Eating habits of the modern day human

            Lately I’ve been watching as my seven-year old daughter wolfs down everything in her sight.  The other day she ate a whole cantaloupe for breakfast. 

“The whole cantaloupe?” I asked, incredulously, hoping she considered her dad may want a small slice.

            She just smiled, indicating mom had given her full permission to devour the over-sized fruit.  She is a growing girl, after all.  Yes, but the whole cantaloupe??

            I thought the big eating splurges started at adolescence, but perhaps I’ve forgotten about the occasional growth spurts.

I remember a time, not so long ago, where we had to continually harass our child to eat faster.  We would spend a full hour at the table, watching her play with her potatoes.  (I never could understand what she had against the carbs, but she was an Atkins diet adherent from the beginning.) 

Now it’s probably not a good thing to tell your children to hurry up when eating because you know that sooner or later, you’re gonna have to slow them down.  That time has come.

            Now she finishes supper before I can start asking how her day was at school. She’s turned into a human vacuum. 

Cow tongue - another Ukrainian delicacy

            I suppose I should be happy to have a child who actually enjoys eating.  And the stuff she doesn’t like, she gets anyway.  Beet and eggplant salads are mainstays in our Ukrainian-Canadian household – usually not the number one pick for children (or adults?!), but at least one spoonful gets dumped on her plate each meal.

            I’ve heard you have to try a new food 17 times before you get used to it.  Yes, that’s a lot of liver…

            More liver would certainly help slow down the pace of our meals.  I need the reminder to slow down, too.  For myself, while food is enjoyable, it’s really not about savouring every last morsel as I sip on a glass of chardonnay. 

            I know people who get really excited about food, and I certainly recognize what good food tastes like.  I’ve been berated numerous times by my friends who remind me how lucky I am to have home-cooked meals prepared every day – and believe me, I know!  But as soon as you leave me to my own devices in the kitchen, the quality goes right down the tubes. 

            It’s all about efficiency when I’m cooking.  How can I make something that I can eat and get on with my life as soon as possible?  Fried eggs, anyone?  Although even that requires my fullest concentration.  Family members know not to talk to me at critical points in the egg-frying process, lest I crack – yes, like an egg – under the pressure.

My cooking instructions... just in case I forgot my vegetables

            My wife takes a different approach to food, thank goodness.  She understands food.  She pays attention to every ingredient.  She knows how a dish will taste just by looking at the recipe.  And she can multi-task, too, which helps immensely.  Being able to monitor three boiling pots at the same time is beyond me.

            Having the patience to cut vegetables for 30 minutes is also beyond me.  I once made lasagna (with step-by-step instructions laid out across the countertop), after which I understood the appeal of TV dinners.  After labouring for a good two hours on this Italian masterpiece, it was decimated in minutes by my daughter.  That was it – it was gone.  There was no bringing it back.

            It’s an unfortunate reality, but “slow cooking," along with slow eating, is becoming a thing of the past.  It’s just not appreciated enough.

            I’ll try to remember that the next time I’m wolfing down my wife’s lasagna.

Time to re-Occupy Wall Street?

             Three years after bashing the Occupy Wall Street movement, I’m on board.  Yes, the Occupy Wall Street movement had a point after all. (Too bad it fizzled.)

Inequality is rising and it’s putting the economy at risk.  That’s the assertion of a number of economists, including the author of Capital in the 21^st Century, a 577-page dissertation on inequality over the past three centuries.

            I won’t suggest by any means that this book’s a page turner, but its research and message is revolutionary.  My family has watched me lug around this 10-pound book for the last three months.  If you don’t wish to learn how the capital-income ratio works, I would suggest skipping to the juicier parts on page 250 (or just read my blog, if you can get through it!)

            In the U.S., it turns out the uber rich have been having quite the ride.  Since 1977 (a great year, by the way), the top 1% of the population have absorbed 60% of the additional wealth produced.  This left a meagre 0.5% annual wealth increase for the “bottom” 90% (the majority of us).

            In the U.S. today, the wealthiest 10% of the population control 50% of the nation’s wealth.  The bottom 50% control 20%.  Perhaps even more striking, the top 1% (approximately 2.6 million people in the U.S.) own 20% of the nation’s wealth.  Canada isn’t too far behind with its top 1% owning 12% of national wealth and taking home one third of the nation’s gains from 1997 to 2007.

            It’s not a trend that’s reversing itself anytime soon.  The rich have a tendency to make great returns on their investments.  Given America’s current low-tax environment compared to 30 years ago, the top 10% will likely control over 60% of the wealth by 2030.

            Inequality has already reached the heights that once existed in Europe prior to World War 1.  This was a time when land and factory owners controlled most wealth and when the rest of society lived in misery and filth.  Out of this filth came child labour laws, the formation of unions, the birth of the weekend (yippee!), greater taxation of the wealthy, and much greater equality.

            While the poorest in society today benefit from better labour laws, a social safety net, and greater income overall, it doesn’t mean that we’re moving in the right direction.  A moral question arises: Is it right for Bill Gates to pay less tax as a proportion of income than a single working mother?

Not to mention the economic risk that inequality creates.  Piketty, along with a number of other economists, suggest that inequality creates a stagnation of purchasing power of the middle class that contributes to economic failure.  The wealth of the population’s top 10% peaked twice in the last one hundred years – once in 1928 and again in 2007 – both, not coincidentally, prior to major economic crashes. 

            While many in the U.S. make the claim that the rich create jobs, their investments, in reality, appear to do little but sit and grow interest. 

            And while in the 1800s it was the land-owners who occupied the top 10%, this population segment today consists mostly of “supermanagers,” those highly compensated executives of large firms.  Of the wealthiest 1% of the population, Piketty indicates that 70% are top managers of firms, with only 5% constituting “celebrities” such as actors and athletes. 

The supermanager has found a new niche in society as the meritocratic royal class, where they tend to be compensated Communist-style – whether they perform well or not.  They and the friendly board members who set their salary are all very generous with shareholder funds – when friends start awarding friends salaries, the sky is the limit.  In Canada, I recently heard the average CEO now makes over $9 million. 

The trend will only continue unless serious reforms take place, largely through increased taxation.  As the Conference Board of Canada indicates, taxation works to reduce inequality.  Piketty suggests a straight-forward tax on capital, but it could be as simple as a higher income tax bracket.

Such ideas are never popular among politicians so dependent upon corporate donors.  But something will need to change if greater equality is to be achieved.

Whether we really want it to be achieved is a whole nother question.

When good Mennonites go bad

            Some news you just can’t make up.  Last week I read in Maclean’s that Mennonites are at the heart of a new bylaw in Taber, Alberta, that prohibits spitting, yelling and swearing in public.  In Taber, “rude and destructive” Mennonites are apparently a problem that can only be dealt with by beefing up the law.

            That’s right, Mennonites.  The “quiet of the land,” as they were once known (before they started swearing, I guess). Back in the 16^th Century, Mennonites (a.k.a. Anabaptists) were persecuted for being do-gooders.  In that period, a person who didn’t drink to excess, curse, or abuse his fellow workers could be suspected of being an Anabaptist and consequently be burned at the stake.

            How times have changed.  Now we’re known for hanging out in parking lots, swearing at innocent Wal-Mart shoppers (after church, no less).  

            I suppose with every ethnic group there comes a point in time where a few members tarnish the reputation of the broader group.  And I’m not about to say that Mennonites haven’t done things to upset the applecart in the past (they were persecuted plenty for their refusal to participate in the military), but it’s usually in defense of some higher, moral value like peace or social justice.

             This is just plain embarrassing.  I was once proud to be a Mennonite.  And I realize this is an oxymoron, as Mennonites are taught to be humble.  But I was proud of our humble and quiet ways, gosh darn it!

            As Mennonites, we traditionally enjoy quiet gatherings, with no dancing or alcohol permitted.  Sometimes we’ll have watermelon and roll kuchen (you can look it up) and break into hymns of praise, but that’s the extent of our rabble-rousing. 

            Now we’re at risk of being lumped together with those who allegedly break into cars, chew tobacco and spit at people.

            I suppose I could take the low road and blame this on a different kind of Mennonite.  From what I’ve read, most of the trouble-makers involve the youth of those who have emigrated from Mexico. This group had originally fled to from Ukraine and Russia over 100 years ago, just as my grandfather immigrated to Canada from Russia in the 1920s to escape the Soviet Union.  Now they’re escaping the drug-related violence of Mexico.

They’re certainly used to a different kind of life in Mexico, and seem to face challenges adjusting to Canadian norms and customs.

Despite our divergence in cultures over the last 100 years, we nonetheless bear the same name and ancestral roots.  And just as the majority of Muslims shudder when they hear about the atrocities of the new Islamic State, so I shudder when I hear about Mennonites terrorizing the poor citizens of Taber, Alberta.

            Now if you’ll excuse me, it’s just about time for my meta schlop.

Banning the niqab ban

Scoring political points on the backs of immigrants seems to be the new trend in Canadian politics.  I would suggest the issue of wearing a customary niqab at a Canadian citizenship ceremony is not worth the publicity it’s receiving.  It’s certainly not worth the hostilities it’s creating.

            Becoming a Canadian has never meant leaving your religion and customs completely behind.  It means adhering to Canadian law and accepting the responsibilities that our democratic society requires.

Covering one’s face with a niqab doesn’t break the law during a citizenship ceremony because the federal government hasn’t changed the law.  It introduced a policy, a “niqab ban,” that is inconsistent with the current law, based on a federal court judge’s ruling.  The current regulations obligate citizenship judges to “administer the oath of citizenship … allowing the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation thereof.”

            The key here is “greatest possible freedom.”  Security is not the issue.  The woman challenging the niqab ban has herself said she has no problem unveiling her face to prove her identity.  The issue is that the ban is not adhering to the law and the judge’s right to exercise tolerance when it comes to religious differences.

            The government’s stance is clearly a political move, playing to the systemic racism that apparently is alive and well in our multicultural nation.  When I hear disparaging comments in my own workplace about the woman who “refused to show her face,” as if it’s comparable to spitting on the Canadian flag, I know the prime minister’s comments have had an effect. 

For many Canadians, it’s not an issue of the niqab being anti-women, as has become the latest excuse for the government’s ban, but rather that her customary dress is too different for our liking.  In our western society, I would suggest the niqab conveys the sense that a person is trying to hide something.  Similar to how Aboriginal children would not look residential school teachers directly in the eyes when being spoken to because it was considered rude in their culture (but rude not to in Western culture), it’s largely an issue of cultural behaviours and perceptions.

            While it’s true that some Muslims might agree with the prime minister’s comments about the niqab being anti-women, we must remember that there are segments of every religion where intolerance and varying degrees of conservatism exist.  I could say the same for Hutterite or Amish cultures, branches of my own Mennonite faith, where women are typically restricted in their education and roles in their communities.  They are required to cover their heads and wear only dresses.  Should we introduce a law against such practices?

            The message being sent by the niqab ban, bolstered by comments made by the prime minister and one member of parliament in particular, is one of intolerance and misunderstanding.  Imagine if a different message was conveyed, one that spoke to higher values: “We respect the rights and religious freedoms of all newcomers to Canada where they adhere to Canadian law, to make this great nation even stronger.”

            After all, the great hallmark of our Canadian society is its ability to attract immigrants, to not only grow the economy, but to foster tolerance and diversity.

Wars are fought over differences in traditions, religious beliefs and even the way people dress.  The challenge for any society is to overcome those differences.  The federal government’s stance is certainly not helping.