As married folk, we know well the chasm that separates our lifestyle with that of the swinging single. We’ve been there.  Done that. That gives us license (says ‘us’) to complain that they have it easy, that they can’t appreciate the challenges of married life – much less the self-sacrifice of raising a family. We disdain their freewheeling ways (and admittedly, envy them occasionally) as we carry our burden of familial responsibility with pride and tenacity. It should come as no surprise, then, that these differences appear on election day in our voting preferences. According to the results of a large-scale exit poll from Canada’s 2006 election, married persons are almost twice as likely as single persons to vote Conservative; whereas, singles split their votes equally among all the parties.

Do married people become Conservative supporters after their vows or are Conservatives simply more likely to get married in the first place? No one can say for sure, but it is likely a combination of the two. If suburban living and diaper changes led to Conservative votes, then those couples living together without wedding bands would also show a propensity toward Stephen Harper. However, according to the research, their voting preferences mirror that of the single population with 26% Conservative, 21% Liberal, 24% NDP, and 21% BQ.

In today’s accepting climate of alternative families, those couples who actually choose to tie the knot are, in fact, advocating their support for traditional marriage and rejecting less conventional partnerships. With 43% of their vote going to the Conservative party they are clearly supporting policies that protect the institution and that are sympathetic to their lifestyle needs (think $1,200-a-year per child payments.) While a national daycare program, as promised by the NDP and Liberal party, is a boon to single parents, it is of little allure to more traditional families that are more likely to have a stay-at-home parent or a combined income high enough to afford the daycare they want for their child.

Divorce changes a person’s priorities however, and the Conservative vote dips to just 30% upon dissolution of a marriage, with the NDP gaining the Conservatives’ loss. Strangely, the Liberal support hovers at about 26% regardless of any change in marital status.

The Prime Minister seems to be paying attention to the trends. Last election, Harper was like the awkward guy at the bar who couldn’t get the ladies to look his way. Now, according to an article in Maclean’s Magazine by John Geddes and Aaron Wherry, he’s the new chic magnet in Parliament – stealing female votes from not-so-suave Stephane Dion. And now that he’s the new stud in town, he’s hoping to seduce more Liberal voters by moving his party’s reputation toward the center – a hipper, more forward-thinking party. In Maclean’s Magazine’s Special Campaign Edition, Paul Wells portrays a Prime Minister who is intent on transforming the Progressive Conservatives into the nation’s “natural governing party.”

“You do that in two ways,” says Harper, “One thing you do is you have to pull Conservatives, to pull the party, to the centre of the political spectrum. But what you also have to do, if you’re really serious about making transformation, is you have to pull the centre of the political spectrum toward conservatism.”

If Harper wins a majority on October 14, he can credit himself for convincing the population that his right-wing agenda isn’t as scary as the Liberals would have Canadians believe. But if he hopes to affect long-term electoral success for his party, he’s got a long way to go. While married couples (his bread and butter voters) make up 68.6% of Canada’s population, they are on the decline. Based on 2006 census data, common-law and lone-parent families are on the rise, each making up 16% of the population. For the first time in census history, Canada has more unmarried people (51.5%) than legally married people (48.5%).

As more people toss convention out the bedroom window, Harper will face an ever-threatening wave of left-leaning voters. And unless he’s got a shipload of incentives to calm that storm, a tsunami just might pull him under, along with his ship of Tories.

Expect to see a new surge in Elmo-buying parents this Christmas season as Fisher-Price¬†¬†begins¬†the advertising campaign¬†for its latest version of the furry little red guy.¬† This time, he’s talking, singing, grooving and telling knee-slapping jokes and looks more life-like than ever – as life-like as a Sesame Street puppet can get, anyways.¬†¬†He is¬†Live Elmo, and judging by the growing buzz around this new toy,¬†you can bet he‚Äôll be sitting mute under thousands of trees this year, waiting for pyjama-clad youngsters to rip off the red wrap and turn him ‚Äòon.‚Äô¬† Carols sung by the piano and Uncle Marty‚Äôs holiday joke routine will¬†be pushed aside as¬†Elmo takes the spotlight (at least until¬†his high-pitched¬†voice grates a few too¬†many nerves.)¬†

 httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVUPTTkIBVI

Live Elmo is available in stores on October 14; however,¬†customers are encouraged to pre-order their gifts (so as not to disappoint the wee ones come Christmas time.)¬† Fisher-Price.com has limited online purchases to a maximum of six Elmo‚Äôs per order, and warns buyers that they will not receive their order¬†until December 4^th due to the backlog of pre-orders.¬† Canadian customers can pre-order the toy through Toysrus.ca for $64.99 to have it shipped by October 14, or pick one¬†up at the store (they’ll also be available at Wal-mart.)¬†

 

While a number of parents will not think twice about racing to the closest store before Halloween to purchase their child’s Christmas joy, other more sensible-minded folks may be wondering, why should I buy¬†this furry, red, singing, dancing,¬†friendly monster¬†for my child?¬† Well, just in case¬†Mattel’s commercials do not convince you of the merits of this year’s Live Elmo, I’ve compiled a list of reasons to help sway you toward the right purchasing decision this Christmas:

1. Once your little angel learns (via television commercials) that she or he can have her very own personal Elmo, you’ll be compelled – no, thrilled! – to fulfill her Christmas wish.
2. Elmo can sing 2 songs, play 2 games, recite 2 stories and tell 5 jokes.  When was the last time you offered such variety to your child in one sitting?
3. You can let Mr. Funny entertain your child so you can steal some valuable time for yourself (you know you want it!)
4. There are few more heart-warming moments than the one when your child unwraps a gift and learns with wide-eyed joy that she’s received the best-selling electronic toy of the season… Thanks Santa!
5. Come on… admit it!  You think he’s cute, too.
6. If the batteries haven’t died by the 500th time you’ve heard him tell the “flying” joke, you can pull them out yourself.¬†¬†But no matter how sick of Elmo you are, do not tell your preschooler with hand-wringing glee that Live Elmo is now Dead Elmo.
7. You’ve always wanted to cut back on your child’s TV-watching habits.  Now you can!  Tell your child that Elmo’s World is off-air because he’s here in the house.  Then have her play with Live Elmo for a quarter an hour, or half-hour, or three-quarters of an hour.
8. Sure, it’s a little creepy to have a toy with such life-like qualities, but that didn’t stop your mommy from buying you a Cabbage Patch Kid, did it?
9. When the teacher asks if your child is being read to regularly, you can look her in the eyes and silently nod your head.
10. Who are you kidding?  There is no such thing as a sensible-minded parent during Christmas.  Just try to remember what you bought for your kids last Christmas.  And now think about your credit card statements that followed.

 

Why, I ask my children in the gentlest of voices, can’t you just do as I say the first time I say it? 

My six-year-old lifts his shoulders and raises his outstretched palms toward me in a pose of surrender, “I didn’t hear you!”  His clear blue eyes widen pleadingly at me and I feel compelled to believe him. 

Wouldn‚Äôt you?¬† No?¬† Well, shame on you then.¬† Because for one, he is such a sweet looking boy.¬† And two ‚Äì he‚Äôs actually right, well, sort of…¬†

Audiologists have long known that a child‚Äôs auditory system is less mature than that of an adult.¬† As a result, he or she will have a tougher time hearing a signal (such as Mommy‚Äôs voice) amid background noise (like TV, knock-knock joke-a-thons.)¬† The good news for moms and dads is that we know when our child is not tuned in to our voices and are eager to aid them by, um, raising our voices.¬† But move into the classroom environment and that same child may not get a second chance to hear what the teacher¬†says.¬† According to a study by the Canadian Language & Literacy Research Network (CLLRNet), the average grade one student in a typical classroom does not hear one in six words spoken by the teacher.¬†¬† That is a lot of —s to miss. Imagine following a r—-e and not hearing all the ing——ts.¬† While an adult can mentally fill in most of the blanks, a child with much less language experience cannot.¬† And with no remote control to turn up the volume, many kids will become confused or simply lose interest.

The strength with which a teacher’s voice enters a student’s ear is measured by the signal to noise ratio (SNR.)  The signal is, in this case, the teacher’s speech and the noise is the combination of every other sound in the classroom.  So during flu season, for example, the teacher must speak loud enough to outdo the cacophony of coughing, sneezing, and Kleenex pulling by her young learners.  Although such noises don’t seem like they’d be much of an impediment to a child learning about vowels and consonants, they actually are when you consider that the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) recommends that background noise in classrooms should not exceed 35 decibels (dB).  With a whisper measuring a mere 30 dB and a humming refrigerator 40 dB, it’s clear that only in the most sedated moments could a typical grade one classroom be this quiet.  For an average child to hear intelligibly, audiologists recommend the teacher sound at least 15 dB louder than the background noise (the SNR being +15dB.)  Include the myriad hallway interruptions, such as students stomping to the gym, or traffic outside windows, and one can appreciate the challenge schools face in achieving this acoustic standard.

Just how much does sound affect a child’s academic progress?  While this is difficult to measure, one study by Crandell and Smaldino reported that word recognition scores of children seated 6 feet, 12 feet and 24 feet from the teacher were 95%, 71%, and 60% respectively, or put another way – ‘A’ , ‘B’, and ‘C’ on the report card.  You could offset such a hazard by requesting your daughter or son sit front row center (perhaps send the teacher a few shiny red apples to sweeten the deal) but doesn’t every student deserve such VIP treatment? 

There are strategies that parents, teachers, and students can implement to ensure important lessons reach their intended young audience.  A costly, but effective solution is to add soundfield systems to primary grade classrooms.  It allows the teacher to speak into to a small microphone so that the sound is transmitted through a speaker.  However, a more economical way to improve the situation is to reduce background noise.  According to VOICE, an advocacy group for hearing impaired children, this can be done by keeping classes small and avoiding open concept classrooms completely.  Teachers should close the door to the hallway during important lessons.  And placing tennis balls on chair legs is so effective that is now ubiquitous across all schools.  In fact, Canadian company Sound Listening Environments Inc. manufactures environmentally-conscious balls called Hushh-ups specifically for this purpose.

 

Book Review: In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan

 

A collective sigh of relief swept across the country this week as parents whisked their kids off to school and replaced careless summer days with new routines that will be rigidly in place before the leaves turn red.  It is an ideal time for new resolutions and specifically, a return to healthy habits that have evaporated in the summer heat (think daily slushies and ice cream cones.)  It won’t be long before the parental cheers give way to grumblings over tedious daily rituals – among the worst of them the packaged lunch preparation.  As a mother, I know the desire to ‘just get’er done’ is strong motivation to fill lunch boxes with single-serving cellophane-wrapped food products.  All the better that so many of them tout nutritional power – “low-fat” “contains vitamin C” “made with real fruit.”  But before stocking up on a year’s supply of RealFruit Minies, consider the arguments set out by Michael Pollan’s book In Defense of Food .  With summer beach paperbacks out of the way, it’s a great time to bite into an engaging read that will benefit the entire family.

 

Eat Food. Not too much.  Mostly plants.  These are the first three sentences in Michael Pollan’s book.  If you grasp the meaning of these words and believe you are able to act on them, then you needn’t read further.  But, you might want to anyways.  Pollan masterfully dissects why and how North Americans have adopted what is described as the “Western Diet” using wit and casual prose that is neither preachy not textbook-like.  The author, a Knight Professor of Journalism at Berkeley, humbly admits that he writes with the “authority of tradition and common sense” – but don’t be fooled, his common sense statements are backed by thorough research (the list of sources is more than 20 pages long.) He contends that what we consume today is not really “food”, nor the way we consume is really “eating” (i.e., alone, in the car, ahem…blogging) and explains how these munching habits have created “a new creature onto the world stage: the human being who manages to be overfed and undernourished.”

 

Pollan blames much of today’s eating woes on two influences: the rise of nutritionism and the industrialization of food.  Nutritionism, he explains, is an ideology (versus a science) that the key to understanding food is knowing its nutrients.  Therefore, it follows that such nutrients, when isolated from their foods, are as effective as the food itself.  In other words, “foods are the sum of their nutrient parts.”  One early example of nutritionism’s flawed reasoning, he asserts, was the proclaimed link between heart disease and saturated fat that led to the low-fat craze.  Suddenly consumers shunned red meat and did what they were told: eat more carbohydrates.  They continued to eat meat (white only, please), but lowered the proportion of meat by eating more “low-fat” carbohydrates, resulting in – surprise – more obesity.  It didn’t matter that these carbohydrates were made from refined grains and sugars – they just had to be low-fat – just as the nutritionists ordered. 

 

Nutritionism, however, was a boon to the growing industrialization of eating, says Pollan, because the food industry had only to latch onto the latest nutrition craze and re-package a food to make it marketable.  White bread, for instance, was found to cause major deficiency-related diseases in people during its early days because the grain had been robbed of all its nutrients during the refinement process.  The solution was to re-fortify the bread with vitamins and, voila!  No more deficiencies.  Pollan cites different studies that undermine this thinking, including one that determined there are additional benefits to eating whole grains that no nutrients alone or combined could provide.  He then explores the effect of industrialization on the food chain beginning at the most basic level – the soil.  Their fertilizers diminish the diversity of the soil which in turn reduces the nutritional quality of its crops that are then chemically preserved or refined for the final product.  Although some vitamins and minerals are added back, Pollan says, science does not “know enough to compensate for everything that processing does to whole foods.”  This science, however, enables industry to grow high-yielding varieties of crops that are most suitable for mechanical harvesting and processing, pushing aside hundreds, if not thousands of types of produce that once flourished on American farmland.  Today, four crops – soy, wheat, corn, and rice – account for two-thirds of the calories we eat. 

 

Now where does that leave the diner?  Surely, more confused and alone than ever.  Not only has the menu dwindled, so has our pleasure of eating.  But don’t despair.  Pollan offers numerous strategies to improve our dining habits.  Some are easy to follow, like: avoiding food products that make health claims; do all your eating at a table (“No, a desk is not a table.”); and shop along the periphery of the grocery store.  Other options may be more difficult to abide by, such as growing one’s own garden, and eating weeds whenever possible.  Similarly, his advice to pay more and eat less may be impossible for parents raising ravenous teenage boys – but there are at least a few tips that everyone can implement in their homes.

 

In Defense of Food is an enjoyable read that, at the very least, reminds us that food convenience has its costs (despite how cheap it is at the cash register.)  While parents will likely continue to buy granola bars or soda pop for their kids, Pollan’s book will help provide a more balanced approach to their children’s menus and remind them of the need to appreciate the value and flavour of whole, unprocessed food.  And above all, parents will remember that eating is as much for pleasure as it is for nutrition.  After all, at the end of a school day, there’s no better way to connect with your kids than at the kitchen table eating a home-cooked meal.  Even if it means listening to them complain about the smelly steamed broccoli.