J9's Property

"I'm busy, busy, dreadfully busy!
You've no idea what I have to do.
Busy, busy, shockingly busy,
Much much too busy for you!"

A few years ago, I posted about the whole real-vs-fake-Christmas-tree argument. Given some rumblings I've been hearing again this year about how it's such a shame to "waste natural resources" by cutting down a live pine tree every year to decorate our homes, I thought I'd re-post it.

I actually have one more point to add to my argument for real Christmas trees: not only were no greenhouse gasses produced in the manufacturing of my Christmas tree, but my tree actually worked to reduce greenhouse gasses while it was growing!

Merry Christmas, everyone!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's interesting to see the number (and variety) of debates you can find when the Christmas season rolls around.

Take, for example, the endless debate of the artificial versus the real Christmas Tree.

(and yes, it's a Christmas Tree, not a "Holiday Tree"....don't get me started on that one)

Me, I've always had a real one. Preferably a White Pine, the one with the long, soft needles. Very pretty with a nice set of white lights on it, the whole tree seems to glow when you turn them on.

A lot of people opt for the artificial route. I have heard many reasons for this: less mess, less maintenance, less over-all concern especially if there are little ones and pets underfoot.

If these are your reasons, I can't say I blame you. A real tree does require regular waterings if you want it to stay looking nice through the holidays. Regular waterings also help to keep the tree relatively fire-resistant. Some trees are messier than others, although I have to say the the White Pines we get tend to be fairly clean - not a lot of needle-shed. And if the tree does get knocked over, there is the issue of the water on the floor/carpet/whatever it's sitting on.

But as far as I'm concerned, the extra effort is worth it! Yes, artificial trees are getting nicer and nicer (and more expensive!), but in my book, nothing compares to a real tree. It's become a tradition for all of us Rayments to make the trek out to the tree farm every year for the Great Christmas Tree Hunt. And when you get the freshly cut tree into the house, you can smell the nice, (real!) pine scent in your living room...

Now, there is one argument against real trees that I really can't understand. It's the environmental argument. Apparently, there are many who advocate artificial trees as being preferable for the environment, because you're not cutting down a tree (and therefore denuding the natural world for your own decoration), and you're not putting a tree into the landfills every year.

If you are of the opinion that artificial trees are better for the environment, I invite you to consider the following points:

1. No harmful chemicals, man-made materials, or pollution were used or produced in the manufacturing of my tree. OK, with the exception of the odd pesticide. But other than that, my tree is made entirely of natural fibres.

2. The tree I cut down was grown on a tree farm, for the specific purpose of being cut down and used as a Christmas Tree. Also, every time I cut down a Christmas tree, the tree farmer plants another one in it's place. It seems to me that one of the big "environmentally conscious" things to do, is to go out to a clear cut area and plant saplings to replace the trees harvested by the lumber industry. I'm only cutting down one tree a year, and it is immediately replaced by the owner of the tree farm.

3. When I am finished with my tree, it is 100% biodegradable. While, yes, it may take up space in a landfill, it will break down as naturally as any other tree in a forest which has died of natural causes. Let me ask you: what happens to all those artificial trees when they aren't so nice-looking anymore, or are just plain out-of-style? How well do they break down in a landfill? If they are "recycle-able", how much pollution is produced by the recycling plant in the recycling process?

I couldn't believe it when I actually read an article about having a "green Christmas" (read that, "environmentally friendly" Christmas), and it actually encouraged people to buy artificial trees. In my opinion, the environmentally friendly thing to do is to buy a real tree from a tree farmer. The uses for the tree when you are done are numerous: mulch, firewood, crafts, to name just a few, and the whole process is entirely natural.

If you prefer an artificial tree because you have little ones or pets, or you simply can't care for a real tree, then I won't argue with you. That's a case of personal preference, and I have no problem with that.

But if you try to tell me that having an artificial tree is the environmentally friendly thing to do, be prepared for an argument.

Because unlike my tree, your arguments just don't hold water.

...but she always loved to tell me about it! I would have been maybe 3 or 4 years old, my parents were on faculty at Camp Selkirk music camp, and I apparently came running up to my Mom one afternoon and nattered away at her, while she and Jane were relaxing in lawn chairs.

Jane loved to tell me about that.

I have absolutely no memory of it.

But I have many memories of Jane over the last 8 years, since I started going to North York Temple. I was quite enamoured at first to find out that she was "that" Jane Clarke (now Jane Davey) - imagine! I was going to the same church as a well-known composer! I had sung her songs and arrangements for years in songsters, music camp choruses, youth choruses. I always identified with her musical style, especially the "jazzy" songs that I could have some fun with.

As I got to know Jane - her spunky personality, the strength of her faith - I stopped thinking of her as a well-known composer, and started thinking of her as my friend. She was a lot of fun to be around. One of my favorite memories is my last year on faculty at Jackson's Point, when Doug and I shared a cabin with Jane and Chris. I remember Jane commenting to me that she was so pleased when she found out we would be sharing a cabin, and I was very pleased too - both that we were sharing a cabin, and that she was happy about it!

Jane was one of those timeless people; you never thought about her not being there. I still see her at the piano at North York, I still hear her in the alto section in the songsters. When she stopped coming out to meetings back before Christmas, there was something missing on Sunday mornings. I kept thinking, "I can't wait for Jane to come back!" I miss her offertories ("It is no Secret" was a favorite) that people would sing along to. The "welcome" portion of the meeting just wasn't complete without her playing that one song...(what was the name of it? Something about "something special happening today" or something like that?) Well, the tune, and her way of playing it, is forever written in my memory.

I wish I could sit down and play those choruses like she used to. It would make the hole feel a little less, well, empty.

I had to smile when a friend turned to me after we had heard of Jane's passing, and commented that he wondered if the choir in heaven was singing one of Jane's songs when she arrived. I added, "and I wonder which one they would have sang?!"

If nothing else can be said of Jane, it was that she loved The Lord her God with all her heart, with all her soul, with all her strength, and with all her mind. And she told of that love time and again through her music.

Heaven's orchestra just gained another member. Maybe even one who will write new music for it to perform. And I can't wait to hear it myself!

...but it's still driving me nuts. Can't get the dates to show.

*sigh*

She's the one that inspired me to browse new templates.

And they're driving me nuts!

grrrrrr......

Wow.

I honestly can't figure out where the last 10 months have gone.

Can't say they've disappeared through a haze of sleep deprivation, considering Connor has been sleeping through the night (and we're talking 10-12 hours straight here) since last July.

It's more like a blur of firsts, celebrations, stroller walks, laughs, melt-downs, new friends, new experiences...

I thought a year ago that the future was scary. It looks a lot scarier now, with the new challenge of finding that "just right" person who is basically going to be raising my son. I wish it could be me, but unfortunately I find myself in the position where returning to work is not so much a choice, as a necessity.

In a way, though, I am looking forward to going back to work. I'm looking forward to regular adult interaction that doesn't focus on baby-related topics, looking forward to using my brain on a regular basis again.

But before that happens, I'm going to make the most of these last couple of months with my little guy, celebrating as he learns new "tricks" (he got himself from lying down back up to a sitting position for the first time today! Yay!), laughing with him when he finds the oddest things hysterically funny, smiling as I watch him with his Dad.

And I'll keep repeating Proverbs 3:5 in my head every chance I get.

"Trust in The Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding"

OK, so some of you may have heard about the proposed changes to the Ontario auto insurance policy. If you haven't, the Ontario government is proposing changes to the "Accident Benefits" regulations - these are the medical benefits available to people who have been injured in a car accident, or for that matter, injured as a direct result of the use/operation of a motor vehicle. (this apparently means that if you slip and fall while putting air in your tires, you get the same medical benefits as someone who got into a major t-bone accident in an intersection.)(but I digress...)

Of course, as soon as this kind of news comes out, people start making comments about how we shouldn't have to pay so much premium because the insurance companies are all rich anyways, and insurance is just a get-rich-quick scam for insurance companies, etc, etc, etc....

It REALLY annoys me when people spout off about something about which they have absolutely NO clue whatsoever.

Newsflash: Insurance companies LOSE MILLIONS OF $$ every year in Ontario due to the auto insurance regulations.

How is it possible when we pay so much in premium, you ask?

Allow me to demonstrate:

Let's say you pay $1500/year in premium for 10 years. You have therefore paid the insurance company $15,000 total.

Then, you get in the dreaded fender-bender. Not a lot of damage to either the car or yourself, but enough that you need a body shop, some physiotherapy, and some time off work.

(in other words, a typical whiplash injury)

It might cost about $3000 to fix your car.

Then comes the medical treatment, medical assessments, income replacement benefit, throw in some housekeeping for good measure, and hey-presto, the insurance company has paid out $40,000 in accident benefits.

(and that's a conservative estimate)

Well let's see, so far the insurance company has paid out $43,000, versus the $15,000 you've paid them.

BUT, the accident was your fault. As a result, you get sued by the person you hit to the tune of $70,000. Paid, of course, by your insurance company.

(once again, a conservative estimate)

After all this, you've paid the insurance company $15,000, while the insurance company has paid out $113,000. A bit of quick head-math, and you'll realize the insurance company just found itself $98,000 in the hole on your claim alone.

(Don't forget, the insurance company also has operating costs to be paid: rent and maintenance of office space, office supplies, salaries for employees, etc...)

Getting clearer?

Yes, the insurance companies invest their profits, but I don't think they get a 650% return.

Please also keep in mind that the above demonstration was for a legitimate, un-inflated claim. I won't even get into how much money flies out the door on an inflated, fraudulent claim. (and the annoying part is, the insurance companies can't even do a whole lot about the fraud thanks to a very plaintiff-friendly legal system.)(but once again, I digress...)

I guess the point I'm trying to get across here is, please don't open your mouth to level accusations until you actually know the story. Yes, we all feel we pay too much for auto insurance. But please don't blame the companies that provide that insurance, and who lose money in the process. Let's blame the source: legal systems that allow claimants to get away with fraud (sometimes blatantly!), claimants who defraud the system, and healthcare providers who bill the absolute maximum they are allowed, often for treatment they didn't actually provide in the first place.

If you don't believe the part about insurance companies losing money, just take Liberty Mutual as an example. They sold their Canadian operations and got out of Canada because they were losing too much money in Ontario. I think if the insurance companies providing auto insurance in Ontario were to make their accounting books public, you'd be very surprised at what you would see. These companies might make some profit on other lines (ie. life insurance, disability, house insurance, business, etc.) but auto insurance is a guaranteed way to lose money, and a lot of it.

Still don't believe me?

Well, I guess that's your problem.

Just don't be complaining to me about it.