Pantry Raid!!

Posted by Sheryl on March 7, 2012

This is a guest post from Sheryl (a.k.a Cdn Gwen) in Ontario, who is 40 years old with a grown daughter, and is trying to rebuild her retirement dream just 20 years too late for early retirement.

One area I’m still guilty of overspending compulsive spending is groceries.  I think that in my past, I could justify “retail therapy” if it was something that would benefit my family, and not go to waste.  Effectively what I’ve done is tricked myself into thinking I’ve tamed the spending beast.  The more I’ve been watching what I spend money on, the more I feel I’m getting this under control, and I know I can only fight one big beast at a time.

I feel I’m ready to set a small challenge to myself.  In my food stock, I have several odd ingredients that have accumulated from different sources.  Sometimes I see a recipe I’d like to try (and then don’t get to it ) that has a random thing in it that I have to purchase (and if I see it on sale, I’ll buy two, such as coconut milk or curry paste), or a friend will be clearing out her cupboard and offer me things she hasn’t used and doesn’t think she will (four graham crumb crusts), or my daughter, the vegan, will come for dinner and bring sauces which we will use only half of and leave them here (black bean and garlic sauce, tapenade, mushroom stir fry oil), or my boyfriend will go shopping and buy something he thought was something else (frozen Chinese steam buns instead of wontons).  Time to use these up.

My challenge for myself for the month of March is to use all all the odd foods in my pantry.  Some will just be a matter of making sure I use them (Chinese steam buns, stir fry sauces), others I’ll have to make an effort to make something with (graham cracker crusts = cheesecake = not good for my weight loss challenge at work, but at least my boyfriend loves cheesecake).  The biggest challenge I see is finding a use for the coconut milk and the tapenade.

Anyone have any suggestions how to use these items?  What are your odd foods in your food stock?

Seven Post Links

Posted by Tim Stobbs on October 21, 2011

Well the seven link meme has been running around the blog-o-sphere for a while and I got tagged by Jacq from Single Mom Rich Mom, somehow she assumed I’m running out of stuff to say after doing this for almost five years and 1200 posts later (yes there will be a contest and prizes in early Nov).  Ironically I have a back list of posts I need to write…I still have too much material, but I blame that on my fellow writers here on Canada Dream (yep, I’m looking Robert, Dave and Sheryl). Keep up the great work of keeping me inspired!

1. Most beautiful post – By far I would have to say this post was my best where I told the story of how I dealt with my son being born 10 weeks early.
2. Most popular post – I have to say I don’t have the slightest clue how to rank posts as I don’t keep that close of an eye on the stats for each one.  Yet I think Dave’s post about wanting to live in a tiny house was great.
3. Most controversial. This is sort of hard to measure, but the one that stands out for me was the post when I talked about charity and how I don’t ever give money to any group that feeds people.
4. Most helpful post . I would have to say that should go to Robert’s post on TFSA Misconceptions…heck I even learned something from it.
5. Post whose success surprised me . Ugh, how do you really know that anyways?  I guess that one that did got a lot of attention was when I realized I no longer needed my day job.
6. Post I feel didn’t get the attention it deserved. I have always had a soft spot for this post, where I talk about how to start with personal finance and it doesn’t involve money.
7. Post I’m most proud of. It was a minor thing, but when I started to blog under my own name for the first time I felt really good about the decision.  Not to mention that paid off nicely when I got the offer to write for Moneyville which requires you to use your real name.

Who else should do this link post….hell I’m not going to research who has been missed so far on this one.  So consider this an open invitation for anyone else to post their seven links.

What the ‘Occupy’ Protesters Want

Posted by Tim Stobbs on October 20, 2011

With the number of protests starting to multiply, I’ve started to pay a little bit more attention to the Occupy movement.  While the mainstream media might be a bit confused by what the Occupy movement wants I find the answer a bit more obvious.

The rallying cry of the groups has been how the top 1% of the world has the majority of the wealth (at least in the US, Canada it is a bit more even).  People find this unfair and generally I have to agree.  Having several more million doesn’t marginally improve your life after the first few millions.  So the concept of billionaires is somewhat obscene.

The problem with the mainstream media and somewhat the protesters themselves is they know that this inequity is wrong, but don’t realize the issue isn’t really a problem.  Rather the wealth distribution is in fact a symptom of a much larger problem.

This is where some people start to lose my point, but I’ll try to explain this anyway.  The issue is in fact the hierarchy is basically married to our civilization.  From the company where you work to where you can choose to live there is a hierarchy which always will result in the concentration of wealth towards the top.  This isn’t to say the business you work for or where you live is evil, but rather the by product of our civilization.  By frame of reference when I say civilization I’m referring to 99.99% of the world population, the handful of tribes still living their traditional lifestyles in remote places are excused from this generalization.  Civilization as it stands is great for businesses and products, but rather sucks at being good for what people need.

So when you have any hierarchy it goes really well for those at the top.  They get the best of everything while everyone else just gets what is left over.  So occasionally the masses get so pissed off and remove those from the top of the hierarchy by way of revolution and then  put others into the top of the hierarchy.  Things might improve marginally for the masses at that point, but generally speaking things will end up in a similar point in the future because the hierarchy still exists and you will end up with concentration of wealth at the top.  The problem isn’t the people involved, but rather the social structure we keep using.

In the end, the Occupy movement really doesn’t want a different government or new banking rules, they want a different system than a hierarchy which effectively means an end to civilization itself.  The two concepts are so married to each other there is no way to replace the one without taking out the other.  This is why people find the entire moment without focus, because we refuse to even look at that idea.  We are terrified of the end of civilization, which is funny because the doesn’t mean the world will be worse off.  In fact, it might even get better.

So what other social organization could we use?  Well for humans we are lucky that we have several million years of evolutionary development that have weeded out the poor ones prior to our civilization.  The only other model that has survived is a tribe.  In a tribe, there may be a chief or leader, but this doesn’t make it a hierarchy since the leader is just another job that needs to be done and doesn’t make that person better than the rest of the tribe.  The downside of a tribe organization is you are limited to smaller groups since you need to know your other members to keep them accountable. So even if you used a tribe of tribes model (basically each tribe would have a representative in a larger group the represents all the tribes in a small region) to increase the total number of people in a area your upper limit for organization would be perhaps a couple 100,000 or so.  Likely less than that.

Now some people might reject this idea out of hand by pointing out many First Nations in Canada and the US have tribes and they have serious problems like poverty, crime and other social issues.  This is rather an unfair comparison since this is rather like comparing a healthy person you work with with someone in a  hospital dying of cancer since they both have brown hair.  First Nations have had a cultural collapse from what our civilization did to them, so they aren’t functioning the same capacity of what they used to do.  Their social fabric that once made them a successful tribe is utter been destroyed (By the way, how do I know they were successful? They were here we our civilization arrived, everything else had been weeded out by evolution).

So that is what the Occupy movement really wants: the end of civilization.  They want to address the core of the hierarchy.  Yet that kind of change would utterly alter our world.  Nothing would be exactly the same again.  Yet really, this won’t entirely be a bad thing since after all our civilization doesn’t have that good of a track record: global pollution, poverty, crime….you know.  It frankly can’t get much worse and for a species as creative as ours it makes sense to experiment with things when you realize they don’t work so well.

So what do you think the Occupy protesters want?