An Adventure in Chile

I just arrived back in Canada from two weeks of travel in Chile. On the numerous flights back from South America I thought that it would be a great idea to blog about my experiences there. I realised that what I needed to say could not really be expressed in one blog; instead, I'd need to cover it in a short series. There were three major threads to my trip, and I'll address each of them in the next week or so in separate blogs. The first will be my impressions about seeing Chile and South America. The second will be about the socio-economic realities of Chile and my insight as a westerner. The final post will talk about privilege and travel.

I hope you'll take the time to read some of my material whether or not you've travelled or know anything about South America. As I mentioned, this post will look at my individual experience with Chile. It'll be the most informal of all the posts as I'll be effectively reflecting on two weeks of soaking in a beautiful and misunderstood country.

I stepped out of the aeroport in Santiago into the warm air. It was sunny, and I was surrounded by green. While flying down, I peered out of the tiny porthole beside me to notice that Santiago was a beautiful island enclosed by towering green and white mountains. The city appeared to perched on a desert, brown and sandy. When I was on the ground it was a grassy paradise. We took a shuttle into downtown, along the way passing shantytowns and parks. Once at the terminal, we shunted ourselves into the Santiago Metro, which is an amazing public transit system. It was clean and busy, at no matter what hour. I noticed that people sat with their smart phones and were listening to English pop music. Once I emerged from the metro station I was standing in a beautiful plaza with statues and trees. Cars navigated the roundabout and I stared up at towering apartments and offices. I felt as though I was in Venice and Vancouver.

I only managed to convince Kelly that we stay in Santiago for one night. I was enamoured and intrigued by the bustling city of nearly six million. It was the first time I was in a place that people might consider non-western or developing, and I wanted to see what the city had to offer. The most vivid memory I have is of standing at the gate to the national stadium. Used by Pinochet in the mid-1970s as a site to torture dissidents, the stadium is unassuming. There is no plaque, no statue. No commemoration and, sadly, no mention of its terrifying past. I stared at the field, locked behind red bars, and I thought about the tens of thousands who disappeared, many of whom had been held here. It was shocking to me to see the degree to which the suffering was erased, disavowed. In the aeroport two weeks later I watched Universidad de Chile play there while the crowds cheered in delight some four decades after the arena was host to crimes against humanity.

The next day we trekked by bus to Valparaìso and Viña del Mar, two beautiful cities along the Pacific coast. They hug the shoreline, bounded to the sea by the sprawling mountains. Valparaìso is an industrial port city, and it has all the grime despite being adorned in the most beautiful reds and oranges and yellows, all set against the green and blue its surroundings. It is a city rich in character and culture - a site for immigration and the entry point to Chile for most of its existence. Only twenty kilometres away is Viña del Mar, which is a flourishing resort community full of flashy cars and European tourists. The feel is completely different than that of its neighbour, though it's something to appreciate for its uniqueness. It's commercial, unlike anything else I saw in Chile, including the capital. Wealth is displayed virtually everywhere, in the architecture, in the public gardens, in the people. It was truly fascinating to see these two cities, stuck side-by-side.

For the rest of the trip Kelly and I were in the southern reaches of Chile, in Patagonia. We visited Punta Arenas before taking the bus north to Puerto Natales. After spending some time in the small community, we headed to Torres del Paine, one of South America's most famous natural wonders. The park is a massive sanctuary, but it's full of hikers from the global north, myself included. I felt a sense of freedom being away from civilisation, though I never escaped thinking about the degree to which tourism was damaging this fragile natural environment. Nevertheless, the trekking and camping was unforgettable. I saw my first iceberg, marvelled at the wildlife, and was surrounded by towering mountains and pristine glacial lakes.

Sadly, visiting those six locales took up my two weeks, and I headed back home to Canada. Chile was a place I'll always remember fondly, and I already look forward to going back there sometime. The flight home was bittersweet as I longed to remain in my new habitat, but I found myself ready to come back to my real life. In the dying hours of my trip, I made a commitment to myself to write a short series of blogs about my experience. I hope you enjoyed this one, and stay tuned my next post which will examine the socio-economic condition of Chile.

On the Culture of Consumer Debt

It's no secret that western societies are becoming ever the more crippled with debt. In Canada we have an interesting television show about debt, and I imagine there are numerous more in the United States. Til Debt Do Us Part is a spectacle of how out of control debt can become for average middle class people. Hosted by Gail Vaz-Oxlade, it explores the downward spiral into debt that families often find seemingly insurmountable. With budgeting, lifestyle changes, and re-education about money, the families find their way back to financial security. If only it were that easy.

Instead of looking at individuals and blaming them for making poor decisions about spending, I believe it makes more sense to take a wider sociological angle at why we engage in the economy. A culture that's built on status symbols is a massive problem. People's idea of self is connected to what they own: the clothes they wear, the cars they drive, the music they listen to, the decor in their kitchens. In highly individualistic societies, like in Canada and the United States, there is a massive pressure on people to fit in by finding their own identity. This identity is less tied into beliefs than into the materialistic property that surrounds them. This leads people to make purchases, spending more than they can afford, largely because credit is available. This is something that I like to call "spending beyond reason".

But while the previous paragraphs really expose the degree to which people are spending in order to fit in, this actually makes up the minority of those who are in debt. The lower middle class and the working poor are generally in debt because they simply cannot afford the necessities of life. It comes down to many between choosing to pay for a tank of gas or groceries, and the only way to afford both is credit. Thus begins a cycle from which tens of millions of North Americans simply do not emerge intact. There are, infrequently, television shows about this because it's not glamourous and of course because it would really get people thinking that maybe personal choice isn't such a powerful component of one's financial standing. Effectively, it all boils down to the same principle, and that's that money is all around us but seldom understood.

So who, then, is at fault for this system of poor education around money, a climbing debt load, and a generally unsustainable economy? The consumer? The lenders? Government? I'd argue that they all play a significant role in creating a society that is consumed with the idea of consuming. How the system evolved to its particular manifestation is, well, anyone's guess, but I'd argue that maintaining it is a vestige of the elite: lawmakers and large financial institutions. Government is pressured by lenders, more so in the United States, to create favourable legislation around what banks and credit card companies can do. Individuals and groups in society, particularly those who are economically and otherwise marginalised, have such a limited voice against such powerful blocs of power.

Often the assertion is made, as in the documentary Maxed Out, that this is in fact leading to the destruction of the middle class. In almost occupy-esque language, the increased saturation of credit has deeply widened the gap between the rich and poor. In all fairness, it absolutely is the collapse of the American middle class. However, to frame the argument that way is inherently classist. It's effectively saying that nobody really cares that everyone is becoming poor, but only that the middle class is eroding. America, more than virtually any other developed country, has minimal sympathy for its working poor, namely because the American Dream is widely believed. The logic is such that those who have something got there through hard work and determination, while those who are in dire straits got there as a result of their poor choices.

Scandal in the Senate

Surprise surprise: the Senate is embroiled in a rather delicate situation, with several members being investigated for various offences. The three offenders that stand out most right now are Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau, and Mike Duffy, all appointed as Conservative Senators in 2008 and 2009. The scandal involves expense claims, perhaps most outrageously with Wallin's $350 000 travel budget during a two-year period.

However, as much as people would like to focus on the fact that this is a problem with the Conservative Party, it's distinctly non-partisan. Liberal Senators are in the same position, most notably with Mac Harb, who is accused of claiming residency outside of Ottawa in order to claim living expenses for work in Ottawa. It's evident that the problem is not necessarily with the Senators themselves, but with a system of appointments, where someone is handpicked to join the Senate and may remain there for, in some cases, decades.

Although the problem (even upon a quick glance) is very much a systemic one, political parties and the media are attacking individual Senators and claiming that they are the problem. While they may be emblematic of the abuse and unaccountability, these Senators are behaving in a certain way because there is minimal transparency and they are not held to account by the Canadian public through, for instance, voting. Justin Trudeau recently remarked that the problem could be fixed by picking "higher-calibre Senators". What that means, for one, is unclear, and it further contributes to an institution that is simply designed for people to not be responsible and open.

What's perhaps most interesting about this story is how it fits into the public image of Stephen Harper as harmless, practical, and looking after Canada's best interests. Widely viewed as a reformer (in the grassroots Reform Party vein), he was elected partially on a promise to democratise the Senate. Upon assuming office he has since (conveniently) forgotten about this promise. Of course it is reasonable enough to say that he hasn't done anything because it's a difficult system to change, but he has actively, not just tacitly, maintained the status quo with respect to the Senate. Since becoming Prime Minister he has appointed numerous new Senators, Wallin, Brazeau, and Duffy among them.

If that's not evidence enough that Harper has only limited desire to reform the Senate, consider this: Stephen Harper has been one of Canada's most undemocratic leaders. Two prorogations, allegations of electoral fraud, and a charge of contempt of parliament. Beyond this, he's muzzled scientists, labelled activists as terrorists, and changed the rules on who may ask him questions at press meetings. How serious can he be about promoting greater democracy?

Like many Canadians, I'm saddened by the degeneration of Canada's democratic institutions and I'm nervous about their ability to rebound. I have hope that there is a critical mass out there who is concerned about reviving accountability and transparency in our system.

And Remember, It's Not Sexism: It's Science

I was in Montréal last weekend and one of the local radio stations, 92.5 "The Beat" Montréal, was played an add several times that I thought was worth sharing. Unfortunately, I'm neither able to find the add itself or a transcript of it, and I have tried (unsuccessfully) to get anything helpful from the radio station.

The add is a conversation between a male and a female:

Female: "I should only have two drinks per day"
Male: "And I should only have three drinks per day"
Female: "I should only have ten drinks per week"
Male: "And I should only have fifteen drinks per week"
Together: "It's not sexism; it's science"

I was honestly rather confused in listening to this commercial, or more accurately, this strange public service announcement. It's unclear who sponsored this add, though it's clearly about moderation. While I do agree with the message that people should carefully watch their alcohol consumption (which is certainly a problem) I do not appreciate the message that we can essentialise based on gender.

While it is, in general, true that men can drink more than women, it is a false conclusion that all men can drink more than women can. This is true whether you're talking about sustained daily consumption or one night of excessive consumption. 

In fact, other factors are probably more significant than gender. Age, weight, metabolism, tolerance, food consumption, medication, and many other considerations are all entirely relevant. Gender is obviously a factor, but it's one of many factors, and it is valuable for how it interacts with other factors, not just for its own sake. This might explain, for example, why most women can drink more than I can. It also explains why my ability to consume alcohol has not remained static or constant despite the fact that my sex has. The reality is, as unfortunate as this may seem for most people, that the effects of alcohol on an individual are very idiosyncratic and often unpredictable. For me, it's something like this, though it's certainly not constant.

And this is where science comes in. My claim about my own idiosyncratic and inconsistent drinking realities are, unsurprisingly, unscientific. But I don't claim it to be an objective scientific reality. In fact, science is all about contradictions, anomalies, and unpredictability. As such, claims about difference attributed to science are, at best, just sketchy. At worst, however, they play on our cultural ideas about the differences between men and women. As a result, it's both science and sexism: scientific sexism. This sort of values-driven science is best evidenced in evolutionary psychology, and is very similar to eugenics and scientific racism. Men and women are biologically different or socially different and thus act differently. This public service announcement is nothing different: women and men are just different and thus should behave differently. I intend to talk more about objectivity and science in the near future, so I'll leave it at that for now.

While the whole advertisement is problematic, what's more problematic is that it's a woman saying that it's not sexism. This is effectively co-optation and also the same as incorporating any marginalised person to speak on behalf of that group. It's disconcerting to say the least, giving the impression that sexism can be, and often is, just a harmless reality, not a purposeful product of a patriarchal system.

I have to say that, fundamentally, we should all be concerned about how much we drink. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that it has to do with our gender: we're smart people and we should understand that it's simply more complicated than that.

Free

There are numerous basic tenets of modern society, not the least of which being our perceived rights to freedom. Freedom is a dangerously tricky word to define because it means different things to different people at different times in different contexts. It's complicated; and it should be. Freedom is a question that deals with virtually everything we do every day. 

I'm writing this post because today I read an article in the National Post which attacks one of my friends, Arun Seamus Surinder Smith. He's an outspoken activist and a student of international human rights at Carleton University in Ottawa. Rex Murphy, one of Canada's most controversial political and social commentators, recently wrote a piece attacking Arun's ideology. The basic idea of the article is that Arun is an archetype of university students, removed from the real world. His ideas are fomented by other students and professors who obviously have nothing better to do than to deconstruct society and come up with a bunch of random "-isms". What scares me about this article is that it glosses over activism with a wide brush, dealing only with the abstraction that opposition to power in our society is misguided. In fact, Murphy didn't even bother to mention what specifically Arun was reacting to or why it was offensive or inappropriate: he simply characterised someone reacting to free speech as crazy or entitled.

This is particularly interesting because it paints the activist and university student, let alone the person challenging privilege, as entitled. Entitlement, however, comes from privilege. Those in society who have power (for whatever reason), generally feel that they have earned it and as a result they are entitled to act upon it. In our society, privilege comes in innumerable forms, though its worth noting for the purpose of this post that there are privileges that are social and ones that are economic. They are most certainly usually tied to one another, but they are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, both are inherently political.

Virtually everyone, myself included, gets defensive when their privilege is challenged. Most things in my life I've accomplished because of my location, whether social or economic. I've had many opportunities that eighty or ninety per cent of others didn't. I'm lucky. I'm not better than everyone else, I was merely dealt a better hand to play with that others were. That opens up to me certain avenues, and also limits me simultaneously. In other words, I'm privileged in some ways, and oppressed in others. We all are. That's reality. Sorting out particulars is important, and the particulars of this case are likely highly interesting, but since I don't know about them, I'd rather talk about the broader ramifications.

Firstly, understanding speech is not simple, and I won't pretend to know the best way to manage it. Instead, let me present you with some basic definitions. The notion that people are free to express themselves, in an historical or modern perspective, is core to the American identity. Free speech is considered to be the pinnacle of evolution on thought. The idea comes from the Enlightenment and was part of a changing tide in Europe: that maybe absolutism/autocracy wasn't in the best interests of humankind. This was also part of classical liberalism, the notion that humans should be more free to act as economic agents without the interference of cumbersome and often out-of-touch governments. When you think about it, it goes together fantastically:

For centuries American foreign policy has been rooted in the promotion of its core identities: democracy and capitalism. From its conception, the United States has been described as a beacon for letting individuals make choices, all under the name of liberty. It's part of the lexicon of American culture: the American Dream, Manifest Destiny, car culture, and reality television. The discourse is that anyone can make anything out of themselves. Freedom is the right to participate in a democratic socio-political system, and the right to participate in a capitalist socio-economic system.

While these notions certainly sound great, they are pretty far removed from reality. Oppression, in a society that tries to minimise redistribution and regulation, comes from numerous loci and allows only a select few to benefit from the free society. Freedom is often merely the freedom to be exploited. Americans, like many others in developed countries, are scared of governments for either social or economic reasons. Governments will often limit what people can do, but what that means depends on who is limiting whom.

Often when we think of limits to free speech its a question of it being simply "censorship". This is a vastly challenging thing to deal with, and it's key matter of political economy in that it deals with who has the power to make the decision. From the Western perspective, we often think of censorship and tie it to despicable regimes that were about as far away from democracy as imaginable: Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, North Korea, or Iran. But it's obviously more complicated than that. These societies certainly placed harsh limits on members of society, but it wasn't in the interests of protecting the oppressed, like ethnic minorities, women, the poor, or political dissidents.

It should be the imperative of the state or government to protect those who are marginalised or who cannot protect themselves. The danger of "free" markets and "free" speech is that it gives the impression that everything is the best it could be and that it's fair. Moreover, it's as though if you can't compete, you don't deserve dignity or respect. This is predicated on the notion that free markets and free speech are both efficient and moral, the pinnacle of human development and certainly not in need of tinkering.

To take a critical stance on this position is to advocate for equity - that we are all not equal: whether before the law, or before the economy, or before one another. Building up regulation in justice, in finance, and in social interaction makes sense. People need to be protected, and that's what hate speech legislation is about. We have it, legally, in Canada, but application and enforcement are far from perfect. When you see hate speech, think about what's being said and challenge it.

On Violence: 2012 In Review

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I'm incessantly paying attention to news stories and giving my opinions. If I had my way, blogging would be my vocation, but sadly it doesn't pay well, especially when you're a crackpot leftist talking mostly about economics. I'd have a better shot if I were reviewing music, talking about fine cuisine, or documenting myself through an important life change. But I digress: those who have the great pleasure of hearing me rant in person know that there are numerous items that I didn't even manage to post about, often issues that I'm deeply fascinated by. I'd like to pay to pay tribute to several stories that I, unfortunately, didn't have a chance to properly address from 2012.

The theme that I stumbled upon while trying to figure out what to ultimately write about is pretty significant, in my mind: violence. 2012 was full of it, from talk in the election of killing Osama bin Laden to riots during Black Friday sales to the nationalist rallying of the Euro Cup. Violence, as well as the horrifying discourses around it, was seen on a daily basis this year. Here are my thoughts.

This spring was a tumultuous one for Québec, where students were embroiled in a powerful strike movement unlike anything anyone's ever experienced in North America. Hundreds of thousands of students and sympathisers took to the streets daily in order to fight against the government's decision to raise tuition for students in Québec. The province has a strong welfare state, something that clashes rather significantly with the rest of Canada and the United States, and large media organisations such as Maclean's, CTV, and SunMedia were quick to label the protesters as lazy and entitled, and this was an attitude largely echoed by the anglophone general public. Perhaps most emblematic of this was the fatal shooting that occurred the night of the election in September. But protesters were acting out not only against specific changes, as miners were in South Africa this summer, but austerity in general. This is echoed by the turmoil that Greece has experienced of late. Regardless of whether or not the movement was justified, it was full of violence.

Much has been made of the violent acts of protesters, namely lighting a police car on fire and throwing a smoke bomb in the metro. These images are shocking and confirm what people want to see, that people who are standing up to the system are playing dirty tricks and deserve to be crushed. Naturally, the police brutality against the protesters has gone largely undetected - at least in the mainstream media. The internet, local community radio, and to a lesser degree CBC have been effective tools of circulating discourses and information from the perspective of the students. On all sides, violence is a tool, and each party involved has discourses about the appropriate use of violence, meaning that it's a complicated topic and that it is inherently very political.

Perhaps more shocking still is the violence in the Middle East, embodied in two very different yet eerily similar struggles: Syria and Gaza. Both of these conflicts are incredibly complicated and have generated massive controversy internationally. I've attempted to steer away from them, but I wanted to offer a brief summary and then talk about violence specifically.

In Syria there has been a longstanding conflict between the state and some of its people. Depending on whom you ask, you'll get a different name for the event: an uprising, a struggle, a crackdown, or a civil war. All the same, the world has had its eye on Syria since the start of the so-called Arab Spring in early 2011. While many parts of the Middle East had revolutions that overturned the status quo, Syria managed to entangle itself in a longstanding showdown between President Bashar al-Assad and many factions of the Syrian public. While both sides have sustained heavy casualties to this date, it is hapless civilians that tend to make up the largest contingent of the body count. Missiles, airstrikes, and firefights in urban locales have all contributed to a staggering loss of life. Again, the military and the rebels feel justified in their employment of violence, and they have both been backed politically and financially by players in the international community. The state, with its monopoly on the use of violence continues to fight against a large plurality of Syrians who believe that violence is necessary to produce social and political change. The conflict will continue for the foreseeable future as neither side is capable of defeating the other and both have widespread support from powerful partners.

The conflict this year between Isreal and Palestine was also dramatic. For several months the two states, which are perennially at war, engaged in sporadic clashes. Parts of Occupied Palestine have limited recourse for the abuses that they face at the hands of Israeli Security Forces. As has been the recent trend, groups within Gaza have fired rockets into Israel. Palestinian's are desperate, and placards like this one have attempted to sum up the injustices.: "You take my water, burn my olive trees, destroy my house, take my job, steal my land, imprison my father, kill my mother, bombard my country, starve us all, humiliate us all, but I am to blame: I shot a rocket back". The history is obviously very complicated, but the reality is that there is a massive power imbalance between Israel and Palestine. During peacetime Palestinians are forced to deal with violent acts being perpetrated against them, like having possessions stolen, or their rights taken away, also including economics as a form of violence.

Another terrible theme of 2012 that I feel needs to be addressed is the unbelievable amount of deaths from shootings in the United States. There are four that stand out: Chicago in August, Wisconsin in August, Aurora in July, and Connecticut in December. These events are remarkable for the fact that they were all examples of disgruntled and disturbed young white men who wrought violence on a group of surprised unarmed people. There has been a lot of talk about gun control, something which Americans have some interesting perspectives on, but strangely there has been limited discussion about other key elements. First of all, access to mental health services is lacking, and most Americans are keen to blame violent video games rather than systemic problems of dealing with depression, anxiety, or mental illness. Nonetheless, these psychological elements are certainly noted, but what's troubling from my perspective is that a wider sociological analysis is never really presented. It's much safer, from the public's perspective, to think of there being a small number of "defective" people out there rather than have to respond to the fact that violence occurs for very predictable social reasons, notably that we encourage men to express no negative emotions other than anger, we construct guns as the ultimate example of power (such as masculinity, whiteness, or whatever else), and our individualist society fails people who are not good at forming or maintaining interpersonal relationships. This is obviously amplified when we consider that the public mental health infrastructure in the United States is seriously lacking. All the talk of violence in public places is tragic enough, but many in America are seriously entertaining the idea of fighting fire with fire: the solution to the violence problem is to get more people carrying guns, presumably to stop other violent people. Simple solutions, like legislation or hiring security guards, are being favoured over smarter, more complicated, longterm solutions like reeducation.

Lastly, I'd like to talk about rape culture and the apparent divide between East and West. Recently, a woman was raped by several men in India, her lifeless body thrown off a bus. Media outlets in the West have taken this opportunity to point out that life is very dangerous for women in India. In addition, numerous statistics about the number of women raped in the country have been splashed across television screens. Approximately 22 000 women are reported to have been raped per year in India, though rape statistics are almost always problematic as they are usually vastly under-reported. Definitions of rape are not very clear, and there's a substantial threat to one's personal safety when a victim comes forward. The problem, however, is that India is four times the size of the United States, is the equivalent of 5 000 women per year being raped in the United States. People in the West have a general sense that discrimination based on sex is over, misogyny no longer exists, and that we are over rape. This is further warped by stereotyped notions that people in the developing world are uncivilised, especially with respect to how women are treated. The case is thus: rape is a problem in India but not in the United States. The hypocrisy is simply astounding to me for numerous reasons, especially given the gender gap in the 2012 Presidential Election. America has a serious problem with rape culture, and although it's worse than in the rest of West, it's a problem that exists dually in both developed and developing countries across all social and economic classes.

All in all, 2012 was a very violent year, though it may not be remembered that way, unfortunately. In Googling the top news stories of 2012, I came across numerous lists, though almost all of them included the following: Costa Concordia Incident, Stratosphere Jump, Presidential Election, Facebook's Initial Public Offering, Hurricane Sandy, the London Olympics and many other events. With that in mind, I will say that Global News had by far the best list of top news stories from 2012. They did not shy away from talking about numerous other cases, which you can look back on by following the above link.

Tis The Season

This post may be coming late given that Christmas is less than a week away, but I'd like to take a moment to make a brief post about gift-giving this year. I've seen a lot of campaigns going around on social media, encouraging people to buy certain products and to shop at certain stores. There are several principles that are important in consumption, and I'd like to articulate them here alongside some practical advice.

First, all of the responsible ways to shop have been effectively co-opted by the retail industry. Public relations departments and firms, though something called "corporate social responsibility", have taken the path of least resistance to make either minimal change or change in name only to create the appearance that the product or service is more ethical than it indeed is. This is all purposefully designed to make us feel much less empty for immersing ourselves into consumer culture overdrive. It's virtually impossible to stay on top of this one, but it pays to be vigilant and do your best. There is no way to eliminate all the exploitation from your purchases, but that doesn't mean you should try.

Perhaps the most common recommendation from consumer watchdogs is "buying local". While this is certainly important, it's necessary to understand what exactly this means. Buying local can mean rather different things to different people, but the premise is generally to support your local economy. This is generally viewed as positive because there is minimal effect on the environment through transportation and players in the local economy are more active in terms of production, something which is increasingly being out-sourced - an entirely unsustainable practice.

As such, people will often shop at their local stores, foregoing Wal-Mart and Target. While this is presumably a good move, it's important to remember that it's not just the store - it's the product. Buying products made in China and Bangladesh at a local store only goes part way, for numerous reasons. The ecological cost of transportation is huge and the benefit to your local economy is going to be much smaller than buying something locally produced.

Another important angle is combating accumulation. It's no secret that the holiday season is full of excess, but why not keep that in check by buying gifts that people can actually use rather than getting them impractical stuff just because you feel compelled to get them something? The vast majority of North Americans have far more material possessions than they need already, so ask yourself if something actually needs what you are considering purchasing.

Most importantly, remember that it's the thought that really counts. Taking time out of your busy life to thank someone and show them that they are worth it is often all someone really needs. Instead of buying a gift for everyone, why not give your time? Spend time doing something you enjoy together or make them something that they could not have made themselves. Also, consider making a donation to charity in their name, or going to volunteer together. These are all more meaningful experiences than using your money to buy something and it will be guaranteed to be better than spending hours in a mall.

This should be a time of the year to relax and get away from the grind, though unfortunately it is rarely the case. I hope that your holidays are safe and enjoyable regardless of how you intend to gift for your loved ones. All the best!