I saw quite a few people recently tweeting about a bullying article.

If you don’t care to click through, the reader’s digest version is: a cadre of bullies picked on a girl (Phoebe), using the usual teenaged-girl-bully tactics of social pressure, name calling and other psychological barbs. These bullies have apparently not been curtailed, and they occasionally get physical with their abuse. Eventually, in the face of the bullying, 15-year-old Phoebe went home and hanged herself.

So of course the call to action in the article, and the subsequent agreements in comments and the tweets that were circulating the article, is to do something about bullying. Stop the bullies.

Which is all fine and well, and bullies are a pox on society for sure. But if one thing has become obvious in the last few years, it’s that there are increased venues and formats for intimidation, and bullies are exceedingly well-versed in how to use them. In fact, bullies can be more effective than ever, because what else to teenagers have to do besides figure out new and exciting ways to do things their parents haven’t caught on to yet?

So while I’m absolutely in favor of anti-bullying campaigns, I think there’s a huge issue that’s not being addressed enough, especially when it comes to girls: why are we not teaching kids how to cope with bullies?

Teaching coping mechanisms and self-worth is far from an endorsement of bullying. But it’s never too early to teach kids a bit of Emotional Intelligence. They may as well learn early that the only person someone can control is him or herself. Sadly, bullies may never stop, no matter what “anti-bullying” programs are put in place. But teaching kids some self-worth, self-awareness and an innate knowledge that there will always be people who don’t like you and are incredibly mean – but it has to do more with them than you – might help kids like Phoebe start to recognize that death isn’t the only alternative to dealing with a bully.

And I say this is extra important for girls, because girls are much more ruthless with psychological abuse when it comes to bullying. All the more reason to equip girls with the mental tools to cope with it.

So to the commenters and criers out for anti-bullying and teaching kids to act with compassion; I’d implore you not to forget to add teaching some coping skills onto that. I’m awfully skeptical about anyone’s ability to stop bullies. But I think we can instill the tools in our daughters to stop another suicide like Phoebe’s.

When I was invited to an event from the fine folks at Preventable (@preventable on twitter) last night on winter sport safety, I found the timing quite fortuitous. I’m heading to Sun Peaks over New Years for a ski vacation, and being the utter wuss that I am, I was definitely interested in knowing how to keep my self intact and injury free while I’m there.

The point behind the Preventable campaign (run by the Community Against Preventable Injuries) is to have us all thinking a bit more about how, when and where we place ourselves at risk. It’s all about what British Columbians can do to prevent injury, not what they shouldn’t do.

I’ll admit, I’ve been participating in snow sports in one form or another for the better part of the last two decades, and I’ve never ever worn a helmet. Biking, sure. Rollerblading, yep. Snowboarding? No.

It’s not for any good reason – I’ve just never thought I needed one. I don’t ride aggressively, I don’t go out in terrible conditions, I don’t bother going through the trees and I’ve never even sniffed at the back country.

Turns out, none of that actually matters.

You probably remember actress Natasha Richardson‘s fatal ski accident from last spring, caused by a seemingly innocuous fall on the bunny hill. It’s estimated by the Brain Injury Association of Canada that nearly 50% of all skiing and snowboarding head injuries could be prevented by simply wearing a helmet.

Of course there are plenty of other injuries one could sustain through an accident on the slopes – but why make brain injury one of them?

In the meantime, I’m now going to try and right this wrong (because I’m awfully fond of my brain, addled as it may be) and get a helmet to see me through this season’s round of adventures on the slopes.

Anyone have any recommendations for favourite helmet models (ASTM or Snell certified, natch) or local vendors?

… I do not think it means what you think it means!

I’m talking about Sustainability. The latest in a long series of buzzwords that’s been appropriated to make people feel better about their choices – not the first, and certainly not the last. But definitely the one I find most annoying right now.

sus·tain·a·ble (s?-st?’n?-b?l)
adj.
1. Capable of being sustained.
2. Capable of being continued with minimal long-term effect on the environment: sustainable agriculture.
3. To keep up or keep going, as an action or process: to sustain a conversation.

There are dozens of programs out there that claim to operate under the banner of sustainability. The problem comes when you actually look at these programs, and realize their “sustainability” only exists in a vacuum. And the world just doesn’t operate that way.

Two conversations about sustainability I’ve had lately revolve around agriculture and real-estate. One promoting sustainability, one illustrating unsustainability. Both, after scratching the surface, dead wrong.

Sustainable Food Program

I recently heard of an initiative up at my Alma Mater, SFU, as they’re trying to bring “sustainable food” to the hill. In partnership with the Fraser Valley Food Network’s South Fraser Harvest Box program, SFU Local Food is bringing Harvest Boxes up the mountain once a month for students to purchase. Local food, from local farms, for locals to eat. Hooray for supporting sustainable agriculture!

Except, this program is subsidized by the United Way and the Fraser Health Authority.

Suddenly, it doesn’t look so sustainable.

If this program requires funding from the aforementioned organizations to survive, then what’s sustainable about it? The program promises to give farmers a fair wage while bringing affordable food to residents at SFU. If there needs to be fund raising intervention in the middle of the process, it means either the farmers can’t afford to farm & distribute on what people are able to pay, or people are unwilling to pay for the true cost of their food.

The program touts a discount of 2-3x what one would pay in a grocery store for similar products – why does it need to be so staggeringly inexpensive? And this is not just for students, as advertised on the website. Anyone living at SFU (including those in the half-million dollar condos) may participate.

A truly sustainable system would be able to support access to fresh, local food, while paying farmers and distributors a fair wage, and ensuring those who really can’t afford it are still able to participate.

Hiding the true cost of food under the umbrella of “charitable subsidy” is certainly not doing sustainability any favours.

What happens when the funding disappears because of cuts, or just someone’s “better idea” for allocating dollars? Or when someone moves away from SFU, having no idea what the true cost of sustainable food is? My guess is they go back to purchasing unsustainable food.

All this program has done is given some farmers and eaters the proverbial fish, rather than teaching them how to operate in a sustainable system.

That Crash, it’s coming, any day now…

On the flip side, I’ve seen a couple graphs floating around about the “unsustainability” of Vancouver’s real estate prices, based on whether the average Vancouver resident can afford to own a home. The lament is loud… “real-estate is unsustainable, since locals can’t afford to live here!”

Wrong.

About one-million Vancouverites (the population within the city limits) beg to differ. They can certainly afford to live here – they already do. What they can’t afford to do is buy real estate here.

Anyone who’s done the most cursory of learning about financial planning should know that owning real estate is not necessary to be fiscally secure today and into the future. What is necessary is paying no more for housing (including rent/mortgage, heating, insurance and taxes if applicable) than 35% of one’s household net income and saving another 10% for retirement. I know plenty of people who are able to do that on one income, never mind the “three incomes” the Canadian Housing Price Chart states are necessary to afford a mortgage in Vancouver.

As for the housing market, if you believe that Vancouver residents purchasing homes are both necessary and sufficient to sustain the market, you’re trapped in that vacuum again.

A huge proportion Over half of residences in downtown Vancouver are owned by foreign investors. Property values skyrocketed in the mid 1990′s as wealthy Asian investors moved their money into foreign assets in anticipation of Hong Kong going back to China. And since then, as Vancouver’s appeal has grown as an international destination, and as the city consistently ranks in just about any top 10 list of “best places to live in the world” it’s not surprising that our fair area has the wealthiest postal code in the country and our premium properties are in high demand.

The only way a crash is going to come is if renters are so unable to afford their homes that investors are forced to sell at a loss, because they’re no longer able to carry the property with the income it’s generating. Considering vacancy rates here have been hovering around 2% for as long as I can remember, that seems unlikely. Even with the recent economic crash, there was only a slight correction in late 2008/early 2009, and values are quickly climbing again.

Is anything sustainable?

Really, I have no idea. Everything comes at a cost – whether it’s the environmental impact of making batteries in China (one of the most toxic manufacturing processes in existence) for your electric car to “save the planet,” or subsidizing food cost and distribution to bribe people into thinking they’re making sustainable food choices, to confusing an idea of resource allocation “fairness” with actual market sustainability in terms of who we think should own things.

I think we have to make the best choices we can, based on what we know. But before you blindly follow something because someone has tagged it “(un)sustainable,” perhaps step out of the vacuum and look at the whole picture. You may be surprised at what true sustainability really looks like.

I spent the past week in Chicago, which coincided with the final few days’ run-up to the decision on their bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics.

I’d forgotten how crazy Vancouver had gotten about the Olympic bid in 2001 July 2003, with the huge effort by government and businesses to show their support and that they “backed the bid.” Oprah and the Obamas flew to Copenhagen (amidst plenty of controversy) to communicate their desire to host the games.

Posters and signs covered the city, all displaying the logo of the would-be 2016 games. Statues had been adorned with faux medals. Friday – IOC voting day – had been declared a civic holiday, so citizens could head down to the Celebration Plazas and watch the announcement live on big screens. The water in the fountain at Daley Plaza was dyed orange for the occasion.

I remember being in a similar place in 2001 2003 – I was among the crowd at GM Place, watching the bid announcement when the IOC was voting between Peyongchang, Salzburg and Vancouver. I still remember the exact intonation of Jacques Rogge’s voice, as he announced the winner.

I remember Nancy Green-Raine exploding, and bouncing up and down like a sugar-fueled six-year old.

I remember then-mayor Sam Sullivan beaming and shaking hands.

I remember my roommate at the time, who’d actually been the one to get the tickets, moaning in misery that we’d actually won. Being anti-games, she was hoping for hefty dose of early-morning schadenfreude.

And I remember looking back up at the jumbo-tron, with the images of thousands of disappointed Koreans, wondering what it would’ve been like had Vancouver lost.

Now I know.

It looks a little something like this:
 

I had some time to kill after meetings on Friday, before my flight, so I went on one of those “hop-on/hop-off” tour buses, and listened to the driver rant about how those damn signs need to come down NOW so the city can forget their humiliation and move on.

I also listened to the news pundits turn on a dime, and go from praising the Obama’s empassioned speechcraft and delivery to lambasting them for “delivering what amounted to another campaign speech from last November and had nothing to do with the bid for the games” (huh?).

And I watched thousands of Chicago citizens wander off, signs dragging, looking a bit blank as if they weren’t quite sure what to do with the rest of their rainy Friday.

It could’ve been Vancouver. And as a proud Vancovuerite pro-games Olympic afficionado, I’m awfully glad it wasn’t.

Darren posted today about trying to understand the HST. Personally, I’m not really one to get all up in arms over new taxes, and like him, I’m really just trying to understand what’s going on.

I am concerned, though, about the tax’s impact on the new housing market – it sounds like new homes that are already barely within reach of most buyers are about to get a LOT more expensive. Of course, people care most about what impacts them, and Neil and I are casually looking for a 2nd property to purchase as a rental, so this will certainly affect that decision.

I know not everyone needs to buy a brand new or significantly renovated home. Except it’s going to be harder to purchase them, because I think they’re about to get a lot more expensive as demand for non-new (therefore non-HST applied) houses grows. I can’t see this new tax structure being any good for the struggling construction industry, or plans to increase density in the city with construction and renovation.

According to the BC Gov’s Q&A page on the HST (scroll way down) the average home under $400,000 won’t have any tax impact, and homes over that will receive a flat $20,000 rebate.

The Globe & Mail Article Darren quoted claims that a $700,000 home will cost an extra $18,000 tax.

Both the Government and the Globe are using some very shady math to come to their conclusions.

The actual tax rate and rebate consumers can expect to see is a 5% rebate, up to $20,000.

Currently the GST is at 5% – so rebating 5% means there is actually a 7% tax on new homes. The Gov’t claims that there is an “embedded 2% PST surcharge on new homes now” because PST is paid on many construction materials.

They fail to acknowledge that new home prices are not simply Cost+Fixed Margin; a new home will sell for whatever the market can bear, so the embedded 2% can’t fairly be taken into consideration when a consumer is purchasing. The buyer of a new home (especially a condo in Vancouver) can’t exactly say to the builder “show me all your materials invoices and choose certain products so I can make sure I’m getting that embedded 2% off the actual value of this place.”

The reality is, consumers are paying 7% tax on the purchase price of new homes up to $400,000.

After $400,000 it get much, much more frightening.

I have no idea what kind of math the Globe & Mail was doing (perhaps more “embedded tax” and the inherent value of the genies built into your walls?), but tax on a brand new $700,000 home looks like this:

Purchase Price: $700,000
HST (12%): $84,000
Max. Rebate: ($20,000)
Total Tax Paid: $64,000

Currently, with just the 5% GST, the purchase tax on that $700,000 home is $35,000

The HST will mean a tax increase of $29,000 – a far cry from the $18,000 the Globe & Mail quoted.

Embedded taxes be damned, speaking for myself, I don’t take them into consideration when looking at real-estate. And I doubt the bank is going to qualify me for a more expensive home based on them either.

What do you think? Have I missed something here, or is it really that bad?

I can’t say I’m particularly surprised at the presidential election outcome. The most dynamic candidate has always won, and both Gore and Kerry were huge snoozers in terms of inspiring passion in their parties.

Nevertheless, I’m pleased the Democrats and Obama found each other, and that the American people chose them both.

In fact, I was actually a bit sad this morning that I wasn’t a part of the nation that Obama and McCain so passionately addressed in their acceptance and concession speeches. Canadian politics have, at least in my lifetime, been pretty ho-hum.

But then I look at things like the result of Prop. 8 in California, and I remember that, empassioned leadership or not, I wouldn’t sacrifice a single ounce of my Canadianness.

I’m proud to live in a nation where, depsite the personal beliefs of whoever the leader may be, it’s left up to the courts and the constitution to maintain that all people are equal, not up to the whims of a fickle and diverse population. Where not only is universal health care available and accessible, it’s a fundamental right.

And where, incidentally, our head of state has been thrice female. One of whom is Asian, one of whom is Black (Haitian to be specific).

Yes, it’s great that the US of A is finally taking a step in the right direction.

But if one of the most liberal states in the union still finds it more important to legislate the ethical treatment of farm animals, than maintain equality and basic decency to their fellow American? It’s a very, very small step indeed.

I happen to be fortunate enough to know some truly super people doing truly super things lately.

SuperHero Drop Zone

First up on the roster is Riann. In about six weeks she’ll be rappelling down a 20-story building downtown, complete with cape, boots and underwear on the outside! All in the name of raising money for Easter Seals camps for kids with disabilities.

Even more remarkable, she’ll be doing it WITH ONLY ONE ARM since she lost the use of her right arm in a skiing accident in early 2007. For bonus points, up until the accident, Riann was right-handed.

Click Here to donate to Riann’s Superhero Campaign, and show up at 999 West Hastings on September 16 to cheer her on.

Running (Wo)Man

Also coming up is Tanya, who’s running a freakin’ MARATHON in January for Diabetes Research. She’ll be heading to Orlando with the 95 Crave team to run around Epcot at Disney World. And lest you think it’s all a pleasant jog through the park, may I remind you about how much I detest Orlando and what I hole I thought Epcot was. It’s certainly (at least in my opinion) a self-sacrificing trip. Not to mention all the damn running (says she who has yet to actually finish the Couch-to-5k program)!

Click here to donate to Tanya and the 95 Crave team.

Under There!

And combining the best of both worlds: underwear on the outside, and running, Donna and Gill participated once again in The Underwear Affair on team Thunder Panties in July. Any woman (who isn’t already an underwear model) who’ll parade herself around the city in nothing but her skivvies deserves some sort of superhero title. Check out their blogs for recaps and photos of the event.

Although I missed out on the merriment while I was away, and maybe you did too, it’s not too late to donate to cancer research! The donation page for this event stays live long after it’s over, so throw a few pennies their way as well.

No, I wasn’t arrested for running a meth lab , and I didn’t get lost after the evacuation. I wasn’t even in town! I’m just stuck in Orlando for work.

Regular blogging should resume sometime after the 15th.

This whole potable water shortage thing is seriously harshing my buzz.

Of course, I mocked a former roommate when he went on and on about being “earthquake ready” in terms of water available.

And I always figured Mark was a bit of a sucker when he moved somewhere that a hurricane kit is necessary (though the beach is a damned nice tradeoff), and that people in his neighbourhood were just insane when it came to weather warnings and stocking up more than necessary at the grocery and hardware stores.

Well apparently people in this part of the world are pretty insane as well. Shelves have been bare for weeks, and I had to do the unthinkable, and drive to Richmond to get bottled water.

It’s all planted a serious bug in my ear about getting a proper emergency kit in place should something happen that raises the crisis level significantly above Starbucks Shortage.

I’ve got another post up at Kitsilano.ca about what the Red Cross recommends we all have in our emergency kits, though you KNOW the first things in mine will be a heat source, a kettle, a crank operated coffee bean grinder, and a french press.

It’s all about priorities, people.

Anousheh Ansari

Originally uploaded by Space Explorer.

Via the CBC: Anousheh Ansari, the world’s first “space tourist” has a flickr photostream and a blog!

Reading through it I feel 6 years old again, back when the only attractive career options were Astronaut, Prime Minister, or Movie Star.

Ansari highlights the things I love most about travelling – finding out and sharing in the ways the “locals” interact with eachother and conduct their day-to-day lives. Reading back through the archives and more about her on some other sites, her motivations for the space trip seem to be pretty admirable and inspiring.

Not only is the site an entertaining and educational read – but I definitely needed a bit of a reminder that there is a very big universe outside my tiny sphere of influence, and I definitely need to realize that more often.

Darren’s entered an online viral video contest with a hefty prize – $10,000 to the winner.

He’s come up with a unique idea of what to do with the prize money, should he win:

1. I divide the money into three pools: $4500, $4500 and $1000.
2. $4500 goes to three charities: The David Suzuki Foundation, the Canadian Cancer Society and Amnesty International.
3. I get to keep $4500.
4. Each of the first 20 people who link to the contest (and, naturally, encourage people to vote for my video) get $50 gift certificates to the online store of your choice. You have to email me after you post your link–I’ll reply to you, letting you know if you make the cut of the first 20.

So, here’s my official link to the contest, my vote, and my hearty “good luck” for Mr. Barefoot to win – for himself, the charities, and obviously me!

And, inspired by his philanthropic approach to things, if I am one of the first 20 to link, and Darren wins, I’ll buck up with my own $25 donation to the Canadian Red Cross.

So hey, what are you waiting for? Go. Watch. Vote!

Edited to Add: His is the video with the soldier in the initial frame, titled “No War Required” in the list of entries.

Vern is going out to do something truly remarkable – read on, and I hope it will inspire your generosity! I know about 400 of you read this drivel every day, and while few of you comment, I hope you’ll be a little more forthcoming with your wallets than your words…

———————————————-

Starts: November 03, 2005
Ends: November 28, 2005

…..Vern (AKA Java)

—————————————————

I asked Vern, and if you donate through ClubZone, he’ll be donating 100% (minus the $0.30 per $10 transaction fee) to the Canadian Red Cross Pakistan Quake Relief fund.

There’s a documentary airing on CBC Newsworld tomorrow night regarding the use of Crystal Meth in a small Canadian town.

It’s the town I went to high school in – Hope BC. I know all three families that are portrayed in the show.

I’m not sure how accurate a portrayal of small town life it will be, but I can vouch for the fact that there really isn’t much of anything to do there for youth other than drinking, drugs and sex. And the town (at least when I left it) is run by small-minded small town people who aren’t interested in (and often actively dissuade) creating opportunities for anything other than that.

I’ll report back after the show and let everyone know if things are really as bad as the show promises to portray – but I already strongly suspect they are.

Other than linking to a few things that made me sad, I’ve avoided spewing any political commentary on Katrina. There are far more who can do it far better than I.

But the “donation war” is is really revving up – should we give? Should we not? To Katrina? To other charities? How much, if anything?

I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I wanted to weigh in, since I seem to be smack dab in the middle of the camps for and against reactionary donations in the wake of the disaster.

Here’s what I did: I stopped procrastinating on my next blood donation and I re-evaluated my personal charitable giving plan to make sure it was still on track with my desire to help. I also found it in my heart and wallet to kick in an extra chunk of change to the Canadian Red Cross – though not specifically for Katrina, I donated under the “wherever it’s needed most” category. I figured if they needed the extra funds for Katrina, my dollars would make it there, and at the very worst, they’d still help ease the suffering of someone, somewhere.

But I didn’t want to give to the Katrina victims the same way I wanted to give to the Tsunami ones. The Tsunami was just such a sudden, violent, unexpected phenomenon that we’ve seen more of in armageddon-themed movies than in our day-to-day. The loss of life was staggering, and the cries for help were so powerful, I gave, and gave, and gave again. Always wishing I could do more.

Katrina was different. I started off thinking that people would be evacuated. That people would be safe. That nobody could be left behind in such a volatile environment. In my naieve Canadian way, I believed there would be a social safety net to take care of every citizen. And I was oh so wrong.

And when there were people left behind, and the levees broke, I thought “It can’t be that bad. They had warning, they knew. Nobody would let people stay if they didn’t absolutely insist on it. That’s the beauty of living in a first world country – the resources are there to take care of people!”

But the resources had been diverted and denied. And so very many were left behind. For five long days. And nobody did a damn thing about it – even though people and agencies wanted to help, they were turned away. And I saw red.

And though it pains me to admit it, I did think that I couldn’t be bothered to donate to a nation who refused to help its own. America needed to learn a lesson! I would not contribute to an agency that would do America’s dirty work for her. If she couldn’t be bothered to take care of her own, I certainly wasn’t going to step in and fill the void.

And after a few days of being angry, I realized that the people who were suffering weren’t going to do any better by waiting out a politically charged hissy fit. Politicizing things at this point would just prolong their suffering – as global citizens, they deserved my help as much as anyone else on the planet, and I can only hope they’d do the same for me if/when the “big one” hits the Pacific Northwest region.

But there’s still that part of me that can’t quite fully sympathize with the Gulf Coast without that bit of “I told you so” nagging in the back of my mind. Not to the many residents of the area whose government failed them, but to that government for failing its constituents.

If I were closer to the area, I’d be in up to my elbows in rebuilding efforts, or opening my home for people to stay. Or cooking for people in the Superdome, or the Astrodome, or wherever they are hurting and hungry. Or offering any jobs I had to the displaced whose livelihoods have been wiped out by Mother Nature. I’d really want to help rebuild that which we suspected Katrina would take anyway.

But my bottom line says I can’t feel comfortable giving money to help contribute to the billions of dollars it will now take to rebuild New Orleans and her people, when just a fraction of that spent responsibly by a government that cared would have prevented much of the suffering, death, mayhem and madness that resulted.

Unfortunately, from where I stand now, money’s all I have to give – so I gave to an organization that’s there to do the work I can’t. And say a little prayer for those who were abandoned by their government, but so obviously not by their country and their neighbours. And thank the powers that be that I had the fortune to be born into a first world country that treats ALL its citizens as such.

Update (Sept.13/05): I know, I broke the cardinal rule of blogging, by not linking anyone. I meant to, and forgot. So with a bit of egg on my face, I’ll just note that this post was inspired by this article in the Tyee by Travis, which was originally a post on his blog in reaction to a post by Darren.

Lost and Found listings from NewOrleans.Craigslist.Org

I’m pretty good at being disaffected (though not uncompassionate). This affected me.

Deeply.

Pass the Hat (again), and the Tissue.