The Culture of Big: “It’s everywhere, it’s everywhere!”

[“We became addicted to a culture of big. This was wonderful when gas was cheap, but it’s not anymore.” Avi Friedman, architect and urban thinker]

Most Canadians who grew up in Canada don’t realize they speak English with an identifiable accent. And they’ll likely never hear it in their own voice until they start swapping stories with 15 people from different corners of England.

Englishman 1: Mate, you're from away, aren't you? You sound funny.

Canadian: I don't sound funny. You sound funny.

Englishman 2: Talk slower, man. Your accent confuses me.


Canadian: Get out of town!

Englishman 2: You get out of town. I live here.

(An English Pub would be a great setting for such an experiment).

If they studied French in high school, as I did, they likely speak that language with a Canadian accent as well.

Many Canadians born after 1945 don’t realize the culture of big is everywhere because they grew up in the era of cheap gas and big became the norm. The culture big is as common as the sound of one’s voice but many don’t see it.

Though I’m only 5 ft. 5 in. tall, I have to look twice before I see it. Some will think that everything should appear big to me. Nope.

Some things do and I’m going to harp about them here.

Do you notice the culture of big?

How can we shift to the culture of medium and small?

***

Photo 1: I see the culture of big


["The big toaster.": Photo by GH]

When I toast one slice, all heating elements are at work - and burning hydro while toasting my bread. Do I need such a big toaster? Where did it come from anyway?

***

Please click here for more about the culture of big.

.

Live Small: THRIFT is dead, thanks to the usual suspects

According to ‘The Decline of Thrift in America’ by David Tucker, the Depression invited economists to recast thrift as “the contemptible vice which threw sand in the gears of our consumer society.”

THRIFT. Rest in peace, say some economists.

The book went on to reveal that a White House report in 1931 "urged parents to let children pick out their own clothes and furniture, thereby... teaching him that his personality can be expressed through things."


THRIFT. RIP, say some politicians.

Nancy Gibbs, in a two-year-old essay wrote, “Thrift is one virtue he (US President G.W. Bush) never invokes, and a restoration of restraint is a strain of conservatism he seldom promotes.”

“In fact, it was after the most tragic day in modern U.S. history, when Bush urged people who wanted to help to “go shopping,” that profligacy officially replaced prudence as a patriotic duty.” (Time Magazine, Oct. 2008)

Did not Prime Minister Harper give similar advice to Canadians at the height of the most recent recession?

According to an article entitled ‘Economic Crisis Slams Canada’, “As the financial decline broke over Canada that month (September 2008), Harper famously declared that it would be a good time to invest in the stock market. By November, Canada's largest stock index had declined 44%. In March 2009, it still stands 39% lower.” (by Roger Annis, March 29, 2009)


THRIFT. RIP, say US and Canadian leaders.

In the aforementioned essay by Nancy Gibbs I read that “Americans once saved about 15% of their income. By the roaring 1980s the rate was 4%; now the numbers are negative... the average American has nine credit cards with a total $17,000 balance.”

Whereas some early banks declared thriftiness a virtue, many today provide easy credit at the drop of a hat.

And consumers fall for it, abuse it, demand it, and blow it without looking back.


THRIFT. RIP, say some banks and reckless consumers.

In my opinion, the line up of ‘usual suspects’ must also include many large corporations.

More to follow.

***

Would you consider yourself a reckless spender or one of the usual suspects?

Do you know the cure?

Reduce spending. Pay down debt. Save money for tough times ahead.

THRIFT PT 1

THRIFT PT 2

THRIFT PT 3

.

More angst than accuracy Pt 2

[Pt 2 has been long awaited, I am sure. It would have arrived sooner if not for a short vacation (hold on, 3 million photos to follow) and my dealings with a wonky computer while in Ottawa. I spoke to Prime Minister Harper about my problems and he said he’d get John Baird to deal with it right away. Right, I won’t hold my breath.]

Arn Brown deals in angst. Lots of it.

So much so that if he had even a half-decent accurate argument I’d be swimming in it too.

However, most of what Arn writes in a recent letter to the editor (Sept. 23, The Londoner) fails the sniff test.

He writes, or rants, take your pick:

“You turn on the light, HST;

you turn on the tap, HST;

you flush the toilet, HST;

you turn on the coffee maker, HST.

And the list goes on. Fourteen per cent on every aspect of life.”

I get the fact we pay HST on utilities such as hydro and water, but “every aspect of life” has to be described as a bit wonky, just like the computer I had to deal with in Ottawa recently.

When Arn continues with “every necessity, every activity, every action in your home is subject to HST” I suggest we not panic.

Yes, I may pay more for hydro in the future but, unless I do my gardening with an electric-powered hand trowel, my outdoor work around the house is exempt from the tax.

So is bird-watching from my back deck (And cat-watching. I do a lot of cat-watching while 6 or 7 local feline felons watch the birds). And so on. A lot of great things in life are still free, if you catch my drift.

Arn also goes on to describe the HST as a “killing tax. It is a brutal and smothering invasion of your home.”

Now, I’m not in love with the HST but “killing tax” is over-stating the matter.

The HST is a consumption tax, in my humble opinion, and rather than kill us, it will make us more aware of how we can conserve in 1,001 areas. (1,001 is short by half, not an over-statement).

If Arn wants to sleep easier at night he should unplug as many appliances as possible that use power while he sleeps, e.g., TVs, computers, radios. And use fewer appliances while awake.

If he hates HST on his water bill then he should conserve water at every opportunity. If he loves to wash his car in the driveway or set up sprinklers on his lawn he should stop doing so immediately. He should learn to take a 120 sec. shower.

If Arn is discouraged by HST on countless shopping items he should buy fewer items.

Sure, I sound harsh. But when he said “the excessive (government) spending and tax has to end” I thought of the excessive spending we all do at times, if not all the time.

We are now being called on our own excessive spending habits, and angst will be part of the drill for many.

Arn’s angst is but the tip of the iceberg, as many protests (i.e., to say NO to austerity) in Brussels (Sept. 29), Spain, Italy and Greece seem to attest.

Changing 60 - 65 years worth of bad habits won’t necessarily be fun to watch.

.

Climate Change Concerns Pt 4: From a free lunch to a dead zone

So far, this series has touched on points from a recent letter to the editor and two books, i.e., Super Freakonomics and The Omnivore’s Dilemma.

The letter by Leo Phillips suggested we not only celebrate Earth Day but ‘every day by replacing meat and dairy products in our diet with healthful, eco-friendly foods.’

He made his case by stating that production of meat and dairy products may account for half of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, contributes more pollutants to our water supplies than all other human activities combined, is causing global shortages of drinking water and is the driving force in global deforestation and wildlife habitat destruction.

Mr. Phillips didn’t say, however, why meat and dairy production are such heavy hitters to the environment, so I shared a few paragraphs from Super Freakonomics about our heavy reliance on chemical fertilizers to boost food production to keep up with booming population growth.


To help establish the link between fertilizer and serious degradation to the environment I turned to The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan.

In it we learn that chemical fertilizer is not a natural, clean product from start to finish. Quite the opposite.

Though I think what I said at the conclusion of Part 3 is true, that ‘the link between food choices, fertilizer and fossil fuel is visible to all, as is the link between fossil fuel dependence and environmental degradation,’ I’d like to share a few more lines from Pollan’s book (pg. 45 - 47) to underline the fact that as long as ‘the economy’ takes precedence over ‘the environment’ there will be no such thing as a free lunch.


When farmers turned to chemical fertilizers, farm production turned a corner.

Mr. Pollan writes, '(A farmer) could buy fertility in a bag, fertility that had originally been produced a billion years ago half way around the world... fixing nitrogen allowed the food chain to turn from the logic of biology and embrace the logic of industry. Instead of eating exclusively from the sun, humanity now began to sip petroleum.'

And we sip a lot of it. One major crop that is found in a variety of forms on everyone’s dinner plate is corn. Pollan writes extensively about corn production in the US and by so doing informs us we have much to learn about our current food chain.

'When you add together the natural gas in the fertilizer to the fossil fuels it takes to make the pesticides, drive the tractors, and harvest, dry, and transport the corn (or other crops), you find that every bushel odf industrial corn requires the equivalent of between a quarter and a third of a gallon of oil to grow it - or around fifty gallons of oil per acre of corn. (Some estimates are much higher.) Put another way, it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie of food. Ecologically this is a fabulously expensive way to produce food - but ‘ecologically’ is no longer the operative standard. As long as fossil fuel energy is so cheap and available, it makes good economic sense to produce corn this way. The old way of growing corn - using fertility drawn from the sun - may have been the biological equivalent of a free lunch, but the service was much slower and the portions were much skimpier. In the factory time is money, and yield is everything.'


Unfortunately, factory farms can get pretty sloppy with fertilizer application and thereby pollute our surroundings.

Some fertilizer isn’t taken up by the plants and evaporates into the air ‘where it acidifies the rain and contributes to global warming. (Ammonium nitrate is transformed into nitrous oxide, an important greenhouse gas.) Some seeps down to the water table... the nitrates in the water convert to nitrite, which binds to hemoglobin, compromising the blood’s ability to carry oxygen to the brain.'

Maybe that’s why the brightest idea to come out of North America lately about our food supply has been the KFC Double Down sandwich.

While food production has grown, ecological degradation has taken place.

Pollan writes, ‘The flood of synthetic nitrogen has fertilized not just the farm fields but the forests and the oceans too, to the benefit of some species (corn and algae being two of the biggest beneficiaries), and to the detriment of countless others. The ultimate fate of the nitrates (e.g., applied to vast cornfields in Iowa) is to flow down the Mississippi into the Gulf of mexico, where their deadly fertility poisons the marine ecosystem. The nitrogen tide stimulates the growth of algae, and the algae smother the fish, creating a hypoxic or dead zone as big as the state of New Jersey and still growing. By fertilizing the world, we alter the planet’s composition of species and shrink its biodiversity.'

Environmental degradation spreads as our waistlines grow.

Any bright ideas?

Eat less meat and dairy? Plant a garden?

Certainly.

And tomorrow at 4 p.m., our own City Hall will discussing another one.

Please click here to read Part 5.

.

Climate Change Concerns Pt 1: Reduce meat and dairy products - a good idea

And not just during Earth Day, i.e., tomorrow.

Leo Phillips, in a Letter to the Editor (Apr. 20, London Free Press), suggests we ‘celebrate Earth day and every day by replacing meat and dairy products in our diet with healthful, eco-friendly foods.’

He makes his case by stating the following:

A recent study in WorldWatch magazine found production of meat and dairy products may account for half of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions


["Our farming practices leave a lot to be desired": photo GAH]

Such production contributes more pollutants to our water supplies than all other human activities combined

It is causing global shortages of drinking water

It is the driving force in global deforestation and wildlife habitat destruction

Perhaps the magazine article to which he refers shares more information related to each point, but his focus nonetheless is a good one, i.e., changes in our food production methods and eating habits are required.

Leo encourages us to consider ‘healthful, eco-friendly foods.’

I suppose when he says the above many think about the following:

Eating more locally grown produce

Eating more locally raised and butchered meat

Reducing the amount of meat in a meat-rich diet

Planning and planting a garden.

What else? Please, you tell me.

I do know that one other thought entered my mind, because last night, while reading and riding (gotta lose a few pounds), I came across a paragraph in Super Freakonomics about fertilizer.

So, to the above list of four thoughts I’d add a fifth:

Using compost in the garden rather than industrial fertilizer.

***

More to follow re fertilizer.

Please click here to read Part 2.

.

Series of Some Significance: KFC’s Double Down Sandwich

After reading a bit of my commentary re KFC’s new sandwich in the USA, a reader double-checked on Google because he thought the Double Down was a hoax.

(Hey, it's not Hallowe’en yet).

Though it’s a stupid sandwich, and getting too much positive press State’s side, I added the 4-part series to Series of Some Significance (see side margin) because - in my opinion at least - the salt and fat bomb is linked to another current news item here in Canada.


["No hoax. The DD is a fat and salt bomb"]

I.e., the rising cost of health care.

And the cost of health care is linked to another of my pet concerns.

I.e., the growing national debt.

As well, one day soon perhaps (in time for high school graduation?), the DD may come to Canada and I wanted my fellow citizens to be warned.

We are what we eat and are poorer and unhealthier for it.

.

If your tuna tastes like plastic - there’s good reason

You probably know that Health Canada recommends we limit the number of servings per week of tuna and other predatory fish because of mercury levels.

If you didn’t, now you do.

And surely you already know that tuna stocks are in rapid decline because humans have the nasty habit of catching and eating fish in unsustainable amounts, gaining more weight than the average grizzly bear before winter hibernation and buying stretchy pants rather than exercising or cutting back.

But what you might not know is that there is now a third reason to limit the amount of tuna you buy at Wal Mart next time it goes on sale.


["What's this? I'll eat it": tuna photo link]

Tuna may now contain plastic.

“New research suggests small fish that live within the Great Pacific Garbage Patch - a blob of degraded plastic estimated to be larger than the area of Saskatchewan, floating in the middle of the ocean - are actually feeding on the tiny pieces of plastic. (Plastic absorbs toxins like PCB and DDT).

“While there’s concern for the future of these little fish, the concern also extends to humans, because these tiny swimmers are being eaten by commercial fish such as tuna, which are being eaten by us.” (Apr. 1, London Free Press)

Stink. Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water!

My recommendation: Reduce the amount of tuna in a meat-rich diet (and if you normally live in North America, your diet is likely rich in meat) by eating more sustainable food products that contain less plastic.

***

What would you eat instead of tuna, e.g., once or twice per week?

.

The Four EEEEs Pt 2: Oh, what a tangled web we weave

I know. It doesn’t seem possible, but it is.

In Part 1 of Tangled Web I mentioned you could visit a fast-food restaurant wherein a group of 65-year old people are tucking into cheeseburgers and fries and discover that 67% of them possess five or more types of prescription drugs, 21% have 10 or more and 6% have 15 or more.

I also asked, why are so many seniors taking medications, and shared the following:


Statins, which are used to treat high cholesterol, are the most commonly prescribed drug, with 40% of seniors taking them. Next on the list are ACE inhibitors, which 32% of seniors use to treat heart failure and high blood pressure. (Mar. 20, The Free Press)

In part, the answer seems to be - the Canadian lifestyle is very harmful to human health.

As well, it may be easier to prescribe medications than assist seniors with preventative measures.

But because the taxpayer spent $11.4 billion in 2009 on prescription drugs (a significant chunk of which was spent on seniors), isn’t it time to make a play against the Canadian lifestyle and assist seniors with healthy goals?

How should we proceed? (‘We’ = the Royal We, i.e., government and citizens working together in a cooperative fashion with one mind. Isn’t life cozy?)


["Reduce tax on walking and running shoes?": photo link]

Tax the crap out of crap?

It should be considered.

Raise existing consumption taxes so that people are nudged toward choosing fewer food items. Here’s hoping they select the healthier fruits and vegetables instead of Oreo cookies.

Encourage health practitioners to prescribe healthy lifestyle programs instead of medications to patients (no matter the age) at the first sign they're killing themselves slowly with bad diets and lack of exercise. A discounted membership at the local YMCA would pay dividends to the health care system in the long run, and we do have to think ‘long run’ in health matters.

I’m sure we can come up with other long term solutions but that’s a beginning at any rate.

Anyone wanting to buck the trend (67% of people over 65 with 5 or more prescriptions is a serious trend, isn't it?) should cross certain items off their grocery list right away (cut off cookies and soda pop, just for starters) and begin a 30 - 60 minute walking program, 5 days per week, as soon as I stop typing.

***

Are you already walking for your health?

Cutting down on sodie pop and cookies?

Good one!

.

I Ask You: Do some people not even see you?

This morning, on my way to a coffee shop in Wortley Village, I stopped in front of an art gallery window to admire four new oil paintings.

Something happened.

After enjoying the features of an abstract landscape I stepped to my left a pace or two in order to appraise a grouping of three paintings.

Then a car door slammed and a woman walked toward me with a cellphone to her ear.

“Can you get here? Yeh, turn left there. Then go two blocks,” she said in a voice so loud she barely needed the darn phone if her friend was only blocks away.




["Honestly, it was quieter in Chicago!": photos by GAH]

I looked back at the scenes on canvas of old trees along a fence line and the woman joined me in front of the window.

“Yeh, turn right there.”

My gosh, I thought. Randy McNally invented maps about 100 years ago. Buy one fer Pete’s sake.

She continued to talk in a big voice while standing beside me.

The moment for art appreciation was ruined. Over. Spoiled by someone who didn’t even know I was there. Didn’t even know what I was doing there, or didn’t care.

***

If we’d been in an art gallery I would have been tempted to push the phone down her big throat. Or something.

I ask you. Should I have said something? Shushed her?

.

Hit Single: I Won’t Be Drinking Whisky Anymore

Backgrounder: “Boozers ran in my family. Most are now dry or passed away, but I am filled with sadness when I recall my mother’s story about the day she lost her father due to his years of hard drinking. I lost a few school and work days as a young man due to terrible hangovers - and that was enough for me. ‘Everything in moderation,’ as my mother used to say.” gaharrison

I Won’t Be Drinking Whisky Anymore

Verse 1. I won’t be drinking whisky anymore.
I won’t be drinking whisky anymore.
I’ll put my glass down and head into town and try to find a job.
I won’t be drinking hard whisky anymore.


2. I won’t be singing songs all through the night (repeat).
I’ll put my glass down and head into town and try to find a job.
I won’t be singing my sad songs all through the night.

3. I won’t be yelling words that cuss your name (repeat).
I’ll put my glass down and head into town and try to find a job.
I won’t be yelling loud words that cuss your name.

4. I’ll try to bring you home a steady pay (repeat).
I’ll put my glass down and head into town and try to find a job.
I’ll try to bring you home some steady pay.

5. I’ll save up hard, buy you a summer dress (repeat).
I’ll put my glass down and head into town and try to find a job.
I’ll save up hard, buy you a new summer dress.

6. I won’t be drinking whisky anymore (repeat).
I’ll put my glass down and head into town and try to find a job.
I won’t be drinking hard whisky anymore.

gah

***

Click here for more Hit Singles and Prose

.

Part 3: The Complete Idiot’s Guide to The Politics of Oil

“SMALL MINDEDNESS WILL FOREVER THWART BIG DEEDS”

Two methods of conservation, consistently employed, would save Alaska, a natural gem, from oil exploration, drilling and large scale degradation, irreparable damage and ruin (Please read Part 2 for context).

But because the conservation methods are linked to how North Americans use and view automobiles and light trucks they will surely fail without much public education and government intervention and policy.

And do we have time to wait for many people to slowly ‘come around’ to the value of conservation of fossil fuels?


[“Alaska - a rare national treasure”: photo link]

I read the following recently in the book ‘The Complete Idiot’s Guide to The Politics of Oil’:

The U.S. transportation sector is 95 percent dependent on petroleum today, with transportation consuming 67 percent of the petroleum used in the United States. Getting off this petroleum diet is crucial to stem the growth of imported oil, remove the chokehold that foreign oil exporting countries have over the U.S. economy, and to create a cleaner environment.

(My home country, Canada, is one of the aforementioned ‘foreign oil exporting countries, world-famous for its Alberta tar sands, wild roses and seemingly endless supplies of dirty oil).

An early attempt was made in the U.S. to get off the heavy petroleum diet after the 1973 oil embargo. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program (CAFE) was enacted that year and required car manufacturers to increase fuel efficiency in passenger cars and light trucks.

According to a 2002 report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) CAFE contributed to increased fuel economy, i.e., ‘gasoline consumption would be 2.8 million barrels per day higher today if the law hadn’t been enacted, which represents about 14 percent of today’s consumption level.’

In other words, some legislation works.

The book went on to say ‘that technologies exist today that could further significantly reduce fuel consumption... these technologies are being introduced in Europe and Japan, where the cost of gasoline is higher ($4 to $5 per gallon), so there is a greater financial incentive to cut back on fuel usage.’

But, due to cheaper oil, (these technologies) ‘have not found a major market in the United States (read Canada as well), as automobile manufacturers wait for changes in the economy, regulations, and consumer preferences.’

So, in North America, governments wait, manufacturers wait... and consumers waste.

I read as well that ‘the NAS study did identify some potential downsides to fuel efficiency. It reported that fuel efficiency has deprived new car owners of some things they value, such as (-- wait for it --) faster acceleration, greater carrying or towing capacity, and reliability, because of the reduction in size and weight of vehicles.’


[“Tricked up Civic may not be what we’re looking for here”: photo link]

As I wrote above in the first few sentences, ‘two methods of conservation, consistently employed, would save Alaska... but because the conservation methods are linked to how North Americans use and view automobiles and light trucks they will surely fail.’

Many, many North Americans will pit Alaska (among other beautiful places) against stronger government legislation and faster acceleration.

Alaska against trailering.

Alaska against hauling broken cement to the dump in a wider bed.

Alaska against regular maintenance of a smaller vehicle.

Small minds will win the day.

***

Stay tuned for Part 4: The Complete Idiot’s Guide to The Politics of Oil

.

Deck the Hills with Prorogation... Fah la la la la

... la la la phooey.

By now you all know what prorogation means to a parliamentarian in Canada.

Correct. It’s when the Prime Minister recommends to the Governor General that he/she suspend parliament and the GG agrees, sends a curt message to everyone on Parliament Hill (e.g., “Leave the Hill!”).


["Ready... and off the Hill": photo link]

By now you all know what prorogation means to a typical Canadian.

Correct again. Twice in one year? What’s he thinking? Give me one good reason. Harper doesn’t have a good reason? Then what’s he up to?

By now you all know some of the impacts of prorogation, even though you can’t say the word three times in a row really fast.

That’s right. PM Harper will get to duck all questions in the House of Commons linked to the Afghanistan controversy, enjoy peace and quiet while stacking the Senate in his favor and watching the Olympics on his television, as well as kill his own government’s active agenda and numerous government bills, i.e., those things related to governing a country and earning his pay cheque at the same time.

But you may not know the names or contents of some of the bills about to die.

Please visit The Parallel Parliament by Liberal MP Glen Pearson from London, Ontario.

He presents a lengthy list of dead bills, among other things, e.g., his thoughts re two prorogations in one year under Prime Minister Harper.

***

Mr. Pearson and I have been good friends for about 30 years. He lives just around a corner. Perhaps I can arrange an interview with him.

Let me see. Where’s his number?

.

Morning Rant: Glam by any other name is still a shallow trend

Inwardly I cringe whenever I open the HOME magazine found inside The London Free Press on Saturday because, no matter that per capita, household and national debt is continually rising, HOME and similar inserts across the land keep pushing, pushing, pushing homeowners toward the deluxe life because, of course, they deserve it.

‘A touch of glam’ said the cover of the Dec. 26 edition of HOME, followed by ‘transforming your home into a luxe escape from drab reality is an easy, affordable dream, trendwatcher Janis Wallace reports.’

Cringe.

We should dream about our homes? Transform them into luxe escapes with glam? Our reality is drab?

Should I even bother to look at the article?

Though the pursuit of glam sounds like the shallowest trend on the face of the earth I turn a page or two and read the inside headline:

‘Bling it on’

Cringe.

Opening paragraph:

‘Basking in bling isn’t just for fashionistas. Fashion-forward homes also are starting to show some flash and dash as glam style takes off as a top trend.’

Glam style is taking off? I must have been in my workshop when the countdown started and blast off occurred.

To be fair, I’m a cynic.


[Click here to see original photo site]

I’ve seen so many trends come and go (corduroy, flannel, plaid, polyester, leather, silk, cotton - and I’m just talking underwear here) that any mention of a new one prompts a red light to flash inside my little round head.

“Will this new trend last a week before we’re told to switch to something else?”

“Will I just learn how to use the rotary phone before it’s taken from my hands?”

“Will any decor I buy stay in fashion longer than the time it takes to pay down my Mastercard bill?”

To be fair again, the article mentions such things as ‘you don’t have to redo your (whole) house,’ and ‘(do) just small amounts,’ and ‘you don’t have to break the bank,’ all in cautionary or recessionary tones.

Like, bling it on but not ‘til you’re broke. Or, luxe it up but just a little, not like the last 60 years.

In my opinion, I’d rather see people follow the trend toward austerity and live small, reduce spending, pay down debt and save money for tough times ahead.

Because if you think reality is drab now, wait ‘til personal, household and national debt (and the high costs of global weather-related damage) grow even more.

.

Fewer people are saving money for hard times ahead

According to businessbriefs in this morning’s edition of the London Free Press, ‘the number of Canadians (just over a third) contributing to a RRSP this year dropped to a 13-year low on concern about the recession.’

Come on, people.

Two-thirds of you have got to put some money away for the tough times around the corner.


(Truth be told, the paper didn’t say anything about ‘tough times.’ That one is on me. I’m not thinking flood or famine. I’m thinking another financial meltdown. Cheerful thought, eh?)

The paper also said, ‘Fewer Canadians started saving for retirement this year, as well... almost a third said they hadn’t yet begun putting any money aside.’

I repeat - come on, people.

Two-thirds of you have to wake up and smell the lack of coffee in your future.

What is it with people?

Debt (personal, provincial, federal) is growing while I speak and most Canadians are growing older (by the minute, I can feel it in my bones) without much of a safety net in place.

After Christmas, you better get crackin’.

Reduce spending, pay off debts, save money.

.

Thieves tunnel underground and steal millions

What a heist!

What a series of heists!

Not only does a recent article out of Brazil mention the latest (“thieves who spent months tunneling from a rented house to an armored car company's safe made off with nearly $6 million over the weekend”) but refers to a few other brazen robberies in recent years.

For example:

2007 - thieves used dynamite to blow up a safe and steal nearly $10 million from the office of another money transport company in Sao Paulo

2005 - about 10 suspects tunneled under a city street and stole more than $70 million in cash from a central bank branch in the northeastern city of Fortaleza


[Click here for heist story related to photo]

2006 - more than $90 million was taken from a security warehouse in London (although no tunnel was mentioned)

I wonder if more bands of thieves will attempt tunneling in the future because digging is quiet, hidden from prying eyes and results in huge payoffs (if one doesn’t get caught)?

***

Latest news: Six suspects have been arrested in connection to the latest heist in Brazil.

Was it worth the risk?

.

The Suicidal Planet: The Muskoka cottage leaves a large footprint

The following is from a recently purchased book:

“In 1993, Al Gore, then American Vice President, observed that our civilization is in denial about its addiction to the consumption of the planet’s nonrenewable resources bringing us to the brink of catastrophe. In emphasizing the need for development of a strategic environmental initiative, he wrote: “Only the radical rethinking of our relationship with nature can save the earth’s ecology for future generations.” [pg. 2, The Suicidal Planet]


While in Bracebridge for the weekend, my brother-in-law told me how many small cottagers are leaving the nearby lakes because they can’t afford the growing taxes.

Small, old cottages are then bulldozed to the ground to make make room for much larger models, pushing assessments higher still.

“Sometimes they’re 3 - 4,000 sq. ft. just for two people. This kind of stupid development can’t last forever,” he said.

I hope not, I thought. There won’t be any nature left to show the grandkids.

.