My older son plays minor hockey. The way they have it set up is there is a rotation of 4 practice times where each week the team gets one of the four practice slots in turn.
This past weekend his team had the Sunday morning 6 AM practice time. We made it on time but I found it hard to get up and get there. I had to take a couple of short naps during the day Sunday to recover. My son was very good to get up and he awoke right when I called him.
He had a second group practice for goalies as well at 12 noon. He went to that practice as usual but he was a bit sluggish. I think the early morning caught up to him a bit.
The 6 AM practices are part of hockey. I had them when I played when I was young. They are hard to get awake and moving for. I'm glad he only has them every fourth week.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
Gas Price Discounts
For some reason it took me a long time to realize there's no reason to ever pay full price for gas. There are plenty of rebates around.
The grocery store gas stations have 3.5 cents/litre rebates. That's the best discount I've seen. This is great because I shop at SuperStore and Sobey's so the coupons will get used on stuff that I was going to buy. It's great going into Sobeys and getting bread and milk for like $0.47 after using a gas coupon. SuperStore has an OralB ultra soft tootbrush that I like and using the gas rebate coupon makes buying it much more pleasant.
Ultramar has a value max card which is good for 2 cents a litre. That's not bad. There's also an Ultramar MasterCard available which they will give you a 2% discount on your statement if you use it to get gas at Ultramar. I might apply for that some time next year when I get my personal finances hopefully in better shape.
If you manage it properly it's OK to use the Ultramar credit card to buy gas. Keep the receipt and when you get home log into your Internet banking and make a payment from your chequing account to the credit card for the amount of the gas purchase. That way you're still only using money you have for gas while still getting the rebate benefit.
What I'd really like to do with Ultramar and I'm not sure if this is allowed is to pull off a triple discount next summer. Get a fill of gas then use Ultramar reveal a deal to get about $1 on average discount. Then pull out value max card and get 2 cents a litre. Then use the Ultramar MasterCard to pay the remainder and get a third discount. Gas is expensive and having to buy it several times a month sucks but getting a triple discount would be satisfying.
The grocery store gas stations have 3.5 cents/litre rebates. That's the best discount I've seen. This is great because I shop at SuperStore and Sobey's so the coupons will get used on stuff that I was going to buy. It's great going into Sobeys and getting bread and milk for like $0.47 after using a gas coupon. SuperStore has an OralB ultra soft tootbrush that I like and using the gas rebate coupon makes buying it much more pleasant.
Ultramar has a value max card which is good for 2 cents a litre. That's not bad. There's also an Ultramar MasterCard available which they will give you a 2% discount on your statement if you use it to get gas at Ultramar. I might apply for that some time next year when I get my personal finances hopefully in better shape.
If you manage it properly it's OK to use the Ultramar credit card to buy gas. Keep the receipt and when you get home log into your Internet banking and make a payment from your chequing account to the credit card for the amount of the gas purchase. That way you're still only using money you have for gas while still getting the rebate benefit.
What I'd really like to do with Ultramar and I'm not sure if this is allowed is to pull off a triple discount next summer. Get a fill of gas then use Ultramar reveal a deal to get about $1 on average discount. Then pull out value max card and get 2 cents a litre. Then use the Ultramar MasterCard to pay the remainder and get a third discount. Gas is expensive and having to buy it several times a month sucks but getting a triple discount would be satisfying.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
New Sneakers
I bought some new sneakers today. My old ones were getting pretty worn and ugly. It took some legwork.
I started out in Zellers. They had some Reebok that were not great, but OK. They were regular $50 and the sign said 25% off all athletic shoes. So great $37.50 for a pair of Reebok that are good enough to wear. Reebok tend to last well too.
I get to the cash and of course it scans at $50. I told the cashier they should be 25% off. She said that applied to different shoes, not the Reebok. This was incorrect but I couldn't be bothered to fight. I just walked out the door leaving the shoes behind.
I then checked out Cleve's. They had a sale on but there wasn't much that was nice in my size at a price I liked. Plus it was wall to wall people so I could harldly move around. I didn't see anything I liked at a good price so I left.
Then I tried Winners. With Winners it's all or nothing. I've gotten lucky there in the past and bought nice Saucony and Reebok there for a great price. This visit was a nothing visit. There were some Reebok that were painfully ugly and not much else.
From there on to Wal-Mart. At WM it was icky. Crowded and narrow aisles. Their selection was not very good. I didn't see any Nike, Reebok or Saucony. I bolted out of there.
Then I tried Payless. I like Payless and enjoy going there. It's a very pleasant store. Clean. Nice layout. Friendly staff. However their focus is on women's and children's shoes. Not much selection of men's sneakers. No Nike, Reebok or Saucony so no sale.
I was resigned to going back to Zellers to pay the $50 for the Reebok but then I realized I'd walked right past The Shoe Company. I gave them a try. They also have a nice big store focused almost entirely just on shoes. Their selection was good although nice shoes also tended to be pricey shoes. With some looking I was able to find some respectable sneakers in my size that were marked down.
So I bought some Nike cross trainers regular $70 marked down to $50. I think it was a good buy. I'll have to check out the Shoe Company sooner the next time I'm out to buy shoes.
I started out in Zellers. They had some Reebok that were not great, but OK. They were regular $50 and the sign said 25% off all athletic shoes. So great $37.50 for a pair of Reebok that are good enough to wear. Reebok tend to last well too.
I get to the cash and of course it scans at $50. I told the cashier they should be 25% off. She said that applied to different shoes, not the Reebok. This was incorrect but I couldn't be bothered to fight. I just walked out the door leaving the shoes behind.
I then checked out Cleve's. They had a sale on but there wasn't much that was nice in my size at a price I liked. Plus it was wall to wall people so I could harldly move around. I didn't see anything I liked at a good price so I left.
Then I tried Winners. With Winners it's all or nothing. I've gotten lucky there in the past and bought nice Saucony and Reebok there for a great price. This visit was a nothing visit. There were some Reebok that were painfully ugly and not much else.
From there on to Wal-Mart. At WM it was icky. Crowded and narrow aisles. Their selection was not very good. I didn't see any Nike, Reebok or Saucony. I bolted out of there.
Then I tried Payless. I like Payless and enjoy going there. It's a very pleasant store. Clean. Nice layout. Friendly staff. However their focus is on women's and children's shoes. Not much selection of men's sneakers. No Nike, Reebok or Saucony so no sale.
I was resigned to going back to Zellers to pay the $50 for the Reebok but then I realized I'd walked right past The Shoe Company. I gave them a try. They also have a nice big store focused almost entirely just on shoes. Their selection was good although nice shoes also tended to be pricey shoes. With some looking I was able to find some respectable sneakers in my size that were marked down.
So I bought some Nike cross trainers regular $70 marked down to $50. I think it was a good buy. I'll have to check out the Shoe Company sooner the next time I'm out to buy shoes.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Haircut
I got a haircut last night. I went to First Choice Haircutters. I'd checked prices and First Choice was $11.49 for a haircut and Wal-Mart was $13.95.
It's not bad, I just get my hair cut short so I don't think It's complicated. It's a $12 haircut so you get what you pay for. I'll just let my hair grow out again for 6-8 weeks and get another haircut when it starts getting too long.
I need to fix my personal finances so I can afford a regular hairdresser in the $18-$25 range and get more frequent haircuts, around one a month. I'm now working on it.
It's not bad, I just get my hair cut short so I don't think It's complicated. It's a $12 haircut so you get what you pay for. I'll just let my hair grow out again for 6-8 weeks and get another haircut when it starts getting too long.
I need to fix my personal finances so I can afford a regular hairdresser in the $18-$25 range and get more frequent haircuts, around one a month. I'm now working on it.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Avoidable Traffic Accident
I saw a traffic accident in Bayers Lake last week at this intersection.
What happened was car A started in the right hand on ramp. Then a big truck came roaring through the intersection at high speed. Car A choose to stop. Unfortunately car B behind him started after A trying to get through with A ahead of the truck. Car B wasn't looking at A and ran right into him from behind. I was taking the left and saw A's rear bumper on the ground.
This must be about the most avoidable car accident. If you are behind someone on a ramp waiting to take the right, do not even look out your left window at oncoming traffic. Look straight ahead only and make sure the car in front of you has gone into traffic and you are at the front of the line. Do not even look out your left window until you are at the front of the line.
What people like the car B driver often do which is very bad is they assume the driver ahead will go in a borderline window of opportunity. They then aggressively try to piggyback tight behind the first car and also get onto the road within car A's chance. Now if A chooses not to go then B has no time to stop and may not even be looking at A when he slams into his rear, a bonehead move causing an accident.
When you consider the time and money lost by being at fault in a car accident, trying to save a couple of seconds by aggressively piggybacking behind someone on a right ramp turn into traffic is not worth attempting.
What happened was car A started in the right hand on ramp. Then a big truck came roaring through the intersection at high speed. Car A choose to stop. Unfortunately car B behind him started after A trying to get through with A ahead of the truck. Car B wasn't looking at A and ran right into him from behind. I was taking the left and saw A's rear bumper on the ground.
This must be about the most avoidable car accident. If you are behind someone on a ramp waiting to take the right, do not even look out your left window at oncoming traffic. Look straight ahead only and make sure the car in front of you has gone into traffic and you are at the front of the line. Do not even look out your left window until you are at the front of the line.
What people like the car B driver often do which is very bad is they assume the driver ahead will go in a borderline window of opportunity. They then aggressively try to piggyback tight behind the first car and also get onto the road within car A's chance. Now if A chooses not to go then B has no time to stop and may not even be looking at A when he slams into his rear, a bonehead move causing an accident.
When you consider the time and money lost by being at fault in a car accident, trying to save a couple of seconds by aggressively piggybacking behind someone on a right ramp turn into traffic is not worth attempting.
Monday, July 02, 2007
The environment
Our environment seems to be in the news more recently. There have been a number of serious reports around global warming and emissions. There is some scary stuff of what we could be in for the next 4 generations in some of the projections. That's like within all of our lifetimes, near enough that we can't ignore it as some future problem we don't have to care about today.
Sometimes I think about the environment and I wonder if a major factor in the damage to the environment is being consciously or unconsciously overlooked. That factor is the single family detached and semi detached house.
I mean think about it. The Kingswood subdivision which is typical in Canada has been described as "800 acres, 800 houses". That's a pretty inefficient and wasteful use of land for the number of people living there. Most people there has to drive a long way to commute to work, typically in downtown Halifax. Clogging traffic and spewing emissions.
Then there's oil heat. Each home having an independent heating system seems pretty inefficient. Plus the oil trucks going around to every single individual house, generating emissions and burning more fossil fuels as they go. It's causing a lot of environmental damage. I suspect the independent home heating plant is based on historical rural traditions of the small family house with the big cast iron stove that heated it. They used wood or coal off their own land to get their own heat, it was the only way. With the rise of the suburbs probably people just did what they grew up with and put in independent furnaces without thinking that gridded heat, like the electricity grid, is better. Surely it's better for the environment.
It seems strange to me nobody ever mentions the damage to the environment and consumption of land and resources caused by the detached family house. Is it because most people live in or grew up in a house and it's just something that's part of life like sidewalks or the clouds that we don't think about separately.
Or is it the pink elephant in the corner for government and the media, something they dare not ever say or even hint about for fear of a swift and sure backlash. A lot of people have a deep emotional connection to their house or the house they grew up in. If the media or the government said this was causing excessive damage to the environment then a lot of people likely become very defensive and hostile at this suggestion. There would be a huge backlash with no meaningful discussion. Who would want to face that wrath?
What's the alternative to the detached house. Probably large 10-100 storey residential buildings right in the city as close as possible to where most people work. Telling people today they have to give up their house for that generally would not be well received. Many (most?) people would say let New York sink into the ocean and the polar bears go extinct before I give up my house. But the thing is if we focused on it then the architects, engineers and city planners could come up with innovative designs to make such shared living comfortable and nearly as good as the traditional detached house. I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen in my lifetime though.
I'd like to see a meaningful discussion on the effect of the detached house on the environment and global warming. I'm not expecting to hear anything about it from the media or government any time soon though.
You never know though. In just the last couple of years SUVs have gone from the toast of the town to frowned upon due to the price of gas and the damage to the environment they cause. The recent federal budget introduced a new tax on these types of vehicles to discourage people from buying them and to get them to fund dealing with the environmental problems they cause.
This same transformation may take place slowly in the coming years in more areas of society, including home ownership. The new gas guzzler tax establishes an important precedent in linking individual activity to the environmental impact of that activity. In the future additional such levies could be established on things like clearing land for a subdivision, installing an oil or wood burning furnace, building a detached or semi detached house.
Sometimes I think about the environment and I wonder if a major factor in the damage to the environment is being consciously or unconsciously overlooked. That factor is the single family detached and semi detached house.
I mean think about it. The Kingswood subdivision which is typical in Canada has been described as "800 acres, 800 houses". That's a pretty inefficient and wasteful use of land for the number of people living there. Most people there has to drive a long way to commute to work, typically in downtown Halifax. Clogging traffic and spewing emissions.
Then there's oil heat. Each home having an independent heating system seems pretty inefficient. Plus the oil trucks going around to every single individual house, generating emissions and burning more fossil fuels as they go. It's causing a lot of environmental damage. I suspect the independent home heating plant is based on historical rural traditions of the small family house with the big cast iron stove that heated it. They used wood or coal off their own land to get their own heat, it was the only way. With the rise of the suburbs probably people just did what they grew up with and put in independent furnaces without thinking that gridded heat, like the electricity grid, is better. Surely it's better for the environment.
It seems strange to me nobody ever mentions the damage to the environment and consumption of land and resources caused by the detached family house. Is it because most people live in or grew up in a house and it's just something that's part of life like sidewalks or the clouds that we don't think about separately.
Or is it the pink elephant in the corner for government and the media, something they dare not ever say or even hint about for fear of a swift and sure backlash. A lot of people have a deep emotional connection to their house or the house they grew up in. If the media or the government said this was causing excessive damage to the environment then a lot of people likely become very defensive and hostile at this suggestion. There would be a huge backlash with no meaningful discussion. Who would want to face that wrath?
What's the alternative to the detached house. Probably large 10-100 storey residential buildings right in the city as close as possible to where most people work. Telling people today they have to give up their house for that generally would not be well received. Many (most?) people would say let New York sink into the ocean and the polar bears go extinct before I give up my house. But the thing is if we focused on it then the architects, engineers and city planners could come up with innovative designs to make such shared living comfortable and nearly as good as the traditional detached house. I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen in my lifetime though.
I'd like to see a meaningful discussion on the effect of the detached house on the environment and global warming. I'm not expecting to hear anything about it from the media or government any time soon though.
You never know though. In just the last couple of years SUVs have gone from the toast of the town to frowned upon due to the price of gas and the damage to the environment they cause. The recent federal budget introduced a new tax on these types of vehicles to discourage people from buying them and to get them to fund dealing with the environmental problems they cause.
This same transformation may take place slowly in the coming years in more areas of society, including home ownership. The new gas guzzler tax establishes an important precedent in linking individual activity to the environmental impact of that activity. In the future additional such levies could be established on things like clearing land for a subdivision, installing an oil or wood burning furnace, building a detached or semi detached house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)