Knitting is the new drinking

Casting about for a blog topic today, I was constantly distracted by my latest obsession. So now I'm killing the proverbial two birds and writing about said obsession here. What is that, exactly?

Knitting.

Stop laughing now. Really. Knitting.

It's regained popularity as a hobby for men and women in the last decade, but that's not how I got roped (yarned?) into it. I was sucked in by my own frugality.

I started a new job just before Christmas, having been purposely unemployed since the previous April. Needless to say, cash was tight, and I wouldn't receive a paycheque in time to buy baubles for my nieces and nephews.

Foreseeing this in November, I decided that I would re-teach myself the craft my grandmothers had taught me as a child. I knit myself a scarf and then proceeded to knit like fiend and produce seven handmade presents for said siblings' offspring. It also helped to pass the time whilst broke, living in London, and searching for work.

I took a knitting break after that, as knitting related shoulder injuries had taken their toll. Last month, however, I jumped back in and started off knitting something for myself. Yay self!

No simple scarves or hats for me, oh no. Straight to the land of sweaters I went, and knit myself a serviceable vest. How quaint.

I found out something else as well. Yarn is not the yarn of my childhood. Yarn has gone upscale. Mohair, angora, alpaca, merino, cashmere, silk…the first time I walked into the local yarn store, I was sunk.

Now the shelves in my living room are starting to resemble a haberdashery, I spend more time on Ravelry than on Facebook, and I'm developing eye strain problems from knitting in pubs.

The real reason knitting has become an obsession is quite simple, really. It's a time and thought consuming exercise that blocks out every other swirling thought in my busy brain. Stressed as I am over my dad's illness, it isn't any wonder that I've sought some form of escape.

Bring on the DNA tank top, my friend.

I fell in to a burning ring of fire...

The world is shifting. It changes imperceptibly every day through processes we don't even notice, such as erosion.

Sometimes Mother Nature likes to flex her geological muscles. Bit of a show off, she is.

I'm not going to explain geology to you, so if you don't know anything about plate tectonics, please go read up on it and then come back to this post.

When a plate starts to release, it triggers different reactions. Earthquakes along fault lines, subsidence, water table changes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis. Sometimes the signs are so small we can't even tell, unless we're connected into sensors and actually follow press releases from geological associations.

When new islands form, however, we notice. When volcanoes spew ash thousands of feet into the stratosphere, we notice.

The Pacific plate is big, and it's grumpy. More importantly, it's releasing energy along its perimeter, also known as the ring of fire.

Mount Redoubt erupted in Alaska. Last week, a new island (and lots of pumice) burst out of the ocean near Tonga, creating tsunami fears. It looks like we're in for a little bit of a show, courtesy of Nature herself.

The only problem is, Nature isn't a person, has no emotion, and doesn't give a rat's ass about anything on the face of this planet. We might like to think we're actors in her play, but we aren't even an important part prop. We're little masses of expendable carbon-based material that will eventually be recycled back into the depths and converted into something else.

With that kind of fatalism in mind, I am curious as to what will happen around the Pacific rim next.

Earthquake wise, the ring of fire shakes all the time. Significant shaking happened in 2004-2006, most notably killing thousands in a tsunami, along with thousands more perishing in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Tonga in separate seismic shakeups. This period also includes the 7.6 magnitude quake in Pakistan.

But that doesn't mean any of it was related, according to the China Post. At least, they thought it didn't in 2006. But what about now? Are we in for another seismic rumbler of a year?

Something to keep in mind whilst booking my vacation, at any rate.

Think before you eat

The traditional food fad has me worried. Throw it in with all the hubbub about "recession grocery shopping" and it's enough to make me...snack on something.

In recent months, certain prominent chefs and foodies have been praising the return to "traditional" and "local" foods. In the northern hemisphere, this entails eating seasonal veggies, making use of wild game, planning weekly meals more carefully, eating out less, and the resurgence of hearty meals from Grandma's cookbook.

I applaud eating local produce and meat. I also applaud keeping food traditions alive. Where this movement falls apart is in portion control and frequency.

Traditionally, our grandparents and great-grandparents lived in a more physically active world. They walked a lot more, worked in more manually taxing positions, and burned a great deal more calories in a day than I would in a week. In winter, they were often exposed to the cold and lived/worked in colder, draftier buildings. Colder temperatures mean more calories needed to keep the body warm.

Those comforting pot pies, roasts, and bakes provided those people with the calories they needed to get through the day. However many articles I type, I will never burn the equivalent amount of energy.

Therein lies the problem. Our diets do not reflect the change in our lifestyle. We are fat, and getting fatter. The more sedate we become, the worse the problem will become. Next thing you know, we'll be drinking food through straws, zooming around on hover beds in a robot world.

I like roasts. I like pot pie, potato scallop, pork chops fried in mushroom gravy, Yorkshire pies, and meatloaf. Don't even get me started on desserts. The secret is that I don't eat them every day.

Some restaurants will serve you an obscene amount of food, much more than you could possibly eat. The more expensive the restaurant, the more controlled and realistic the portion.

The problem? Cash strapped individuals eating at cheaper joints, consuming more food. These same people are also cracking open the cookbook and making their own food more often.

The second problem is that most recipes provide a minimum of four servings. Left overs are wasteful, right? No one charges you for a refill or a second plate. Good thing you have more sense than that.

Or do we?

Moderation seems to be a foreign concept. We white Westerners are already more obese than anyone else in the world.

Think before you feed.

Toronto gets on the food wagon

How I loathe to write anything about Toronto, but this is news I cannot resist.

My favourite part of wandering the streets in Europe is the sheer variety of food available, usually 24 hours a day. Felafels, kebabs, couscous, salads, sushi, noodles, crepes, waffles, smoothies...you name it, you can find it on a cart here in London somewhere.

A particular favourite is the seafood shack at Cross Street/Essex Road in Islington. Street calamari? Oh yes. And I haven't been hospitalized with dysentry once.

Toronto claims to be cosmopolitan, but it isn't. Expanding the variety of vending options is a small step in the right direction. All claims of food safety aside, there isn't any reason why this shouldn't have happened long ago.

I look forward to a greater late night selection the next time I'm stumbling along Yonge Street in the wee sma's.

Canada's most trusted news source sinks to a new low

Afternoon coffee break found me browsing the headlines in the Canada section of the CBC website today. The sheer amount of scrolling and general bad website layout aside, I normally use the CBC as my main source of news.

Today's headlines from across the country are generally discussing important, newsworthy issues. More murders in Vancouver. Edmonton introduces zero-energy homes. Civil servant jobs slashed by 700 in NB. Newfoundland mourning the victims of helicopter crash.

In Ottawa? Three headlines. All city buses are now back on the road, two bodies were recovered from a lake...and the intriguing "Senators' pop star girlfriends draw another kind of fan."

I'm a hockey fan but my immediate thought was, "which Senators are dating pop stars?" I had awful images of Senators Duffy, Neufeld, and others I care not to describe. Thankfully the article was referring to hockey players, not members of the upper chamber. My feeling of relief, however, was very short lived.

In the middle of a recession, I don't want to know that Hilary Duff and Carrie Underwood are dating hockey players. I don't want to know that in the best of economic situations. Honestly, I don't care about it AT ALL. Neither should the CBC, in my opinion.

Celebrities appearing in a city isn't a news worthy event. If the celebrity is there supporting an event, or if they happen to be performing, that is PR. Not news. The personal lives of hockey players? Not news. That is private.

I'd like to think that the CBC news team has more integrity than to report on this type of tabloid nonsense, particularly in our capital where much more important stuff goes on daily.

The public's concept of what is "news" has been altered by the business of supplying it. I don't want to hear news that "sells" but news that is NEWS. Whether it be news down my street or news in my nation's capital, I want relevant, accurate, truthful news. Am I alone in this desire?

Celebrities are not news. Shame, CBC.

Don't Worry, Be Happy

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm back.

Canada has the strongest banking system in the world right now, according to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. We should be happy about it.

Thank goodness. All my friends who work in the banking industry are relieved they aren't facing the reality others (such as my friend who worked for Lehman has been wrestling with for six months) are facing. Canada may be in a better position than some, but thousands of people are losing their jobs, including members of that "mobile" workforce reliant on high oil prices fuelling oil sands development.

But all banking jokes aside, I suggest you watch the video of Mr. Harper reading the first real speech he's made about the recession. He wrote it himself. His big point? Cut the red tape, so infrastructure projects can move forward quickly.

According to Harper, there are two kinds of red tape. The first involves all the environmental impact assessments that must take place before a new infrastructure project is approved. The second is a cheeky reference to the Liberal dominated Senate debating his proposed economic stimulus package.

The nerve! The gall! How dare the Senators actually wake up and debate an incredibly important issue instead of passing it quickly!

The nerve, indeed. Almost as cheeky as the Conservatives tacking such issues as seniors and First Nation housing, pay equity, and changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act to an economic stimulus package.

Does an economic stimulus package need to be passed quickly? Yes, if you think one is needed at all. But blaming the slowness on the Liberals and the Senators is not going to wash.

Mr. Harper had a chance to propose a stimulus package before Christmas, but chose to wait for Mr. Obama's package first. Smart move, in my opinion. Anything the Americans do to prop up their economy will have a trickle down effect to Canada. Why should we spend our own dwindling pile of cash when we can piggyback?

He's taken his time, developed a comprehensive package. Or so he says. That's all well and good. Now he wants it implemented as soon as possible.

The problem with C-10 isn't that the economic stimulus package. It's all the other stuff tacked on that the Conservatives want pushed though with little or no debate.

I'm not falling for it. Neither are small businesses (who are affected by competition proposals in C-10), paddlers and recreational waterway users (who may lose waterway access and have waterways altered by fast tracked infrastructure projects), women working in the public sector (who will lose the ability to file complaints for pay equity), provincial governments affected by transfer payment changes (FYI, Quebec will receive more in transfer payments than all other provinces combined), First Nations people off-reserve (as the bill only addresses on-reserve needs), low-income and senior housing needs, students requiring financial assistance (don't worry, Bill C-10 says you don't have to pay back your loan if you're dead), and more.

I got tired of reading the bill, so I'll stop there. But that should also make it obvious that this bill has too much in it for a cursory approval trip.

So send it back, Senators, and demand the stimulus package be separate from all these other changes.

If you don't like it, Mr. Harper, then I suggest it's about time you did something about Senate reform other than appoint senators.