Quebec English language rights

It gets a bit tiring, year after year, more language issues that never go away.

The most recent is Bill 40. Apparently our government will be abolishing the school boards and there will be service centres instead. They might make some provisions for the English minority but right now things seem uncertain.

I've lived in this province for over 30 years, and it boggles my mind how this sort of thing goes on year after year. I read once that a lot of the worst language laws tend to get passed under Liberal governments. Quietly.

When the PQ were in power, it was week after week of the English language being under attack. Whether it was "Pastagate" or stories of sandwiches being thrown in peoples faces for speaking English, or stores being threatened to close due to English signage. It was never ending.

I understand why they want to protect their language, but at the end of the day, the English have been here as long as the French - and not nearly as long as the Natives. We treated the Natives horrifically in the past, and to make up for that we have given them some rights over land and governance and many other small rights. It will never be enough, make no mistake. However, why is it that the English are treated as though they are an ugly stain on the pure and beautiful Quebecois landscape? Why are the English constantly having more and more rights taken away from them and constantly given the message that "if they don't like it they can leave"?

I just don't understand what the French hope to achieve. I have spent a lot of time thinking about it. Canada is a mostly English country. Next door to us is the United States, which is a completely English country. It has a large Spanish population, but their currency is in English and political debates are in English. Not in Spanish. You do not need to speak Spanish in order to enter politics or to hold a government job. There are a few areas where French is spoken, but they are a very small minority.

The United States are our biggest trading partner. Do you see what I am getting at? It kind of makes sense to be able to speak English in order to facilitate trading with our neighbours. Not to mention being able to communicate with other Canadians.

What I'm trying to figure out is, if Quebec were to separate and therefore everything would be completely French, how are they going to manage themselves economically? Right now, there are laws in place that actually prohibit French kids from attending English schools. French kids don't learn English in school until they are in grade 4. They then learn very basic English thereafter. When they graduate from high school they are unilingual. I've met many French people who don't speak a word of English. 

There is a loophole though! French people with money can send their kids to English private schools! Therefore, what you end up with is a disgusting class system. You get rich French people that are bilingual, who can then move to other parts of Canada, or stay in Quebec and go into politics, or get a cushy government job. The poor French people have extremely limited options! Most of the jobs are in the cities, particularly in Montreal. Most people living in Montreal speak English and French. Therefore, bilingualism is almost always a requirement to get a job. If you look through the job section in the newspaper, almost all of the jobs ask for bilingualism.

If Quebec were to separate most of the anglos would leave. Particularly the ones with limited French. I speak French, but not well enough that I would want to describe an illness to a French doctor, or to have to have a conversation in French about anything serious like banking, buying a house or a car etc. So, I would pretty much be forced to leave. 

If most of the people left were francophone, then what? Ok, Montreal is a nice city. But guess what? If they turned the whole place into a hostile French city where it was against the law to even say "hello" instead of bonjour, do you seriously think anyone would want to come and visit the place? The jazz festival would have to have French only musicians. All the films at the many film festivals would be in French only (they might be all French now anyway). 

Do you think people will want to take French lessons before coming to visit Montreal just so they will know how to order a poutine? I don't think so. If tourism disappears due to the hostility, how will the Quebec economy survive?

They will only be able to trade with French countries and with the rest of Canada. Forget about dealing with the U.S! Even trying to sell valuable resources will be a challenge. It's all very hypocritical, because economically they can't function completely independently in French only! 

English is the language of business internationally and the Quebec government know this! Everybody knows this! People in India and China spend time learning English so that they can trade and compete in the international market!

So if Quebec wanted to be a 100% French country, where no one is allowed to learn English, no English can ever be spoken in a store or in a restaurant. No English can be heard in an office or spoken on a telephone. Just French. There will be a very small economy! 

Is that what their long term goal is? To be a small population of ignorant, poor people - but proud Quebecois?

Based on how things are now, I would think not. What will end up happening is that the class divide will only get bigger. Rich people will continue to educate their kids in English and French so that their kids will be eligible for the best jobs.

I think that is what is the most sad thing about this whole language debate. Guess who suffers the most? French people. English people have the choice to send their kids to what ever school they want! As long as they qualify. I know many immigrants who had to go to French school due to Bill 101. But they still spoke English at home, therefore they ended up bilingual. This means that they can live anywhere they want! They can move anywhere in Canada, have opportunities to move to the United States or to any other English country in the world.

What opportunities do unilingual French people have? They are free to move anywhere they want in Canada. But they will struggle to find a job in English only countries. They will struggle to land a great job in Montreal if they don't speak a word of English.

Sounds like quite the utopia doesn't it? For the rich class it does! They would have very few people to compete for jobs! 

10 Things that are better about Montreal compared to New York City

I recently spent a week exploring New York City, and found myself constantly comparing things to Montreal. So I thought I would share ten things that I found to be better in Montreal.

1. Unique vegetarian restaurants.

 I'm a vegetarian, so finding good food out is always a challenge. I kind of thought that New York would be the mecca of amazing vegetarian restaurants. I ate at two vegetarian restaurants while there, "Blossom", and "By Chloe". "Blossom" was amazing. Nice neighbourhood, lovely atmosphere and absolutely delicious food! "By Chloe" was more like a chic fast food restaurant. In Montreal there are a crazy amount of vegetarian and vegan restaurants. I've eaten at at least half a dozen and they are very good. From what I saw in New York, the majority of vegetarian restaurants tend to be café style places and they are all spread out over the city for most part. My New York guide book actually only listed four places for the whole city! In Montreal, you can walk to a dozen veggie restaurants within half an hour.

2. Underground city.

 New York is surprisingly mild compared to Montreal, so they don't need an underground city quite as much. However, it is still pretty cool to be able to get around a city completely indoors for the most part. It's nice when it's snowing, raining, very windy, cold etc. Actually, it's really nice in the summer too when it's super hot! I found myself going back to my hotel earlier than planned most days, simply because I was tired of walking around outside and didn't feel like sitting in yet another Starbucks.

3. Friendlier restaurant and store staff.

I was surprised by this. I find the customer service in Montreal rather appalling. I didn't think it could actually be worse somewhere else! Well, I was wrong. I noticed that I was never greeted when I entered stores. Now, on the one hand it can feel superficial and off putting when you are immediately greeted upon entering a store. However, I think it's actually worse to not be greeted at all. There is something slightly cheerful about being greeted with a smile (even if it's fake) and a cheerful "Bonjour/Hi!". To walk into a store and have staff just glare at you and then look away is slightly depressing.

4. Cleaner metro (subway) stations.

Montreal metro stations are definitely cleaner and newer looking. They aren't spotless, far from it. However, they do look like they've been cleaned in the last 20 years. New York trains felt really old, rickety, and noisy. Some of the stations smelled vile and were absolutely filthy. I also didn't like the sliding bar doors to get in and out, I found them scary.

5. Less security and police presence.

I found it a bit scary seeing police standing around on streets holding machine guns. As in, they had their fingers on the triggers. I also didn't like having to open my purse to show museum and library staff. I think Montreal feels a bit more free without all the extra police.

6. The city is more accessible and compact.

This can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your own preferences. In my opinion, most of the really cool things in Montreal are very easy to get to by bus, metro or by walking. Now, don't get me wrong, New York is easy to get around! However, in my experience, I found that most of the time it was just as fast to walk as it was to take a bus, subway or taxi. That can be a good thing. But, after walking several miles every day I was tired and I had bought a weekly subway pass that I was eager to use. But what I found was most of the time it was more convenient to walk. When ever I looked up directions to get somewhere it was often something like "walk 0.5 miles to subway, take subway for 1 or two stops, then walk 0.3 miles. So no matter what, I seemed to have to walk almost a mile to get anywhere! It also seemed like buses were easier to get on the avenues than the streets. Obviously public transit made much more sense when I was traveling longer distances.

7. Friendlier people.

In New York you get the distinct impression that strangers want to be left alone. There is absolutely no warmth. I'm sure it's just because people are busy and have their own lives and just want to be left alone. Hey, I'm actually a very cold person and I don't bother with strangers anyway. But I have noticed that in Montreal strangers seem to strike up conversations with each other more often and that it wouldn't be the end of the world if you wanted to ask someone something.

8. Cheaper food.

Wow. New York is expensive. That's not to say that cheap food can't be found. But I just found that I had to look a bit harder to find it. At the museum of Natural History, the little café in there wanted $10 for a sandwich. Right now the exchange rate is awful, so poor little me was looking at those sad sandwiches and thinking how ridiculous it was that they were $12! Obviously anywhere touristy is going to be pricey in any city, but that just seemed a bit excessive. We paid $70 to have an awful and cheap looking Italian meal in a tacky restaurant. In Montreal for the same price we can get a really nice meal in a nice atmosphere with great service.

9. More benches on streets.

In New York I think you are expected to just keep going. Never stop. Unless you want to go to a park. The bus stops didn't have benches, or even shelters half the time. In Montreal there are benches to sit on everywhere. Which is great when you are new to a city and just want to sit down for a rest, or to check your map.

10. Tim Hortons

New York's equivalent is Duncan Donuts (which we used to have a lot of too until Tim's came along). It's just handy to have a place where you can get a cheap cup of of coffee and a cheap snack. There were Starbucks everywhere in New York, but I'm not a huge fan. Their coffee tastes a bit burnt and it's a lot more expensive. Also, their food does not look very appetizing and is also very expensive. Tim Horton's really does offer good value for a person on a budget.

Montreal roads are broken

I'll just start off by saying that I'm a world traveler. I'll be honest, I haven't driven a car outside of Canada or the United States, but I have spent a considerable amount of time sitting as a passenger in all kinds of places around the world.

Probably the worst roads outside of Montreal were in Cuba, Thailand and Cambodia (which in many places was more like dirt roads). Greece has a lot of bumpy roads too. But last time I checked, Canada is supposed to be a wealthier nation than the above places!

Driving through this city one gets the distinct feeling that they are not in Canada. Perhaps it's a Quebec thing? Our government wishes us to be distinct in every possible way! Sadly, I don't think that having broken roads is something to take pride in.

These days, just about every single road that you drive on is broken somewhere along the way. Someone cleverly named Montreal "Cone-y Island" (please excuse me if I got the spelling wrong, and I'm sorry I can't site the source). This is due to the insane amount of traffic cones in our city. I'd love to know exactly how many cones there are sitting on the streets right now. It must be in the millions.

Most of the time the traffic cones are there for days, or weeks but there is hardly ever anyone working! That is probably one of the biggest concerns, you hardly ever see construction workers actually doing work on the roads! Hardly ever will you see work done at night, except for maybe on the bridges.

It is such a painful experience trying to drive around Montreal. You have to check Google Maps every time you want to leave your house. Even a simple trip to the grocery store could turn out to be a nightmare if all the usual roads you take to get there are now closed! This happens rather frequently!

In N.D.G it feels like every single street is broken. You can't drive at normal speeds, and you can't drive in a straight line. You have to dodge potholes every few feet. Some of these potholes are the size of four medium sized turkeys!

There are often traffic cones surrounding areas that look just fine, where as there is often a complete lack of cones in very dangerous areas. Usually you only get a smooth road if you are on the highway. Which makes sense, since hitting a pothole while driving over 100 km/per hour could result in horrible accidents.

Currently in N.D.G all of the routes into the neighbourhood are under construction. One of the old routes will remain closed until 2020 (this was the main exit at St. Jacques from autoroute 20). Now if you are heading to that area from the western parts of the city you have to exit the highway a few kilometres earlier and navigate horrific roads full of traffic and potholes.

There are rarely any signs warning you that certain streets are closed or under severe construction. This morning I made the fatal error of not checking Google Maps before leaving my house. I took Decarie (almost always a mistake) and got off at the Queen Mary/Cote St. Luc exit. I then got to sit in stagnant traffic for 20 minutes because two out of the three lanes on the service road were closed. For construction. This time there were at least people working!

I'll be providing pictures soon, just to really show how absolutely horrific it is trying to drive through this city. But for now, I'll just say one final thing.

I spent five days in Toronto this past summer. My boyfriend and I drove all around the suburbs and downtown area. We really did a good tour of the city in our car. Guess what? Hardly any traffic cones, hardly any roads closed, hardly any potholes. It was actually kind of shocking. To be in a car that isn't constantly making loud thumping sounds as you hit bumps and holes constantly. To be able to get from point A to point B without being diverted all around the city due to road closures. To not have to plan your own detour to avoid construction. To not have to rely on Google Maps for simple trips. I have to hand it to Toronto, they have GREAT roads!!! If any Torontonian wishes to bitch about their horrible roads, I encourage them to try spending the weekend driving around Montreal!

Gilmore Girls

I must confess, until recently I had never even heard of Gilmore Girls. Netflix highly recommended it to me, and well, I trust Netflix! It is rarely wrong, actually.

Over the last decade I have mostly watched crime dramas or sci-fi. I watched shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, CSI Miami, Criminal Minds, Fringe, True Blood, Stargate, Caprica and Battlestar Galactica. You get the point.

Gilmore Girls is pretty much the opposite of what I usually watch, so when Netflix recommended it to me I ignored it. I wasn't really interested in watching some sappy drama about a mother and daughter. But one day, on a whim (the same kind of whim that provoked me to watch Glee one evening after a few glasses of sangria) I succumbed to the Gilmore girls.

Right from the very first episode I was hooked. The beauty of Netflix is that you can binge watch. I watched seven seasons in about seven weeks!

*** Spoiler Alert: I will make references to plot lines etc. so if you haven't watched the show, you may want to come back and read this later! ***


I found it a relief to watch a show that didn't involve a bunch of narcissistic, back stabbing, screwed up people! A show that didn't involve people being brutally murdered in every episode. A show that actually involved believable (if sometimes very odd) characters as opposed to superheroes, aliens, space travellers, vampires etc.

It was also super nice to watch a show that wasn't so formulaic every episode.  Criminal Minds - serial killer on the loose - team must figure out who it is and catch them! Same thing with CSI Miami - someone found dead, with crazy and entirely unbelievable forensics they solve the crime.

Gilmore Girls was a little bit different every episode. Sometimes there were parties, town festivals, extravagant dinners at Richard and Emily's house, road trips, and without fail, coffee. Lot's and lot's of coffee. At Luke's Diner, of course.

At the heart of the show, of course, is the relationship between Lorelei and Rory. At first I was quite shocked by how close they are. To be honest, I haven't met too many people that are that close to their mom. It's rare to call your mom your "best friend". They sit right next to each other on the couch, they tell each other everything, they share clothing and jewellery, they have the same taste in movies and have regular movie nights where they re-watch their favourites. They even cuddle in bed! This is certainly not something I've done since I was a kid!

Then there were the boyfriends! I liked Luke and Lorelei together. I guess right from season one we are made to feel like they will probably get together at some point. However, we had to wait four seasons for that to happen. Luke is a great guy who has a big heart and was constantly showing Lorelei how much he cared about her by all the nice things he does for her. He cooks for her, he renovates for her, he is just always there for her when she needs him. I loved all of the episodes of them together as a happy couple!

I had a hard time watching season six, with the breakdown of Luke and Lorelei's relationship. As usual it always comes down to communication. If Luke had been open with Lorelei about April right from the start they could have made things work. I also think that if Lorelei had been open with Luke about how she felt they could have somehow worked it out. Instead she bottled it all up until she finally blew it at the end. Very disappointing.

Therefore, after everything that Luke did, I really didn't see them getting back together. I really wanted Luke to make a huge gesture of his love for her, over many episodes. Instead the series ended with a pathetic kiss at the very end. I didn't feel that they had really reconciled enough to get to the point of kissing, so that was pretty disappointing too.

I won't get into Max and Jason. They were ok guys, but nothing really exciting and it was kind of obvious that things weren't going to work out between them. By the way, what ever happened to Alex?

I kind of hated Christopher. He was cute and they had a shared history, but he was trouble for Lorelei. The amount of times he let her down was a bit heart breaking. I was so disappointed when they got back together in season 7. Though at the same time, I found their break up to be disappointing too. It just seemed a bit quick, they never really sat down and talked about anything. He read the letter that Lorelei wrote about Luke (which was just a friendly thing she did so that he could have access to see his kid legally) and that was it. Over. Kind of pathetic.

As for Rory's boyfriends, I don't think I have a favourite. I think that every boyfriend came along at the right time and contributed to how she grew as a person. Therefore, probably none of them were perfect for her long term, but all of them were perfect for the time.

I loved Dean at first. He was cute, friendly, thoughtful, loyal, kind. He had a lot of great qualities. But he was boring! He had average intelligence, and very little in the way of personality. He was totally devoted to Rory, which was one of his best qualities. But I don't think he could offer much to Rory in terms of fun and witty conversations.

It was therefore not very surprising that she then became infatuated with Jess. He was new to town, so there was a lot of mystery surrounding him. But we find out right away that he's the "bad boy". He smokes, skips school, defies authority and is extremely cute. He is completely disrespectful to every authority figure he encounters, and therefore he is a mostly unlikable character. However, he becomes quite taken with Rory and does do a few really sweet and romantic things for her. She becomes quite addicted to his attention, despite being rather unfair and cruel to poor Dean.

In the end he proves to be a rather despicable person the way he just leaves town without saying good bye to Rory. It might be a bit cliché to say that Rory needed that heart break to grow as a person. That she had her taste of the bad boy, and the heart break to go with it. That she got that out of the way when she was young so that she could then move on to a more mature and deep meaning, respectful relationship. But honestly, I don't think that anyone deserves to go through that. He constantly let her down, and she was such a sweet girl it was just plain unfair.

Then we meet Logan. I must confess, that despite everything he was my favourite. He did tick most of the boxes. He was very cute, very smart, witty, romantic and filthy rich. The rich part is superficial, but it did allow him to be over the top romantic to Rory by being able to shower with elaborate displays of affection. Like the time he arrived by helicopter so that he could have a romantic dinner with Rory on the roof of his apartment.

He was really kind and generous, allowing Rory to live in his amazing apartment while he lived in New York. He would give Rory the moon if he could. He really was a sweet heart. I loved the time he gave Luke a present to give Lorelei for Valentine's day so that he wouldn't look bad next to him (he had a nice gift for Rory).

But ultimately, he was young. He was only 20 or so. He had a lot of growing up to do. Therefore, he was rather immature in ways, and a bit irresponsible - particularly with money. I was disappointed when they broke up though, I did think that they were a really nice couple.

Now onto a few other characters that we got to know on the show.

Well, we can start with Taylor. One thing that kind of annoyed me was his dictatorship over the town. It was sometimes mildly amusing, but at other times it was pretty grating. I was so happy when Jackson took over the job and was looking forward to seeing a more humbled Taylor. But then a few episodes later, Taylor was back in power again!!! No one ever addressed how that happened! I mean, only a handful of people actually voted for Taylor in that election. If Jackson didn't want the job, there should have been another election! One of the annoying things we aren't supposed to notice or question as viewers I guess.

Another thing that kind of bothered me was Lane and Zach. I thought Dave was a much better match for Lane. For one thing, we are led to believe that Lane is intelligent. We are also led to believe that Zach is a complete air head. How did these two end up together? It was rather sudden to me, the way that Dave had suddenly gone to California to college. There was no good bye, no real focus on that issue. He was just gone. They were doing a long distance thing. Then suddenly she had a crush on Zach. I was just like, what happened to Dave?

I loved Gil! Actually I was a huge Skid Row fan back in the day, and even saw them in concert. So yeah, seeing Sebastian Bach on a t.v show was pretty darn cool!

I actually really liked Babette! I thought that Lorelei and Rory were a bit cold to her. She was a really sweet neighbour that was always willing to help out. They did reciprocate, but they were always giving each other looks when they were at her house, and they never wanted to spend much time with her. Maybe it was her unusual attachment to her cat? I did get a bit of a chuckle when Babette was pushing her cat around in a stroller through town! Or the time she held a funeral for her cat.

One final thought. In the final episode there is a huge going away party for Rory. I have to say, while Rory is a pleasant enough girl, was she really such an amazing person that it would be likely that a whole town would get together for a farewell party? It kind of reminded me of how the people who are the most self centered seem to be the most liked. Where as, really kind people seemed to get pushed aside. I'm not saying that Lorelei and Rory never did nice things for people. But overall, everyone was always doing nice things for them, and they didn't really reciprocate much. Lorelei did a lot of sewing for people. Could that really be all that it takes to become the town celebrity?

*** I can't wait for Gilmore Girls to come back in November! ***

My experiences at clothing swaps

First off, let me just say that I think that the concept of a clothing swap is amazing. In case you have never been to one, I'll briefly explain. You gather a big bag of your old clothes and bring them to an event called a "clothing swap". Once you are there, volunteers will take your clothes and put them out on tables with all of the other clothes. Or, sometimes you place your own clothes on the tables. Usually you have to pay a few dollars to attend.

One of my friends is huge into clothing swaps, sewing, upcycling, you name it! She has "mad crazy skills" when it comes to finding stuff! I was hopeful I would be as lucky. Sadly, I wasn't.

The first clothing swap I went to took place at someones house. She was kind to let strangers into her home. There were about ten of us. We all dumped our bags of clothes into the middle of the room, on the floor, and then proceeded to dig through the pile hoping to find stuff. This was not a very positive experience for me. Unfortunately, I was a bit heavier at the time and everything in the pile was rather tiny. So basically, there was hardly anything I could even take. I think I might have left with a couple of things that I parted with soon after.

I didn't go to another clothing swap for several years after that! Then last week I decided to give it another go! It was held at a place called "The Anti-Café". So basically, it was a large property downtown Montreal where the first floor is a "café", and the clothing swap took place upstairs in a large room.

The café idea is quite an interesting idea, actually. You pay for your time at the place (including the swap). I think it was $3 an hour. So you can go and participate in the swap, and then when you are done you can go and have a coffee. It was kind of like going into someones kitchen, rather than a restaurant. There was a large table in the middle of the room full of snacks you could help yourself to. There were also drinks, like iced tea. There was a person there who would make you a cup of fresh coffee - however you liked it (latté, cappuccino, etc.). So it was quite nice to sit down and enjoy refreshments after. Quite a bargain for $3.

I think I only managed to get about ten items of clothes, half of which I didn't end up wanting, which I then brought to another swap! You are probably starting to get the idea of how swapping works! I think these clothes are doing a lot of traveling!

Yesterday I went to my third swap, not my favourite one at all. I went with my boyfriend, who was very sweet to accompany me, given that he wasn't very interested in going! He said that he had no interest in digging through a large pile of used clothing trying to find something he likes that fits!

My clothing swap buddy was actually volunteering at this event, so she basically got first dibs on the good stuff. Consequently, she left with a huge bag of stuff. I left with three small tank tops. I arrived with three large bags full of stuff!

The place was held in some kind of building that looked a bit like a school. We walked down a long hallway and were greeted by a lady at a table who explained how things work. She said that the price was "a suggestible donation $3 each". So that meant that my boyfriend and I had to pay $6 total to even see the room full of clothes.

Once inside we quickly realized that we would probably not be staying long. It was super hot in there with little in the way of ventilation.

There were two rooms. One room had a large table full of mens clothes, and other tables full of books and toys, and baby clothes.

The other room had about six tables of women's clothes. One of the tables was pants (which I don't have the patience to sort through, given the fact that I hardly ever find pants that fit me new!) Another table was full of sweaters (which given the extreme summer heat was a turn off). That left about four tables to look through.

I was elbow to elbow with strangers as we sorted through the messy piles of clothes. Most of the stuff looked old. I mean, I know it's used, but it just looked very used indeed. It didn't take me long to go through the whole room. Most things turned me off quickly based on colour, style, or texture.

The men's table was the worst. It was a large table up against the wall so only about ten people at a time could look through the stuff. The clothes were all mixed up, and there was a cloud of dust hanging above the pile! I did finally manage to squeeze in and try to sort through the stuff, but my nose was getting itchy and there was just too much variety. As in, hardly any of it looked like what my boyfriend would want. He patiently sat on a bench by the door and waited for me. I didn't find anything for him.

So in the end, it hasn't really worked out to be particularly beneficial for me. At least in terms of what I have picked up and what I've spent. I think I have better luck at charity shops where the clothes are sorted properly, are hanging on racks and in slightly better condition!

Will I attend another clothing swap? Well, at this point I've now given away all of my old clothes, so I think it will be a while before I even have the option! Unless my friend gives me a bag of stuff to bring. Which is quite possible, since she goes all the time!

However, I feel that after three swaps and coming home with so little, that maybe it's not really my thing. I like my clothes to look at least slightly new. The clothes I saw looked like the worst stuff in my wardrobe, the stuff that I've worn for the last five years, that I might have bought second hand in the first place!

It also might be a bit like trying to find a needle in a haystack. I guess if you have a lot of patience, and are willing to spend a couple of hours sorting through piles of (not necessarily clean) clothes, then you might be rewarded with some good stuff.

Good luck with that!

How to buy a new vacuum cleaner

I know this might seem like a bit of a weird topic, but the truth is, everyone needs a vacuum cleaner and there are so many on the market that it can be a very difficult decision to make!

The main things to consider are the following:

Upright or canister:

If your house is mostly carpeted then you will want to get an upright vacuum cleaner. These work best on carpets. They have very powerful motors and brush rolls that can easily penetrate the fibres in the carpet all the way through the pile.

If your house is mostly bare floor, then a canister is best. These are very easy to use, can get under furniture easier and are very user friendly, usually coming with a few attachments.

If you have a mix of carpets and bare floors then you have to think a bit harder about what kind of vacuum to get. Consider that when using an upright, they can spit bits of dirt out if you are vacuuming a hard floor. Also consider that if you use a canister vacuum on carpet you will mostly just remove small amounts of surface dirt, but that ultimately the carpets will not get vacuumed properly and it will be a lot of hard work!

Sometimes it's useful to look into machines that are very good at doing both!

For example, Miele, Sebo Electrolux and Dyson have canister machines that have removable heads so you can switch to a motorized head for carpets and suction only for floors. These tend to be a bit more expensive than your average vacuum. I know that the Sebo and Miele machines that do both cost about $800.

Bissell also make canister machines that have removable motorized heads, and they also tend to be much more affordable than other machines. However, they are not known to be the most reliable machines, so you should consider how important that is to you.



Bagged or Bagless:

This comes down to personal preference or needs. If you suffer from severe allergies, then it really is best to get a bagged vacuum. In my opinion, even if you buy the highest quality bagless vacuum cleaner that has the most amazing filters and is perfectly sealed so that no dust can escape the machine while you are vacuuming, there is still the issue of then having to empty the dust container! This can be a very dirty and messy process which often results in some dust escaping the garbage, and landing on the floor and in the air. I've read directions on vacuums describing how to empty the canisters, and they recommend going outside to do it! Well, I live in a northern location where temperatures drop below freezing for several months a year, so going outside to empty the vacuum dust cup is simply not an option! I think you are also supposed to empty them in to a fairly large garbage container to avoid making a mess.

If you are on a tight budget, not suffering from allergies and are not at all fussy about the quality of the vacuum, then buying a bagless machine will be easiest. Most machines on the market these days tend to be bagless. Going to places like Walmart, you will see that most of the vacuums sold there are bagless.

A lot of people argue that the best thing about bagless vacuums is that you don't have to worry about buying new bags all the time. There is the extra cost involved, and also the possible inconvenience of running out of bags and not having any on hand when you want to vacuum. However, one thing to consider about bagless vacuums, is that you will usually have to clean the filters regularly. Dyson have created a machine where you don't have to clean the filters anymore, so that could be an option for you. Just keep in mind, that you will be spending upwards of $600 for that privilege.

Bagged vacuum cleaners usually have less maintenance involved. The filters are replaced, once a year or so. There is no dust container to empty or clean. You just replace the bag when it's full. Believe it or not, this doesn't have to be done as often as you would think. Somehow, when all the dirt gets sucked into the bag it gets compacted inside so it holds many times more than what a bagless can hold. I used to empty my bagless machine every time I vacuumed. With my bagged machine I only change the bag every month or two and even then, the bag is only half full!!!

Running out of bags isn't a problem, you buy a box and when you see the box getting low, you buy a new box! Most boxes have at least 4 bags in them.

One thing that is nice about a bagless vacuum though, is that you get to see how much debris you have vacuumed. This can be very satisfying! Also, if you accidentally vacuum up something valuable, like jewellery, you can just open the canister and retrieve it. Where as with a bagged vacuum, you might end up having to destroy the bag to get something out of it.

I used bagless machines for years, and they served me well. But one of the reasons I used them was because I thought I was being friendlier to the environment by using them. In reality, I usually emptied the dust cups into plastic bags to avoid a big mess. I was having to empty the vacuum every week, which means that I was using about 52 plastic bags a year! With my bagged vacuum, I have used about 5 bags in almost a year.

Cost:

Apparently there is a "sweet spot" in terms of price vs quality, and it is in the $300-$600 range. Therefore, you can get a really great machine within that price range. When you spend more than that, you will still get a great machine (at least one would hope!!) but it's a bigger investment, so in terms of how satisfied you are vs how much money you spent, it isn't always the best choice. Machines less than $300 start to become less reliable and not as well built.

That is not to say that you won't find your dream vacuum cleaner for under $300! As I mentioned, bagless machines tend to be cheaper. I am not going to post all kinds of reviews on the different makes and models. There are just too many to name. But generally, the expensive well known machines tend to be Miele and Dyson and the cheaper machines tend to be Eureka and Shark. I've read hundreds of reviews on all kinds of machines, and believe me, there are plenty of people that absolutely love their cheap Shark, and there are plenty of people that despise their expensive Dyson!

What I'm trying to say is,  you really shouldn't buy a vacuum cleaner just because you like the name brand! Even within each name brand there are so many different models that it's really important to do the research! Dyson have upright, canister, cordless etc. Every machine does something a bit different. Yes, they all vacuum - that's true! But some are easier to use if you have pets, some are better for small spaces, and some are best for large houses with wall to wall carpeting!

At the end of the day, it's a bit like driving. Some people hate driving, have no money and just need a very basic car to get from point A to point B. They are probably not going to end up buying a Lexus! As with cars, I think that there are "luxury" vacuum cleaners!

Some machines are just very easy to use, are very easy to clean, are super quiet, have lot's of great attachments etc. For some people, none of that matters in the slightest!

For me, I like vacuuming! Or rather, I like having my house free from pet hair and dirt. Therefore, I tend to vacuum on a weekly basis. Therefore, I prefer to have a machine that isn't dreadful to use - otherwise I will not be likely to ever want to vacuum!

I have several vacuums! Ten years ago we bought a Bissell upright bagless. We had mostly carpets, and didn't know anything about vacuums, it was probably on sale and it just seemed like a good buy. It worked quite well, and in fact it still works! The problem is that we changed our floors to laminate. I found that the vacuum was spitting dirt everywhere and that it was not at all easy to get under furniture. It's also very heavy, so vacuuming stairs is a bit tiring. I have tiny bathrooms so getting that machine in it was not at all fun. I then bought a really cheap canister vacuum for about $80. It was great, it was so easy to use, very compact so it was easy to do stairs and furniture. But it was also very loud, and it was very hard to empty the dust cup. It got static in the dry months and the dirt and cat hair would cling to the dust cup, and dust would fly around making a big mess. It also stopped working as reliably, but that might have been my fault for not replacing the filters and having possibly vacuumed plaster dust!!!

After that I bought a Bissell canister vacuum with a detachable motorized head. I found it to be very heavy, very loud, a bit awkward to use due to it's size (it has two big wheels at the back and it gets stuck around corners!). It's also very hard to remove the floor attachments! So having to switch between carpets and floors is a real pain! Then there are all the filters that need cleaning all the time, which is a time consuming messy process. Plus the motorized head brush gets completely clogged with fur and string so I have to spend time pulling it all out with tweezers and scissors! Needless to say, it was not a very smart purchase considering it was $200.

My latest vacuum cleaner is the Sebo K2. It's a bagged, lightweight, fairly compact canister vacuum. I ended up choosing a bagged machine, because after almost ten years of using a bagless, I was tired of having to constantly empty the dust cup and clean all the mess that it caused, and was tired of washing all the filters! I did extensive research, and in the end, the Sebo K2 was the machine that most closely matched my needs. It was $399, but had great reviews and looked solid and well built. It uses special bags that actually work like an extra filter which keeps the machine extra clean. It's also a very quiet machine. It comes with three attachments, none of them motorized (so fairly basic). I would have loved to get the next model up that had the motorized head, but it was twice the cost. I couldn't really justify it, as I only have a couple of floor mats, and no large carpets. But all in all, for me it's a great machine and I love it! A year later and I still look forward to vacuuming!

Keep in mind, there is no perfect vacuum! There are pros and cons to every machine. You just have to decide which features are most important to you. Most of my friends own a Dyson, and they have all been extremely happy with them! I did not want a Dyson though, first of all because they were not within my budget, but most importantly, I wanted a bagged machine!

So try not to get too frustrated when searching for a vacuum cleaner. Check out Amazon.com for reviews, that can be very helpful. Particularly for well known machines. The more well known, the more reviews you'll find.

Cat warehousing?

I recently volunteered at a cat rescue shelter, and thought I'd offer my two cents on the issue of cat warehousing.

The shelter that I volunteered at houses close to 300 cats. That's a lot of cats, and it's not a very big place.

The place has been under investigation for possible hoarding of cats, and passive cruelty. There are people on both sides shouting their opinions, and there is a lot of anger.

I've done a lot of research on cat shelters, and I've read a lot of opinions on both sides of the debate, and I've volunteered at the shelter so I feel that I have a very valid opinion on the matter.

The place is run by volunteers - at least this is what we are told.  There are a LOT of volunteers, and everyone I met cared enormously about the cats. There were constantly people bringing in things for the cats. Things like bowls, blankets, beds, litter, paper towels. Basically any supplies that were needed - and supplies were always needed because there was very little money! At Christmas I believe they provided a dinner for the cats, and instead of presents the volunteers were told they should bring in supplies for the shelter instead. At all times you would see someone walking around carrying a cat, giving it love.

It's a no kill shelter, and this is where the main controversy comes in. The cats will not be euthanized, even if they are terminally ill. Now I believe that all cats deserve a chance. And this does include sick cats - up to a certain point. Just because a cat has FIV (feline HIV basically) or Feline Leukemia Virus DOES NOT mean that they should just be euthanized!!! These cats have a terminal auto immune disease which means that they are more susceptible to getting serious illnesses that could eventually kill them, but that if they are cared for properly, and given lots of love, with a bit of luck then they can live for several years without incidence. They deserve love just like any sick human does. We don't euthanize cancer or AIDS patients!

Animals can't decide to end their lives when they are sick, so we have to use our own judgment to determine whether an animal is enjoying any quality of life. In my opinion, if an animal is terminally ill and has been suffering for a long time with lots of sickness, and is clearly in pain, then it's important to make a decision based on what's best for the animal, not what is easiest for us.

I DID witness cats with terminal illnesses living their lives in a cage, and I can tell you, it broke my heart! They had zero quality of life.

The cats living at the shelter are all very well fed. There is no doubt about that. Their litter boxes are cleaned twice a day. They have plenty of places to climb, sleep or hide. They have toys. They have caring people coming in and giving them lot's of love.

When it comes to issues of animal cruelty, you look for things like abuse, lack of food and water, lack of comfort etc. It's hard to look at a place and find any evidence of cruelty when you don't see any of the above.

However, there is more to life than just having a litter box, some food and water, a scratching post and a bed. I have learned a lot about cats, by observing my own! They have a lot more subtle needs, crucial to their well being! They need to played with, talked to, have enrichment activities, toys, windows to look out of etc.

When you have a room full of 50 or 100 cats, they will survive - but they won't thrive.

I wish people would think about what is best for the cats instead of what is best for themselves. In a perfect world we could create animal sanctuaries out in the country where sick and elderly cats could live out their days in beautiful gardens. But in this society, we DON'T HAVE THE SPACE OR THE MONEY!

There are many kind, generous and loving people who are donating their time and money to help the shelter without realizing that a lot of the money is going towards paying the vet bills for sick and dying cats.

When you call yourself a no kill shelter, and you house about 300 cats, you end up at maximum capacity. You can no longer take in any new cats. This means that young and healthy, perfectly adoptable cats end up being sent to other shelters in the city. Shelters that DO euthanize. If an animal isn't adopted in a week or so at a shelter, they are euthanized. So in reality, you can call yourself a no kill shelter all you like, but you are still indirectly responsible for healthy cats being euthanized every week. It's a bit like buying products from the Body Shop. They claim that their products are not tested on animals. What they don't tell you is that many of the ingredients in their products have been tested on animals by other companies.

After spending six months volunteering at the shelter I felt a bit defensive and almost protective over the place. I am a huge animal lover, and every single person I met there was the same. It was only after being away from the place for a couple of years and reading all the stories about how this was a hoarding operation that my opinion finally began to change.

First of all, the purpose of an animal shelter is to safely keep animals off of the streets while working hard to find new homes for them. An animal hoarder can pose as a rescue operation and justify housing 300 cats in a small filthy facility under the premise that these cats were saved from a horrible life on the streets.

It is not actually very humane at all to keep 300 cats in a small facility where their quality of life is very low. While yes, they are less likely to die from being hit by a car, starvation, or the cold weather - they are however at risk from many many other dangers!!!

As the shelter was not funded by the government, it was relying on donations. There are a lot of costs involved in running a shelter. You have to pay rent, buy food, litter, cleaning supplies, pay for electricity, vet bills, etc. There is a very long list of expenses, and I can't pretend I even know about half of the things required to successively run a shelter.

As I mentioned, there were about 300 cats living at this shelter. Many of them had health problems, so a large amount of money went towards vet bills each month. That I know for certain. There was a lot of money coming into the shelter, from my understanding, but as there were 300 cats - there were big expenses.

Bottom line was, there was NEVER enough money. Never. Every single week we experienced shortages of things. There would be emergency e-mails begging people to bring in litter and cat food, or dish soap, or paper towels. It was never ending.

As there was just barely enough money to make sure that all of the cats received the proper vet treatment and were adequately nourished (they were really well fed, that was the first priority - above all else!!!) it meant that there wasn't enough money for other important things.

Fire Hazards: I am not an electrician, and have no knowledge of how any of it works. However, I did not feel that the place was safe. In the kitchen there was a plug for the ceiling lights, it was scary looking, with lot's of electrical tape all over it. I wouldn't touch it, some one else had to turn the lights off - not me! There was no light switch, you had to unplug the lights.

We were not trained in fire safety or told where the fire exits were. The windows were barred, and there was only one door into the place (that I was shown anyway). Therefore, I am fairly sure that if there was a fire it would be very hard for anyone to get out!

Sanitation: The place was dirty. I feel bad saying that, I really do. We tried, everyone did their best. But the truth is, it is a big shelter, with not enough volunteers per shift to really be able to scrape the surface of the cleaning required in order for it to be a sanitary facility. The floors were mopped every day with a bleach solution. But as I mentioned, there were always shortages of everything, and I'm not convinced that each and every time the floors were mopped that the correct ratio of bleach to water was used.

Dish soap was constantly running out. How can dishes be adequately cleaned without the right amount of soap?

There wasn't enough time to get all the cleaning products out and wash walls and surfaces. Therefore, everywhere you looked there were filthy doors, windows, and walls.

The cement floors were not sealed, they were roughly painted and porous. Therefore, dirt, faeces, litter, fur etc. would be embedded in all the small holes, and cracks on the floor. The floors were never vacuumed, only swept, then mopped. Therefore, I do not think it's possible that the floors were clean.

The facility was an open air plan, meaning that not all of the rooms were sealed. Some rooms had chicken wire walls, meaning that air born illnesses could have been spread quite easily.

All of the above only scrapes the surface of what I'm trying to say, which is that it's not enough to just take a homeless cat off the streets and give them food and shelter.

You have to provide an environment where the cat can thrive, but always have the intention to get them adopted as quickly as possible!

You have to keep the cats safe! The place has to have measures in place to protect the animals from fire hazards and to promote an environment that is safe and healthy. I am sorry to say, but this place did not provide that.

When you have 300 cats living in a small space, it will automatically create some stress in the animal. Many of the animals looked fine, happy and healthy. But many many more were sick, scared, shy and miserable. The fact was (is?) that most of those cats were not going to ever get adopted.

That is the difference between an authentic cat shelter, and a hoarding operation posing as a cat rescue.

The number one sign it's a hoarding operation, is that the cats don't get adopted. Number two is that there is an air of secrecy surrounding the place. We were not allowed to disclose the location of the place, and when I was there I hardly ever saw cats get adopted. There were less than 10 a month, and as quickly as cats went out, more came in. There were cats that had been there for years. I had a friend try to adopt a cat from there, and she couldn't get in touch with anyone to help!!! So she went somewhere else! I could have found her a super awesome cat from there! I knew many many beautiful wonderful souls who would have been thrilled to finally leave! But they were denied that chance!

I really loved those cats! I looked forward to my weekly visits, there were so many awesome cats that I got to know and my heart absolutely bleeds for them, thinking that they are trapped in there and might never leave.

I really hope that one day our government will have stronger animal protection laws. A shelter should not be overcrowded, it should be safe, clean, regularly inspected and then have follow ups to ensure that the correct procedures are being adhered to. The cats should be adopted in a timely manner. The facility should be accessible for the public.

If no one knows where they are, how can cats get adopted? How can people donate money if they don't even know that the place exists?