This is the story of how my love affair with trains ended.
Hailing from small-town Canada, as I do, I was naturally pre-disposed to having a very romantic view of trains. Unfortunately, since moving to England, the relationship between myself and trains has taken a dramatic turn for the worse.
The trains I used to see in Northern BC were mostly transport trains. There was a passenger train that came every couple of days, but you would have had a hard time finding any Canadians enjoying a ride. For some reason, these passenger trains seemed to be reserved for Japanese or German tourists, who must have felt that it's okay for a journey to take twice as long and be twice as expensive as it would in a car. Still, I always liked the passenger trains, and, if they went anywhere I wanted to go, I probably would have used them more often.
When I first moved to England, I was enthralled with trains. I wasn't particularly fond of the early mornings I had to endure to catch the right train to be at work on time, but I did enjoy being on the train. I could sit back and read the newspaper without having to worry too much about what was happening around me. And the countryside, if you slow down to take a look, is really rather pretty.
I also knew the train was a very environmentally-friendly way to get to work. With my partner Dave already driving a car, it didn't make sense to me to have two people in the same family poluting the air and clogging the roads.
But the train network slowly wears you down. Even the most environmentally-conscious person can be driven away from trains in England.
So, as I prepare to ditch the train and take up driving (as I will need to be mobile in my new job), here are 15 reasons why I believe I won't miss trains.
Fifteen things I won't miss about my morning train commute:
1. The 7.44am to 7.45am sprint from platform 4 to platform 8 to make my connection. I swear the train operators make connections as awkward as possible to make things “sporty”.
2. Being stuck on a train that is broken down metres from a platform. It's an emotionally draining experience -- elaborate escape plans are hatched, bouts of never-before-experienced claustrophobia make you jittery, and your idea to ask everyone to just get out and push seems like a brilliant plan.
3. Sitting next to someone who, halfway through the 8am to 8.30am commute, pulls out an egg and onion sandwich. Who eats eggs and onions before noon? And if you did, would you do it in public? Seriously folks. This needs to stop.
4. The £2 coffee that tastes like diesel fuel. A coffee can be considered an extra tax that should be factored in while budgeting for a train journey. When you're waiting on a soggy or frozen platform at 7.30am, it’s a little pick-you-up that’s hard to resist.
5. The First Great Western train guard who asks to see your ticket five times on a 25-minute journey. To be fair, I wouldn’t be able to remember whom I checked and whom I didn’t either, but this lady is just nuts. She walks up behind you and yells, “tickets and passes!” at the top of her lungs, which never ceases to scare the crap out of you, and pushes through the carriages demanding tickets even when people are sandwiched together and can barely get to their pockets. Really unnecessary.
6. Anybody who sits next to you and coughs without covering his or her mouth. If I wanted to contract a cold, I would have licked the seat before I sat down.
7. Really grumpy men at “information” booths on the train networks. I recall once going to Waterloo station and approaching one of these booths. When I asked about the trains for Reading, the man didn’t speak to me, instead simply pointing in the direction of the information screens, which were not displaying anything about Reading. I guess they use the word “information” in the loosest possible sense.
8. People who place bags on the seat next to them at peak times when the train is full. I personally like to head straight for those seats, ignoring the few empty ones that may be found. “Hi!” I like to say cheerily. “Is anyone sitting there?” as if it’s not obvious the person just doesn’t want to sit next to anyone.
9. The train toilet smell that seems to permeate entire carriages. Particularly on Virgin trains, where I think people take advantage of the longer journeys to have a sit down. That’s all I’m going to say. It’s indescribably awful.
10. The recorded voice that tells you that your train has been delayed or cancelled. “We’re extremely sorry for the severe delay this will cause to your journey” somehow doesn’t sound sincere when it’s obviously a recorded message, and most likely produced by a touch of a button, or automatically generated without human thought behind it at all.
11. The annual above-inflation price hikes that I’ve had to endure. This affects both my commute and my ability to have a social life. Living within an hour of London would have its perks if it didn’t put me in debt just to get there.
12. Drunk schoolgirls. Okay so I was probably a really obnoxious drunk when I was 16, but at least I didn’t go on trains and subject total strangers to my antics. And they always come out of the woodwork at the most unexpected times. Like Sunday afternoons when things should be quiet. I once saw a bunch of schoolgirls spraying perfume onto their clothes and into their mouths to mask the potent alcohol stench. I’m sure their parents were wholly unsuspecting when they were met with that toxic combination of smells.
13. Kids who watch videos on their mobile phones with the sound turned up. Just as much as I don’t like sitting next to drunk schoolgirls, I don’t want to listen to sober schoolgirls listening to drunk schoolgirls on a video. I also don’t want to hear ridiculously bad hip-hop through tiny speakers that are not designed to generate good quality sound. What’s wrong with watching videos on a TV or computer screen or listening to music through headphones or on a stereo?
14. Train staff members who do not have a clue what’s going on. The other day, I asked three different train staff members whether there would be engineering works affecting my journey on a Sunday and I got three different answers. I got a completely different answer from a sign, and yet another answer from the newspaper (which, I assume, was generated from a First Great Western or South West Trains press release).
15. The fact that my journey to work costs me 32p/mile, and more than £150/month, a price that, if you include car insurance, petrol and tax, is more expensive than driving. When I was briefly commuting to Leatherhead, I spent more than a quarter of my annual salary on train fare. Where else in the developed world do you get so royally screwed over?
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Murders made more evil by society's reaction
As the story of the murdered women in Ipswich, England, unfolds, I am reminded of the situation in Vancouver, Canada, where a trial for the murder of six prostitutes is about to begin.
It saddens me that, in both the Ipswich and the Vancouver cases, women disappeared without causing much of a stir simply because they were at bottom of the social ladder. It’s not a very good reflection of society that it takes the death of more than one prostitute to grab our attention.
In Vancouver, a man called Robert Pickton, who used to be a pig farmer in Port Coquitlam, outside Vancouver, has been charged with the murder of six sex-trade workers from Vancouver’s downtown eastside. He has also been charged with 20 further counts of first-degree murder, and may be tried for these at a later date.
BC judge Justice James Williams ruled that the Pickton trial could be divided into two parts because it would make the trial less complicated and there would be less chance of a mistrial. He also said, according to the CBC, the evidence in these six cases – the alleged murders of Sereena Abotsway, Mona Wilson, Andrea Joesbury, Brenda Wolfe, Georgina Papin and Marnie Frey – was "materially different" than the others.
Obviously, with the trial about to start, there are few details in the public sphere.
What is known is that between 40 and 60 women have disappeared from Vancouver’s downtown eastside since the late 1970s. (It was initially thought the number of women missing was closer to 60, but several women on the police-held missing persons’ list have contacted authorities. There could be others who have moved away and simply not told friends and family their whereabouts).
It wasn’t until 1999 that police in Vancouver gave any indication that they suspected a serial killer could be responsible.
Families of the missing women have alleged that Vancouver police ignored evidence that a serial killer was at work. The families have also said police neglected the cases because many of the women were prostitutes and drug addicts.
Police in Ipswich, England, have been much quicker to declare that a serial killer could be at work. I think the reason for this is because the murders in Ipswich have happened in quick succession. The three Ipswich women who have died, and the other two who seem to be missing, disappeared in the past two months, whereas the Vancouver sex-trade workers disappeared, one by one, over decades.
Still, I can’t help but think that, in both cases, the deaths of these women were treated differently than the deaths of people in other social groups.
If between 40 and 60 women went missing from an affluent area in Vancouver, then police would have undoubtedly acted much more quickly.
And if the women in Ipswich were professionals, rather than prostitutes, their murders would have been a much bigger deal, both in the media, and to police. In Ipswich, it took two deaths - and a third cemented it - before people started to make a fuss.
Of course, one must consider that prostitutes live a much more dangerous life than the average woman. They are often drug addicts, and are often cut off from family support. And, obviously, they place themselves in danger when they walk the streets at night, meeting with strangers.
Still, these are desperate women. They’re on the streets not because they want to be there, but because their lives have been taken on a dangerous course for one reason or another, and they feel like they have no choice. They need food to eat and to sustain their addictions. They see no other way.
And in Ipswich and Vancouver, someone has, or several persons have, done unspeakably evil things to these women. By not thinking of these women's lives as equal to the lives of those people at the top of the social ladder, we have betrayed them. It is a situation that we, as a society, should not, cannot, tolerate ever again.
It saddens me that, in both the Ipswich and the Vancouver cases, women disappeared without causing much of a stir simply because they were at bottom of the social ladder. It’s not a very good reflection of society that it takes the death of more than one prostitute to grab our attention.
In Vancouver, a man called Robert Pickton, who used to be a pig farmer in Port Coquitlam, outside Vancouver, has been charged with the murder of six sex-trade workers from Vancouver’s downtown eastside. He has also been charged with 20 further counts of first-degree murder, and may be tried for these at a later date.
BC judge Justice James Williams ruled that the Pickton trial could be divided into two parts because it would make the trial less complicated and there would be less chance of a mistrial. He also said, according to the CBC, the evidence in these six cases – the alleged murders of Sereena Abotsway, Mona Wilson, Andrea Joesbury, Brenda Wolfe, Georgina Papin and Marnie Frey – was "materially different" than the others.
Obviously, with the trial about to start, there are few details in the public sphere.
What is known is that between 40 and 60 women have disappeared from Vancouver’s downtown eastside since the late 1970s. (It was initially thought the number of women missing was closer to 60, but several women on the police-held missing persons’ list have contacted authorities. There could be others who have moved away and simply not told friends and family their whereabouts).
It wasn’t until 1999 that police in Vancouver gave any indication that they suspected a serial killer could be responsible.
Families of the missing women have alleged that Vancouver police ignored evidence that a serial killer was at work. The families have also said police neglected the cases because many of the women were prostitutes and drug addicts.
Police in Ipswich, England, have been much quicker to declare that a serial killer could be at work. I think the reason for this is because the murders in Ipswich have happened in quick succession. The three Ipswich women who have died, and the other two who seem to be missing, disappeared in the past two months, whereas the Vancouver sex-trade workers disappeared, one by one, over decades.
Still, I can’t help but think that, in both cases, the deaths of these women were treated differently than the deaths of people in other social groups.
If between 40 and 60 women went missing from an affluent area in Vancouver, then police would have undoubtedly acted much more quickly.
And if the women in Ipswich were professionals, rather than prostitutes, their murders would have been a much bigger deal, both in the media, and to police. In Ipswich, it took two deaths - and a third cemented it - before people started to make a fuss.
Of course, one must consider that prostitutes live a much more dangerous life than the average woman. They are often drug addicts, and are often cut off from family support. And, obviously, they place themselves in danger when they walk the streets at night, meeting with strangers.
Still, these are desperate women. They’re on the streets not because they want to be there, but because their lives have been taken on a dangerous course for one reason or another, and they feel like they have no choice. They need food to eat and to sustain their addictions. They see no other way.
And in Ipswich and Vancouver, someone has, or several persons have, done unspeakably evil things to these women. By not thinking of these women's lives as equal to the lives of those people at the top of the social ladder, we have betrayed them. It is a situation that we, as a society, should not, cannot, tolerate ever again.
Friday, November 17, 2006
A secure way to make Britons more vulnerable
Today, Guardian Unlimited featured an article by Steve Boggan about the new passports the UK government has issued. These passports were created to satisfy US concerns that British passports are both secure and more difficult to copy than in the past. (The 9/11 terrorists used fake passports).
After reading the article, it became clear to me that the new passports are a waste of money, and make Britons more vulnerable.
These new passports contain Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chips, which means they can be read by an RFID-reader, without anybody having to physically open them up. The information is passed from the chip to the reader over radio signals.
Apparently, Steve was able to work with a computer expert to crack the passports, and read all the information contained within them. This was done over a period of only 48 hours with the purchase of a £250 RFID-reading machine, and knowledge of encryption software.
Now, it will now only take seconds for the duo to read any new-style passport in this way.
RFID chips are now all over the place, despite the fact it is a fairly new technology. Having worked for a packaging-related business publication, I know that RFID is a rapidly expanding technology. The chips are already used for stock control in warehouses -- the chips, which contain information about the products they are stuck to, are scanned with hand-held RFID readers. Warehouse operators can then extract important information from the chips, such as where the products have come from and where they are destined to go.
RFID tags are even attached to individual items in retail stores that customers then take home. These uses do not really concern me. Used for inventory control, I think RFID chips are harmless.
But there is now talk of retail stores having RFID readers which will read the items that you have in your cart as you pass them, and then, through a screen, suggest some things that you could buy to accompany your purchases. For example, if you’ve bought a couple of salmon steaks, the RFID reader will recognise the salmon code in the RFID chip and it might recommend you purchase a certain variety of Pinot Gris to go with them.
This is exciting news for marketing executives, but scary news for those of us who don’t like the idea of stores keeping track of our purchases. I usually don’t use, or sign up to, store cards for this exact reason. But now that passports have RFID, marketing executives in retail are the least of our worries.
RFID can now track people. It sounds like science fiction, but it’s happening. Machines will now know where you are in the world and where you’ve been.
And unscrupulous people and criminals can theoretically steal information from you by reading your RFID passport while they sit next to you on the bus. Once they have your basic information, like your name, address, height, weight, date of birth, nationality and passport number, they will find it very easy to steal your identity and use it without your knowledge.
What’s more, your RFID passport chip can be cloned, and a fake version of your passport can be fairly easily made up. So now you don’t even have to lose your passport to become a victim of passport theft.
What governments seem to be unable to grasp is that security technology will only ever be effective for a couple of months, so there is no point in investing millions in it. Using RFID as a security measure has actually made Britons, and any other citizens whose countries decide to use RFID, more vulnerable. And once the government works out how to incorporate biometric information into a passport, I doubt the passport will be more secure. Criminals (and Guardian journalists) will have that cracked soon enough. There will simply be more information to steal.
What’s really needed is better-trained staff at check-in points at airports, and clear rules on who is allowed to travel and who is not. That is the only way to keep terrorists out of the countries where they want to create havoc.
After reading the article, it became clear to me that the new passports are a waste of money, and make Britons more vulnerable.
These new passports contain Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chips, which means they can be read by an RFID-reader, without anybody having to physically open them up. The information is passed from the chip to the reader over radio signals.
Apparently, Steve was able to work with a computer expert to crack the passports, and read all the information contained within them. This was done over a period of only 48 hours with the purchase of a £250 RFID-reading machine, and knowledge of encryption software.
Now, it will now only take seconds for the duo to read any new-style passport in this way.
RFID chips are now all over the place, despite the fact it is a fairly new technology. Having worked for a packaging-related business publication, I know that RFID is a rapidly expanding technology. The chips are already used for stock control in warehouses -- the chips, which contain information about the products they are stuck to, are scanned with hand-held RFID readers. Warehouse operators can then extract important information from the chips, such as where the products have come from and where they are destined to go.
RFID tags are even attached to individual items in retail stores that customers then take home. These uses do not really concern me. Used for inventory control, I think RFID chips are harmless.
But there is now talk of retail stores having RFID readers which will read the items that you have in your cart as you pass them, and then, through a screen, suggest some things that you could buy to accompany your purchases. For example, if you’ve bought a couple of salmon steaks, the RFID reader will recognise the salmon code in the RFID chip and it might recommend you purchase a certain variety of Pinot Gris to go with them.
This is exciting news for marketing executives, but scary news for those of us who don’t like the idea of stores keeping track of our purchases. I usually don’t use, or sign up to, store cards for this exact reason. But now that passports have RFID, marketing executives in retail are the least of our worries.
RFID can now track people. It sounds like science fiction, but it’s happening. Machines will now know where you are in the world and where you’ve been.
And unscrupulous people and criminals can theoretically steal information from you by reading your RFID passport while they sit next to you on the bus. Once they have your basic information, like your name, address, height, weight, date of birth, nationality and passport number, they will find it very easy to steal your identity and use it without your knowledge.
What’s more, your RFID passport chip can be cloned, and a fake version of your passport can be fairly easily made up. So now you don’t even have to lose your passport to become a victim of passport theft.
What governments seem to be unable to grasp is that security technology will only ever be effective for a couple of months, so there is no point in investing millions in it. Using RFID as a security measure has actually made Britons, and any other citizens whose countries decide to use RFID, more vulnerable. And once the government works out how to incorporate biometric information into a passport, I doubt the passport will be more secure. Criminals (and Guardian journalists) will have that cracked soon enough. There will simply be more information to steal.
What’s really needed is better-trained staff at check-in points at airports, and clear rules on who is allowed to travel and who is not. That is the only way to keep terrorists out of the countries where they want to create havoc.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Less money, mo' problems
British people don't like discussing money.
Bill Bryson pointed this out in his book, Notes from a Small Island. Bryson noted that Brits will rarely offer details about their wealth, even to their best mates, and will be deeply offended if asked. On the other hand, Americans will be happy to tell you their annual salary and investment portfolio before you've even offered your name.
My outlook is more closely aligned with the American view than with the British view. Although I would not post my annual salary on a blog, for instance, I would be happy to tell people, particularly friends and family, if they asked.
I am always quite surprised, therefore, when the media in Britain quite ruthlessly condemn anyone who discusses money in an open way. Brits, in my view, need to lighten up on this subject. After all, individuals in Britain have, on average, more debt than other Europeans -- and it's easier to come to terms with dealing with debt if you're able to talk about it.
Last year, a seemingly innocent story, which would not have registered in North America, created a flurry of condemnation, because it involved talking -- well, in this case, complaining -- about personal money problems. The writer, Rosie Millard -- a former arts correspondent for the BBC, had written that she and her husband, were, despite her once high salary, in debt.
Unfortunately, I suppose, for Ms Millard, this resulted in several column inches being devoted to exposing her so-called "property empire", which included a flat in London reputed to be worth more than £2.5million, and another flat in a nice area of Paris.
In one newspaper, according to an article on the ROSIE MILLARD DEBT FREE APPEAL website (not a real appeal), she told how her property dream turned into a nightmare. Spiralling debt (she was apparently about £40,000 in the black) forced the couple to put the family car, a Skoda, up for sale as the mortgage on the French apartment was "permanently in arrears".
Her story did not inspire sympathy. People berated her for moaning about her debt when it was clear she was far better off than the average person.
While I agree she made a bit of a mockery out of people with real debt problems (in reality, she could have simply sold off one of her flats and lived comfortably for years) I applaud her for writing about her money trouble. There are a lot of people who find it difficult to make ends meet, even if they're high earners.
Many young people, I believe, have been brain-washed into a life of rampant consumerism. If you're a kid who grows up watching advertisements about the best toys, you're going to probably crave the best toys. And those cravings won't go away when you're a teenager or when you leave school. So just about everyone in my generation, from ambitious city workers to young, single mums, is likely to be a rampant consumer -- spending the same amount, or more, money than they make.
If you're a (relatively) high-income city worker, that means you might buy the car that other people in the office have, or splash out on a designer dress or handbag every once in a while. All of a sudden, you find yourself relying on credit cards, loans and overdrafts to pay your way. At the other end of the scale, single mums have to survive on money from the government and part-time jobs and can barely make ends meet. Yet their kids will still have birthdays and Christmas (or another religious holiday) is always around the corner, and it's easy to think that buying your kids the best stuff will make them happy. So if they have to buy a birthday present in the same month their car breaks down or they need a new washing machine, then the debt starts to pile up.
Yet, very little is said about money trouble in the media. The media report the facts and figures about debt problems in Britain, but rarely do people stand up and voice their personal concerns.
But I think Brits are beginning to see that the problem is getting out of control and they are starting to tackle it.
Television shows like Pay Off Your Mortgage in 2 Years, and a new show from Channel 4, Your Money or Your Wife, highlight individuals with debt problems (or more debt than they would like) and how these individuals can work with an advisor to help them curb their spending and perhaps increase their income, with happy endings all around.
I think these programmes are great -- people need to feel free to discuss debt problems, like any other problem, openly.
The only thing is, the shows often highlight individuals who have a fairly large source of income, assets and extravagant spending habits. This means that, with a little shove in the right direction, it is nearly impossible for the individual to fail to take control of their debt.
I think the far more common situation is a situation like mine -- where 90 per cent of my income goes on bills and (student loan) debt repayment. The rest goes on newspapers, coffee and beer. I don't have a car, I take a lunch to work on most days and I don't go clothes shopping unless an event demands it. If one of these television presenters tried to help me sort out my debt, I guarantee you they'd feel just as helpless as I do.
When the British media begin to address the millions of cases like mine, that's when I'll know that true progress is being made.
Bill Bryson pointed this out in his book, Notes from a Small Island. Bryson noted that Brits will rarely offer details about their wealth, even to their best mates, and will be deeply offended if asked. On the other hand, Americans will be happy to tell you their annual salary and investment portfolio before you've even offered your name.
My outlook is more closely aligned with the American view than with the British view. Although I would not post my annual salary on a blog, for instance, I would be happy to tell people, particularly friends and family, if they asked.
I am always quite surprised, therefore, when the media in Britain quite ruthlessly condemn anyone who discusses money in an open way. Brits, in my view, need to lighten up on this subject. After all, individuals in Britain have, on average, more debt than other Europeans -- and it's easier to come to terms with dealing with debt if you're able to talk about it.
Last year, a seemingly innocent story, which would not have registered in North America, created a flurry of condemnation, because it involved talking -- well, in this case, complaining -- about personal money problems. The writer, Rosie Millard -- a former arts correspondent for the BBC, had written that she and her husband, were, despite her once high salary, in debt.
Unfortunately, I suppose, for Ms Millard, this resulted in several column inches being devoted to exposing her so-called "property empire", which included a flat in London reputed to be worth more than £2.5million, and another flat in a nice area of Paris.
In one newspaper, according to an article on the ROSIE MILLARD DEBT FREE APPEAL website (not a real appeal), she told how her property dream turned into a nightmare. Spiralling debt (she was apparently about £40,000 in the black) forced the couple to put the family car, a Skoda, up for sale as the mortgage on the French apartment was "permanently in arrears".
Her story did not inspire sympathy. People berated her for moaning about her debt when it was clear she was far better off than the average person.
While I agree she made a bit of a mockery out of people with real debt problems (in reality, she could have simply sold off one of her flats and lived comfortably for years) I applaud her for writing about her money trouble. There are a lot of people who find it difficult to make ends meet, even if they're high earners.
Many young people, I believe, have been brain-washed into a life of rampant consumerism. If you're a kid who grows up watching advertisements about the best toys, you're going to probably crave the best toys. And those cravings won't go away when you're a teenager or when you leave school. So just about everyone in my generation, from ambitious city workers to young, single mums, is likely to be a rampant consumer -- spending the same amount, or more, money than they make.
If you're a (relatively) high-income city worker, that means you might buy the car that other people in the office have, or splash out on a designer dress or handbag every once in a while. All of a sudden, you find yourself relying on credit cards, loans and overdrafts to pay your way. At the other end of the scale, single mums have to survive on money from the government and part-time jobs and can barely make ends meet. Yet their kids will still have birthdays and Christmas (or another religious holiday) is always around the corner, and it's easy to think that buying your kids the best stuff will make them happy. So if they have to buy a birthday present in the same month their car breaks down or they need a new washing machine, then the debt starts to pile up.
Yet, very little is said about money trouble in the media. The media report the facts and figures about debt problems in Britain, but rarely do people stand up and voice their personal concerns.
But I think Brits are beginning to see that the problem is getting out of control and they are starting to tackle it.
Television shows like Pay Off Your Mortgage in 2 Years, and a new show from Channel 4, Your Money or Your Wife, highlight individuals with debt problems (or more debt than they would like) and how these individuals can work with an advisor to help them curb their spending and perhaps increase their income, with happy endings all around.
I think these programmes are great -- people need to feel free to discuss debt problems, like any other problem, openly.
The only thing is, the shows often highlight individuals who have a fairly large source of income, assets and extravagant spending habits. This means that, with a little shove in the right direction, it is nearly impossible for the individual to fail to take control of their debt.
I think the far more common situation is a situation like mine -- where 90 per cent of my income goes on bills and (student loan) debt repayment. The rest goes on newspapers, coffee and beer. I don't have a car, I take a lunch to work on most days and I don't go clothes shopping unless an event demands it. If one of these television presenters tried to help me sort out my debt, I guarantee you they'd feel just as helpless as I do.
When the British media begin to address the millions of cases like mine, that's when I'll know that true progress is being made.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
In a spin over dual-citizenship review
The Canadian government will begin a review of dual-citizenship which could lead to the decision to scrap it. This may force immigrants and Canadians living abroad to choose between the passports they carry.
I’ve just finished reading Petti Fong’s article in the Globe and Mail under the headline: Immigrant groups fear dual-citizenship review.
The story explains that the review was ordered after the government spent $85-million to evacuate 15,000 Lebanese residents, Canadian passport-holders and dual citizens from the region during the war with Israel in August. Since 1977, Canada has allowed citizens to live and maintain citizenship in other countries without losing their passport. An estimated 500,000 Canadians living in Canada have dual citizenship, according to Statistics Canada, but there are no figures of how many Canadians with dual citizenship live outside of the country.
Many people who responded to the story were unsympathetic to immigrants (the people most likely to have dual citizenship), expressing the view that if the immigrants have been lucky enough to move to Canada, they should be loyal to Canada and Canada only. "One country, one loyalty" was how one poster described it.
There are two reasons why I don't support the government's decision to begin this review. For one, I do not, in any way, believe in the "one country, one loyalty" idea. For some people, that is just not possible. I also dislike the way the government is grumbling about the cost of saving people's lives in Lebanon, when, at the same time, they are arguing that more should be done in Afghanistan to save lives.
The reason I don't believe in the "one country, one loyalty" idea is that I am a Canadian living in the UK -- I was able to move here because my grandmother was born in Wales. At first I'd only planned to stay for a year, but I met a nice, British chap, and he convinced me to marry him. At the moment, neither of us has dual-citizenship. My story is not unusual.
If my partner and I want to move to Canada, it would be unfortunate for him to be treated as a second-class citizen, with no right to vote in Canadian elections, run for elected office, hold a Canadian passport, or work in certain government jobs.
Likewise, I should be allowed to remain a Canadian citizen while I live in Britain, but I shouldn't be treated as an outsider. I am as much a part of this country as other young people who have lived here their whole lives. I live here, I work here, I pay taxes here, and while I continue to do that, it would be nice to have the same rights as the people who were born here. I wouldn't demand it, but I would appreciate it. Yet, I will not give up my Canadian citizenship for this right. So if the government decides to do away with dual-citizenship, I too will be forced to live as a second-class citizen.
How can a married couple who grew up in two different countries have one country and one loyalty? It's simply not possible.
It's difficult not to be cynical about this situation. Clearly, the Conservatives -- and indeed many Canadians -- are upset that they had to pay for thousands of Lebanese dual citizens to be evacuated from Lebanon, when many of them rarely, if ever, spent time in Canada.
If the Conservatives' only concern was cost, though, they would have called for a ceasefire when the bombing started so that the evacuation need not have happened in the first place. Instead, they sided with the Bush administration, which wanted to allow it to continue.
Here's a thought for the Canadian government: If you want to cut costs, why not pull troops out of Afghanistan? You say you won't do that because we're in Afghanistan to help the poor people there return their country to democracy. Well, if the government was really that kind and generous, if there wasn't an ulterior motive (cosying up to America), then you'd be equally concerned about helping the poor people of Lebanon, whether they were Canadian or not. And you wouldn't be complaining about saving their lives.
Clearly, the Conservatives simply consider immigrants (the people most likely to be dual citizens) to be Liberal Party-supporters and therefore disposable Canadians.
It scares me how easily the government's spin can be ripped apart. Surely we should have elected, at the very least, people who can put together more intelligent lies?
I’ve just finished reading Petti Fong’s article in the Globe and Mail under the headline: Immigrant groups fear dual-citizenship review.
The story explains that the review was ordered after the government spent $85-million to evacuate 15,000 Lebanese residents, Canadian passport-holders and dual citizens from the region during the war with Israel in August. Since 1977, Canada has allowed citizens to live and maintain citizenship in other countries without losing their passport. An estimated 500,000 Canadians living in Canada have dual citizenship, according to Statistics Canada, but there are no figures of how many Canadians with dual citizenship live outside of the country.
Many people who responded to the story were unsympathetic to immigrants (the people most likely to have dual citizenship), expressing the view that if the immigrants have been lucky enough to move to Canada, they should be loyal to Canada and Canada only. "One country, one loyalty" was how one poster described it.
There are two reasons why I don't support the government's decision to begin this review. For one, I do not, in any way, believe in the "one country, one loyalty" idea. For some people, that is just not possible. I also dislike the way the government is grumbling about the cost of saving people's lives in Lebanon, when, at the same time, they are arguing that more should be done in Afghanistan to save lives.
The reason I don't believe in the "one country, one loyalty" idea is that I am a Canadian living in the UK -- I was able to move here because my grandmother was born in Wales. At first I'd only planned to stay for a year, but I met a nice, British chap, and he convinced me to marry him. At the moment, neither of us has dual-citizenship. My story is not unusual.
If my partner and I want to move to Canada, it would be unfortunate for him to be treated as a second-class citizen, with no right to vote in Canadian elections, run for elected office, hold a Canadian passport, or work in certain government jobs.
Likewise, I should be allowed to remain a Canadian citizen while I live in Britain, but I shouldn't be treated as an outsider. I am as much a part of this country as other young people who have lived here their whole lives. I live here, I work here, I pay taxes here, and while I continue to do that, it would be nice to have the same rights as the people who were born here. I wouldn't demand it, but I would appreciate it. Yet, I will not give up my Canadian citizenship for this right. So if the government decides to do away with dual-citizenship, I too will be forced to live as a second-class citizen.
How can a married couple who grew up in two different countries have one country and one loyalty? It's simply not possible.
It's difficult not to be cynical about this situation. Clearly, the Conservatives -- and indeed many Canadians -- are upset that they had to pay for thousands of Lebanese dual citizens to be evacuated from Lebanon, when many of them rarely, if ever, spent time in Canada.
If the Conservatives' only concern was cost, though, they would have called for a ceasefire when the bombing started so that the evacuation need not have happened in the first place. Instead, they sided with the Bush administration, which wanted to allow it to continue.
Here's a thought for the Canadian government: If you want to cut costs, why not pull troops out of Afghanistan? You say you won't do that because we're in Afghanistan to help the poor people there return their country to democracy. Well, if the government was really that kind and generous, if there wasn't an ulterior motive (cosying up to America), then you'd be equally concerned about helping the poor people of Lebanon, whether they were Canadian or not. And you wouldn't be complaining about saving their lives.
Clearly, the Conservatives simply consider immigrants (the people most likely to be dual citizens) to be Liberal Party-supporters and therefore disposable Canadians.
It scares me how easily the government's spin can be ripped apart. Surely we should have elected, at the very least, people who can put together more intelligent lies?
Monday, October 16, 2006
Putting the fear and fun back into Halloween
One of my favourite holidays is upon us and I’m probably one of only a handful of people in England who is looking forward to it.
Halloween, you see, is not terribly popular with the British. But it’s not just because the British have overly developed senses of superiority over anything deemed too American --it’s because Halloween is actually pretty awful here.
Like most holidays celebrated in Western society, Halloween combines pagan and Christian elements.
The History Channel’s website says Halloween’s origins date back to the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain (pronounced sow-in).
The Celts celebrated their new year on November 1. This day marked the end of summer and the harvest and the beginning of the dark, cold winter, a time of year that was often associated with human death. Celts believed that on the night before the new year, the boundary between the worlds of the living and the dead became blurred. On the night of October 31, they celebrated Samhain, when it was believed that the ghosts of the dead returned to earth. In addition to causing trouble and damaging crops, Celts thought that the presence of the otherworldly spirits made it easier for the Druids, or Celtic priests, to make predictions about the future. For a people entirely dependent on the volatile natural world, these prophecies were an important source of comfort and direction during the long, dark winter.
It continues:
By the 800s, the influence of Christianity had spread into Celtic lands. In the seventh century, Pope Boniface IV designated November 1 All Saints’ Day, a time to honor saints and martyrs. It is widely believed today that the pope was attempting to replace the Celtic festival of the dead with a related, but church-sanctioned holiday. The celebration was also called All-hallows or All-hallowmas (from Middle English Alholowmesse meaning All Saints’ Day) and the night before it, the night of Samhain, began to be called All-hallows Eve and, eventually, Halloween.
Since the 1800s, Halloween has gone in one direction in North America, and a different direction in England.
So although Halloween is not actually American, the images that a lot of people associate with Halloween are from North America, where the day has become a day to dress up in fun costumes -- whether you’re a rock star, a ghost or a fairy princess -- to eat too much candy and chocolate, and to say hello to your neighbours before relieving them of treats. For the most part, it’s harmless fun.
In England, the day has retained its sinister edge. If anyone dresses up, it’s usually as something dead, or nearly dead -- men smear blood on their clothes and women dress in fish-net stockings and wear a lot of black make-up. Kids don't go trick-or-treating because nobody stocks a bowl of sweets by the door. I’ve heard that some kids knock on doors and ask for money, rather than sweets, and then if they don’t get money, they vandalise the person’s property. I’m not surprised the day is unpopular.
It's too bad that Halloween hasn't developed into something a bit more enjoyable in England.
Of course, it's not all innocent fun in North America either. Having kids run from door to door in the dark, often wearing masks that prevent them from seeing properly, when there's traffic is just asking for trouble. I'm sure the ambulance services and police departments despise Halloween. And I can remember, as a child, we were always warned never to eat home-made sweets from strangers because it was said they could be poisoned. Other kids told you stories about razor blades in your caramels. And then, every Halloween, you always had older siblings, either yours or your friend's, jumping out from behind trees or dragging you into the graveyard to scare the wits out of you.
But then, Halloween wouldn’t be nearly as much fun without an element of fear. Trouble is, now that I'm an adult, I can't really drag my British friends into graveyards or spook them with stories about the crazy old lady with the deadly candied apples.
I could, however, throw a scary party. I could serve caramels, miniature Mars bars and green JELL-O, and then put The Monster Mash on the stereo. And then when everyone is enjoying themselves, I will scare the wits out of them. Since there's nothing scarier to British people than the words "housing development" and "falling house prices", I’ll arrange to plant a couple of Daily Mail journalists and some members of the Countryside Alliance in the crowd to stir up trouble. They could say things like: "Oh you live beside that greenbelt? Isn't it a shame that that's up for sale? The massive housing development is sure to ruin your view and drive down the price of your house. You know, local authorities should take advantage of the provision in Planning Policy Statement 7, which allows for land unsuitable for commercial development to be used for affordable housing." The Daily Mail journalists can then go: "Oh yes, I heard that John Prescott can just snap his fingers and wherever he says, they build 10,000 homes. It could be anywhere. It could be right beside your house."
Oh, it’s brilliant. I can see everyone’s horrified faces already.
Halloween, you see, is not terribly popular with the British. But it’s not just because the British have overly developed senses of superiority over anything deemed too American --it’s because Halloween is actually pretty awful here.
Like most holidays celebrated in Western society, Halloween combines pagan and Christian elements.
The History Channel’s website says Halloween’s origins date back to the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain (pronounced sow-in).
The Celts celebrated their new year on November 1. This day marked the end of summer and the harvest and the beginning of the dark, cold winter, a time of year that was often associated with human death. Celts believed that on the night before the new year, the boundary between the worlds of the living and the dead became blurred. On the night of October 31, they celebrated Samhain, when it was believed that the ghosts of the dead returned to earth. In addition to causing trouble and damaging crops, Celts thought that the presence of the otherworldly spirits made it easier for the Druids, or Celtic priests, to make predictions about the future. For a people entirely dependent on the volatile natural world, these prophecies were an important source of comfort and direction during the long, dark winter.
It continues:
By the 800s, the influence of Christianity had spread into Celtic lands. In the seventh century, Pope Boniface IV designated November 1 All Saints’ Day, a time to honor saints and martyrs. It is widely believed today that the pope was attempting to replace the Celtic festival of the dead with a related, but church-sanctioned holiday. The celebration was also called All-hallows or All-hallowmas (from Middle English Alholowmesse meaning All Saints’ Day) and the night before it, the night of Samhain, began to be called All-hallows Eve and, eventually, Halloween.
Since the 1800s, Halloween has gone in one direction in North America, and a different direction in England.
So although Halloween is not actually American, the images that a lot of people associate with Halloween are from North America, where the day has become a day to dress up in fun costumes -- whether you’re a rock star, a ghost or a fairy princess -- to eat too much candy and chocolate, and to say hello to your neighbours before relieving them of treats. For the most part, it’s harmless fun.
In England, the day has retained its sinister edge. If anyone dresses up, it’s usually as something dead, or nearly dead -- men smear blood on their clothes and women dress in fish-net stockings and wear a lot of black make-up. Kids don't go trick-or-treating because nobody stocks a bowl of sweets by the door. I’ve heard that some kids knock on doors and ask for money, rather than sweets, and then if they don’t get money, they vandalise the person’s property. I’m not surprised the day is unpopular.
It's too bad that Halloween hasn't developed into something a bit more enjoyable in England.
Of course, it's not all innocent fun in North America either. Having kids run from door to door in the dark, often wearing masks that prevent them from seeing properly, when there's traffic is just asking for trouble. I'm sure the ambulance services and police departments despise Halloween. And I can remember, as a child, we were always warned never to eat home-made sweets from strangers because it was said they could be poisoned. Other kids told you stories about razor blades in your caramels. And then, every Halloween, you always had older siblings, either yours or your friend's, jumping out from behind trees or dragging you into the graveyard to scare the wits out of you.
But then, Halloween wouldn’t be nearly as much fun without an element of fear. Trouble is, now that I'm an adult, I can't really drag my British friends into graveyards or spook them with stories about the crazy old lady with the deadly candied apples.
I could, however, throw a scary party. I could serve caramels, miniature Mars bars and green JELL-O, and then put The Monster Mash on the stereo. And then when everyone is enjoying themselves, I will scare the wits out of them. Since there's nothing scarier to British people than the words "housing development" and "falling house prices", I’ll arrange to plant a couple of Daily Mail journalists and some members of the Countryside Alliance in the crowd to stir up trouble. They could say things like: "Oh you live beside that greenbelt? Isn't it a shame that that's up for sale? The massive housing development is sure to ruin your view and drive down the price of your house. You know, local authorities should take advantage of the provision in Planning Policy Statement 7, which allows for land unsuitable for commercial development to be used for affordable housing." The Daily Mail journalists can then go: "Oh yes, I heard that John Prescott can just snap his fingers and wherever he says, they build 10,000 homes. It could be anywhere. It could be right beside your house."
Oh, it’s brilliant. I can see everyone’s horrified faces already.
Friday, October 06, 2006
This week, I will mostly be a press-imist
I read the article in today’s (October 6) Independent celebrating the paper’s 20th anniversary. Stephen Glover, one of the paper’s founders, recounted how journalists, mostly from The Daily Telegraph and The Times, became so fed up with what they saw as the declining quality of journalism, that they upped stakes and started their own newspaper. The article was a very good account of what must have been an exciting time.
This is thoroughly embarrassing, but I have to admit, the story made my eyes water. Glover writes: The Independent, beyond our wildest hopes, became the newspaper of the liberal establishment. It starts to appear (unpaid for by us) in television advertisements and posters because retailers and businessmen want to be associated with it. Young people carry the paper as a kind of badge, the beautiful chiselled masthead with its eagle angled outwards so that everyone can see they are Independent readers, that they too have rallied to the cause.
It is sickeningly sentimental, but, because I’ve been engrossed in journalism all my adult life, I found it touching.
But the tears welling up in the corners of my eyes were, I think at least in part, tears of disappointment. Because I read the story with the sinking feeling that I will probably never have the opportunity to be a part of something like what Stephen Glover, Andreas Whittam Smith, Simon Kelner et al were part of.
I live in the UK where, on one hand, the media are thriving. You can’t go anywhere without seeing people reading, listening to or watching the news. It is great to see such widespread enthusiasm for current affairs.
On the other hand, journalistic standards are hugely varied. “Red top” papers seem to invent stories. If the stories themselves aren’t invented, then certainly the quotes within the stories are. (The Quick Quotes Quill in Harry Potter is a brilliant take on this). The UK press also has a tendency to build people up for a number of months, and then, for no apparent reason, rip them apart with a ferocity that always surprises me. As a result, people don’t hold journalists in high regard.
What’s more, many young people don’t read the quality newspapers because they can get free alternatives -- alternatives which are under-funded and which do not do add anything to the national debate.
Still, at least people care about the quality of journalism here. If it's poor, people talk about it -- instead of just accepting it, they work to change it. It's pretty safe to say that journalism in Britain will always be important, whether it’s on TV, on the radio, in newspapers or online.
But my mind turns to Canada, where I’d like to one day return.
I was on Vancouver Island for three weeks this summer, and I was thoroughly disappointed with the quality of journalism. To be fair, I visited in August, which is the so-called silly season, so I was perhaps seeing a stripped down version of the newspapers, but I was still distraught over what I saw.
In a prominent paper, I saw what appeared to be a re-hashed press release about a Jamaican rum company. It wasn’t marked as an advertisement, but I couldn’t see that it was anything but. Have newspapers in Canada always been this bad and I’ve simply forgotten because I’ve lived in the UK, where there’s more editorial diversity?
The thing that worried me most was that it wasn’t just print journalism. My first afternoon there, I flipped on the CBC, hoping to see Canada Now or The National and ended up watching newsreaders waffle on about the PNE for half-an-hour before we got to any news. I think my British in-laws were appalled.
Yet, I don’t think there would be enough interest, advertising dollars, or journalists willing to risk their jobs to launch something like The Independent in Canada. Even though something like the Indy would be a great addition to the Canadian cultural landscape.
Perhaps I’m being far too pessimistic. Perhaps Canadians will get fed up with stripped down versions of what newspapers should be. Perhaps the demand for good journalism will increase. I do hope so -- but I’m not holding my breath.
This is thoroughly embarrassing, but I have to admit, the story made my eyes water. Glover writes: The Independent, beyond our wildest hopes, became the newspaper of the liberal establishment. It starts to appear (unpaid for by us) in television advertisements and posters because retailers and businessmen want to be associated with it. Young people carry the paper as a kind of badge, the beautiful chiselled masthead with its eagle angled outwards so that everyone can see they are Independent readers, that they too have rallied to the cause.
It is sickeningly sentimental, but, because I’ve been engrossed in journalism all my adult life, I found it touching.
But the tears welling up in the corners of my eyes were, I think at least in part, tears of disappointment. Because I read the story with the sinking feeling that I will probably never have the opportunity to be a part of something like what Stephen Glover, Andreas Whittam Smith, Simon Kelner et al were part of.
I live in the UK where, on one hand, the media are thriving. You can’t go anywhere without seeing people reading, listening to or watching the news. It is great to see such widespread enthusiasm for current affairs.
On the other hand, journalistic standards are hugely varied. “Red top” papers seem to invent stories. If the stories themselves aren’t invented, then certainly the quotes within the stories are. (The Quick Quotes Quill in Harry Potter is a brilliant take on this). The UK press also has a tendency to build people up for a number of months, and then, for no apparent reason, rip them apart with a ferocity that always surprises me. As a result, people don’t hold journalists in high regard.
What’s more, many young people don’t read the quality newspapers because they can get free alternatives -- alternatives which are under-funded and which do not do add anything to the national debate.
Still, at least people care about the quality of journalism here. If it's poor, people talk about it -- instead of just accepting it, they work to change it. It's pretty safe to say that journalism in Britain will always be important, whether it’s on TV, on the radio, in newspapers or online.
But my mind turns to Canada, where I’d like to one day return.
I was on Vancouver Island for three weeks this summer, and I was thoroughly disappointed with the quality of journalism. To be fair, I visited in August, which is the so-called silly season, so I was perhaps seeing a stripped down version of the newspapers, but I was still distraught over what I saw.
In a prominent paper, I saw what appeared to be a re-hashed press release about a Jamaican rum company. It wasn’t marked as an advertisement, but I couldn’t see that it was anything but. Have newspapers in Canada always been this bad and I’ve simply forgotten because I’ve lived in the UK, where there’s more editorial diversity?
The thing that worried me most was that it wasn’t just print journalism. My first afternoon there, I flipped on the CBC, hoping to see Canada Now or The National and ended up watching newsreaders waffle on about the PNE for half-an-hour before we got to any news. I think my British in-laws were appalled.
Yet, I don’t think there would be enough interest, advertising dollars, or journalists willing to risk their jobs to launch something like The Independent in Canada. Even though something like the Indy would be a great addition to the Canadian cultural landscape.
Perhaps I’m being far too pessimistic. Perhaps Canadians will get fed up with stripped down versions of what newspapers should be. Perhaps the demand for good journalism will increase. I do hope so -- but I’m not holding my breath.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Weighing in on the “too thin” debate
I have been more and more uneasy with the emerging debate in the media about whether or not the fashion industry should ban models who are deemed “too thin” from the catwalk.
It started when someone sent me a link to a story on the BBC’s website about how the authorities told the organisers of Madrid’s fashion show to ban models with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of less than 18, as having a BMI of less than 18 is widely considered to be unhealthy.
My initial reaction was: “Great, someone is working to promote the idea that body types we don’t normally see on the catwalk are what’s normal in the real world. I bet it’ll be a great show.”
But the idea has created a maelstrom of comment in the press. Without exception, that comment has been in favour of forcing the fashion industry to stop promoting the “waif” look. Some of those comments have gone too far.
One comment in particular struck a chord with me. An article by The Independent’s Social Affairs Correspondent Maxine Frith said this:
Experts say that with a BMI of 18, a woman is at risk of developing an eating disorder and any rating below that will mean she probably already has one. Dee Dawson, who runs the Rhodes Farm clinic in north London for girls with eating disorders, says that it’s a fallacy to say that some models are just naturally very skinny. “It’s just not possible to be 6ft 2 and to weigh eight and a half stone (120lbs) without it being about controlling your eating,” she said. Most model agencies, fashion designers and magazine editors insist they will only work with healthy models and that an arbitrary BMI cut-off is unfair. And they point to the fact that the trend for super-slim, “size zero” models on the catwalk has hardly crossed over into “real” high street life; the average British woman is a size 16 (about a US size 10) and growing.
I find the debate quite odd, because, like Giorgio Armani said, the fashion industry, particularly the major designer labels, have always taken things to extremes. Naturally, they’re going to use extremely thin models.
Another reason that the fashion industry uses thin models is because people are getting fatter. And as fashion is all about making a statement, if they used girls who had normal bodies, they’d just look normal, wouldn’t they? I guess they figure the thinner the model, the more the impact, the more glamorous it is.
I also find the debate odd because, I am 6ft 2 and weigh not much more than eight and a half stone. I weigh something like 130lbs, which is eight stone and three quarters-ish.
I am not anorexic, nor am I unhealthily skinny. (Though my BMI is below 18). I eat like a normal person -- three meals a day and I snack in between. I have a feeling that some models out there are probably exactly like me -- born with what some might call an unfairly fast metabolism. Some people, it seems, are naturally skinny.
I have no doubt that the fashion industry's and Hollywood's version of what is "glamorous" is damaging to girls' self-esteem. I also have no doubt that many eating disorders are a direct result of this message. It's certainly an unfortunate situation.
On the other hand, there are people out there who are obssessed with their breasts because they don't think they are big enough, or they're obssessed with their nose because it's too big, or they're obssessed with their hair because it's too limp. Everyone who pays attention to Hollywood movies and pictures in magazines feels inadequate, including skinny people.
What is my message to the 12-year-old girls out there who are starving themselves to look like Keira Knightly? Ignore the magazines. They only exist so that you will buy stuff to look more like the people society has deemed glamorous. (Even though many people argue that stick-thin celebrities look like lollipop heads and I don't disagree). Love what you've been given because the most beautiful thing in the world is happiness.
And I do hope that, some day, the fashion industry will move away from the waif look. It does get boring, doesn't it?
It started when someone sent me a link to a story on the BBC’s website about how the authorities told the organisers of Madrid’s fashion show to ban models with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of less than 18, as having a BMI of less than 18 is widely considered to be unhealthy.
My initial reaction was: “Great, someone is working to promote the idea that body types we don’t normally see on the catwalk are what’s normal in the real world. I bet it’ll be a great show.”
But the idea has created a maelstrom of comment in the press. Without exception, that comment has been in favour of forcing the fashion industry to stop promoting the “waif” look. Some of those comments have gone too far.
One comment in particular struck a chord with me. An article by The Independent’s Social Affairs Correspondent Maxine Frith said this:
Experts say that with a BMI of 18, a woman is at risk of developing an eating disorder and any rating below that will mean she probably already has one. Dee Dawson, who runs the Rhodes Farm clinic in north London for girls with eating disorders, says that it’s a fallacy to say that some models are just naturally very skinny. “It’s just not possible to be 6ft 2 and to weigh eight and a half stone (120lbs) without it being about controlling your eating,” she said. Most model agencies, fashion designers and magazine editors insist they will only work with healthy models and that an arbitrary BMI cut-off is unfair. And they point to the fact that the trend for super-slim, “size zero” models on the catwalk has hardly crossed over into “real” high street life; the average British woman is a size 16 (about a US size 10) and growing.
I find the debate quite odd, because, like Giorgio Armani said, the fashion industry, particularly the major designer labels, have always taken things to extremes. Naturally, they’re going to use extremely thin models.
Another reason that the fashion industry uses thin models is because people are getting fatter. And as fashion is all about making a statement, if they used girls who had normal bodies, they’d just look normal, wouldn’t they? I guess they figure the thinner the model, the more the impact, the more glamorous it is.
I also find the debate odd because, I am 6ft 2 and weigh not much more than eight and a half stone. I weigh something like 130lbs, which is eight stone and three quarters-ish.
I am not anorexic, nor am I unhealthily skinny. (Though my BMI is below 18). I eat like a normal person -- three meals a day and I snack in between. I have a feeling that some models out there are probably exactly like me -- born with what some might call an unfairly fast metabolism. Some people, it seems, are naturally skinny.
I have no doubt that the fashion industry's and Hollywood's version of what is "glamorous" is damaging to girls' self-esteem. I also have no doubt that many eating disorders are a direct result of this message. It's certainly an unfortunate situation.
On the other hand, there are people out there who are obssessed with their breasts because they don't think they are big enough, or they're obssessed with their nose because it's too big, or they're obssessed with their hair because it's too limp. Everyone who pays attention to Hollywood movies and pictures in magazines feels inadequate, including skinny people.
What is my message to the 12-year-old girls out there who are starving themselves to look like Keira Knightly? Ignore the magazines. They only exist so that you will buy stuff to look more like the people society has deemed glamorous. (Even though many people argue that stick-thin celebrities look like lollipop heads and I don't disagree). Love what you've been given because the most beautiful thing in the world is happiness.
And I do hope that, some day, the fashion industry will move away from the waif look. It does get boring, doesn't it?
Friday, August 11, 2006
Blogger book survey
1. A Book I've Read More Than Once - I no longer read books more than once. I get impatient. As a kid, I read a great deal so as I got older, I sometimes re-read the ones that I was perhaps too young to understand. I think I read the "Anne of Green Gables" series more than once. I definitely read "Little Women" twice. I would like to read Daphne Du Maurier's "Rebecca" again, because I read it when I was about 11 and I think it's likely I didn't understand most of it.
2. A Book I'd Want With Me on a Desert Island - I would want to have something funny to read, like John Birmingham's "He Died With a Falafel in His Hand." Laughter cures everything. But in the unlikely event that, while on the desert island, I got eaten by a wild boar or bitten by a poisonous snake, I could at least rest assured that I did not die in a shameful way. For example, I did not die of a drug overdose with a Falafel in my hand, which is what happened in the book.
3. A Book That Made Me Laugh - A few books have made me laugh out loud recently. I read Susan Juby's "Alice, I Think" and "Miss Smithers" and they were both a joy. The main character in the novel comes from Smithers, which is where I grew up, so the laughter is usually in recognising the situation, and relating to it on some level. And the other book is a pretty obvious one -- Bill Bryson's "Notes from a Small Island." This non-fiction book follows Bryson, an American writer, as he travels the British countryside. His observations are bang on, and usually hilarious. Unfortunately, he can be quite cynical and critical and if he starts ranting and raving about something you like, then it can put you off immediately. But because, like him, I'm a North American writer living and working in Britain, we have a lot in common. So when I read that book, it felt like I was tapping into something about my experience.
4. A Book That Made Me Cry - "The Velveteen Rabbit" by Margery Williams makes me want to cry. It's very sweet book. More recently, "The Time Traveler's Wife" by Audrey Niffenegger broke my heart. I cried on the train.
5. A Book I Wish Had Been Written - "Idiot's Guide to World Peace" by George W. Bush.
6. A Book I Wish Had Never Been Written - Machiavelli's "The Prince," Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf," and, on a completely separate note, "Being Jordan" by Katie Price. I also wish that most of the novels about the British royal family were never written. If the family wasn't constantly being harrassed, perhaps they would actually get around to doing something useful. As it stands, they don't do anything particularly useful, so why do people want to read about them?
7. A Book I Am Currently Reading - "Last Tango in Aberystwyth" by Malcolm Pryce. It's an amusing book, but because the author likes to write a lot of description, I run out of patience with it. I'd rather read the newspaper. I'll probably finish it on my long-haul plane trip to Canada (If I'm allowed to bring it on board).
8. A Book I Am Meaning To Read - Where to start? I want to read some of the old classics that I read when I was younger. In particular, I want to read "Rebecca" by Daphne du Maurier and "Jane Eyre" by Emily Bronte. I also want to read the Jane Austen novels I haven't read. I also want to read "The Diary of Anne Frank." I also want to read the "His Dark Materials" novels before the films come out.
9. The Book That Changed My Life - I used to own a book, and regrettably, I've forgotten its title, but I would say it was a book that changed my life. I read it when I was little. It was called something like "Eleanor of Wintergreen". I remember the cover -- it was orange (perhaps because it was a Penguin novel?) and featured a young girl wearing green, who seemed to be trying to catch a butterfly. It was a book about a red-haired girl of about 16 who was a little bit of a loner. She lived on a farm, and her parents, or perhaps it was just one member of her family, died in a horrific accident on the river. I don't remember much of the book, but I remember it being an immensely sad book, but at the same time, full of hope. I think that's when I realised that emotion is a powerful tool -- and that words could move people. I really wish I could remember the name of the book. It might still be in my parent's basement
2. A Book I'd Want With Me on a Desert Island - I would want to have something funny to read, like John Birmingham's "He Died With a Falafel in His Hand." Laughter cures everything. But in the unlikely event that, while on the desert island, I got eaten by a wild boar or bitten by a poisonous snake, I could at least rest assured that I did not die in a shameful way. For example, I did not die of a drug overdose with a Falafel in my hand, which is what happened in the book.
3. A Book That Made Me Laugh - A few books have made me laugh out loud recently. I read Susan Juby's "Alice, I Think" and "Miss Smithers" and they were both a joy. The main character in the novel comes from Smithers, which is where I grew up, so the laughter is usually in recognising the situation, and relating to it on some level. And the other book is a pretty obvious one -- Bill Bryson's "Notes from a Small Island." This non-fiction book follows Bryson, an American writer, as he travels the British countryside. His observations are bang on, and usually hilarious. Unfortunately, he can be quite cynical and critical and if he starts ranting and raving about something you like, then it can put you off immediately. But because, like him, I'm a North American writer living and working in Britain, we have a lot in common. So when I read that book, it felt like I was tapping into something about my experience.
4. A Book That Made Me Cry - "The Velveteen Rabbit" by Margery Williams makes me want to cry. It's very sweet book. More recently, "The Time Traveler's Wife" by Audrey Niffenegger broke my heart. I cried on the train.
5. A Book I Wish Had Been Written - "Idiot's Guide to World Peace" by George W. Bush.
6. A Book I Wish Had Never Been Written - Machiavelli's "The Prince," Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf," and, on a completely separate note, "Being Jordan" by Katie Price. I also wish that most of the novels about the British royal family were never written. If the family wasn't constantly being harrassed, perhaps they would actually get around to doing something useful. As it stands, they don't do anything particularly useful, so why do people want to read about them?
7. A Book I Am Currently Reading - "Last Tango in Aberystwyth" by Malcolm Pryce. It's an amusing book, but because the author likes to write a lot of description, I run out of patience with it. I'd rather read the newspaper. I'll probably finish it on my long-haul plane trip to Canada (If I'm allowed to bring it on board).
8. A Book I Am Meaning To Read - Where to start? I want to read some of the old classics that I read when I was younger. In particular, I want to read "Rebecca" by Daphne du Maurier and "Jane Eyre" by Emily Bronte. I also want to read the Jane Austen novels I haven't read. I also want to read "The Diary of Anne Frank." I also want to read the "His Dark Materials" novels before the films come out.
9. The Book That Changed My Life - I used to own a book, and regrettably, I've forgotten its title, but I would say it was a book that changed my life. I read it when I was little. It was called something like "Eleanor of Wintergreen". I remember the cover -- it was orange (perhaps because it was a Penguin novel?) and featured a young girl wearing green, who seemed to be trying to catch a butterfly. It was a book about a red-haired girl of about 16 who was a little bit of a loner. She lived on a farm, and her parents, or perhaps it was just one member of her family, died in a horrific accident on the river. I don't remember much of the book, but I remember it being an immensely sad book, but at the same time, full of hope. I think that's when I realised that emotion is a powerful tool -- and that words could move people. I really wish I could remember the name of the book. It might still be in my parent's basement
Monday, July 31, 2006
The politics of apathy
I am a bit saddened by my generation's apathy towards politics.
I often hear my Canadian friends say they don't vote because they feel they don't know enough about the people they're voting for. They might also argue that all politicians are the same. Or they'll say they don't have an opinion about what's happening in the Middle East because they don't know enough about it.
My sadness is mixed with understanding because, on one hand, I understand how they feel and they're making a valid point -- why form an opinion, or choose a side, when you don't know very much about the issues? On the other hand, given that voting is one of the only ways you can affect how your country is run, does it not make more sense to make an effort to learn about the issues?
My generation's apathy has worried me more and more in recent months. Apathy has manifested itself on the world stage as murder and environmental degradation. Apathy is the reason people have let George W. Bush create even more unstability in a fragile region of the world. Apathy is the reason Africa is so poor. Apathy is the reason we destroy the planet's ecosystems. Apathy is the reason that a recent poll indicated that 72 per cent of British Columbians support Israel's attack on Lebanon.*
Surely, my friends who don't vote can appreciate that the decisions that politicians make can affect their lives. Taxes can go up or down, schools can get better or worse. Anyone can lose their job or have their rights taken away because of a government decision.
Starting from the bottom, and working your way up, you can begin to understand how government affects your life.
The Liberals taking power in the BC legislature has meant people have had to pay more to go to university. Schools, hospitals and pensions have been on the chopping block. But it's not just BC Liberals that can change our lives. When the NDP were in power, it meant a stagnation of the economy. For example, companies were not encouraged to open new mines, which meant that the mining industry didn't create jobs or increase its tax pay-outs to the public purse.
Our federal government (under the Liberals and now the Conservatives) has also recently supported detaining alleged terrorists without charge. This means that they can keep people behind bars without actually telling them why they're there. Can you imagine how that would feel? -- being in jail without a fair trial or even the possibility of a fair trial. Our government also hasn't been terribly critical of Guantanamo Bay, where Canadians are being held without charge. It is medieval stuff.
On an international scale, our government has backed Israel as it continues to attack the Lebanese people with US-built bombs. According to a recent poll*, only in Quebec do a majority of people condemn Canada's position. I believe this is because most people in the rest of Canada have not been paying attention to recent events. They're automatically siding with Israel because Israel is the US's and therefore Canada's traditional ally.
I know I said before that Israel bombing Lebanon because of the actions of Hezbollah was a bit like Canada bombing the US because the Klu Klux Klan killed some Canadians, but that was not totally fair.
Israel has continually been a victim of terrorist attacks, and it does have a right to defend itself. It is in the unfortunate position of being surrounded by a bunch of people who don't believe it has the right to exist.
However, bombing the much-needed infrastructure of an entire country, and killing women, children and UN observers, as well as targeting Red Cross ambulances is hardly a "defensive" activity. It is war. It is ugly war.
I would probably have already gone to one of the protests against the Israeli strikes if it were not for the fact that there's a fine line between protests that condemn Israel and protests calling for Israel's removal from the face of the earth.
So what is a sane person to do?
Well, for starters, you vote for someone with a spine. Stephen Harper, as his slug-like appearance suggests, doesn't seem to have much of a spine. So much so that since he's been PM, he hasn't been brave enough to stand in front of journalists and answer questions. A Prime Minister who either doesn't have the guts to defend his positions, or simply a man who doesn't feel Canadians deserve answers. You decide. He also seems to be unable to form his own opinions without first listening to an army of neo-cons (the Bush administration).
I remember during the election before last, in an interview with Peter Mansbridge, Harper was about to say what political ideology he belonged to, then caught himself, and then refused to say more. The man is scared of revealing his true colours because he knows they're not the true colours of a majority of Canadians.
Not all politicians are the same. Jean Chretien, a career politician, had his moments of decency. Lloyd Axworthy, I reckon, would have made a great prime minister -- someone who clearly studied a wide range of issues and made informed opinions. Michael Ignatieff, a world-famous academic, might prove to be a good prime minister one day. He has said some very sensible things in the Globe and Mail of Aug. 1. Jack Layton too, I believe, would stand up for decency and common sense.
Why are we stuck with Harper? Because young, intelligent people don't care and don't vote.
* That poll, a Mori poll, was reported in the Globe and Mail last week. However, today, a new poll indicates that only 32 per cent of Canadians support Harper's stance and that most want Canada to stay neutral.
I often hear my Canadian friends say they don't vote because they feel they don't know enough about the people they're voting for. They might also argue that all politicians are the same. Or they'll say they don't have an opinion about what's happening in the Middle East because they don't know enough about it.
My sadness is mixed with understanding because, on one hand, I understand how they feel and they're making a valid point -- why form an opinion, or choose a side, when you don't know very much about the issues? On the other hand, given that voting is one of the only ways you can affect how your country is run, does it not make more sense to make an effort to learn about the issues?
My generation's apathy has worried me more and more in recent months. Apathy has manifested itself on the world stage as murder and environmental degradation. Apathy is the reason people have let George W. Bush create even more unstability in a fragile region of the world. Apathy is the reason Africa is so poor. Apathy is the reason we destroy the planet's ecosystems. Apathy is the reason that a recent poll indicated that 72 per cent of British Columbians support Israel's attack on Lebanon.*
Surely, my friends who don't vote can appreciate that the decisions that politicians make can affect their lives. Taxes can go up or down, schools can get better or worse. Anyone can lose their job or have their rights taken away because of a government decision.
Starting from the bottom, and working your way up, you can begin to understand how government affects your life.
The Liberals taking power in the BC legislature has meant people have had to pay more to go to university. Schools, hospitals and pensions have been on the chopping block. But it's not just BC Liberals that can change our lives. When the NDP were in power, it meant a stagnation of the economy. For example, companies were not encouraged to open new mines, which meant that the mining industry didn't create jobs or increase its tax pay-outs to the public purse.
Our federal government (under the Liberals and now the Conservatives) has also recently supported detaining alleged terrorists without charge. This means that they can keep people behind bars without actually telling them why they're there. Can you imagine how that would feel? -- being in jail without a fair trial or even the possibility of a fair trial. Our government also hasn't been terribly critical of Guantanamo Bay, where Canadians are being held without charge. It is medieval stuff.
On an international scale, our government has backed Israel as it continues to attack the Lebanese people with US-built bombs. According to a recent poll*, only in Quebec do a majority of people condemn Canada's position. I believe this is because most people in the rest of Canada have not been paying attention to recent events. They're automatically siding with Israel because Israel is the US's and therefore Canada's traditional ally.
I know I said before that Israel bombing Lebanon because of the actions of Hezbollah was a bit like Canada bombing the US because the Klu Klux Klan killed some Canadians, but that was not totally fair.
Israel has continually been a victim of terrorist attacks, and it does have a right to defend itself. It is in the unfortunate position of being surrounded by a bunch of people who don't believe it has the right to exist.
However, bombing the much-needed infrastructure of an entire country, and killing women, children and UN observers, as well as targeting Red Cross ambulances is hardly a "defensive" activity. It is war. It is ugly war.
I would probably have already gone to one of the protests against the Israeli strikes if it were not for the fact that there's a fine line between protests that condemn Israel and protests calling for Israel's removal from the face of the earth.
So what is a sane person to do?
Well, for starters, you vote for someone with a spine. Stephen Harper, as his slug-like appearance suggests, doesn't seem to have much of a spine. So much so that since he's been PM, he hasn't been brave enough to stand in front of journalists and answer questions. A Prime Minister who either doesn't have the guts to defend his positions, or simply a man who doesn't feel Canadians deserve answers. You decide. He also seems to be unable to form his own opinions without first listening to an army of neo-cons (the Bush administration).
I remember during the election before last, in an interview with Peter Mansbridge, Harper was about to say what political ideology he belonged to, then caught himself, and then refused to say more. The man is scared of revealing his true colours because he knows they're not the true colours of a majority of Canadians.
Not all politicians are the same. Jean Chretien, a career politician, had his moments of decency. Lloyd Axworthy, I reckon, would have made a great prime minister -- someone who clearly studied a wide range of issues and made informed opinions. Michael Ignatieff, a world-famous academic, might prove to be a good prime minister one day. He has said some very sensible things in the Globe and Mail of Aug. 1. Jack Layton too, I believe, would stand up for decency and common sense.
Why are we stuck with Harper? Because young, intelligent people don't care and don't vote.
* That poll, a Mori poll, was reported in the Globe and Mail last week. However, today, a new poll indicates that only 32 per cent of Canadians support Harper's stance and that most want Canada to stay neutral.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Oh Ian Handsome-man-thing, I miss you so
A few years ago, my brother gave me a magnet with CBC broadcasters Ian Hanomansing and David Gray on it. I have no idea where he got it from but it's one of the best gifts I've ever received.
It's currently in our bathroom above the soap dish near our sink. So anyone that uses our bathroom has the pleasure of having CBC news broadcasters reminding them to wash their hands. The geek-o-metre is tipping the scales. It's brilliant.
I used to love watching Ian Hanomansing -- or as he is better known in one of my circles of friends: Ian Handsome-man-thing -- on Canada Now, the CBC 6 o'clock news. And when I was at home in the afternoon at university, I would like watching the news on Newsworld from David Gray (the broadcaster, not the musician). I really miss the CBC.
I do visit the web site pretty much every day, but it's not the same. I want to hear Ian's rich voice, and stare into Peter Mansbridge's blue, blue eyes. I would also love to listen to Shelagh Rogers more often. (I can get Shelagh on the Internet, but as I don't have broadband at home, it's difficult).
Ian Hanomansing
David Gray
Shelagh Rogers
But since I can't get the CBC, the Beeb is my main source of news. The Beeb, I have to say, is very good. Especially Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman. And I do like Huw Edwards on the Beeb's 10 o'clock news. He's like your important Welsh uncle, and you can trust every word he says. I don't actually have an uncle like that but if I did, he would be just like Huw.
Huw Edwards
But my new favourite broadcaster in this country is Sarah Smith, who presents More Four news. It's the spin-off channel associated with Channel 4 -- a very good British "terrestrial television" channel. I haven't seen Sarah in action very much because we only just got digital television, but the first time I saw her, I liked her immediately. She's Scottish and I believe she's the daughter of a former Labour Party leader.
Sarah Smith
It's currently in our bathroom above the soap dish near our sink. So anyone that uses our bathroom has the pleasure of having CBC news broadcasters reminding them to wash their hands. The geek-o-metre is tipping the scales. It's brilliant.
I used to love watching Ian Hanomansing -- or as he is better known in one of my circles of friends: Ian Handsome-man-thing -- on Canada Now, the CBC 6 o'clock news. And when I was at home in the afternoon at university, I would like watching the news on Newsworld from David Gray (the broadcaster, not the musician). I really miss the CBC.
I do visit the web site pretty much every day, but it's not the same. I want to hear Ian's rich voice, and stare into Peter Mansbridge's blue, blue eyes. I would also love to listen to Shelagh Rogers more often. (I can get Shelagh on the Internet, but as I don't have broadband at home, it's difficult).
Ian Hanomansing
David Gray
Shelagh Rogers
But since I can't get the CBC, the Beeb is my main source of news. The Beeb, I have to say, is very good. Especially Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman. And I do like Huw Edwards on the Beeb's 10 o'clock news. He's like your important Welsh uncle, and you can trust every word he says. I don't actually have an uncle like that but if I did, he would be just like Huw.
Huw Edwards
But my new favourite broadcaster in this country is Sarah Smith, who presents More Four news. It's the spin-off channel associated with Channel 4 -- a very good British "terrestrial television" channel. I haven't seen Sarah in action very much because we only just got digital television, but the first time I saw her, I liked her immediately. She's Scottish and I believe she's the daughter of a former Labour Party leader.
Sarah Smith
Thursday, June 22, 2006
The devil's got a boutonniere
There are certain givens in life.
For instance, it's a given that just when you think reality television couldn't possibly get more ridiculous, something even more ridiculous comes along.
It's also a given that today, some smug English person, somewhere, is saying "This just proves that Americans don't understand football," following the USA's exit from the World Cup yesterday.
Another given, I've recently learned, is that everything you do in preparation for your wedding day is automatically going to be harder than you think it will be.
Last autumn, when I started to seriously think about planning the big day, my thinking was that, since I'm a cynical newspaper-type-person (as opposed to a gushy romantic), it would be fairly easy just to get on with the planning. I didn't have any desire to leaf through hundreds of bridal magazines, nor did I have a "perfect day" in mind. I wanted to look at what was available in my price range, and book it. Simple, right?
Not so.
Take dress-buying, for example. You can't just pop into a bridal shop and look around. You have to make an appointment -- and good luck getting a Saturday appointment. I'm guessing this is due to the fact that most women have leafed through hundreds of bridal magazines and already know the dresses they want to try on. And then when you finally get to the shop, the other brides-to-be are there twittering excitedly with their entourage of bridesmaids, moms and other close relations. So you start feeling like you've ruined the party atmosphere by going by yourself. (You would take your fiance, whose opinion, in your mind, matters the most, but other women find that offensive to their pre-concieved notions of how a wedding is done -- he's not allowed).
Things have moved on for me since then. The dress is now bought, the church and reception hall are booked -- thankfully -- and I've moved on to writing out the order of service for the ceremony. Unfortunately this task is, once again, proving my theory that nothing about a wedding is as easy as it should be.
In theory, all we needed to do was pick four hymns, three readings and two pieces of music for the entrance and exit of the bridal party. I thought this could be done in a couple of weekends. How wrong I was.
I think we started planning it about two months ago and all that is set in stone is that we're going to play Mendelssohn's The Wedding March at the end. Only because it's a big cliche and you have to do it.
Apparently there are quite different ideas about English wedding hymns and Canadian wedding hymns -- even when the Canadian church is an Anglican church. The church weddings here in England are strictly traditional, so you can only really choose between about 12 hymns, such as "Love Divine" and "I Vow to Thee My Country" -- hymns that people in Canada don't even know. So it has been an absolute nightmare trying to please the traditionalists on this side of the world, and the people saying, "I don't know that one -- can't we have one everyone knows?" on the other side of the world.
What's even more frustrating, is that I'm beginning to actually mind. A few months ago, I might have said: "I don't care what hymns we have -- it's not going to have a big impact on the mood of the ceremony." But these days, it's getting on my nerves. These days, it's my way or the highway. A little devil is sitting on my shoulder going: "If they don't want to sing 'Morning is Broken' then get them to sing a bloody Amy Grant number. Then they'll see the err of their ways! Mwa ha ha!"
Ironic, I suppose, that the devil has only come out since I started thinking about songs of praise.
For instance, it's a given that just when you think reality television couldn't possibly get more ridiculous, something even more ridiculous comes along.
It's also a given that today, some smug English person, somewhere, is saying "This just proves that Americans don't understand football," following the USA's exit from the World Cup yesterday.
Another given, I've recently learned, is that everything you do in preparation for your wedding day is automatically going to be harder than you think it will be.
Last autumn, when I started to seriously think about planning the big day, my thinking was that, since I'm a cynical newspaper-type-person (as opposed to a gushy romantic), it would be fairly easy just to get on with the planning. I didn't have any desire to leaf through hundreds of bridal magazines, nor did I have a "perfect day" in mind. I wanted to look at what was available in my price range, and book it. Simple, right?
Not so.
Take dress-buying, for example. You can't just pop into a bridal shop and look around. You have to make an appointment -- and good luck getting a Saturday appointment. I'm guessing this is due to the fact that most women have leafed through hundreds of bridal magazines and already know the dresses they want to try on. And then when you finally get to the shop, the other brides-to-be are there twittering excitedly with their entourage of bridesmaids, moms and other close relations. So you start feeling like you've ruined the party atmosphere by going by yourself. (You would take your fiance, whose opinion, in your mind, matters the most, but other women find that offensive to their pre-concieved notions of how a wedding is done -- he's not allowed).
Things have moved on for me since then. The dress is now bought, the church and reception hall are booked -- thankfully -- and I've moved on to writing out the order of service for the ceremony. Unfortunately this task is, once again, proving my theory that nothing about a wedding is as easy as it should be.
In theory, all we needed to do was pick four hymns, three readings and two pieces of music for the entrance and exit of the bridal party. I thought this could be done in a couple of weekends. How wrong I was.
I think we started planning it about two months ago and all that is set in stone is that we're going to play Mendelssohn's The Wedding March at the end. Only because it's a big cliche and you have to do it.
Apparently there are quite different ideas about English wedding hymns and Canadian wedding hymns -- even when the Canadian church is an Anglican church. The church weddings here in England are strictly traditional, so you can only really choose between about 12 hymns, such as "Love Divine" and "I Vow to Thee My Country" -- hymns that people in Canada don't even know. So it has been an absolute nightmare trying to please the traditionalists on this side of the world, and the people saying, "I don't know that one -- can't we have one everyone knows?" on the other side of the world.
What's even more frustrating, is that I'm beginning to actually mind. A few months ago, I might have said: "I don't care what hymns we have -- it's not going to have a big impact on the mood of the ceremony." But these days, it's getting on my nerves. These days, it's my way or the highway. A little devil is sitting on my shoulder going: "If they don't want to sing 'Morning is Broken' then get them to sing a bloody Amy Grant number. Then they'll see the err of their ways! Mwa ha ha!"
Ironic, I suppose, that the devil has only come out since I started thinking about songs of praise.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Yes, Lauren, you do look bovvered
When I was a student of journalism, one of the things that most appealed to me about the profession was that journalists seemed to know how to cut through the bullshit and get to the point. But, increasingly, journalists don’t seem to be doing that as well as they should.
The British media are good at addressing trivial, everyday things, such as the best restaurants, the finest clothes, the nuttiest celebrities, the greatest footballers and the richest businessmen. They are also very good at reporting on what they see as the latest outrageous American behaviour, or the worst tragedies in the developing world. However, they’re terrible at examining societal problems within Britain. Pop bands like The Kaiser Chiefs do a better job of it than The Times do. (The lyrics to the song I Predict a Riot say more about British society than your average edition of The Times. “Watching the people get lairy/Is not very pretty I tell thee/Walking through town is quite scary/And not very sensible either/A friend of a friend he got beaten/He looked the wrong way at a policeman/Would never have happened to Smeaton")
As an outsider who is used to a different culture, I suppose I notice the flaws more than a native Briton would. When you grow up surrounded by societal flaws, you learn to consider it normal. Either that, or you feel you have to justify it.
Take football hooliganism for example. I know people in Britain are very sensitive about this subject. Britons always say it’s not as bad as people make it out to be. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the fact that it’s there at all is problematic. I’ve never been to a Premiership match, but I’ve seen some pretty deplorable behaviour at Championship football matches. The fact that supporters from opposing clubs have to be separated proves that hooliganism is still rampant. But despite the problem, the British media will always make excuses or try to justify it. For example, I often read about how much worse the problem is in Italy. It’s the grown-up sport reporter equivalent of a kid saying to his mother: “Tommy did it first!”
As another example, the British media made much fanfare about the survey that revealed that Britain is now a fairly classless society. At least, that’s how most newspapers chose to spin coverage of the survey.
The survey revealed that many rich people didn’t consider themselves “upper class.” It also revealed that people who were once considered “middle class” now consider themselves “working class.” The whole thing, to borrow a British expression, was a load of bullocks.
If Britain were a classless society, the media wouldn’t have even considered covering the story. In Canada, the class debate doesn’t even register. No one would think to associate themselves with a class. You would never hear someone say: “That is way too middle class for my tastes” -- a comment I have heard muttered in England. I’m not even entirely sure what it means.
Britain is no more a classless society than it was 20 years ago. People are now just more embarrassed about being privileged because it’s not cool. It’s much more hip to be an Alan Sugar (rags to riches business tycoon) than it is to be a David Cameron (Eton/Oxford-educated Tory leader). (As an aside, the pendulum may swing in Cameron’s favour. A 1980s-like fixation on wealth and prestige -- i.e. people being obsessed with footballer’s wives -- seems to be in style at the moment).
And if you need more proof that Britain is not a classless society, take a look at the general public’s love of poking fun at the group of people known as “chavs” -- widely considered the new word for “working class.” A fictional character called Lauren Cooper is the most memorable television creation of last year. She was a slightly overweight, track-suit-wearing, tight-pony-tailed, under-educated girl who always said: “Do I look bovvered?” This is clearly poking fun at Britain’s poor, “working class” population. And if you’ve used public transportation in the last five years, you know that girls like Lauren are out there. They’re usually not funny like Lauren, though. And they do look “bovvered.” For the most part, they don't have terribly happy lives. Deep down, these girls know they were born in a class-based society, and they won’t be able to break out of it very easily.
Still, the British media snapped up the story that Britain is a classless society. Nobody seemed to question it. I wonder if the media were looking for the positive spin in the story, or if they simply failed to see what’s obvious to an outsider like myself.
The British media are good at addressing trivial, everyday things, such as the best restaurants, the finest clothes, the nuttiest celebrities, the greatest footballers and the richest businessmen. They are also very good at reporting on what they see as the latest outrageous American behaviour, or the worst tragedies in the developing world. However, they’re terrible at examining societal problems within Britain. Pop bands like The Kaiser Chiefs do a better job of it than The Times do. (The lyrics to the song I Predict a Riot say more about British society than your average edition of The Times. “Watching the people get lairy/Is not very pretty I tell thee/Walking through town is quite scary/And not very sensible either/A friend of a friend he got beaten/He looked the wrong way at a policeman/Would never have happened to Smeaton")
As an outsider who is used to a different culture, I suppose I notice the flaws more than a native Briton would. When you grow up surrounded by societal flaws, you learn to consider it normal. Either that, or you feel you have to justify it.
Take football hooliganism for example. I know people in Britain are very sensitive about this subject. Britons always say it’s not as bad as people make it out to be. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the fact that it’s there at all is problematic. I’ve never been to a Premiership match, but I’ve seen some pretty deplorable behaviour at Championship football matches. The fact that supporters from opposing clubs have to be separated proves that hooliganism is still rampant. But despite the problem, the British media will always make excuses or try to justify it. For example, I often read about how much worse the problem is in Italy. It’s the grown-up sport reporter equivalent of a kid saying to his mother: “Tommy did it first!”
As another example, the British media made much fanfare about the survey that revealed that Britain is now a fairly classless society. At least, that’s how most newspapers chose to spin coverage of the survey.
The survey revealed that many rich people didn’t consider themselves “upper class.” It also revealed that people who were once considered “middle class” now consider themselves “working class.” The whole thing, to borrow a British expression, was a load of bullocks.
If Britain were a classless society, the media wouldn’t have even considered covering the story. In Canada, the class debate doesn’t even register. No one would think to associate themselves with a class. You would never hear someone say: “That is way too middle class for my tastes” -- a comment I have heard muttered in England. I’m not even entirely sure what it means.
Britain is no more a classless society than it was 20 years ago. People are now just more embarrassed about being privileged because it’s not cool. It’s much more hip to be an Alan Sugar (rags to riches business tycoon) than it is to be a David Cameron (Eton/Oxford-educated Tory leader). (As an aside, the pendulum may swing in Cameron’s favour. A 1980s-like fixation on wealth and prestige -- i.e. people being obsessed with footballer’s wives -- seems to be in style at the moment).
And if you need more proof that Britain is not a classless society, take a look at the general public’s love of poking fun at the group of people known as “chavs” -- widely considered the new word for “working class.” A fictional character called Lauren Cooper is the most memorable television creation of last year. She was a slightly overweight, track-suit-wearing, tight-pony-tailed, under-educated girl who always said: “Do I look bovvered?” This is clearly poking fun at Britain’s poor, “working class” population. And if you’ve used public transportation in the last five years, you know that girls like Lauren are out there. They’re usually not funny like Lauren, though. And they do look “bovvered.” For the most part, they don't have terribly happy lives. Deep down, these girls know they were born in a class-based society, and they won’t be able to break out of it very easily.
Still, the British media snapped up the story that Britain is a classless society. Nobody seemed to question it. I wonder if the media were looking for the positive spin in the story, or if they simply failed to see what’s obvious to an outsider like myself.
Privileged to work in the press
A new survey published recently by the UK’s Times Higher Education* showed that the number of journalists from swanky private schools is increasing. A staggering 56 per cent of journalists were educated privately.
When you look at the UK population as a whole, you find that only about seven per cent of the population went to private school. It means that the UK’s richer population is being over-represented in the media, especially at the national level.
I am not shocked by this news, but I am disappointed. Newspaper readership is slipping, especially amongst the younger population, and it’s important for newspapers to keep abreast of what’s meaningful to the unprivileged majority. And if writers and editors are not in touch with the unprivileged majority, than they're not likely to publish things that appeal to them.
I don’t think the reason more journalists are coming from privileged backgrounds, is, as a columnist in yesterday’s Guardian suggested, due to more privileged people ceasing to see journalism as a working class pursuit. (Annoyingly, I can’t remember the name of the columnist, but she wrote the “On the press” column in the Media supplement. My copy of yesterday’s Guardian is at home in the recycling box).
It is more a result of the entry-level positions being so poorly paid and mostly based in London -- one of the most expensive places to live in the world.
It is also the result of national newspaper editors preferring to hire young journalists if their work has been published in national papers. Most young journalists are able to get stories published in nationals only if they’re able to afford to do several unpaid internships at national newspapers. In England, young journalists can do work experience for a week at, for example, The Independent, The Times or The Guardian. But if you don’t have the money to live, eat and travel in London, then you probably won’t be able to go for it.
When I first moved to the UK, I was looking for work in journalism, and I considered trying to get a week’s work experience in London. But the thought of spending hundreds of pounds on travel and expenses put me off. I had no income whatsoever and I needed a job as soon as possible. (The Canadian government’s aggravating student loan lenders would not temporarily stop demanding payments, despite my lack of employment).
I’m not suggesting that people who come from private schools do not deserve to be in newspaper offices. These privately educated individuals have the confidence, know-how and ability to chase down good stories.
However, there is a danger that they’ll ignore some stories that mean a lot to the people living in the lower echelons of society.
Just as an example, how many stories are written about how difficult it is for teachers in the South East without high-earning partners to get on the property ladder? Given how widespread the problem is, relatively few. And while the media does a thorough job of covering stories about released prisoners who commit crimes and illegal immigrants, there are very few stories about prisoner rehabilitation, and the desperation in immigrant communities that causes some of them to enter into a life of crime. This is perhaps because most journalists don’t live next-door to people in these situations. Increasingly, they’re more likely to live next door to lawyers, architects, politicians and high-profile actors.
It is time more newspaper editors took a gamble and hired less experienced, less privileged -- perhaps even more timid -- recruits. Given the chance, these individuals will chase down the stories that every other paper is missing.
*The study was carried out by the Sutton Trust
When you look at the UK population as a whole, you find that only about seven per cent of the population went to private school. It means that the UK’s richer population is being over-represented in the media, especially at the national level.
I am not shocked by this news, but I am disappointed. Newspaper readership is slipping, especially amongst the younger population, and it’s important for newspapers to keep abreast of what’s meaningful to the unprivileged majority. And if writers and editors are not in touch with the unprivileged majority, than they're not likely to publish things that appeal to them.
I don’t think the reason more journalists are coming from privileged backgrounds, is, as a columnist in yesterday’s Guardian suggested, due to more privileged people ceasing to see journalism as a working class pursuit. (Annoyingly, I can’t remember the name of the columnist, but she wrote the “On the press” column in the Media supplement. My copy of yesterday’s Guardian is at home in the recycling box).
It is more a result of the entry-level positions being so poorly paid and mostly based in London -- one of the most expensive places to live in the world.
It is also the result of national newspaper editors preferring to hire young journalists if their work has been published in national papers. Most young journalists are able to get stories published in nationals only if they’re able to afford to do several unpaid internships at national newspapers. In England, young journalists can do work experience for a week at, for example, The Independent, The Times or The Guardian. But if you don’t have the money to live, eat and travel in London, then you probably won’t be able to go for it.
When I first moved to the UK, I was looking for work in journalism, and I considered trying to get a week’s work experience in London. But the thought of spending hundreds of pounds on travel and expenses put me off. I had no income whatsoever and I needed a job as soon as possible. (The Canadian government’s aggravating student loan lenders would not temporarily stop demanding payments, despite my lack of employment).
I’m not suggesting that people who come from private schools do not deserve to be in newspaper offices. These privately educated individuals have the confidence, know-how and ability to chase down good stories.
However, there is a danger that they’ll ignore some stories that mean a lot to the people living in the lower echelons of society.
Just as an example, how many stories are written about how difficult it is for teachers in the South East without high-earning partners to get on the property ladder? Given how widespread the problem is, relatively few. And while the media does a thorough job of covering stories about released prisoners who commit crimes and illegal immigrants, there are very few stories about prisoner rehabilitation, and the desperation in immigrant communities that causes some of them to enter into a life of crime. This is perhaps because most journalists don’t live next-door to people in these situations. Increasingly, they’re more likely to live next door to lawyers, architects, politicians and high-profile actors.
It is time more newspaper editors took a gamble and hired less experienced, less privileged -- perhaps even more timid -- recruits. Given the chance, these individuals will chase down the stories that every other paper is missing.
*The study was carried out by the Sutton Trust
Monday, June 19, 2006
Home is no longer where the heart is
There's a government document in England that everyone seems to be up in arms about. It's called, rather unassumingly, The South East Plan. It's a dull document, but it's creating a fury -- and because of this fury, I'm driven to come out in support of it.
The South East Plan is a big document. I'm guessing there are probably more than 500 pages of the sucker. (In the unlikely event that you're interested in reading it, you can find it here: http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/southeastplan/plan/view_plan.html)
If you look at the whole thing, it looks like a whole load of very expensive bureaucratic nonsense. Which is probably, for the most part, pretty accurate. But within the document, there are some key "strategies" that people are worried about.
The most controversial one is the housing plan. The government wants local councils to build 28,900 new houses in the South East every year.
I think it would be difficult to count the number of letters to the editor I've seen in the regional press decrying this plan. People are constantly writing in to say there's already far too many houses in the region.
You can obviously never tell what the people who write these letters look like. But I would be willing to gamble everything I have on the fact that they're white, they're older, they're homeowners, and at least half the time, they've probably been living in the same village their whole lives and they're scared of outsiders living nearby. The letters are always like, "Oh, you can't build houses near where I live because it's pristine and wonderful, and what about my children? These outsiders will probably run them over in the street." Not only that but, the houses will "destroy the character of the neighbourhood."
What they're really saying is: "I have a nice house and my nose is in a knot because I don't want the value of said house to go down if there are lots of other houses on offer nearby. Plus, this neighbourhood is a white neighbourhood and I'd rather keep it that way."
In this country, one out of three houses bought is bought as a buy-to-rent investment rather than as a home. It means that people who already own homes are snapping up the available ones. That is a statistic I've seen published in a reliable newspaper. It leaves people who are not on the property ladder in a really tough situation.
I think it is sad that homeowners in the South East -- many of whom have seen the value of their homes triple in the past few years -- can only think of themselves. An average house in the South East is now worth more than £200,000 (approximately $400,000). That is also a statistic I've read in reliable newspapers.
Young people, such as myself, immigrants, people who have had significant life disruptions -- such as really difficult divorces -- need to be able to get on the property ladder and it is unfair that homeowners are blocking new builds because they don't want to see the value of their homes decrease.
Some homeowners are obviously also concerned with traffic and a lack of infrastructure (like doctors, parking spaces, roads). But for the most part, if everyone were being honest, they would say that they're trying to protect their pocketbooks when they try to block more houses from being built.
These people have money so they naturally have more power and influence than the above-mentioned young, immigrant, disadvantaged, etc, people -- so it's likely they'll get their way. Even if The South East Plan continues to contain the magic 28,900-houses-to-be-built-every-year statistic, the homeowners will probably scare off the builders somehow. I just hope they realise their children will suffer because of their actions.
The South East Plan is a big document. I'm guessing there are probably more than 500 pages of the sucker. (In the unlikely event that you're interested in reading it, you can find it here: http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/southeastplan/plan/view_plan.html)
If you look at the whole thing, it looks like a whole load of very expensive bureaucratic nonsense. Which is probably, for the most part, pretty accurate. But within the document, there are some key "strategies" that people are worried about.
The most controversial one is the housing plan. The government wants local councils to build 28,900 new houses in the South East every year.
I think it would be difficult to count the number of letters to the editor I've seen in the regional press decrying this plan. People are constantly writing in to say there's already far too many houses in the region.
You can obviously never tell what the people who write these letters look like. But I would be willing to gamble everything I have on the fact that they're white, they're older, they're homeowners, and at least half the time, they've probably been living in the same village their whole lives and they're scared of outsiders living nearby. The letters are always like, "Oh, you can't build houses near where I live because it's pristine and wonderful, and what about my children? These outsiders will probably run them over in the street." Not only that but, the houses will "destroy the character of the neighbourhood."
What they're really saying is: "I have a nice house and my nose is in a knot because I don't want the value of said house to go down if there are lots of other houses on offer nearby. Plus, this neighbourhood is a white neighbourhood and I'd rather keep it that way."
In this country, one out of three houses bought is bought as a buy-to-rent investment rather than as a home. It means that people who already own homes are snapping up the available ones. That is a statistic I've seen published in a reliable newspaper. It leaves people who are not on the property ladder in a really tough situation.
I think it is sad that homeowners in the South East -- many of whom have seen the value of their homes triple in the past few years -- can only think of themselves. An average house in the South East is now worth more than £200,000 (approximately $400,000). That is also a statistic I've read in reliable newspapers.
Young people, such as myself, immigrants, people who have had significant life disruptions -- such as really difficult divorces -- need to be able to get on the property ladder and it is unfair that homeowners are blocking new builds because they don't want to see the value of their homes decrease.
Some homeowners are obviously also concerned with traffic and a lack of infrastructure (like doctors, parking spaces, roads). But for the most part, if everyone were being honest, they would say that they're trying to protect their pocketbooks when they try to block more houses from being built.
These people have money so they naturally have more power and influence than the above-mentioned young, immigrant, disadvantaged, etc, people -- so it's likely they'll get their way. Even if The South East Plan continues to contain the magic 28,900-houses-to-be-built-every-year statistic, the homeowners will probably scare off the builders somehow. I just hope they realise their children will suffer because of their actions.
When in Roma... don't support AC Milan
I've come to the conclusion that I'm an adaptable person. Most people are -- I just think I have an extra-strong adaptability streak. Living in England, I have become so familiar with my internal "when in Rome..." monologue, that it has become an internal cliché. So too has the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" phrase.
Take, for example, my new-found enthusiasm for football. Three or four years ago, would I have ever imagined that watching the World Cup would appeal to me? No. But now here I am, pretty much every day, checking out minute-by-minute coverage on the Guardian Unlimited web site, and watching live coverage in the evenings. Why the sudden interest in football? I'll tell you.
A preamble: Football is known to some Canadians as "boot hockey", as in: "It's a shame about those Brits and their boot hockey -- it's too bad they're in too backward of a country to enjoy the sport as it should be played, with ice rinks, skates and sticks." Football is also known, of course, to more open-minded Canadians as "soccer."
I know I can't be objective, being a Canadian who never watched football on TV before 2005, but I still want to argue that football culture is a lot more difficult to penetrate than other sports cultures. The reason for this is because of its complexity. (In addition to English people's obssession with cult heroes and random sports trivia, but I digress). I've lived in England for more than a year and a half, and I still learn something about football everyday. And after 400-plus days of tutelage, I'm still hopeless. There are so many teams, cups, coaches, grounds, rules, sayings, songs and taboos that an outsider can't help but be hopeless.
Now, I've never been a massive sport enthusiast -- styling myself mostly as a creative type -- but I do like the way sport creates bonds. In this country, if someone supports the same football club as you, you've immediately got about forty hours worth of conversation to work with. I like that -- I want to have those resources. As an adaptable person, I don't want to sit in stoney silence as the guys at the office chat about football all day. I'd rather join in.
But it's not easy -- I've found myself asking loads of dumb questions, which probably gets on everyone's nerves, because it's the only way I can learn. Eventually, I will be able to make one or two intelligent additions to the conversation. In the meantime, I may get a laugh or two, and that's good enough for me. For now.
PS -- I reckon Italy look good for the Cup. They look speedy, and their strikers have the right instincts. But mostly, I just like their dramatics. Lots of pained and/or exhilarated expressions and arms flailing everywhere for no reason. (As a self-styled creative type, I've got to appreciate the most artistic team).
But those pesky Brazilians could shape up and steal the show. It's all up in the air, folks.
Take, for example, my new-found enthusiasm for football. Three or four years ago, would I have ever imagined that watching the World Cup would appeal to me? No. But now here I am, pretty much every day, checking out minute-by-minute coverage on the Guardian Unlimited web site, and watching live coverage in the evenings. Why the sudden interest in football? I'll tell you.
A preamble: Football is known to some Canadians as "boot hockey", as in: "It's a shame about those Brits and their boot hockey -- it's too bad they're in too backward of a country to enjoy the sport as it should be played, with ice rinks, skates and sticks." Football is also known, of course, to more open-minded Canadians as "soccer."
I know I can't be objective, being a Canadian who never watched football on TV before 2005, but I still want to argue that football culture is a lot more difficult to penetrate than other sports cultures. The reason for this is because of its complexity. (In addition to English people's obssession with cult heroes and random sports trivia, but I digress). I've lived in England for more than a year and a half, and I still learn something about football everyday. And after 400-plus days of tutelage, I'm still hopeless. There are so many teams, cups, coaches, grounds, rules, sayings, songs and taboos that an outsider can't help but be hopeless.
Now, I've never been a massive sport enthusiast -- styling myself mostly as a creative type -- but I do like the way sport creates bonds. In this country, if someone supports the same football club as you, you've immediately got about forty hours worth of conversation to work with. I like that -- I want to have those resources. As an adaptable person, I don't want to sit in stoney silence as the guys at the office chat about football all day. I'd rather join in.
But it's not easy -- I've found myself asking loads of dumb questions, which probably gets on everyone's nerves, because it's the only way I can learn. Eventually, I will be able to make one or two intelligent additions to the conversation. In the meantime, I may get a laugh or two, and that's good enough for me. For now.
PS -- I reckon Italy look good for the Cup. They look speedy, and their strikers have the right instincts. But mostly, I just like their dramatics. Lots of pained and/or exhilarated expressions and arms flailing everywhere for no reason. (As a self-styled creative type, I've got to appreciate the most artistic team).
But those pesky Brazilians could shape up and steal the show. It's all up in the air, folks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
