Me neither. I do recall an early-school-year project from my elementary days when we all made “escape plans” for our homes and learned to “stop, drop and roll” our way out of suddenly bursting into flames.

But I hadn’t thought about fire prevention for many years, until I saw this post on Lifehacker about how to properly use a fire extinguisher.

In fact, I haven’t thought about fire prevention or fire extinguishers since I nearly set my parents’ house on fire in 1995.

Whoops!

It was a summer day (must’ve been a weekday, since my parents were both out at work) and I’d decided to wax my legs.

I had one of those wax kits where you melt the wax in a little copper pot on the stove. So on it went. Except when I tried to pick it up, the potholder slipped and I dumped about a cup of hot wax directly on the element. Which turned into a 3 foot column of flame.

And instead of thinking “I should put a lid on this flame to smother it” I went straight for the extinguisher.

Verdict: I am excellent at using a fire extinguisher.

I also learned the important skill of how to remove fire-retardant dust and dried wax from almost anything. Could be a useful party trick, depending on the type of parties you frequent.

Anyhow, it’s probably as good a time as any to check your smoke alarm batteries, make sure your extinguishers are still charged and ready, and stop-drop-roll just for fun. Also a good time to call your friendly neighbourhood esthetician and make an appointment to have your legs waxed. It’s much safer that way.

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.

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’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’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.

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?

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.

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.

Regular blogging should resume sometime after the 15th.

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.