it’s benefits. Only some people have to pay the cost of delivering those benefits.

I don’t think we’re clear on what the benefits are, who’s enjoying them and who’s providing them.

And I think that’s a problem.

The story goes that taxpayers pay taxes voluntarily as part of a social contract. There are a couple problems with that idea. First, I’m not sure what the details of the social contract are, so I’m not sure I agree to them. Second, my payments under that contract aren’t voluntary. Refusal to pay taxes brings government coercion ranging from fines through seizure of property to imprisonment.

To the extent that taxes are coerced they are stolen. The government acts as perpetrator and agent to commit this theft. It’s the perpetrator because it steals to keep itself going. It’s an agent because it steals from some citizens to reward others. This latter activity is extremely complex because of all the ways all of us steal from each other every day.

Justification of the theft may have merit. However, justification of anything is also an admission of it’s existence, even if only an admission of it’s theoretical existence. Whether you argue that coercive taxes are needed to pave roads, buy new fighter jets or feed the poor, arguing for coercive taxes can’t be anything other than an argument for theft.

In this sense taxes serve as a basic litmus test for your politics.

If you believe that:

• All people are created equal, and
• have certain rights, and
• that those rights exist independently and are not dependent on the flavour of the day,
• and that those rights include the rights to
• life,
• personal freedom,
• own property
• create things
• then you can’t believe in coercive taxes without having an irreconcilable conflict between your ears.

If you believe people have a right to create things and own property then you can’t believe that it’s alright to take those creations or property unless you have a very important reason.

If you think that all people are created equal then you can’t simply declare your ideas, beliefs and morals to be superior, and if you can’t make that declaration then you can’t use your self-declared superiority as the very important reason that justifies taking other peoples’ creations or property.

If you think people have a right to personal freedom then you can’t restrict that right unless it is in conflict with another equal person’s right to something. In the case of conflicting rights (which history shows to be unavoidable), you have to (if you’re going to maintain some intellectual consistency) have a mechanism to decide which rights trump which.

That mechanism is very straightforward, but it’s a classic case of simple, not easy. It’s summed up in the phrase “your right to throw a punch ends where my nose begins”. It sounds trite and simplistic, but its really not. If you apply it honestly it almost always provides a satisfactory answer.

Does your right to property trump my right to freedom? In other words, is it acceptable for you to keep me in slavery? To judge that question honestly you’d have to ask if the roles could be reversed with an equally satisfactory outcome. If you believe that the right to property trumps the right to freedom, do you consent to be my slave? Examine slavery throughout history. Supporters of slavery either don’t believe people are created equal, don’t believe people possess a right to freedom, don’t believe slaves are human, or are hypocrites.

We don’t apply that test very often.

I think that’s because we covet our neighbours’ possessions and want them for our own. We don’t want to ask for them, so we consent to them being stolen. We “have to” feed the hungry, and subsidize the shipbuilding, and fund the arts, even if the people paying for those things don’t want to pay for them.

Or do we?

Think about who pays taxes.

Think about what those taxes pay for.

Are taxes theft when they’re subsidizing a corporation? Are they only theft when they’re feeding the poor?

You tell me.

And while you’re at it, tell me why.

My name is Rob Chipman and I’m a realtor, pilot and all around Curious George. I really enjoy flying, playing guitar and hockey, real estate and the Chilcotin. I think the internet and Web 2.0 offers all of us a great opportunity to communicate more, and improve the world by calling bullshit on bullshit whenever we are able. Do not hesitate to contact me by email if you have something to tell me, especially if its likely to be interesting.

ICBC is asking for a rate increase. Apparently the global financial markets haven’t treated the Corp. well.

As I understand it ICBC collects premiums before it pays out settlements and claims. While it’s waiting it invests the money and makes some profit. That profit get’s used to subsidize premiums paid by drivers.

Except I also understand that when ICBC makes a profit that money can find it’s way into the general revenue account of the provincial government.

That’s a great idea on the surface. We pay ourselves (we own ICBC, right?) and then invest the money in global markets and take the discount and help fund the government with the profits. While we’re investing we have other people working for us and generating wealth that we then get to spend (at least collectively we get to spend it).

What’s not to like? A few things.

First, when the provincial government takes our money it’s taxing us. In this case we are forced, by law, to buy insurance from ICBC. The rate is set high enough to make a profit, which then goes to the provincial government. The profit doesn’t stay with ICBC, it seems, for the proverbial rainy day when claims exceed premiums. When that happens ICBC asks to raise rates to cover the shortfall. So, we get taxed when we buy insurance because we pay more than it costs ICBC to provide it (because the government wants the profit to fund it’s operations) and then we get taxed again when ICBC needs more money because it’s investments didn’t pan out. What’s worse is that it’s hidden taxation. We don’t see it on our tax returns, but it’s money the government is forcing us to pay them.

Second, what happens when the global markets implode? Not that we’ll ever see that happen, right? (Remind anyone of utilities trading power in order to make some profit?)

Third, it just confuses what is already a confusing problem. Every single day we hear someone, somewhere, complaining that they don’t get enough money from the government. Whether it’s teachers, nurses, people in social housing, sick people, whatever, someone always wants more dough. That’s understandable – money is in short supply and we seem to want services from the government while also helping people who need help. The numbers dictate that when lots of people want money and money is in short supply we’ll hear lots of calls for money. That part makes sense.

Where it gets tough is deciding what we want to pay for and how we’ll do it. Numbers don’t lie. Whether you call it bridging a critical funding shortfall or an investment in our future the fact is that we have to pay for what we spend. The more we muddy that picture up the harder it is to make a smart decision. I think most people would agree we have to spend the public’s money wisely, because there’s only one taxpayer, and he’s stretched pretty thin these days. By hiding taxes and chasing returns in order to fund government operations we lose sight of the real goal that we have as a community: deciding how many dogcatchers we need and how much we want to pay them.

So, I’m unhappy with the ICBC rate increase because ICBC should be a standalone enterprise ensuring that everyone on BC highways and byways have enough coverage to keep everyone safe, and that’s all it should be doing. It has a government monopoly on insurance and should not be tasked with bleeding the taxpayer beast.

My name is Rob Chipman and I’m a realtor, pilot and all around Curious George. I really enjoy flying, playing guitar and hockey, real estate and the Chilcotin. I think the internet and Web 2.0 offers all of us a great opportunity to communicate more, and improve the world by calling bullshit on bullshit whenever we are able. Do not hesitate to contact me by email if you have something to tell me, especially if its likely to be interesting.

I saw this driving along Marine Way….

I love trucks and don’t like driving cars. The one in the middle is a crushed beauty.

…and here’s one that’s more my speed:

My name is Rob Chipman and I’m a realtor, pilot and all around Curious George. I really enjoy flying, playing guitar and hockey, real estate and the Chilcotin. I think the internet and Web 2.0 offers all of us a great opportunity to communicate more, and improve the world by calling bullshit on bullshit whenever we are able. Do not hesitate to contact me by email if you have something to tell me, especially if its likely to be interesting.