Disturbing occurrances at the grocery store...

Well, here I am again at the grocery store and once again they're screwing with our heads. This week they've increased the prices on almost everything in the store by 15-20%, but they've done so in such as way as to make it look like the prices have gone down. The franchise owner is getting the following letter from me on this one:

[address redacted]

John Crnogorac, Franchisee
Fortinos South Oakville
173 Lakeshore Rd. W
Oakville, Ontario [L6K 1E9]

July 14, 2009

Dear John Crnogorac,

I’ve been a customer of your store since it re-opened after the renovation (and it’s conversion from a Loblaws) and I have had mixed feelings about many things there. Sunday, July 12th however was a rather distressing experience.

As I went through the aisles I was surprised to see that nearly everything was marked as having being reduced in price. While the stickers were all advertising reduced prices, the actual prices did not seem to be all that much lower. By the time I made it to aisle five I saw what was actually going on. Prices had not been reduced at all on a majority of items but had actually been raised!

One of your employees was in the process of replacing all of the price stickers in the aisle with new ones. Specifically, when I arrived she was removing a sticker that said a product was $2.99 and replacing it with a sticker saying that the product had previously been $3.49 and had now been reduced to $2.99 for a savings $0.50.

This is highly misleading. The product in question had never been, to my knowledge, offered for sale at your store for the higher price, in fact I’m fairly certain that it had been priced at $2.99 since the product’s introduction.

Now I understand that prices do need to be raised from time to time. It’s just the nature of a post gold-standard fiat currency. My objection and concern is not that prices are going up. It’s about the sneaky way it’s being done. The item in question may now be listed as having a regular price of $3.49 in your computers, but if you never sold one for $3.49 then, in my opinion, you cannot in good conscience say that the price has been reduced to $2.99. It’s not a reduction or a sale, it’s an imminent increase. I’m especially offended that it seems you hold the public in such low esteem that they will not see what is really happening.

I also realize that frequently in large chains these decisions are not made at the store level. If that is the case and you are as concerned as I am I urge you to follow your conscience and contact the proper individuals within the corporation. Loblaw Companies Limited claims to operate with transparency and integrity. In this instance it is my opinion that they have failed in their mandate.
I wish to continue to shop with the Loblaw family of stores and the South Oakville Fortinos in particular. Your response to this will have an impact on this decision.

Sincerely and without malice aforethought, vexation or frivolity,




CC: Galen Weston

Bill C-47 authorizes monitoring of internet usage without judicial review

Peter Van Loan introduced this bill on June 18th, just before parliament rose for the summer. I've read it and am extremely disturbed by it's content.

The following is a letter I wrote my my MP. I urge all of you to do the same...

Letter follows:

Ian Xxxxxxxx

[Address Redacted]

Terrence Young

House of Commons

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0A6

June 24, 2009

NOTICE

Dear Mr. Young,

I just completed my first reading of bill C-47 “An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations” and I am very disturbed by its content.

Now, please correct me if I’m wrong, but it was my understanding that we lived in a free country where we were governed by a democratically elected parliament who enjoy legislative power granted by the consent of the governed. Bill C-47 reads like something I would expect from an authoritarian government attempting to rule a reluctant populace. Is Canada, indeed, the Soviet Union reborn?

I am quite willing to admit that there are dangers out there. The internet, and for that matter the whole world, is a dangerous place with unsavory people lurking in some of the corners. The Minister of Public Safety has been quoted as saying this bill won't provide new interception powers to police, but simply update the legal framework designed "in the era of the rotary telephone." I have to agree with him there. This bill gives law enforcement no new tools. This bill removes judicial oversight from the existing set of tools.

There’s a very good reason that a judicial warrant is required. In a free, democratic, country gross violations of privacy, such as those suggested in the bill, must be approved by a third party. If law enforcement officials cannot convince a judge that monitoring is required then they must not have much in the way of evidence. Monitoring of internet usage is no different from wiretapping a telephone, opening mail, or searching a dwelling.

Fortunately we do live in a democratic country and we do have a freely elected government which governs with the consent of those it governs. This legislation does NOT have my consent. Further, if you vote in favour of this legislation you will no longer enjoy my consent (albeit tacit) to represent me. I see this legislation as being extremely detrimental to Canada and all those residing within. This bill must not pass.

Without Prejudice, malice aforethought, vexation or frivolity,

Ian Xxxxxxxx

CC: Minister of Public Safety, Prime Minister, Michael Ignatieff, Gilles Duceppe, Jack Layton