Dear Madame Senator

So, some senator wants to attempt to prove her relevancy by weighing in on the Quebec City Amphitheater nonsense by pooping all over the people that oppose the project (who, according to her, are 'Montrealers').

Article here.

(It pains me to be on the same as Amir Khadir on any issue. He's against the issue to attract attention to himself, period. However...)

Mme Senator wants to poop all over my opposition as though opposing the project is based on jealousy. As though Montrealers begrudge Quebec City for wanting the arena. That is simply bovine excrement.

I oppose the project because it is based on the outright lie that building the arena will magically make the Nordiques reappear in the city. Mr. Bettman has repeated time and time again that the NHL will not relocate a team to Quebec City just because they build a rink. So why the hell are we spending $200 million on a rink that will remain without a team? Hamilton learned the lesson, why does Quebec City ignore it?

Here are Gary's own words:

If there’s a new building, separate and independent from us, for whatever reason and the opportunity presents itself with respect to a franchise, it’s no different than what I said about Winnipeg. But we don’t want people building a building on our account, expecting that there’s going to be a franchise, because we’re not in the position to promise one right now.

Via Hockey News

To be unambiguous: the supporters of this project need to stop lying. Stop lying to yourselves and others. Halting the construction of the arena does NOT put the return of the Nordiques to Quebec City in jeopardy. The Nordiques are NOT returning to Quebec City, so nothing can put the return in jeopardy. Stop deluding yourselves. It really begs the question: what part of Gary Bettman's statement to the fact that there is no planned return of an NHL franchise to QC-City, and that a new arena changes nothing about that non-plan, don't you understand?

Mme Senator wants to say that I should shut up and shell out my tax money for an unneeded rink because Montreal has the Big Owe. Memo to Mme Senator: I was 5 years old when that useless waste opened for the Olympics. I would gladly pack it up and send it to Quebec City: it is ugly, it is a waste of money and we spend waaaay too much time and resources on it. I don't want it and I never wanted it, so don't tell me to be somehow grateful for it like it's a huge source of pride. And it, too, sits empty and devoid of a professional team. So because Drapeau imposed this monstrosity upon Montrealers, we now have to put up with the fantasies of the latest ego-maniacal mayor, in the person of Régis Labaume, to put up YET ANOTHER useless sports arena that will overrun its budget, cost taxpayers more than it should, line the pockets of construction contractors over-charging because it's a government project and REMAIN EMPTY. And so they refuse to learn the lessons of both Hamilton AND Montreal.

I want to see the $200 million spent on anything but this frivolous waste of money. Give it to the municipalities along the Richelieu River so that they can improve the water management systems there. Give it to the family doctors that don't stay in Quebec. Give it to the schools so they can have decent play yards and roofs that don't leak. Fix the 1-out-of-3 bridges and overpasses that are in danger of collapsing on our heads (or under our wheels). But for the love of everything good and decent, don't use it on an arena that will be built for nothing!!

Mme Senator, you say that you are embarrassed to live in Montreal, so please do Montreal a favor and move to Quebec City. The fact that you live in my city is an embarrassment to me. Your unwanted and irrelevant opinion is built upon a lie, and you insult those of us who have the three braincells left in our heads that are required to see it.

Quebec's Folly

The morning news tells me that only Newfoundlanders pay more income tax than Quebecers. In Quebec, the average citizen pays 44% in income tax.

The morning news also tells me that the education system is broken, and instead of failing students that don't make the grade, we lower standards in order to allow them to pass (and I'm supposed to send my child to public school?).

Also on the morning news, the average wait time in Quebec's ERs is 12 or more hours.

The morning news also tells me that Régis Labaume in Quebec City wants a new arena, and that this new arena will magically make an NHL team move to QC-City. Gay Bettman says that building a new arena will NOT change a fig and that there is no promise or guarantee that an NHL team will ever return to the city. The Quebec assembly is bogged down in debate over a law that would allow Quebecor to...

Long story short : schools are crap, hospitals are crap, I pay too much in income tax without getting basic services in return, and the province is wasting time and money debating about bending over and paying out $200 MILLION DOLLARS so Quebec City can build an arena that Bettman tells us will remain empty.

I can't be the only one that thinks this is stupid.

Well, note to Quebec City: you obviously don't need my tourist dollars since the province shells out my money to you every time you want to put together a festival, event or unneeded civic building. Quebec City, you will not see my face nor my money in your city again.

Signs, signs, everywhere, signs

Not the most original title, I'll admit. Still...

The Metropolitain (west of the 25) and Highway 40 (east of the 25) is becoming completely overrun with billboards, with the newest trend being the addition of those super-bright and super-annoying electronic billboards, and the increase has been somewhat insidious. It started with just a few, and today there seems to be one every 500 metres or less.

Was the east along Highway 40 not already ugly and blighted enough by the refineries and heavy industry? I guess the landscape was judged to be a waste anyway, so instead of aggressively planting trees and vegetation to keep the dust down and embellish the area and all of the other advantages that trees and veg bring, they made the area even uglier with huge, gaudy billboards. And then came electronic billboards. The next step will be to perch future billboards on higher and higher poles (like the 95 in South Carolina and Georgia), so that the lower signs lose out to the higher ones.

They are now to the point of being visual pollution, loud and invasive, with the electronic ones being especially dangerous because you can't help turn your eyes towards them while you're driving - especially at night. I feel like I'm living inside 'Minority Report' or 'Josie and the Pussycats'. I'm not usually a supporter of initiatives coming out of the Plateau, like parking bans and one-ways that try to keep people from ever entering or crossing the neighborhood and Amir Khadir, but I can't disagree with their attempts to ban billboards.

I expect a "Pedro dit: venez me voir! South of the Border - 1535km" sign to go up any day now.

(After writing this blog, I saw THIS in The Gazette. I guess I'm not the only one...)

The psychology of trauma

It seems to be a busy time right now for nature-driven and man-made disasters. Nature is whipping the United States with tornado after tornado and with flooding on the Mississippi. In Canada, the Assiniboine and the Richelieu are flooding in record proportions, the northern forests of Alberta are burning, and there's been so much rain in Eastern Canada that we're seeing rare occurrences like land-slides. The volcanoes in Iceland and Italy are erupting, Japan just got slammed with a record earthquake and the tsunami, and the ground shook in Europe as well.

In the man-made area of global events, the Arab Spring is losing steam as despots and dictators dig in their heels and cling to power. Libya, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen are sending their armies out to shoot down students and mothers, they're making journalists and photographers disappear and they're blowing up villages from afar.

So far, 2011 is not going too great for a good number of very ordinary folk. No wonder that crackpot preacher thought the world was going to end last Saturday - he had enough going on in the world to match to any prophet's grocery list of events of impending doom. Floods, fire, earthquakes, brimstone, war, famine and the rising price of gas certainly sound like the perfect ingredients to put into a Rapture cake.

The events are also turning out to be Psychology's Christmas, because according to the psychologists, all of the people facing the myriad apocalyptic events thrown at humanity at the moment will be Traumatized. They are all, to the last person, likely to have Post Traumatic Stress and will all, to the last person, probably need counseling. The CBC ties into PTSD for the unfortunate victims of the flooding in Manitoba in this article. According to this take on things, first you face the initial 'impact phase', then comes the 'post-event phase' where you feel anger and helplessness, and then it's on to 'recovery' where you have to 'adjust to the new reality'. And then, you might possibly face PTSD, where you might get flashbacks or be hyper-vigilant.

I don't want to be flippant about what some people are facing at the moment, and I don't want to trivialize events, but having to move out of your home because of spring flooding when you live near a flood-prone river is not "trauma". In centuries past, that would be called "life". If you ask a mother in Yemen what she would call losing a daughter to a violent attack at the hands of a mob of men, and worrying about her son being killed in a protest, and not knowing where her next meal will come from, she might answer "Tuesday", not 'trauma'.

I think Western 'civilization' has been so spoiled, coddled and comfortable for the past 50-75 years that it has forgotten what real trauma really is, and it has listened too closely to Western psychologists trying to justify their existence by telling every one that every non-pleasant event in our lives is 'traumatic'. I call bullshit on most of the trauma that the psychologists shove in our faces with the complicit cooperation of the media. So here's my line in the sand on what I could accept to put a label of "trauma" on, and where I would have sympathy for people with PTSD:

- If you went to Iraq, Afghanistan, the Sudan, Darfur, Rwanda or another war-torn area where you learned what drying blood or burning human flesh smells like, you may say you have seen and known trauma. I cannot fathom being somewhere where your daily existence requires you to take the risk of being blown up or shot into consideration every moment of the day. I can even less imagine boarding a plane and, after a few hours, walking among people in Europe or North America who have nothing better to bitch about than traffic or the 'trauma' of grandma dying (in a clean hospital where she was cared for). That must be a total mind-fuck (use of profanity required here, there's no other way of expressing that).

- If you survived one of the last 2 tsunami events of the last 10 years, you know trauma. Whether witnessing the devastation, or actually being in the water, you have the right to the use of the word 'trauma' and I will respect your PTSD. This also applies to other sudden-onset, violent disasters like tornadoes. If you were in the Superdome in New Orleans, you have my respect. If you were knocked about in debris, if your loved ones were torn from your grasp, if you have sifted through rubble looking for the bodies of your parents or babies, if you have rushed to the scene of a flattened home, school or daycare looking for your children or spouse, you are legitimately traumatized.

You see, I think those types of events are shocking and traumatic. What I do not consider traumatic are the "shit happens" events of regular life that so many people want to use as fodder for bitching and complaining and moaning and garnering attention to themselves. Some examples:

- Death of an elderly family member, whether through natural causes or from disease. Sad? Of course. Does one need to mourn? Definitely. Is it trauma? No.

- Seeing a car accident happen to others. Upsetting? I agree. I would go home and have a stiff drink, hug my family, and sleep uneasily if I witnessed an accident causing death. Not at all pleasant. But PTSD? Um, no.

- Loss of material possessions. You are not traumatized because your car got trashed or because you need to replace a roof because a bad storm blew through town. This leaves me on the fence about the bad flooding referred to in the CBC article: you live near the river, it floods regularly, and it flooded so gradually that you had time to pack some necessities and get your family and dog out safely to a shelter where you have food and a bed. It sucks, it really does, and I'm so sorry you lost the afghan grandma made before she died and your wedding album... but shit happens. I just can't bring myself to elevate the icky-ness of a slow flood to the level of, say, hiding under the bodies of your schoolmates while mercenaries hack everyone around you down with machetes, or trying to hold on to your child while the black, cold waters of the ocean pulls him out of your arms when only 30 minutes before you were just trying to get him to do his homework.

I just wonder at what point the Western world took any and every unpleasant, uncomfortable, sad or unexpected event that causes stress, grief or changes to the status quo and decided that they were all "Trauma" that required one to seek counseling. Life happens, shit happens, and we all have to brush ourselves off and start things over again when it does. Getting on with it should not automatically require a therapy session. Especially when you worst 'trauma' would be somebody else's best day ever.

That's for the grown-ups. The subject of what the western world thinks is traumatic to a child is another blog for another time, but I'll give you a preview : it has nothing to do with a dying goldfish or moving to a new house.

Unanswerable questions, Part 1

A man from the vulgar-rich layer of society is accused of attempted rape on a hotel maid. Is he still presumed innocent until proven guilty, or is he presumed guilty because he belongs to a group in society that thinks itself entitled to whatever it wants? Is he the victim of a plot, perpetrated by his enemies to discredit him and remove him from an equation where he was a variable?

His immigrant-poor accuser... is she an actual victim, or is she just another attention and money-seeking manipulator who is using the media and negative public opinion on vulgar-rich people to advance her own fortunes? Was she paid to make the accusation, or was she actually attacked by a rich, naked man in an expensive hotel suite?

Will we ever know the truth?

Monstrosity is not mainstream

There's a criminal trial being held north of the city right now, a case of infanticide. A doctor, cast aside by his wife for another man, stabbed his two very young children to death and then drank washer fluid. Aside from the fact that the man is a doctor, it's a story we've heard too many times and in too many places.

There are a few extra details that are being published and discussed following the testimony of the defendant and others at his trial that we're supposed to consider in addition to the more familiar facts. On the night of the murders, this father went to the video store with his kids, rented some tapes and went home to watch them with his children. He claims to have put them to bed early because they had activities planned the next day. He then went to his computer to re-read e-mails between his ex-wife and her new boyfriend (forwarded to him by the boyfriend's Ex - for what reason we don't know). After realizing that he and his Ex had never shared the kind of intense love that she now shared with her new guy, the kind doctor decides to commit suicide, researching methods of suicide on the internet (reminder: he's a DOCTOR). After settling on washer fluid for it's slow, painless effects, he decides he does not want his children to discover his body (because that would be, you know, too cruel), so he proceeds to get a knife and stab both of them to death. We discover during his testimony that his son begged him to stop.

Has your stomach turned yet? Because according to the media campaign his lawyers are spinning, it shouldn't. Even the much-read Pierre Foglia (Le monstre) thinks that this doctor and his deranged, selfish act are just a thin line away from what you and I are capable of. The story is that we've all been through heartbreak and bad breakups, and there isn't much separating us from the poor, heartbroken doctor. We all have the doc's monster in us, the only difference is that his got out.

To paraphrase another columnist, the angels weep while the devil receives pity. Martineau - see May 14, "Pauvre monstre"

Guy Turcotte is a horror, an abomination. This man, who swore to 'first, do no harm' violently stabbed his own son and daughter because he could not accept that he was left by his wife for another man, a man she seemed to love more than him. This man, after making the unthinkable decision to end his children's lives, had the knowledge and access to means that would have sent them softly and gently into sleep, but choose instead to stab them repeatedly, plunging his kitchen knife into their tiny bodies while his son asked daddy to stop hurting him. And he then drank a concoction that he knew would cause a coma and slow death, sparing himself the painful death that he inflicted upon his babies, and ultimately giving others the time to discover and save him before the fluid took his life.

This supposedly intelligent man, with education and access and means to find psychological and emotional support to get him through the break-up, tries to explain that he stabbed his children in order to spare them the pain of discovering his body. And then botches his own death, with claims that he no longer wanted to live.

How dare anyone compare any ordinary person to this viciously deranged monster? With a 'divorce' rate of about 50% in North America, millions of couples break apart and go their separate ways. Thousands of those have messy break-ups. But they don't come even close to stabbing their babies as a result of those break-ups. To even suggest that the millions of loving fathers out there harbor the monster that this man had in him inside their own hearts, and they are a fine line from committing the evil act of murder this man committed, is revolting. My husband, my brother, and the other fathers in my life would NEVER harm their precious children, no matter the circumstance between themselves and the mothers of those children. I am insulted by the insinuation that they or anyone else in any way would come close to harming their kids under any circumstance.

Mr. Turcotte (he is undeserving of the title of doctor) is not "every man". I do not recognize myself or anyone I know in him. His choices and acts are to be rejected, not explained away with excuses of love, passion and heartbreak. His monstrosity is NOT mainstream.

Who's driving this thing, anyway?

Clement wants oil industry to explain

Click the link to read the full article.

Federal Minister of Industry will call Big Oil to the principal's office because he and the rest of the idiots running the country don't really know how Big Oil sets the price of gas. Uh, you guys don't know how they set the price of gas? You really, really don't?

And you want to allow the market to continue doing what it does, despite the fact that you are admitting that you don't really know what it does. Brilliant! Stupendous work.

I have to find a good 'facepalm' jpeg to use in these situations...

And then, this nugget: ""Governments should not be regulating markets, Flaherty said. “That's a sure way to make sure the market doesn't work."" Yeah, because the oil market "works" super well right now for, um, the oil market? And the last time I checked, it was the government regulation of the bank industry which avoided Canada the whole mortgage debacle that helped us limit the damages due to the financial meltdown... you know, the averted disaster that Harper brags about?

Listen, Dear Leader Harper: I have a 6-month-old, I can smell poo from 2 rooms away. Your government needs a diaper change...

Dear Jack: Noooooooooooo!

Congratulations on your victory in the last election! After being labeled the 'right driver in the wrong car' for all of these years, you finally turned the tides (at least in Quebec) and got enough of your people voted in to allow you to become the leader of the opposition. This, despite my voting for a candidate from another party in my riding, is something I see as a potentially Good Thing overall. Not to mention the fact that the stricken, shocked and confused faces over at BQ headquarters made me positively gleeful.

In the days following the election, I awaited your first statements. Those first statements would set the tone for at least the front half of your reign as the Leader of the Official Opposition. I was really looking forward to hear which of Harper's vulnerable points you would hit the hardest and the most often (because that's all you CAN do, really), and hitting those points would allow you to be the 'voice of the people' you have claimed to be. Here comes Jack, he knows what we're pissed about the most (other than being pissed at central Ontario for giving Harper a friggen majority).

And one of the first things you talked about was... the Constitution? Wait. What?

You mean to tell me that you and your handlers do not realize that talk about the constitution and/or sovereignty issues and/or looking backwards is EXACTLY what got the BQ so roundly kicked in the ass, thereby opening the door to you and your brigade of students and activists? You don't realize that the more Duceppe and the BQ pounded on the sovereignty nail, and the more they paraded around old, rusty, crusty battle-axes feebly screeching 'separate!', the more they made their own irrelevance obvious, and the more people decided to tick whatever name was beside the letters 'N', 'D', and 'P'? And so you decided to stir up the mucky riverbed of constitutional issues, just when the damn water was starting to clear a little?

Allow this arm-chair, keyboard-wielding amateur to tell you a few things that your entourage of professionals don't seem to be making very clear to you (because I refuse to think that they don't know this...).

1. People did not vote for local candidates. They voted along party lines. They didn't vote for the Vegas Candidate, they just 'Voted For Jack'. A monkey could have been used as a face on a campaign sign and it wouldn't have made a lick of difference. People in Quebec are tired of backwards-looking and backwards-thinking candidates that are mired somewhere back in 1992. They voted for YOU. Smarten up and be more careful about what comes out of your mouth. And while I'm at it, Mr. Experienced Mulcair needs to back off on Bin-Laden-Isn't-Dead conspiracy theories if you're going to attempt to retain credibility for your party, but I digress...

2. If the Canadian electoral system weren't broken, you'd be Prime Minister, but the House of Commons would be a pot-pourri of MPs from across the different parties. Because if you want Jack as PM, you have to vote for the local monkey with the letters 'NDP' next to their name even if that monkey was off campaigning in Vegas, or holed up in the McGill ghetto somewhere studying for the PoliSci final. This reality makes you even more important - you ARE your party, at this point. So watch your mouth and focus on important things.

I want to be clear on one thing: I do not have a problem with young or inexperienced candidates wanting to throw their hats in the ring and trying (and succeeding) in getting elected. The Fat White Men in Suits who run things need to be kicked in the teeth every once in a while by the People. New people that go around questioning the status quo, asking why the same old inefficient and corrupt goings-on continue to go on, is a Good Thing. But it's only a good thing if the young gun ran a campaign, convinced his constituents that s/he was a better candidate, and got voted in with the expectation that, if elected, s/he would be off to Ottawa and would go gladly. A bunch of these newly-minted MPs expected to be place-holders, a face to put on an NDP campaign poster that fully expected to lose their elections and go on with their regular lives, using the experience as something that looks good on a resume. I just hope this crop of unexpectedly-elected will take advantage of the big fat gift they've been given and do something good with it.

But back to Jack... What are the important things you should be talking about? Oh, look, it's the start of a new list...

1. Gas, gas, gas, Jumping Jack Flash. Today is Tuesday, which everyone knows is gas-price-hike day. The day that the criminally greedy fat cats at the oil companies make trillions in profit just by sending out an email to gas stations that reads, "It's Tuesday, you know what to do." You should be the pissed-off voice of all Canadians (including the morons that gave Harper his majority) about the price of gas. My closest gas station is selling the stuff at close to $1.45 per liter today: so ask me again if I give a rat's ass about the friggen constitution. Here's what you should do: every Monday, you stand in front of which ever is the closest gas station to you, and you say, "When the price of gas goes up tomorrow morning - and we all know tomorrow is Tuesday and the prices will go up - I would like for you to help me hold PM Harper accountable by sending his office emails and by calling his phone lines, asking why he does nothing to help regular Canadians, working people and families and small business owners, be able to buy affordable, Canadian-made gas." Then you say, "Taxes collected from the sale of the currently over-priced gas should be invested into reliable, efficient, safe and clean public transportation, and into developing Canadian-made alternatives to gas that we will then be able to sell to the world." You do that, and you'll win the next election.

2. I, along with thousands of other Canadians, would really like to have a family doctor. Anyone qualified will do: male or female, recognized as an MD, born here or elsewhere... as long as I can get an appointment within, say, 8 weeks, and actually get a checkup and a few tests done to make sure I'm doing alright. The Constitution does not make family doctors magically appear and take on new patients. The Constitution does not perform pap smears and breast exams, does not check my blood pressure and cholesterol levels and cannot tell me if that mole I don't like the look of should be looked into further. The Constitution is far, far, far down on my list of priorities right now and every time it is mentioned, my blood pressure goes up and I swear I will never vote for you as long as you keep bringing it up, so we're both worse off than we were before. You need to talk about the doctors and moldy hospitals that we have to line up to get into, and make it Harper's fault - he wants to buy fighter jets while Grandma's melanoma goes undetected, oh the travesty. Because it IS a travesty.

3. Anything else BUT the Constitution. The economy, employment insurance, job creation, small business, schools and higher education, the aging population and the financial and emotional strain it puts on younger people... talk about any issue EXCEPT the constitution (and language issues) and I will lend you my ear. But I promise you, I will shut down, take my ball, and go home if you keep ripping the scab off of the wounds of sovereignty. I can't take any more hot air about referendums and the constitution. I. Just. Can't. The BQ is comatose, the PQ is fizzling and sputtering, and there's finally a glimmer of hope that people here are accepting the inevitable dominance of English in the world, that they understand that the rise of English is not a plot against them that they need to take personally and that they can live and thrive in French without isolating themselves into a banana republic, and what do you do? You tote out the C-word. Stop it. No, really. Just... stop it!

It's going to be a long and depressing four years with Harper at the helm. I am worried, depressed and ashamed to have him as the leader of my beloved country. Much as some reasonable Americans contemplated moving here during the Bush Reign, I wondered if I could move to live under the reign of President Obama instead of here, with Harper. The Republican Tea-Party changed my mind back for me, but that doesn't make me any happier to have Harper. What would make me happy would be an official opposition that actually sounds and behaves like they oppose Harper and his ilk WITHOUT having to hear about the Constitution. If people wanted that, they would have stuck with the has-beens at the BQ. YOU got the votes, now stop beating a dead horse.

Public Transportation: it would be a great idea

We do have a sort of public transportation system in place here. I just can't qualify it as any better as "sort of". My dissatisfaction is due to a combination of factors, made worse by my experience with what is offered in European cities. I'm environmentally sensitive, more than most (I like to think) but public transportation just isn't in the cards for me. Keep reading if you're at all interested in why...

Let's say I want to go to the grocery store by bus. The closest grocery store is 4.3km away from the house, or 8 minutes driving time at most (this is the 'burbs, we have low speed limits and plenty of stop signs). The first thing I have to do is walk along the street to the closest bus stop, which according to the Tous azimuts tool on the STM website is 125m from my house. Not a problem per se, but still not entirely pleasant since my area, despite being part of the CUM, does not have sidewalks to walk on; I have to walk on the asphalt of the street, with cars whizzing by.

There's a bus that is supposed to go by at 10:51am, so to be at the shelter-less bus stop on time, I'd leave at 10:40. The bus gets to the stop closest to the store at 11:04am, and after exiting the bus I have another 185m to walk (this time I am offered the luxury of a sidewalk). At a good pace, I calculate I walk into the store by 11:10am.

My 8-minute car trip (with the convenience of a trunk to carry the groceries in) has now become a 30-minute trip (or 1 hour round-trip). And I average 4-6 shopping bags per trip, so I now have to carry that back on the bus. I could get a cart, but what I haven't mentioned is that I am traveling with a baby in a stroller already, so the shopping cart in the store, as well as a cart to carry the groceries home in, is all very problematic. Factor in the difficult entry and exit from the bus itself with a stroller, and the 3$/trip fee (6$ round-trip)... tell me honestly that you'd even consider leaving your car at home and taking the bus to go to the grocery store. Costco, at over 15km away and its mega-sized everything, is not an option by public transport. Then there's the bank, the drug store, the dry-cleaners...

Ok, so urban sprawl is what it is and I give myself a pass from using the bus for local shopping and necessities. I won't be a hypocrite, I'll admit freely and openly that I'd use public transit - as many already do - if I had to. If I had no alternative (i.e. no car, no driver's license, or if gas hits 2$+ a liter) then I would use public transport. And when I look at people waiting for buses in the rain with strollers or infants and thank the universe that I am not one of them, I also can't help but wonder if I will be among them one day simply because I won't be able to afford gas, and I honestly fear and will rue that day. I would probably sell this house and move somewhere that allows me to walk to and from basic services just to avoid the bus.

So local use of public transport is not an option right now. What about going downtown? Surely, it is much easier and economical to use public transport? You save on gas, parking and traffic frustrations, right? And I live ON the island of Montreal, not off-island, so it should be a cinch. Right? Well, a few weeks ago there was some sort of Kid's Expo at Place Bonaventure, and I considered ditching the car and going by bus. Here's what the trip what have looked like.

By car: 25.4km and 24 minutes according to the Google. Having taken the trip outside of rush-hour before, I know I can be there in about 20 minutes.

By public transport: walking, bus, 2 metro lines and a 75 minute trip. Metro stations are not adapted and you can't put the stroller onto the escalators, so you have to take baby out, fold the stroller, ride the escalator, unfold, re-seat baby, and repeat for each escalator. That is not calculated into the 75 minutes quoted to me by Tous azimuts. Round-trip, we're talking 40 minutes vs. 150+ minutes. Be honest... which would you choose?

Because I want to be thorough, I also ask myself: why not compromise and drive to the closest metro station, eliminating the need to take the bus and cutting down on travel time? Because parking at a metro station after about 6:30am is near to impossible. The free commuter parking is full by that hour, and residential streets around metro stations have parking rules that discourage metro users from parking there (either with resident-only parking, or by limiting parking times to 2 hours or less). And the closer you get to downtown, the less you and your parked car is wanted, especially in the infamous Plateau, where you aren't wanted at all.

So the public transport option is not an option for me strictly from the efficiency and convenience point of view. I ended up not attending the Expo downtown because it turned out that I didn't feel like spending gas and parking money to go there, and taking public transport was too long and too much of a hassle. Staying home - the increasingly attractive option to spending gas money - was once again my final choice. Too bad Expo, too bad merchants at the Expo, but Big Oil wins again.

But wait! Soon, very soon, the Train de l'est will be running and will surely help the situation! Well, the damn thing has been promised forever and part of it is still bogged down in conflicts, and the stations aren't built yet, so I won't hold my breath. When the thing finally does go into service, the trains will run during rush-hour, and then run about once an hour, in one direction only (inbound in the morning, out-bound in the afternoon). Not an option worth discussing right now for somebody who isn't a rush-hour commuter, and for those who are reality-based when it comes to electoral promises like commuter trains.

So I am car-dependent and readily admit to it. I wish it weren't so, but until I have public transport options that are adapted to my stroller and come somewhere in the vicinity of being somewhat as timely as hopping in the car, it just isn't an option that can be easily adopted into my lifestyle. Regrettably, I'm part of the Big Oil machine just as much as everyone else.

Dear Everybody Else: Why aren't you more angry at Big Oil?

I am as affected by the hike in gas prices as anyone else. As a private citizen and owner of a home-based business, I now think twice and three times about where I need to go, how badly I need to go there, and if there's any way to avoid spending gas money to get there. Since public transport is not an option for me (to be explained in another post, but 'urban sprawl' and a 6-month-old baby is part of it) I am very car-dependent. I now try to avoid unnecessary car usage, and it's amazing how much car usage I now consider frivolous.

As angry and as cheated as I feel by Big Oil, for both overcharging me for gas AND for probably paying less in taxes to the government than I do, there are entire groups of influential commercial interests and associations that should be righteously pissed at Big Oil and the Colluding Government but who are strangely mute about the entire topic. They are not in the media, they are not in the faces of their elected leaders; they are largely silent when they should be using the Power of Many to kick and scream and shout.

I say that because not only am I cutting back on frivolous outings using the car, but I'm also finding it necessary to cut back on spending in my life just to be able to afford the gas for the necessary car travel.Here are a few examples of what I am cutting back on because of the price of gas, and how it will affect other businesses and industries who should be taking notes:

Garden Centres
Flowers are completely out this year. I love my hanging, flowering baskets and colorful planters as much as anyone else, but the flowers have become a luxury item I have to give up partly because of gas prices. I can't afford the gas it takes to drive to and from the garden center, and I can't afford to buy the flowers themselves. My almost complete lack of green thumb and my lifestyle do not allow me to try to grow the flowers from seeds, so I will go without. My home is the place house plants come to die - I have no idea how the few that survive manage to do so - therefore I am not about to grow flowers from seeds. Instead of growing weeds and flowers in the rock garden this summer, I'll stick to the free (and more successful - in my garden anyway) weeds only. The flower/garden industry takes a back seat to Big Oil.

Tourism (Hotels, Restaurants and Seasonal Stuff)
I know I'm not the only one staying home this year. Our annual tradition of driving Montreal-to-Florida is being scrapped this year, so no money spent in the motels and restaurants we use along the way, no shopping spree at the outlet mall, no gas being purchased at all. There's always the parents' cottage, but we'll only make the drive if the weather is guaranteed to be 100% gorgeous, and if this Spring is any indication (thanks, La Nina), the weather will be crappy this summer as well and we'll stay put. We used to go even if the weather was iffy, just for a change of pace and of scenery and to be with family, but not this year. And no spending in mom-n-pop greasy spoons for a hot dog and fries on the way, no attending special events in the village, no nice dinners by the lake. Along with no renting boats, no playing mini-golf, and no paying to spend the day at the municipal beach. And you can forget attending outdoor concerts, festivals and other events as well. There will be no Jazz Fest and no Just for Laughs for us this year. Big Oil wins over the entire tourism industry. Why aren't the major players in the tourism industry not losing their minds over this?

And while am at it... Hey, ski-doo industry: you got pissed off and tried to vilify the farmers who were entirely within their rights to refuse your noisy and polluting members passage on their land last winter. Oh woe, you cried, this is a tragedy as we help drive tourism industry and the economy! The mean farmers aren't allowed to 'hold you hostage' in order to fight for their rights. And yet you don't say a word about the (surely) thousands of people who didn't come out to ski-doo over our pristine landscapes because they couldn't afford to pay for the gas to get there, nor the gas to put into the ski-doo itself. Really, ski-doo industry? Really?

Entertainment
We've drastically cut down on restaurant eats. Going out to eat is rare, and I miss it.

Movies? No way I'm spending on going out to a movie, and I'm not renting them anymore either (much less buying them). They end up online or on the movie channel for free, so why pay to see them, why burn gas to go out to see or rent them? Hollywood, are you listening? Oh and you people over in the music industry can stop snickering, because I'm not buying music either, not on CD and not through iTunes.

And speaking of gadgets...
No new Blackberry, no new and nifty iAnything, no new digital camera, no new anything-than-doesn't-absolutely-need-to-be-replaced. Why aren't Gates and Jobs and Balsillie not saying anything about this? (Maybe because Steve Jobs still made bajillions with the iPad, but he could have made tens of bajillions, dammit!)

New clothes? Spa?
I'll be wearing last year's stuff, thanks. I already chaff at the 200%+ mark-ups in the rag industry, and now that I need to save my gas money, it gives me extra incentive to stay home and away from the mall. And driving around for spa treatments? Uh, no.

Long Live DIY
We will be opening and maintaining the pool ourselves this year, like we've been doing for the past few years. If it were an above-ground pool, we'd have taken it down already and gone without. But the in-ground costs more to take out than to just start up and keep from going green, so we spend the minimum we can on it and cross our fingers that the weather will allow us to use it (we definitely don't heat it anymore). We cut our own grass with a manual (not gas) mower. We clean our own windows, clean our own gutters, and start up our own sprinkler system. And I don't say this because I want pity for taking care of my own damn property my own damn self, I mention this because North America doesn't manufacture things anymore, we are a society that is service-based. So if people stop buying services from gardeners, window-washers and pool maintainers, where does that leave our recovering economy?

Out of the recession?
Harper likes to brag about how Canada is now out of the recession and one of the strongest G-Whatever economies. How nice for him, but it's costing us at least $1000 to $1500 more in gas money this year, so our personal recession is far from over and honestly, it's beginning to feel like a personal depression, not a recovery. And if others are cutting back on tourism, travel and luxury spending like flowers, I'm not convinced that businesses outside Big Oil feel that the recession is over.

It cost us $94 to fill the tank yesterday with the cheapest gas at the cheapest station we could find in our area. It will last us about a week, maybe less, depending on how many business outings we have to make. But ask Big Oil to pay $94 in taxes, and they'll weep you a river of crude (which they will then refuse to clean up or take responsibility for, go on a year later to announce that they made 6 pantillion dollars of profit that year). And all that has Harper's stamp of approval in it.

(On a side note, the environmentally-sensitive woman in me is not unhappy about the change in lifestyle that gas prices have imposed on our family. Some of the changes would be permanent even if the price of gas were to decrease, just because the changes are the right thing to do. But other things? Yeah, I'd like to have flowers in my planters, and cleaning the gutters with my klutzy and accident-prone husband up a ladder is something I'd like to avoid, and something that I'd pay for which has little impact on the ecosystem...)