Personally? I don't find this all that "alarming":

 

 http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_4856.aspx

 

 As a product of the 1980's, I vividly remember the humble beginnings, of the Nancy Reagan "Just Say No" campaign against drug use. While the message was simple and direct (i.e. "Drugs are bad for you."), its application and follow through, left much to be desired. Primairly because, at least in my opinion, it neglected to take into account, the concept of sociological class. And how one's sociological status, could influence one towards or away from drugs. Regardless of age, gender, or race.

 

 While I conceed, that drug use can be found at every social and financial standing, it's primarly found in areas of abject poverty. Ask many of the "Baby Boomers", who staked their claim during the economical boom of the 80's, and they'll tell you their drug use was purely "recreational". It was trendy, social, and more importantly, socially acceptable, in their tight-knit circles. That's not to say, it couldn't have just as easily lead them down the slippery slope of addiction, as any poverty-stricken unfortunate. But its root-cause could not be linked back to financial desperation, and the inability to meet life's basic requirements. Often, it was done out of sheer boredom, and experimentation. A very rich, unnamed rock musician once said of his personal drug habit, "I knew I had a problem, when I could afford my vices.". Having said that, the upper class could also afford the resulting stint in a rehabilitation facility, should the need arise. Something not always afforded to the poor.

 

 Unlike the upper class, those precariously straddling the poverty line, or in many cases, falling far below it, turn to drugs as a means of escapism. Escape from hunger. Escape from living, in a physically threatening envoirnment. Escape from the daily toil, of endless, back-breaking labour. Unlike the wealthy, who can "vacation" away from their problems,  the lower class are often regulated to a reprieve, a mere few hours long. So the "trip" they can afford, is a chemical one. Something that grows more frequent with every use, as its theraputic and medicinal value increases with every dosage.

 

 Now in 2006, the drug culture has morphed into an altogether different beast.

 

 With the invention of the internet, and the easy availability of most necessary ingrediants, many of today's most popular drugs can be manufactured right in one's, own home. Many of the more expensive, mainstream drugs of the 1980's have fallen by the wayside, and become almost obsolete, when compared to today's more "designer" concoctions like Ecstasy, GHB, and Special K (Ketamine). The internet is littered with chemist's recipes, accessable to anyone with net capabilities. The required ingrediants can be easily purchased at any legit drug store. Although measures are being taken to restrict sales in certain age brackets, this is by no means foolproof. As if this wasn't problems enough, these low-cost fixes are proving in many instances, to be even MORE potent and even HARDER to kick, than their pricey counterparts of ages past. Low cost to produce, and cheap to purchase, seems to be the future of the street drug market. And it's already creeping it's way, into the upper echelon of society. As more and more "white collar" addicts, are checking into rehabilitation facilities, for dirt-cheap addictions. While grade school students, can now buy themselves into a lifetime of addiction, with just a small portion of their lunch money.

 

 You say "legalize" it all?

 

 I'll address the pros and cons of that, ANOTHER time. :)

 

 On a "happier" note...

 

 Happy "Devil's Night", everyone!

 

 Gh0sT xxx

 

 
 

 Think inner city problems, aren't expanding into small-town Ontario?

 

 Think again.....

 

 http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Bonokoski_Mark/2006/10/15/2032550-sun.html

 

 Gh0sT

 

 

 Wow. This is a real head-turner:

 

 http://www.citynews.ca/news/features_4376.aspx

 

 I remember reading a medical report not too far back, which stated obesity is fastly becoming the number one most preventible medical problem. It further concluded, that at its present rate, it will overtake smoking, in roughly the span of a few, short years.

After reading the above story, it very much reminds me of the "elephant in a room" scenario. You know what I'm refering to. Everybody see it, but nobody feels comfortable enough to say anything about it. This perpetual "dancing around the issue", is what's leading to these forms of shortcut "cure-alls". Parents fail to exercise nutritional and portion control over their kids, a practice the children themselves perpetuate in return. Then, a doctor allows them a medical "patch-up  job", instead of being the disciplinarians the parents SHOULD have been, by telling the children to get off their sorry asses, eat right, and exercise. A practice much less invasive, then surgery. Not to mention, it doesn't go against the doctor's Hypocritical Oath, to "do no harm". Which could easily be a direct result of surgery.

 

 Again. Where's the sense of responsibility?

 

 But in the meantime.......

 

 "Here's a BIG, FAT Rock-burger! With some extra Rock-sauce on the side!"

 

 Gh0sT

 

 

 

 

...when you can just F@#K your way in!

 

 Welcome to Canada!

 

 http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_4335.aspx

 

 

 The City of Toronto is on a renovation spree. But not for reasons they'd have you believe.

 

 Here's their current project: http://www.toronto.ca/npsquarecompetition/index.htm

 

 After the completion of their last project, Dundas Square, they've moved on to Nathan Philips Square. And while they'd like you to believe, they're doing it soley to enhance the city's image and attract tourists, they're not being entirely forthcoming about their true intentions. The key word being "true".

 

 To better understand what I'm refering to, allow me to walk you through the history of both places. When I'm finished, you see the undeniable link between the two locations, and the obvious practicality how one should follow the other, in order of importance.

 

 Dundas Square, pre-renovation, was considered the cornerstone, of genuine, Toronto sleeze. Much like the old Times Square in New York, that was where one went to indulge, in all forms of fleshy vices. Skin mags, strip shows, pornographic video, and everything else hedonistic. However, these types of buisnesses are typical of the Yonge St. strip. Even so far as Yonge and Bloor St. (many blocks north), you can still see them in existence today. However, the city tollerated them, because they were located right in the downtown core. Away from all the ritzy hotels, classy restaurants, and the theatre district.

 

 But believe it or not, the most frequent inhabitants of Dundas Square, were not the perverts and sexual voyers. It was the homeless. Many of which were the mentally ill, who had fallen through the cracks of our social system. Taking an afternoon stroll through the square and its surrounding area, it wasn't all that uncommon to see the homeless sleeping on steam grates, regardless of extreme weather conditions. Or holed up in a corner, muttering unintelligibly to themselves. As disconcerting as it may have been to passers-by, the homeless congragated there out of safety. It being a wide open space, and often heavily populated. Whether it be day or night. Regardless of their social standing, they are by no means ignorant. The homeless in Toronto, have on several occasions, been the targets of physical attacks. Occasionally even resulting in their deaths. So choosing that piticular location to frequent, was a sound, stratigic move on their behalf.

 

 So a few years back, when the city, already ladden in debt, sudddenly decided to "clean up the downtown core", starting with Dundas Square, needless to say, I was a little skeptical. After its completion, I was even MORE skeptical. Especially when I saw the "clean up job" didn't even include, some of the street's worst culprits. Which were a scant few blocks north of the square. It looked more like a glorified round-up of the city's destitute, done covertly with a few million, in hard-earned taxpayer dollars, than anything resembling a total cleansing. Not to mention, this was around the same time, the city was closing a number of shelters due to lack of funding. An irony not lost on me, or any other socially-conscious observer for that matter.

 

 Now, the same situation is transpiring at Nathan Philips Square. With it posessing the same, geographic qualities and social practicalities for the homeless on Queen St. west, as its former Yonge St. counterpart did previously, it too, is now suddenly slated for renovation. Personally? As a native Torontonian, I can think of a half-dozen or more areas, off the top of my head, that are in more dire need of a fixing, than Nathan Philips Square. And isn't it ironic, that Nathan Philips Square, sits right next to City Hall? But I'm sure the city councilors, sitting in their high-powered offices of polished mahogany and glass, having to stare down at the homeless every day, reminding them of their own, personal failures as human beings, has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with it. It's all a big coincidence. As are the countless shelters that have remained closed, yet to be re-opened elsewhere. Or the substantial amount of unoccupied, downtown structures residing south of Dundas St., extending to the lakefront, that just lay dormant and unused. Structures that could have been used to house the homeless, at a fraction of the cost it took to renovate Dundas Square.

 

 Of course, maybe I'm just paranoid. But I'll leave that up for you to decide.

 

 Personally? We're I a visting tourist, I'd be more impressed with a city taking legitimate steps, albeit slow ones, to find permanent solutions to what is vastly becoming a chronic issue, than I would be with a city who attempts to eliminate a problem, by sweeping it under the rug.

 

 But then again....What the hell do I know, anyways?

 

 How about, "You can judge a society, by how it treats its weakest members."?

 

 Gh0sT
 

PERFECT weather for a ride!!! :)

 You have to read this....

 

 http://www.torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2006/10/02/1935514-sun.html

 

  This is one of those stories that comes along once in a blue moon, and just begs the question, "WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING?".

 

 And before anyone jumps all over me, let me make something perfectly clear: This is NOT, about the gender of the racer in question. This is more about the lack of practicality and parenting skills, which lead to a 17 year-old girl (That's right. I said "girl". Because that's EXACTLY what she was. She couldn't drink, vote, or even consent for herself medically. Henceforth, that's what she was.) attempting to navagate a jet-fueled drag car, at speeds of almost 500 km/h. Regardless of her training, and regardless of her family's history in this sport, this was a recipe for disaster.

 

 I know some of you will undoubtably say. "There are risks in every sport". Much agreed. However, most sports don't involve sitting on a jet-fueled rocket, which propells enough G's, to peel the skin from our face. Even a seasoned veteran, with fully developed skills and physical reflexes, quite often meets such speeds, only to succomb to dire consequences in the end. So to throw in a teenager, who hasn't even achieved physical or psychological maturity? Again. I just cannot fathom the rationale behind such a decision.

 

 The commentary about some of the track staff being "in shock", would almost be laughable, we're it not refering to such an obvious tragedy. "In shock"? Why the hell would any one of them be in shock? That would be the LAST thing I would be in. To me, that's the equivalent of someone saying, "I was shocked, when I saw the solider get blown up, when the walked into the minefield.". The negative variables being so catastrophically high, with the odds being against your completeing the task at hand, in my opinion, I feel it's more assassine to believe, you could actually come out on the winning end, unscathed.

 

 But I'm merely a layman. So what do I know, in the grand scheme of things?

 

 How about...."It's NOT a good idea, to throw an adsolescent on a rocket.".  

 

 Well, I know THAT much. Now they know, too.

 

 Shaking my head,

 

 Gh0sT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 I had an incident at the shop yesterday.

 

 A customer, who in all fairness was nice enough, inquired about the closing of one of our leading competitors. A company that was no fly-by-night operation, and had been in buisness for almost a full century. "Actually", I remarked. "That the fourth company this year alone.". "Really?" he seemed genuinely dumbfounded. "What's causing all these closures?". "Well," I replied. "To be perfectly honest with you, YOU are. And when I say 'you', I mean the consumer in general.". And it was only after I had explained to him the basic laws of retail, and how it was affecting us retailers, did I realize just how profoundly ignorant the general public is, regarding the entire system. How it functions, and who plays what role. 

 

 So for the sake of those not "in the know", here's a crash course on how things work.

 

 For a retailer to sell you a product, that product first must purchased from a distributor. So already, there's a financial transaction taking place, before you even touch the product. A distributor does just what its name implies: It distributes an array of product lines, to a multitude of retailers, and ONLY retailers. This is why John Q. Public cannot walk into a distributor's warehouse, and just purchase a product off the shelf.

 

 Another misnomer, is the idea that retailers set store prices. In actuality, that's not entirely true. It's actually, the distributors that set the store's original price. They do so, though a yearly catalogue they issue, to any company that purchases product from them, and carries one or more of their lines. The price they set, is often refered to as the "suggested retail price". They refer to it as such, because the distributor is essentially saying to the retailer, "We suggest you sell this product at $_____. The price will recoup your cost of purchasing it from us, while at the same time, net you a reasonable profit.".

 

 A BIG profit, you may say? Well.......Not always!

 

 Here's why.

 

 Once you've paid your distributor, and received your stock, you've essentially broke even. Provided, of course, in a worst case scenairo, at the very least, you are able to turn around, and sell that stock, for what you paid the distributor for it. Keep in mind, as a retailer, every purchase you make from a distributor is a gamble. A portion of the line may flop, or the entire line. You have no why of knowing what's really going to fly from season to season. Other than to observe what some other retailer has done previously, and monitored their subsequent sucess or failure, with that piticular or similar line. So even if you're forced to sell, just one product of that line below cost, your wallet has already taken a hit. Now imagine you've purchased, oh, say, ONE THOUSAND UNITS of that product. None of which are moving off the shelves. NOW, you're forced to sell off the entire line, for under the cost of what you paid for it. Now you're REALLY up the creek!

 

 Best case scenairo? The product line sells, and you make a marginal profit.

 

 Why do I use the term "marginal"?

 

 Because the actual "profit", only comes AFTER you've paid off all of your expenses. Expenses like rent, utilities, waste removal, delivery personal, and last but not least, SALES staff. Because, let's been honest: The sales staff, and the "heat and soul" of a shop. A good one, can sell an ice machine to an eskimo, and they've forgotten more about the products, than YOU'LL even know. So if you've made an untimely purchase (i.e. A line of racing jackets, who's colour is two seasons out of fashion), it's your salespeople who'll bail your ass out, by getting the customer to concentrate on all the good qualities of that jacket (high grade skin, CE approved armor, venting, etc.). While pointing out the inconsequential ones (i.e. the dated colouring). In short, they make sure BOTH parties are happy with the transaction. You get your necessary profit. The customer gets a quality product, at a smashing deal.

 

 Sometimes, a retailer will be looking out for his customer's, best interest (i.e. their walet), and their cheap, frugal asses don't even realize it.  Why? Becausse they're too busy trying to bicker him out of a job!

 

 There are many ways a retailer can do this. But the biggest way they do so, is by buying in bulk from a distributor. A distributor says to a retailer, "I have ___ amount of excess/old stock. Take five hundred off me, instead of 250, and I'll cut the price.". If the retailer feels they can sell the stock, they'll buy it. They don't care if it takes them two seasons instead of one. A good buy doesn't always come that often. So they grab it up. Now, they can put that stock on sale. Sometimes at TWICE what they would normally do. Because, they bought low, so they can now sell low. BUT, they are STILL able to make a profit. YOU just get to share in the savings, when you get the stock at ten or even twenty perecent off, instead of full retail price (i.e. the distributor's price).

 

 But remember! YOU'RE A GREEDY SOD. So you want MORE.

 

 Eventually, a customer will bicker a a retailer down to a price, barely above his cost price for the item. Maybe the retailer will give him that price, because he's a pain in his ass, and just wants him out of the shop. Maybe he's thinking, "If I don't give it to him, someone else will.". Or maybe he's just too nice for the buisness, and can't say NO.

 

 And that is PRECISELY WHY retail companies in my vocation, are dropping like flies. And that's PRECISELY WHY motorcycle riders in the G.T.A., will be going to "Timbucktoo", to acquire their gear and parts. Because GREED prevents them from seeing, what is supposed to be, a two-way relationship. Sure. The company will be able to stay afloat fot a spell, but they can only bail water for so long. And when the ships sinks? The only one left to blame, is the customer themselves. They are the beast, that eats it's own tail.

 

 Welcome to "Retail: 101".

 

 Gh0st