I’ve posted an article on the the Golden Ears Transition Initiative site about Richmond’s ban on genetically engineered agriculture. Yay Richmond, and congratulations to the Richmond Food Security Society and GE Free BC!
The last couple of posts referred to the Golden Ears Transition Initiative (GETI). I should probably explain what GETI is.
The “Golden Ears” part of the title refers to the Vancouver municipality of Maple Ridge. The Golden Ears mountain summit is visible from most of the municipality (and from much of metro Vancouver), and is used to name many Maple Ridge businesses and features (such as the Golden Ears bridge, which spans the Fraser River between Maple Ridge and Langley).
The “Transition Initiative” part of the title refers to a network of community groups that are interested in addressing problems regarding climate change, energy consumption, food security and related issues. It is based on the premise that solutions to these problems lie in activities undertaken by communities. There are Transition Initiatives all over the place: Village Vancouver, Transition Falmouth in the UK, Transition PDX in Portland, Oregon, and many more all over the world.
The general principles of the Transition Initiative movement are described by Rob Hopkins in the book The Transition Handbook: From Oil Dependency to Local Resilience.
Transition Initiatives provide a framework that enable community groups to gather under an umbrella. For example, in the Golden Ears Transition Initiative (GETI), there are groups interested in cycling, recycling, farming, water security, arts, and many more topics. Each of these groups is autonomous, but can use the GETI resources (such as the network of people and the website) to attract new members and further their area of interest.
My interest in Transition Initiatives started when I began attending meetings of the Ecological and New Economics Study Group of Village Vancouver. While I continue to attend those meetings (and, holy smokes, am I ever in over my head with that group) I am glad to be involved in a Transition Initiative in my local community (which, after all, is the whole point).
“Want to learn something? Add it as a comment to the list. Can you teach something? Ditto.”
Anyone is welcome to join. Once we get a group of interested people, we’ll pick a topic and set a date for our first seminar.
I’ve joined the Golden Ears Transition Initiative and have written a new article on their blog:
The New York Times has a weekly column called After Deadline, “Notes from the newsroom on grammar, usage and style.” In this column, Philip B. Corbett, the associate managing editor for standards (who is also in charge of The Times’s style manual), points out grammar and style errors from recent editions of the newspaper.
I learn a lot from this column. While some of the points are specific to The NY Times style guide, many are related to general usage and grammar issues. The examples given are representative of the complexity of everyday usage.
It’s the cart-before-the-horse problem: usually the grammar and usage examples that are given to illustrate a particular issue are simplified to make the issue clear and understandable. The problem is that normal usage is more complex, so it is illuminating to see grammatical analysis of complex sentences.
Further to this, Brian Garner’s Modern American Usage is an excellent reference that uses examples from print media to illustrate grammatical rules. It’s back-of-the-toilet interesting.
… but I know what I like.
photo credit: peterwalshprojectsI normally shy away from public political debate – the water gets too hot. However, the Vancouver Public Space Network has asked mayoral candidates to answer questions about current Vancouver issues (public toilets, parks and public spaces, the Safe Streets Act, the Downtown Ambassadors).
I like this form of political discourse. I find it useful to see the candidates’ answers side-by-side, and I think it gives the candidates the opportunity to articulate substantive ideas (an opportunity that Allen De Genova’s pompous and opinion- and idea-free “blah blah blah my five terms as Park Board Commissioner blah blah blah my intention as mayor blah blah blah” failed to grasp).
Unfortunately, Mayor Sam Sullivan did not participate. (Nor did Raymond Louie.)
That is kind of a confession.
For example, there is only one kind of salt in my kitchen. (Ok, two. Oh, wait – three. But they’re not frou-frou salts. They’re all white.) I do not peel the skin off tomatoes prior to making a sauce. I don’t know how to lard a pheasant and neither favour nor disfavour durian (having never tried it).
As an occasional flicker-through of food magazines in the grocery store line-up and skimmer of food blogs, though, I am occasionally aware of the latest food fad. (Was food always subject to fashions? I don’t remember this as a kid, but, then again, maybe that explains the whole “Cooking with Campbells” cuisine of my childhood. Where fashion is concerned, we often look back in anger. Let that be a warning to us.)
There is an interesting discussion going on over at Harvey Oberfeld’s blog about the state of TV news in British Columbia. In the first post, Harvey decries CTV and Global for ignoring important, breaking news (the Conservative funding scandal) in favour of “light” news (biodegradable coffee cups and an update on Canadian interest rates). (“Local TV News: Dumbing Down British Columbians“)
Harvey, now retired, was a senior reporter with BCTV (which was later acquired by Global). (See Wikipedia for his bio.)
In response to questions raised by the post (disclaimer – they were my questions), Harvey wrote a post about why lighter stories are favoured (“Debating T.V. News … the Beauty of Blogging!!“). This prompted a response from Cameron Bell – “State of the News: Read it and Weep!“. (Cameron Bell was the highly respected News Director for BCTV who is credited (along with Assignment Editor Keith Bradbury and the news crew they assembled) with bringing BCTV’s news program to the top of the ratings.)
Harvey points out that it mostly comes down to money – the amount of money a television station is willing to spend on the news-gathering process. Cameron Bell, however, notes that smart organizations are willing to spend lots of money provided that it generates commensurate profits. Profits are determined by the amount of revenue generated from advertising, which fluctuates depending on the number of viewers. The key to attracting viewers is quality content.
However, the low-hanging fruit – the easy stories – are duplicated and re-covered by multiple news organizations. Cameron Bell points out that three major news organizations (one newspaper, two television) covered the warm-up suits for Canadian Olympic athletes. He charitably (in my opinion) gives the original reporter credit for producing an interesting story. I don’t agree – I think it was a travesty of news on the first report that just got worse on subsequent reports.
I find this all extremely interesting, from a news consumer point of view (although my exposure to TV news is mostly limited to clips I see via the internet). It’s sort of a relief to learn that the there isn’t a grand conspiracy to dumb-down the news or avoid certain topics. Instead, there are merely difficult management problems – human resources, finances, planning and “vision”, etc.