Enough about taxes and the various inanities, iniquities, and inequities of modern life. Summer has come early to southern Ontario, and as is traditional in these parts, that means all discussion of serious topics is hereby suspended until after Labour Day.
And there's no better way to slip the brain into neutral than with a cooling beverage (or two). Since I retired, I've applied myself diligently to mastering the art of the cocktail. I've gotten pretty good at it too. So as a public service, I'm going to share a few tips and a few recipes over the next few weeks.
Let's begin with the Margarita. One of the classic principles of cocktail construction is the formula sweet + sour + strong. Not all cocktails are made this way, but many are, and this is a good basis for creating your own original drinks. The Margarita follows this classic pattern.
The sweet comes from triple sec, an orange-flavoured liqueur that is a bar staple. The sour is contributed by lime juice, and the strong component is the tequila.
The quality of ingredients will make a big difference to the taste of your drink. Do not, I repeat, do not use powered or prepared mixes. They are full of artificial colours and flavours, and citric and other acids. I suggest buying a can of Minute Maid Limeade concentrate. It consists of lime juice and sugar and is reasonably priced -- about $1.29. The mixing directions call for adding 4 cans of water. Ignore this. Add only 2 cans, otherwise your drink will be too diluted when you add ice. This is still too sweet for your Margarita though, so also add 4 ounces of fresh-squeezed lime juice (about 3 limes). You now have about 40 ounces of a sweet/tart natural Margarita mix that costs a lot less than the commercial mixes.
Some people like salt on the rim of their Margarita; some prefer it without. It's up to you. Some like theirs frozen; some prefer theirs on the rocks. It's up to you.
To make one Margarita: combine half an ounce of triple sec, one and a half ounces of tequila, and three or four ounces of the limeade mix. Blend with a cup of crushed ice for a frozen Margarita, or serve over ice. Enjoy!
To make a pitcher that will serve eight, mix four ounces triple sec, twelve ounces tequila, and about thirty ounces of the limeade mix.
You can take your Margaritas to a higher level with premium ingredients and the taste is well worth it. Instead of triple sec, try using Grand Marnier, an orange-flavoured, brandy-based liqueur. It's expensive, but adds a mellow smoothness to your drink. And the quality of the tequila can also make a difference. Besides basic silver and gold (which has caramel colour added), there are reposada (rested), and anejo (aged) tequilas. The latter can be very expensive, but the middle level reposada tequila can be an affordable way to add depth of flavour to your Margarita. El Jimador Reposada is $32.95 at the LCBO, only a few dollars more than basic silver and gold tequilas.
So there's our cocktail to kick off the summer, and mixology lesson #1: use real fruit juices, fresh where possible. Cheers!
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
So Why Do We Crave Tax Cuts?
I argued a while back that taxes are a good thing and attempted to refute what I consider the ideologically deluded and economically specious arguments against taxation. Many of you have agreed with me.
But anti-tax sentiment remains widespread, and the notion of raising taxes seems so politically toxic that we're willing to risk our economic future (and that of our children and grandchildren) rather than even consider the idea. As if it's some kind of law of nature, like gravity, that taxes can go in only one direction. Why is that?
For starters, nobody likes to pay for anything. We'd all prefer to get free beer at the pub and pass the collection plate on Sunday morning without putting anything in it. Taxes are no different. Rationally, we know that if we want a pleasant, safe, and humane society, we have to pay for it; we'd just rather not.
So anti-tax sentiment originates in the denial of our responsibilities. Then, of course, there are the programs we don't use, don't agree with, or don't see the need for. We don't have children, we have jobs, we're healthy. Who wants to pay for other people, especially people different from us?
But it isn't simply selfishness. Some folks are more individualistic than others. This is the stereotype of Americans, though many Canadians feel the same way. Not everyone sees the world in terms of community or society. Some people see the world only in terms of themselves or their immediate families. They'll take care of themselves thank you, and everyone else should have the moral strength to do the same. For these people, minimal government and taxation is an ethical position. Sincerely held, it's still misguided, because in our complex, interdependent society it's impossible to live independently of others. Come to think of it, John Donne said "No man is an island; we are all a part of the main(land)." And that was 400 years ago.
So there are reasons, bad and maybe slightly less bad, to be against taxation, but anti-tax sentiment has increased dramatically in the last few decades, even though taxes have actually decreased here in Canada. Is there more to it than simply the selfishness and perpetual adolescence of Baby Boomers?
Well, yes. For decades, we've been the target of an intense, unrelenting, anti-tax campaign. To say it was successful is an understatement. As a result, politicians have found it's been a vote getter to promise tax cuts and political suicide to say they'll raise taxes.
In effect, we've become hooked on tax cuts. Just as fast/junk food advertising turned us into a continent of obese, couch potatoes by preying on our infantile desires for sugar, salt, and fat; anti-tax propaganda appealed to our selfishness and irresponsibility, and turned us into anti-tax junkies.
If we're going to be physically healthy, we have to shun the Whoppers, get off the couch, and start moving. And if we're going to shed the deficit pounds, recover our fiscal fitness, and ensure our future economic health, we're going to have to swear off the anti-tax Kool-Aid. Don't count on the politicians to save us: they're the pushers. It's time we told them "No".
The who, why, and how of the campaign to turn us against taxation is a subject I'll address in a future post.
But anti-tax sentiment remains widespread, and the notion of raising taxes seems so politically toxic that we're willing to risk our economic future (and that of our children and grandchildren) rather than even consider the idea. As if it's some kind of law of nature, like gravity, that taxes can go in only one direction. Why is that?
For starters, nobody likes to pay for anything. We'd all prefer to get free beer at the pub and pass the collection plate on Sunday morning without putting anything in it. Taxes are no different. Rationally, we know that if we want a pleasant, safe, and humane society, we have to pay for it; we'd just rather not.
So anti-tax sentiment originates in the denial of our responsibilities. Then, of course, there are the programs we don't use, don't agree with, or don't see the need for. We don't have children, we have jobs, we're healthy. Who wants to pay for other people, especially people different from us?
But it isn't simply selfishness. Some folks are more individualistic than others. This is the stereotype of Americans, though many Canadians feel the same way. Not everyone sees the world in terms of community or society. Some people see the world only in terms of themselves or their immediate families. They'll take care of themselves thank you, and everyone else should have the moral strength to do the same. For these people, minimal government and taxation is an ethical position. Sincerely held, it's still misguided, because in our complex, interdependent society it's impossible to live independently of others. Come to think of it, John Donne said "No man is an island; we are all a part of the main(land)." And that was 400 years ago.
So there are reasons, bad and maybe slightly less bad, to be against taxation, but anti-tax sentiment has increased dramatically in the last few decades, even though taxes have actually decreased here in Canada. Is there more to it than simply the selfishness and perpetual adolescence of Baby Boomers?
Well, yes. For decades, we've been the target of an intense, unrelenting, anti-tax campaign. To say it was successful is an understatement. As a result, politicians have found it's been a vote getter to promise tax cuts and political suicide to say they'll raise taxes.
In effect, we've become hooked on tax cuts. Just as fast/junk food advertising turned us into a continent of obese, couch potatoes by preying on our infantile desires for sugar, salt, and fat; anti-tax propaganda appealed to our selfishness and irresponsibility, and turned us into anti-tax junkies.
If we're going to be physically healthy, we have to shun the Whoppers, get off the couch, and start moving. And if we're going to shed the deficit pounds, recover our fiscal fitness, and ensure our future economic health, we're going to have to swear off the anti-tax Kool-Aid. Don't count on the politicians to save us: they're the pushers. It's time we told them "No".
The who, why, and how of the campaign to turn us against taxation is a subject I'll address in a future post.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
What, Me Worry?
It's easy to be worried these days.
Hot on the heels of the 2008 U.S. banking crisis that tipped much of the world into recession in 2009, we're being told the 2010 European sovereign debt crisis threatens to precipitate a "double-dip" recession.
A minority parliament in Britain, riots in Greece, the spectre of countries from Portugal to Ireland defaulting and taking down the European banks with them, a billion dollar bailout by the EU and IMF setting the stage for the slashing and burning of government programs, the price of gold rising. Yep, plenty to worry about.
Pundits like Thomas Freidman in the New York Times warn of decades of painful austerity. Heck, even our own Neil Macdonald of the CBC has joined the Cassandra chorus.
Except, I have my doubts.
It's not just the self-flagellating, neo-Calvinist, cold shower, if we don't stop it we'll go blind tone of most of these Jeremiahs that makes me think they doth protest too much. It's that we've heard this stuff before.
It was only last year we were being warned that if Wall Street didn't get gazillions, the world economy would collapse. They gave themselves bonuses. And remember about fifteen years back, the Wall Street Journal warned Canada was hitting a "debt wall"? Turned out we were just being softened up for the slashing of social programs so the corporations and the rich could have tax cuts. Bend over Seamus and Julio and Franz: you're in for much the same treatment.
What would happen if a small European country or two defaulted on its debt? Well, the sun would still come up tomorrow. For instance, Russia defaulted on its sovereign debt in 1998. Defaulting on debt is a time-honoured method for governments in trouble to reset their economies. The U.S. did it in 1933, during the Great Depression.
Countries that undergo the pain of default are often farther ahead than those that limp along under the crushing burden of debt that they can never hope to repay. Just ask an African.
So you can see why the (corporate-owned) media in general, and the business press in particular are revving up the fear machine. Bondholders, (for that is what government debt is: bonds held by investors) don't like it when borrowers default. That's understandable: they lose their money.
IMF bailouts mean the banks are safe (happy shareholders) and boldholders get paid back. The austerity measures which the IMF imposes? Well, sheep are more willing to be fleeced if they're convinced they've been baaad.
Are there problems in Europe? Sure there are, plenty of them. But the consequences of default may be overstated, and the social and political costs of austerity measures underestimated. I'm just saying.
Hot on the heels of the 2008 U.S. banking crisis that tipped much of the world into recession in 2009, we're being told the 2010 European sovereign debt crisis threatens to precipitate a "double-dip" recession.
A minority parliament in Britain, riots in Greece, the spectre of countries from Portugal to Ireland defaulting and taking down the European banks with them, a billion dollar bailout by the EU and IMF setting the stage for the slashing and burning of government programs, the price of gold rising. Yep, plenty to worry about.
Pundits like Thomas Freidman in the New York Times warn of decades of painful austerity. Heck, even our own Neil Macdonald of the CBC has joined the Cassandra chorus.
Except, I have my doubts.
It's not just the self-flagellating, neo-Calvinist, cold shower, if we don't stop it we'll go blind tone of most of these Jeremiahs that makes me think they doth protest too much. It's that we've heard this stuff before.
It was only last year we were being warned that if Wall Street didn't get gazillions, the world economy would collapse. They gave themselves bonuses. And remember about fifteen years back, the Wall Street Journal warned Canada was hitting a "debt wall"? Turned out we were just being softened up for the slashing of social programs so the corporations and the rich could have tax cuts. Bend over Seamus and Julio and Franz: you're in for much the same treatment.
What would happen if a small European country or two defaulted on its debt? Well, the sun would still come up tomorrow. For instance, Russia defaulted on its sovereign debt in 1998. Defaulting on debt is a time-honoured method for governments in trouble to reset their economies. The U.S. did it in 1933, during the Great Depression.
Countries that undergo the pain of default are often farther ahead than those that limp along under the crushing burden of debt that they can never hope to repay. Just ask an African.
So you can see why the (corporate-owned) media in general, and the business press in particular are revving up the fear machine. Bondholders, (for that is what government debt is: bonds held by investors) don't like it when borrowers default. That's understandable: they lose their money.
IMF bailouts mean the banks are safe (happy shareholders) and boldholders get paid back. The austerity measures which the IMF imposes? Well, sheep are more willing to be fleeced if they're convinced they've been baaad.
Are there problems in Europe? Sure there are, plenty of them. But the consequences of default may be overstated, and the social and political costs of austerity measures underestimated. I'm just saying.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
The Top 10 Reasons Why I Should Be the Next Governor-General
The nation is abuzz with frenzied debate (well, OK, not really) over who should be the next governor-general. The successful candidate should be a respected Canadian who will represent the nation at home and abroad for the next five years. Several notable names have been put forward: Peter Milliken, Rick Hansen, Nancy Ruth, Preston Manning, William Shatner (my personal favourite, after myself). But let me give you the top ten reasons (there are dozens more) why I think it's time Stephen Harper took a good, long look at Aeneas Lane for the next governor-general of Canada.
- There's never been a governor-general from Port Perry. It's about time.
- I have a really cool name. In fact, many people, just seeing my name, have no idea if I'm a man or a woman. Bonus! I have both genders covered.
- My wife is retiring and I need the money.
- I have my own Starfleet dog tags. (Take that, Bill Shatner!)
- Jake would be the "first cat".
- Some are born great. Some achieve greatness. I'm 0 for 2. That leaves only, "Some have greatness thrust upon them." I'm down to my last strike.
- I'm sesquilingual. Just being able to make up that word makes me more qualified than 99.99% of my fellow Canadians.
- I've never eaten raw seal's liver, but I'm willing to give it a shot. After all, I'm not afraid to eat at the Antrim.
- I look good in a suit.
- I would promise to stop writing this blog.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Moses Znaimer, Leave Me Alone!
Moses Znaimer, leave me alone. Some of my friends like your magazine, but not me. I'm not buying your schtick. In fact, I'm irked.
All my boomer life I've been under unrelenting pressure from the media purveyors of mass culture to be cool. I've got to do this, be that, buy the other thing. I'm pretty sick and tired of it and figured that at least one compensation for getting old was that I'd be left alone. I could do what I wanted (actually, I want to do as little as possible), and pretty much ignore the latest trends. I thought few would notice and no one would care.
And then you come along, Moses, and ruin a pretty sweet deal.
It's too bad you lost your TV stations (and your hair), but why didn't you just buy a sports car like everyone else? Instead, you have to go and buy the fogey magazine CARP (a great name, by the way) and rebrand it Zoomer. Now, instead of a stodgy publication filled with earnest articles on stool softener and RRSP's, we have a zippy periodical filled with earnest articles on running marathons and engaging in tantric sex. I don't want this kind of pressure, Moses.
I think it's a plot to keep us spending. Old people didn't used to have to spend a lot of money. Another compensation for getting older. You could wear the same pair of glasses for twenty years. Cheez Whiz on Ritz crackers was fancy fare for the weekly euchre game. A trailer in Florida for a few months in the winter was high living.
But you come along with this Zoomer scam and you've got us blowing the kids' inheritance on laser eye surgery, organic truffle oil from Pusateri's, and backpacking through Nepal. Don't leave your cash to your kids; give it to Moses and his advertisers.
And it is a scam. Old people don't want to be bothered with all this zipping and zooming. Want proof? Look who's on the cover of the May issue of Zoomer magazine: Nia Vardalos. She's 47. You can't get sensible older folks to drink your Kool-Aid, but the kids will (as long as it's not sweetened with sugar. Agave syrup, maybe, or stevia.) So you redefine old as 45 and up. Are you kidding me? Even if I could be 45 for ever, I couldn't afford it.
You're not my role model for aging, Moses, but you know who is? Oscar on Corner Gas. Now there's a man who clearly knows how to enjoy his senior years. He dresses old, he talks old, he acts old.
So, Moses, don't lead me where I don't want to go. These high-waisted pants are really comfortable and my Crown Victoria has a nice quiet ride. Jackass.
All my boomer life I've been under unrelenting pressure from the media purveyors of mass culture to be cool. I've got to do this, be that, buy the other thing. I'm pretty sick and tired of it and figured that at least one compensation for getting old was that I'd be left alone. I could do what I wanted (actually, I want to do as little as possible), and pretty much ignore the latest trends. I thought few would notice and no one would care.
And then you come along, Moses, and ruin a pretty sweet deal.
It's too bad you lost your TV stations (and your hair), but why didn't you just buy a sports car like everyone else? Instead, you have to go and buy the fogey magazine CARP (a great name, by the way) and rebrand it Zoomer. Now, instead of a stodgy publication filled with earnest articles on stool softener and RRSP's, we have a zippy periodical filled with earnest articles on running marathons and engaging in tantric sex. I don't want this kind of pressure, Moses.
I think it's a plot to keep us spending. Old people didn't used to have to spend a lot of money. Another compensation for getting older. You could wear the same pair of glasses for twenty years. Cheez Whiz on Ritz crackers was fancy fare for the weekly euchre game. A trailer in Florida for a few months in the winter was high living.
But you come along with this Zoomer scam and you've got us blowing the kids' inheritance on laser eye surgery, organic truffle oil from Pusateri's, and backpacking through Nepal. Don't leave your cash to your kids; give it to Moses and his advertisers.
And it is a scam. Old people don't want to be bothered with all this zipping and zooming. Want proof? Look who's on the cover of the May issue of Zoomer magazine: Nia Vardalos. She's 47. You can't get sensible older folks to drink your Kool-Aid, but the kids will (as long as it's not sweetened with sugar. Agave syrup, maybe, or stevia.) So you redefine old as 45 and up. Are you kidding me? Even if I could be 45 for ever, I couldn't afford it.
You're not my role model for aging, Moses, but you know who is? Oscar on Corner Gas. Now there's a man who clearly knows how to enjoy his senior years. He dresses old, he talks old, he acts old.
So, Moses, don't lead me where I don't want to go. These high-waisted pants are really comfortable and my Crown Victoria has a nice quiet ride. Jackass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)