What to do on a rainy Saturday...

(Note presence of helpful floor cleaner)

Put 4 pies (unbaked) in freezer. Keep one out for lunch treats. Trade one for a steak and shrimp dinner at Mom & Dad's tonight.

A day well spent.

I'm living in a dream world, apparently.

I've recently been debating the whole "US vs. Canadian healthcare" system recently, with some friends and some Internet strangers.

And apparently, I know nothing about my own heathcare system. (According to one blogger anyway.)

You see, I'm almost 40 years old. I've lived in 6 different cities/towns/villages in two different provinces. I know people in almost every province (except PEI) and even in two of the territories. I have met literally thousands of people through work and volunteer efforts, from all tax brackets, from very rich to very poor. I know surgeons, doctors, and nurses.

I personally know Canadians who have or had breast cancer, a brain tumor, skin cancer, hip replacement, knee replacement, pace makers, organ transplants, gall bladder removal, leg amputation, high-risk pregnancy, cataracts, hernias, lung cancer, stomach cancer, heart attack, stroke, infectious diseases by the boat load...

And not ONE OF THEM HAS EVER COMPLAINED ABOUT THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. Or wait times. Or the "fact" they couldn't choose their own doctor (an outright lie, BTW). Or anything, really. Sure, they may bitch about waiting around the ER for a few hours until they are seen for a non-emergency issue. And they may bitch about a particular doctor/nurse/technician (ask me about my "viral infection of the cartilage" one day, or the nurse that insisted on drawing blood from my right arm instead of my left, since she couldn't believe a young child actually knew which of her veins was better choice, having had to give blood every 3-4 months for years at that point). But that isn't a product of our system, simply human nature and the medical profession and system as a whole.

But my offering that up as evidence that our system does actually function is paltry compared to the clip someone once saw about some Canadian who had to go to the US or they would have died!! And that we as a country have nothing to compare our system to, so we cannot make valid comparisons (the hypocrisy of that statement is apparently missed by those who make it).

I have absolutely nothing to say about the US heathcare system - it is NONE of my concern. But I do get annoyed when misinformation about my country is used to argue the matter. One would hope that the debate could be done on it's own merits, but apparently not. All one has to do is look at the rumor that the 9-11 terrorists came from Canada that is still floating around - and is still believed by some high-ranking US politicians - to realize that facts are unimportant in the game of one-upmanship and point scoring that is politics.

Guilty, your Honour

If I lived in Raleigh, North Carolina, I could be charged with animal abuse.

My yard has no fence, and, until many more important issues are taken care of (like insulation, electrical work, drywall, etc. etc. etc.), it won't be getting one. Additionally, I have to make a decision about the four trees in the backyard (they are 80+ years old, have a lot of dead wood and some are starting to rot at the base. I need to get someone in to assess their health, and decide if they need to come down). Once that decision is made, then I need to figure out what I want to do with certain areas of the yard, which will finally lead to the decision of which areas will be fenced and which won't. There was also no storage for yard items, like lawn mowers, which led to the shed building of a few weeks ago. During construction, I tethered Kip outside.

For more than 3 hours.

Without access to food.

Mind you, I was outside with Kip that entire time, and obviously, I didn't break the spirit of the law. But I quite possibly broke the letter of that law.

This is my main problem with many animal anti-cruelty laws (and many laws in general). They are enacted to address a specific problem (in this case, dogs left tethered for the majority of their lives), but end up being so vague and broad that they could be used against a regular, non-abusive dog owner. All it takes is a nosy neighbour, a power-hungry animal control officer, someone out to make trouble, your local animal-rights activist...

Mind you, that link isn't to the law itself, just to an article about it. Hopefully, there are exclusions in the actual law to prevent situations like mine being considered as against the law. But there are many examples of laws having unintended consequences, and I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't another one.

P is for propaganda

Why I hate PETA.

I have a theory about any large non-profit organization, from unions to charities to PETA. At some point, they become more about the promotion and continuation of the organization than about the causes they espouse or the people/animals they are supposed to help.

I give the origins of PETA, and the majority of it's supporters, the benefit of the doubt. Their hearts are in the right place. (And I'll forbear to discuss why I despise that statement, except to say I wish their BRAINS were in the right place instead).

So, why do I hate PETA? I could discuss certain statements their leaders have made, and how I disagree with them. I could talk about the idiocy of their protests, and how equating dog breeding with the KKK or Hitler is the lowest or the low, and completely diminishes the suffering of the humans that were subject to such cruelty (and I could note that those protesting have never suffered anything close to genocide or slavery, and co-opting those issues in an attempt to legitimize their own issues should give them entre into the lowest levels of hell). I could find a PETA supporter, and go through their house and life, pointing out where they themselves are benefiting from the "abuse" of animals:

- the medications they take were most likely first tested on animals.
- any old books or furniture they own mostly likely made use of hide glues or horse-hair.
- the vegan diet they eat, and the cotton/hemp/linen clothing they wear, depends on vast acres of mono-culture that, even if grown organically, reduces wild-life habitat. If they truly cared that much, they should subsist on a gatherer lifestyle only. And go naked.

However, there is one main reason that, for me, completely puts PETA into the realm of noisy whackjobs for me.

They use propaganda to make their point.

I cannot adequately explain the depth of my abhorrence for propaganda. Even if it's for a cause I believe in and support, I don't agree with it's use. Any organization that uses propaganda is really making two points:


1. People are too stupid to understand the issue
2. Our argument is too weak to rely on facts


And that's what PETA is saying every time they speak on an issue.

Some purebred dogs have health issues. Yep. I completely agree. But let's not discuss genetics, gene frequency, the role of the breed clubs, kennel clubs, and breeders; let's not try to educate people on what to look for in a good breeder, and why breeding stock should be tested for genetic issues; let's not explain to people the myth of "hybrid" vigour when it comes to dog breeds. No. Let's assume the people are too stupid to understand any of that, and let's admit it takes too long to adequately explain the issue and let the people make up their own mind. And let's simply equate dog breeding to the KKK, dress up in robes and protest outside Westminster. Because that makes the newscasts, gets our name out there, and will make us money.

Let's re-name fish as "Sea Kittens", and try to brainwash children into thinking their parents are the scum of the earth, instead of teaching children about sustainable food production.

Let's make misleading statements about meat and milk production, and use newspaper articles as "primary" sources.

Let's use outrageous propaganda to increase awareness of our organization, because it's actually not about the animals anymore.

And let's assume humans are too stupid to understand the facts, the many sides of the arguments, and should never be allowed to think and make up their own minds, Because that may reduce the amount of money we make.


P is for propaganda.


And it disgusts me.

All stunts performed without a ruler

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, someone asked if anyone had trained their dog to put their toys away in a basket. This was my answer:

I tried. Mr. Potato Brain (aka Kip) would put one toy in the box. Then he would go get a second toy, bring it to the box.... I think the conversation in his head went something like this....

"Hey! Let's clean up the toys. I'll put Mr. Squirrel in the box. Now I'll go got Mr. Squeaky Ball. HEY!!!! Look, it's Mr. Squirrel!!!! I haven't seen him in ages!! Wow, lets play with Mr. Squirrel. Bored with Mr. Squirrel, let put him in the box - holy Moses, it's Mr. Squeaky Ball!!!!!!!"

So only one toy was ever in the box at one time. If I put the toys in the box, Mr. Potato Brain decides that the toys are complaining about being in the box, and so removes all of them.

So I gave up. The toys are all over the house. Sigh.

.................................................................................................

Basically, the toys are in their proper place if they are where Kip put them. If I move them, they are, by default, in the wrong place. (It's actually not all bad, since this trait can be exploited, I mean used, to entertain Kip on rainy/snowy/nowayinhellwe'regoingforawalkinthatweather days - I put all the toys somewhere, Kip goes and gets them. Wash, rinse and repeat.)

Yesterday, however...


I especially love the color-coded thing he has going on.

(Please note the carpet is actually worse in person. And no, I have no idea what made that stain. I try not to think about it. I cannot WAIT to tear it up)

Newton's Third Law and Dog Training

"To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Newton's Third Law of Motion.

And, the first law of dog training. Confession time first. Kip is my first dog, and he is only 2 years old. So, I don't have a lot of experience in dog training. But, being the left-brained type I am, I have invested hours in reading about dog training, talking about dog training, discussing dog training, arguing about dog training... and watching dogs. And of course, training Kip.

In that entire time, I have had a natural abhorrence for gentle leaders, front-clip harnesses (actually, harnesses in general) and the like for walking dogs. My opinion is that every dog should be taught to walk nicely on a simple collar and leash. And that those devices (herein after called GL/Hs for the sake of conciseness) simply prevent certain actions, but do not actually train the dog to walk nicely.

But today, I had a breakthrough. I figured out why GL/Hs don't work.

Because they punish instead of correct.

Yep, you heard me, they punish.

Stay with me here, we're about to take a detour.

Let's look at a dog that barks at the mailman. To simplify it, the mailman is a stimulus (S), and the barking is a reaction (R).

Thus, a dog that barks:

S ==> R

Now, enter the human. Generally, humans at this point will act in some manner to quiet the dog (Action, A).

S ==> R ==> A

But, an action that comes after the reaction is actually punishment (P), and any dog that learns from punishment is learning through fear. This is why trainers will tell you disciplining a dog after the fact for doing something wrong doesn't work.

S ==> R ==> A ==> P

Most trainers will agree on how you stop a dog from barking - you understand the stimulus, and stop the barking before it starts. You correct (C) the behaviour before it starts by reading the dog's body language. The onus is on the human, not the dog, to prevent the reaction, and to reward either the lack of reaction (NR) or a wanted secondary action.

S ==> C ==> NR ==> reward

That's what I've done with Kip. I know when he's about to bark simply by reading his body language. Stopping the subsequent barking started out with a larger correction on my part (clapping my hands, grabbing his collar, etc), but is now down to either a verbal cue ("shht") or just a look from me. And he gets rewarded (verbal praise) for not barking. If I'm not in the room, he gets rewarded for giving a single bark, then coming to find me (a wanted secondary action).

So, what does this have to do with leashes and collars? It sets up why those devices that prevent behaviour are actually working as punishment.

Please note - I am not using the term punishment to mean physically harming the dog, etc. I'm using in to describe an action on the humans part in response to an unwanted behaviour, after the dog has done it. Thus, yelling at your dog for barking is punishment. Traditional house-training ("rub his nose in it") is punishment. Any action on your part to change a behaviour after the dog has done it is punishment. In contrast, a correction is something given to a dog to prevent a behaviour. A verbal cue when you see your puppy start to squat in the house to prevent him from peeing is a correction. A hand signal given to keep a dog sitting before the dog can break the sit is a correction.

Corrections train; punishments either don't train at all, or do so by fear.

So, what do GL/Hs do?

The dog is walking on leash, and encounters a stimulus. The dog then reacts, generally by running towards (or away from) the stimulus, until it is prevented from doing so by the device.

S ==> R ==> A

But remember, any action that comes after the reaction is punishment.

S ==> R ==> A ==> P

So, anyone relying solely on a GL/H to prevent an unwanted action is actually punishing their dog for reacting to the stimulus.

Now, what do prong/choke/shock collars do? When used properly, they prevent the reaction. When learning how to properly use one, you are told to watch the dog, and act before the dog reacts. Thus, they are corrections. And the lack of reaction is rewarded.

S ==> C ==> NR ==> reward

And that is why they are so effective at training dogs.

I admit, you can probably use GL/Hs in an effective manner to prevent the reaction, again by watching the body language of the dog and using it to prevent a reaction (and many people misuse prongs, etc., as punishments). But no one that I have ever heard recommend them talks about that. It's simply "use it, and it prevents your dog from doing X". In other words, the onus is on the device, not the human. That's why it's easy to use. That's why so many people swear by them.

But that's also why they will never work in training any dog to be able to walk on a simple collar and leash, unless the human on the other end of the leash knows the difference between corrections and punishments.

Is it sustainability or frugality?

I've been pondering this for a while. When I was house hunting, I had a definite list of wants. I wanted a 3 bedroom house (yes, even though I'm the only human that lives here, 3 bedrooms gives me the ability to have both a home office and a guest room). I wanted a lot that was either fenced or fence-able (it's all about the dog, you know). I wanted a dining room. I wanted a house in a certain price range, but that was structurally sound. I wanted a house with a garage, and that was close to the water.

All of those were "wants" not needs (well, except for the structurally sound bit!). I was willing to compromise.

The one thing that I was not willing to compromise on?

A large, sunny lot.

Because I believe in living a sustainable lifestyle, as much as I possibly can.

This, for various reasons, will be my first vegetable garden since childhood (trying to grow tomatoes on a small, shaded balcony in Saskatoon does not count). And boy, do I have plans.

I want beans, and peas, and radishes and lettuce, and tomatoes (gotta have tomatoes) and peppers both sweet and hot, and herbs. I want rhubarb, and strawberries and raspberries. Asparagus. And cucumbers. And maybe corn. Possibly potatoes. And of course onions and garlic. And and and...

There are a lot of reasons for this. I love gardening, both food and flower. I think what you grow yourself is better for you, and if we all did it, we would substantially reduce our burden on this planet (think of the gas required to get strawberries grown in South America to Canada). And as much as I love mowing the lawn, I would love to mow a smaller lawn that much more.

I have been reading books, and surfing the web, and reading different blogs about sustainable living (like this one. And this. And this. And this fantastic one (maybe I can get a hawk??) And I've already mentioned this one).

I've joined a frugal living group on Yahoo, looking to learn from their experience.

And I learned something I had previously known, but had forgotten. Frugal doesn't necessarily mean sustainable.

I try to live my life, and let others live theirs. If what someone is doing doesn't impact me, then, really, do I have the right to criticize (obviously not talking about human rights abuses, etc.)? But since when is the definition of frugality "get as much processed food as you can as cheaply as possible"?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not some granola-eating, Birkenstock-wearing hippy (although I do love granola, and actually have all the ingredients on hand to make my own). I drive a 6-cylinder car with leather seats (heated leather seats. Hey, I live in Canada. We have winter here. It's long and cold. And besides, I bought the car off the lot and it came that way :) ). I have a small passion for Kraft Dinner (that would be Kraft Mac & Cheese for my southern neighbours). I have been known to eat at McDonalds on occasion (and (treason!!) I think McDs has better coffee than Tim Hortons!).

This "frugal" living group is interesting. There are tons of posts about coupon clipping. To teach others how to get a passel of frozen dinners for little or no money (about what they are worth, in my mind). Post after post after post about how to stretch a jar of salsa - but nary a one suggesting making your own. Baking bread? Nope. Growing herbs? Nope.

And the only gardening post was one discussing something called a "topsy-turvey" (those work out to $18 each, BTW, plus tax!).

So when did frugal become solely about getting manufactured good cheaply? I understand people are busy. I know that raising kids is a lot of work. But you know what? Both of my parents worked, raised three kids, and had a large vegetable garden. My mom had a large cold cellar filled top-to-bottom, side-to-side with shelves of home canning. They made their own wine, before kits were available - that means actually buying the grapes and crushing and pressing them.

I know families today who do the same thing (try twin toddlers, a job, many social commitments (both parents are very active in the community), and yet still able to have a fantastic yard full of flowers and vegetables). It is doable.

When did people stop gardening? When did the lawn become the focus of the yard? When did it become normal to spend a small fortune on flowering plants, but nothing on a plant that would productively put food on your table?

So, is sustainability frugal?

I think it can be. I'll be building raised beds (heavy clay soil is not ideal for growing), and will have to buy the lumber, soil and some great compost/manure to get it going (this will be next year, again, for various reasons). I will also buy a composter and possibly rain barrels. I need to buy a large freezer (I feed Kip raw, so there tends to be a lot of meat in the freezer at any given time.). I need to stock up on canning jars and lids (I have some now, but will need more).

So that first year, the garden will in no way be frugal.

But every year after that? Hell yes! Especially if I can save seeds.

Sorry for the overly-long rant! And excuse me for now - I have to go research something called "lasagna" gardening...

Gavin is my hero

I was thinking of a post, outlining what I want to do with the yard eventually - a nice patio, maybe a garage down the road, lots of flower beds, and the best - a large vegetable garden. I want rhubarb and asparagus, and lettuce and radishes and peppers and peas and beans and tomatoes, you HAVE to have tomatoes, and maybe corn, and strawberries, and I might have room for a raspberry patch and and and and and...

This goes along with something I have been thinking a lot about recently, and something I have been interested in for years - sustainability.

So, I was looking over other blogs, getting ideas about my eventual garden, and thinking about how great I was going to be for growing most of my own produce (at least for a few months every year).

Yeah me!

Then I stumbled on Gavin's blog.

Gavin makes his own cheese.


Makes. His. Own. Cheese.


In addition to having a hybrid car, a great garden, a rain barrel and solar panels. And chickens. And he does all this in a relatively small suburban house in Australia.


He makes his own cheese!!!!


And to add insult to injury, he even makes Wallace and Grommit references whilst writing entertaining blog entries about making said cheese.

Gavin really is my hero - he shows exactly what one person, one family, one community can do to make our world a better place.

So please, go drop in on his blog, have a look around, and tell him how inspiring he is.


I wonder what the town by-laws here have to say about chickens...

The end is nigh

Dad came back for a couple of hours this afternoon, and finished the shed. Yippee yahoo!

The ramp is fixed (it now reaches the ground!) and the windows are insulated around with spray foam (not for insulation value, since the shed is unheated, but to keep the critters out - there was a lot of space around the windows).

The cross ties are up, which gives me a dandy overhead storage space for leftover wood (as well as proving a bit more structural strength).

And there is less leftover wood, as I talked Dad into building me a small workbench with some of it - thanks Dad!!

As for pictures - as soon as I get it organized, I'll take and post them!

What day is it??

Yesterday was the last big day on the shed. The shingling was finished and the fascia was put up. (And taken down, and put up, and taken down...). I finally installed the door handle, and, after Dad drilled the holes, installed the dead bolt and chiseled the parts of the frame that needed it to install the plates for the handle and deadbolt. I rawk at chiseling now, if anyone needs any help.

We also made and installed the ramp. And then realized it didn't actually reach the ground. And yes, this is how most things go! But, we can keep our sense of humour, and find a lot to laugh at, which helps!



So later today, the cross ties will be put up, and the ramp fixed, then that's it!

Except organizing the inside, and painting the door, but that can wait.

The final costs all aren't in, but as an estimate, the shed, in total, will cost ~$1900, including tax.

Let's compare that to the Home Despot shed I was looking at, which was $900 plus tax ($1017 total).

That shed was 8x8, while this is 10x10 (which is an extra 36 square feet - a 50%+ increase compared to the 8x8 shed!!).

That shed didn't include the base (~$390) or roofing (~$225).

That shed wasn't sided, and needed to be painted (~$500 for siding, much less for paint, of course, but a painted shed needs much more maintenance).

I'm not sure if that kit included all nails and screws which I spent ~$175 on (some of that will be used in the house as well, but for the shed alone, the fasteners probably cost over $50).

And that shed was definitely not as well-made as this shed is.

So, the Home Despot shed would have cost in total, ~$1650 plus paint and whatever fasteners are required.

For less than $300 more, I got a better and bigger shed - completely thanks to Dad. Without him, NONE of this would have been possible!!

(and it's shed day 10, for those that are keeping track)