A comma in the air

Spring is sprung

The grass is riz

I wonder where the flowers is?

Ahhh grammar. 

I've been thinking about that classic Archie comic joke quite a bit lately, and not just because the first dandelions and tree buds are finally beginning to show themselves here in Southern Ontario.

I've rambled on here before about the rampant disrespect of language found in the majority of English speaking cultures. Usually, this is a bad thing. The fact that lol, btw, and ur now basically qualify as words is upsetting. That said, there are other new words that I'm quite partial to - google (as a verb) and frugalista, for instance. In such cases, the English language is better described as malleable than disrespected, at least in my humble opinion.

Of course, new or abbreviated versions of words/phrases really have little to do with the proper use of grammar (or lack thereof.) Or do they? 

I can honestly say that I never had a formal English grammar lesson until I took a post graduate course in copy editing two and a half years ago. Everything I know about grammar and sentence structure I learned from reading, and taking note of the corrections made to my papers by teachers. Taking Latin, and learning about that language's grammatical structure also helped. 

I'm told that this is a vast change from how it was for previous generations, and gather that the education system gradually focused less and less on the skill of writing over the years. Is it any wonder that many kids today think it's alright to use "words" like ppl in their essays? I'm not necessarily condoning texting, etc, but the mere fact that this is how the kids are communicating amongst themselves certainly doesn't strike me as the root of the problem.

Yet there's a difference, I think, between being lazy about language and having fun with it. A couple days ago I had a conversation with a coworker about a high school student who referred to an apostrophe as "a comma in the air." She was horrified that this girl did not use the appropriate term for the symbol, but I wasn't so sure. Considering a lot of adults seem to lack an understanding of where to use an apostrophe in the first place, at least this girl knows how to make something possessive. Plus, I for one kind of enjoy the phrase "comma in the air." It makes the otherwise rather boring and severe punctuation mark seem so cheerful and light heated - almost like it's floating along on a warm summer breeze...

Nothing to kill or die for

Remember a couple weeks ago when I posted about my country's tasteless "Own the Podium Campaign"?

Well, the international community is starting to catch on. Simon Barnes writes in the British Times:

"Their highly unpleasant Own the Poduim program, in which they seek to exploit home advantage to the last nanosecond, has alienated the world they are supposed to play host to. Home athletes have always had the advantage: getting ugly about it is neither necessary nor appropriate."

Martin Samuel of the Daily Mail writes:

"Canada wanted to Own the Podium at the Vancouver Olympic Games...they can put their Maple Leaf stamp on something more instantly tangible: the nondescript little box carrying the lifeless body of Nodar Kumaritashvili back to his home in Bakuriani, Georgia. 'Made in Canada," it should say. Made by the perversion of the Olympic movement for national gain; made by a culture of worthless aggrandizement and pride."

Lawrence Donegan of the Guardian writes that Kumaritashvili's death is "another blow against Canada's reputation as the kindest, gentlest member of the Olympic community."

In a nut shell, many journalists are blaming Kumaritashvili's death on Canada's refusing to give visiting countries the time they deserve on the practice runs.

A little harsh? Maybe. But what do we expect when we go around touting our arrogant BS to the world? Not even the Americans have behaved in such an egotistical manner. To me, the whole thing seems downright fascist, and makes me embarrassed to be Canadian.

The Olympics should be about cultures coming together - not nationalism!

Own the Poduim

May I be frank for a moment? (Of course I can, it's my blog!)

It's one week from the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, and I'm super excited because this means that soon we won't be subjected to those terrible "own the podium" adds that have bombarded Canadian airways for the past year or so. One of them literally goes on about how "Canadians are thought to be a polite and reserved people - but so-and-so-Olympian is a new breed of Canadian bla bla bla we're so great because now we've become a bunch of arrogant a**holes...". Or something like that.

I for one happen to like the fact that Canadians are known for being polite and reserved. Can't we leave that kind of boisterous nationalism to the Americans, like we've always done in the past? Of course I want our athletes to do well, but it would be so much nicer if we did it on our own terms. 

Not to mention the huge financial burden. Boy, am I ever glad I don't live in BC.  Give me a functioning health care system over some short-lived Olympic glory any day!

Hug a Farmer

Yes I know, I've been an awful blogger these past few weeks.  For that I apologize, and hereby present myself with a new challenge:  I, Hollie, vow to blog every day for the rest of October.  Can I do it?  Tune in and see for yourself!  I'm much more apt to follow through with these things if I feel monitored. 

Last weekend was Thanksgiving, and I did a lot of pie baking.  However, I feel like I've featured far too many pies on Magic Lantern over the past few months, and decided to refrain from posting photos of them.  Instead, I'd like to talk about something I've learned quite a lot about while working for the KTW:  farming.

Like many of my acquaintances, I was raised to believe that academics are the be all end all purpose of existence, and that absolutely everything else in life must bow to their mastery.  No one ever explicitly put down alternative options - it was simply always assumed that university was in my future, and taken for granted that other people would be around to fix the car and put food on the the table.

But where, exactly, does that food come from?  How does it grow?  My Dad grew up on a farm, so it seems kind of odd that I know so little about food (well, other than the eating of it).  I have never really talked to him about it, but suspect one of the reasons he abandoned hands on agriculture for academia is because he felt it was not economically sustainable.  In the 70s and 80s, many people left their family farms because they felt they were not making enough money.  This sort of apathy toward the production of food led to the ever-increasing prevalence of factory farms, infamous for their cruelty to animals and use of harmful chemicals, among other things.

Over the past month, I have had the pleasure of talking to some farmers who HAVE been able to make it work, and developed a deep respect for them in the process.  I spoke to farmer from who promotes local eating through his store in Verona, which sells only food from farms in the area.  I talked to a young woman who started her own community shared agriculture business; basically, people may put a down payment on produce from a particular farm for an entire season, and in turn receive weekly baskets of fresh fruits and vegetables.  I also spoke to many farmers at a protest to save the nation's six prison farms, slated to close down this winter.  Our government thinks that farming is an obsolete skill, and therefore of no use in the rehabilitation of inmates.

An obsolete skill?  Excuse me?  How many times did you eat today? 

 To me, this situation epitomizes our society's toxic relationship with food.  I think that anyone, if they actually gave it a second thought, would choose food that was grown organically half an hour away to that which is mass-produced and chemical-laden from god knows where.  And that's saying nothing for the environmental impact of the transportation.  Or the fact that those prison farms feed a lot of people in the area.

Sigh...I think I'd better stop before this becomes the longest blog post in history.  

Review: The Face On Your Plate

That's right folks.  I actually read a non-fiction book that's not a cookbook!  Granted, it is food-related.  But I'm still very proud of myself.  Over the past few months, I've become a little obsessed with veganism.  Not obsessed to the point of making a committed life change - just curious and experimental, more or less.  Hence when a vegan friend got wind of my curiosity, I was presented with The Face on Your Plate by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson.  

The first thing I noticed about this book (well, after the heartbreakingly adorable cover picture of a calf on a plate) was that though well written, it is in parts poorly edited.  In particular, there's quite a bit of statistical redundancy in the first few chapters, which describe the impact of factory farming on the environment and the horrific ways in which the animals on these farms are treated.  I'm not about to flip through the book to find a quote, but there are literally instances where a statistic is given at the top of a page, and then repeated, for no new purpose, near the bottom.  There's also the odd grammar error in the same chapters, and a few typos.   I understand what a huge undertaking it is to write a novel, and certainly don't blame Masson.  These are errors that an editor should have picked up on, however, as they make the book seem unprofessional.

That said, I actually really enjoyed this book.  I like reading non-fiction arguments that are written with passion, as opposed to those that are more academic or theoretical.  Masson comes off as being extremely passionate on all three of his 'sub-topics':  why veganism helps the  environment, animal cruelty in factory farms, and the ways in which a vegan diet benefits one's health.  A lot of people might dismiss such a book as radical or extreme, and laugh at "hippie attention seekers" like Masson who insist on making life difficult for himself and others with his self-imposed dietary restrictions.  In my opinion, however, the way people look at food has got to change somehow.  I saw a news report the other day that predicted the generation of today's children will be the first in recorded history to regress in terms of life expectancy, all because of obesity-related diseases.  Obviously, the mainstream North American diet is killing us, and that if nothing else should make people wake up and smell the organic free-trade coffee.  Of course there are other ways of leading a healthy lifestyle that don't involve giving up meat, dairy, and eggs; I only mean to suggest that perhaps our food-related social stigmas are a little misplaced.

On a personal note, I can honestly say that I've never really liked meat anyway (and I absolutely abhor cooking it).  I'll generally eat it if it's served to me, but my favourite part of any meal is always the carb and/or veggie based side(s) - or, of course, the wine.  In our house dinner usually involves vegetables, grains, and/or tofu.  If we want to make a bit more of an effort we (ok ok ok - usually Steve) will make homemade pizza or pasta, but nearly always top it with vegetables, spices, and cheese only.  Really the only thing preventing me from taking the plunge into vegetarianism is my love of fish.  The thought of giving up sushi and grilled salmon is not pleasant, but I'm sure I could do it if I really wanted to.

Veganism, on the other hand, is a whole other can of worms.  I love the idea of it, but trying to live without eggs, butter and cheese (especially cheese) would be incredibly difficult.  I've tried the soy-based version, and it's definitely not the same.  Plus there's the whole inconvenience bit- how could you ever go out to a restaurant with friends or to  Christmas dinner with the family?  I tried to do the vegan thing for a week a couple months ago, but then I got together with a friend, then my parents invited us over for dinner, then...well, let's just say didn't work out.

This post is already way too long.  I think what I'm trying to say is I really enjoyed this book, and am certainly convinced of most of its principles.  I do recognize it's unethical to kill animals for food.  I also recognize the strain factory farms put on the environment.  I'm more than happy to eat vegetarian or even vegan at home, where there's no danger of inconveniencing anyone.  For a lot of reasons, I hope these diets continue to become more mainstream in the future.

The photo of Masson with his pet pigs is from the New York Times.

One Is The Loneliest Number

Alright alright alright, I promise I won't start posting only what I write for Helium.  I actually questioned whether I should post this here, as it's waaaaay more personal than what I usually blog about.  (The topic is "Pros and Cons of Being an Only Child").  Unfortunately, I don't have the energy to come up with anything else at the moment, so here it is.

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

As an only child, here’s my take on the pros and cons of my sibling-less status:

Pros

-       From a financial/materialistic perspective, you have it all.

 As much as I hate being told I’m “lucky” to not have to put up with siblings, I must concede that only children are, in the most superficial of respects, lucky.  You get your own room, your own pets, copious amounts of gifts at Christmas, etc.  Free from the ‘burden’ of multiple children, parents are better able to help out financially during the university years, as well as that awkward transition from studenthood to adulthood. 

 

-       You develop an entirely different relationship with your parents compared to children with siblings.

This may not be in the ‘pro’ section for everyone, but for me it definitely is.  Without other siblings to compete with, an only child’s relationship with his or her parents can feel more equal in nature; their interests often become your interests, and a kind of closeness develops that is less likely to manifest when there are other kids around competing for affection.

Cons

-       You develop entirely different relationships with others your own age compared to people with siblings.

This point hits very close to home for me.  Don’t get me wrong – I’m not a loner, nor have I ever had a problem developing meaningful relationships.  I am, however, uncomfortable in situations where I’m supposed to be funny and giggly.  As a child, I was always better at talking to adults than kids my own age.  I always thought that when I became an adult myself, this would no longer be a problem for me.   I find, however, that few things make me more nervous than other twenty-somethings (especially female twenty-somethings).  I’m not sure if this is because I’m an only child, or if it’s an innate personality trait.  I do feel, however, that growing up with siblings could have helped in this department.

 

-       You’re your parents’ only hope.

As an only child, it’s all on you to be the successful one in the family.  No matter how old I get, I can’t shake the feeling that my parents are fascinated by me -unconditionally proud of the fact that I am their daughter.  On one hand, I really, really don’t want to disappoint them.  On the other, I know they will be proud of me no matter what, and don’t want to think of them as fools who are proud of me for nothing.  The constant focus on my success can provide momentum when I’m on a winning streak, but it can also be crippling during not-so-great times.

Personally, don’t want to raise an only child.  I feel that the cons outweigh the pros, largely due to the fact that social skills are arguably the most important aspect of anyone’s life.  I’m not trying to say that being an only child ensures one’s status as a socially awkward bore.  I just want my kids to be able to embrace life with the sort of carefree joy I’ve always wished I had.

"Life is Not a Popularity Contest"

These title words of wisdom were uttered to me countless times throughout my childhood, usually as justification for "standing up for my own beliefs" (i.e. those of my parents) or as cold comfort when I didn't get invited to some cool girl's birthday party.  This philosophy seemed counter-intuitive to my ten-year-old self, as it does today.  If life's not a popularity contest, how can some of its most stressful, important aspects (job competitions, the maximization of instances in which fun can be had, etc) be accounted for?  Being a nice person alone may allow you to develop meaningful relationships, and without downplaying the importance of good friends and significant others, kindness and meaningful relationships will very rarely get you the job you want or the social network you desire. Survival in the world outside of the places we turn to for comfort at the end of a long day revolves around popularity contests.  To deny that this is true simply naivety and/or wishful thinking.  In order to thrive in the world of work and large scale social events (especially work-related social events) one must hone a social savvy that when boiled down to its most basic elements involves temporarily morphing into the person your colleagues want you to be.  

There is no occupation that is more of a popularity contest than that of an elected official in a democratic country.  The entire idea behind a democracy is that politicians speak for their constituents by making decisions based on the will of the people.  Thus I found it rather odd when George W's farewell speech included the line (I paraphrase) "I made decisions based on I thought were best for the country, whether or not they were they were popular with the public".  Obviously the Bush administration in general is no stranger to unconstitutional policies and philosophies, but this phrase in particular struck me as not only unethical and unconstitutional, but also entirely incapable of succeeding in its intended purpose (which I assume was to somehow justify the trainwreck Bush's presidency has become).  

One might argue that Bush and his cronies were privy to information not available to the general public that forced them to make unpopular decisions.  If this is true, so be it, but why on earth would Bush want to draw attention to the secretive nature of his administration, whose lack of effective communication with the press was one of its most widly criticized blunders?  Furthermore, are we simply supposed to take his word for it that such measures as Iraq and torture at Guantanemo prevented further terrorist attacks on American soil?  If this is true, why not make the public aware of foiled plots so they are able to re-build their trust in you?  He's basically saying that Americans should be thankful and support him because no attacks happened after 911.  By that logic, Bush and FDR should be tied for the ranking of worst president ever, as the only two attacks on the US happened during their presidencies. 

Sigh... is it Tuesday yet?

On Elitism and Obama

elite /I'li:t, ei-/ ~ 1 (prec. by the) the best or choice part of a larger body or group.  2  a class or group of persons possessing wealth, power, prestige, etc. (the ruling elite) adj of belonging to an elite.

That's how the Oxford Canadian Dictionary defines "elite", a word that has become synonymous with "a quality you would never, ever want in an American president".  For the record, politics are not my thing.  I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue about them, or to push my loosely-informed opinions on people I don't know very well. Words, however, are my thing.  I am fascinated by how easily they can be twisted, re-defined, and used out of context so frequently that their meanings literally shift while the vast majority go oblivious to the seismic transmutations that are occurring at the epi-centre of American culture. In France, they have the Academie Francaise, a pre-eminent learned body that acts as the authority on matters pertaining to the usages, vocabulary, and grammar of the French language.  In English, there is no equivalent; nor, in my opinion, should there necessarily be one.  The Academie's presence demonstrates the extent to which the French people view language as an integral part of their culture.  It is something that is self-consciously contemplated not only in France but also here in Canada, where the French Canadian population makes a concerted effort to pass legislation in order to preserve their language, and, by association, their culture.

I don't know this for a fact, but it's hard to imagine a word being thrown around as readily in a culture that honours the sanctity of language as "elite" and "elitism" are in American politics. From following the current American election, I have come to the conclusion that being an elitist can now mean any or all of the following:

 - Anyone who has achieved the "American Dream" by pursuing educational endeavours and being successful as a result.   Or for that matter, who admits they enjoy learning in any capacity, and/or makes no attempt to disguise their intelligence.

 - Anyone who lives in a major urban centre, or along one of the two major seaboards.

 - Anyone who pronounces the "g" at the end of words like "being".

- Anyone who drinks lattes, or enjoys a sprig of arugula in their mid-day salad

- Anyone who does not boisterously express their love of America by doing things like loudly chanting U-S-A and wearing flag pins.

 - Anyone who is "out of touch" with the "Average American" - something that in turn seems to be defined as one who goes bowling, shops at Walmart for their guns, and does not value education.

Is Barack Obama an "elitist" by its official definition?  Of course he is.  As a senator and presidential candidate he certainly belongs to the ruling class, possessing vast quantities of wealth, power, and prestige (hmmm...sounds a lot like another presidential candidate we've heard so much about).  Perhaps the republicans should pay closer attention to the first part of elite's definition before so readily labeling Obama: "the best or choice part of a larger body or group".  But why should they when they seem to have been so successful in re-defining the word?

For his part, Obama does his best to prove that he is not elite by its evolved definition, thereby upholding the new understanding of the word, and conceding that it is negative despite all appearances to the contrary.  By participating in things like bowling, altering his speech so as to play down the pronunciation of g's and t's, and wordlessly conceding that wearing a flag pin is perhaps the best indication of one's love for America, he consistently finds himself playing defense, and thus round-aboutly admitting that everything associated with intellectual culture is essentially "elite" and inherently negative.  

I'm no political scientist, but I often wonder what would happen if Obama straight out admitted that his education and intelligence are good things.  George Bush came from a wealthy, traditionally elite background, yet does not act elite by its new definition.  Can anyone really say Bush was in touch with the average Joe sixpack in any respects other than those that are entirely superficial?  Look at the mess the country is in after eight years of his policies.  Obama is almost the exact opposite:  he came from very humble beginnings, yet is now considered to be among the elite by all known definitions.  Why wouldn't you want someone who has a proven record of intelligence ruling your country?  If one person enjoys Bud Light and another Pinot Grigio, does that necessarily mean they are entirely unable to relate to one another on any level?  These are the kinds of things Obama could point out.  Instead of trying to prove that he's not elite by appealing to his background, perhaps he would do better to point out the positive aspects of who he is now, and why the combination of his newly acquired elitism and working class beginnings could perhaps yield the perfect sort of leader.

It's probably too late for him to do so this at this point, less than a month before the big election.  Education, arugula, and proper pronunciation of words already have too bad of a wrap to be re-defined so quickly, even in the ever-malleable English language.  Yet I continue to be amazed by the superficiality of it all.