Road hockey, lemonade stands, and the art of being a kid

Have we lost it? In the age of video games, organized children's sports, and gated communities, I'd argue that if we haven't yet reached that point, we're well on our way. I'm convinced that it's been a pretty drawn out process; looking back to my early days, although I had my fair share of mischevious fun as a tyke, I still feel like I was pretty cooped up based on what I've heard first hand from my parents (my dad riding his bike a kilometre to the beach - barefoot and shirtless - as an 8 year old), read in books (think Tom Sawyer), and seen in movies (not only did those midgets in the Sandlot spend their day hanging out in a creepy abandoned lot, they had a sweet treehouse to boot!) I recall a recent conversation on this topic with my mom, in which she expressed a certain amount of regret for being what she called "overprotective". The 80's, she explained, were a decade where it was the vogue thing in parenting to tighten the noose, and in this regard she admittedly rode the wave. Despite growing up in what was the relatively rough-and-tumble neighborhood of Downtown Kitchener, however, I feel like they gave me chances to scrape my knees, and certainly didn't bar me from countless games of urban hide-and-seek. This considered, I feel like I experienced more freedom than your average city-bred 6 year old in 2008.

Occasionally, I see kids out-and-about doing things sufficiently independent (or mischievous) enough to constitute an "art of childhood", at least in my mind. Case in point: I was inspired to blab on about this when I came across a couple kids selling lemonade on the side of Scottsdale Dr. a couple of hours ago. Now, you've gotta understand how awesome I thought this was - it's something I always wanted to do as an older kid in Haliburton, but was somehow convinced by my parents that revenues may not cover costs on a side street in a town of 1400. I remember at the time thinking this was bollocks - cmon, even a stupid 10 year old on an allowance of 2 bucks a week isn't intimidated by the overhead of running a juice stand! Heck, considering how cool I thought these kids were, I don't know why I didn't buy a cup, if only to encourage them to keep on living life on the wild side. I guess a few fleeting thoughts went through my mind, i.e. I had cheaper juice at home, and there's always a possibility that two innocent 9 year olds dissolved cyanide into the stuff they're trying to sell. Both indicative, ostensibly, that I'm somewhat enslaved to societal notions that I outwardly claim to oppose.

The occasional encouragement aside, however, I really believe kids are being deprived of the freedom to become the independent-minded, ambitious, creative risk-takers that our society needs if it's not to fall into perennial mass paranoia. I'm not exactly sure what's to blame: over-protectiveness, for one thing, surely must count for something. Although I'm usually a big supporter of the media's role in the world, I think they've played a negative part in convincing parents that there's a modern-day Jack the Ripper on the loose, only this time he's a pedophile and instead of living in England, he resides right around the corner. Civil authorities certainly haven't helped either; although it might be insensitive to question the need for "Amber Alerts", I'm sure they've influenced parent's reluctance to put that little velcro wrist-leash into storage (anyone else remember those?). On an even broader level, I think the way that we view family as an institution also increases the likelihood of over-protective tendencies. Although children have obviously been the most important part of their parent's lives since time immemorial, I feel like we're increasingly falling into the trap of viewing them as possessions, and subsequently focusing on the pleasure that we, as adults, can derive from loving them, instead of caring for their needs simply for their own sake. This perhaps causes the 21st century parent to worry about the short term dangers of letting their kids experience adventure and independence, without taking the long term consequences of over-protectiveness into account. That's a pretty bold statement, I know, especially coming from a guy who's never even come close to having a kid (yes, I really am that much of a square). But I feel there's a certain degree of truth in it.

Of course, as a good liberal arts student, I also have to place a certain amount of blame on suburbia. Before you skip this paragraph out of prediction of it's anti-establishment, socialist rant, however, hear me out - I think that a good deal of the 20th century notion of what it means to be a kid has been developed in the 'burbs. After all, in what other type of setting can you find such a large concentration of young families, and thus huge amounts of kids? Suburbia was largely developed in the 50's as a result of demand from war-tired couples for a quiet, convenient, safe place that they could raise families, and it's largely from this type of community that we conjure images of kids playing road hockey in cul-de-sacs, and balloons hanging off of letterboxes indicating an open-invitation birthday party. I think there's an important distinction that needs to be made, though, between the suburbs that my parents' generation grew up in, and the ones that are sprawling over old farmland today. Most important in this regard has been the rise to popularity of the dreaded gated community. Imagine the amazing impact driving in and out of a cast-iron gate, attached to ten foot tall, two-foot thick brick walls, every day must have on a kid's outlook on the world! If that's not an impediment to the development of broad-minded, globalist mentalities, I don't know what is. I remember visiting one of these places in Dallas a couple of years ago, and feeling like I'd just entered a world made entirely of stale bread. Just recalling the experience causes a little bit of bile to emerge from my esophagus.

Alright, so I've thoroughly expressed my view that gated communities are evil fortresses of paranoia, sectarianism and isolationism. However, I think that even the less defined, more integrated subdivision setups (i.e. the ones without spiked walls and security guards) are straying down a similar path, albeit in a less extreme sense. I'm not sure how widespread this is, but I've noticed that many communities have started appointing governing bodies of sorts, kind of like the resident's councils that you see in condo complexes. From what I understand, these committees agree on regulations that are legislated to apply to all of the members of the particular community, such as maintenance standards, noise rules, etc. Anyways, I remember reading in the Guelph Tribune last summer about such a community that had just passed a regulation that prohibited kids from playing games out on the streets, whether it was tag or road hockey. In reaction, I remember thinking "what the crap?!?" Although the perpetrators of this absurdity claimed that it was for the safety of the kids, the details of the circumstance - as well as the comments of some of the parents that opposed the rule - made it clear that they did it because they saw the kids as a collective nuisance; disturbers of their quiet, mature, adult lives, if you will. I think this is a great example of how the ideas of convenience, order, and safety that originally motivated the development of subdivisions has mutated into an ugly embodiment of selfishness, monotony and paranoia.

As usual, I started writing this blog with no idea whether I'd end up making any sort of cohesive set of points. I do write these things as much to get my own thoughts in order as to share them, however, and I think I can identify a few key themes that have become apparent, if not leapt off of the screen, regarding the "lost art of being a kid". Firstly, geography is a factor, as is isolationism, including the disparity between different parts of towns and cities (i.e. inner core and suburbs). More important, however, is the stupidity of us adults in general, and some parents in particular, for thinking that kids are to be protected from all forms of potential evil, and fawned over for our own pleasure. I'm definitely not saying that this is a universal phenomenon, but I think that if we examined our own view of family, and the identity that we derive from our loved ones on an individual, emotional level, we'd at least see flickers of it in our psyche.

Alright, I'm done. Maybe I'll head back to that lemonade stand, and see if the tykes are still peddling their goods. They are, after all, doing their part to stop the madness.

Haliburton: little town at a crossroads

So, I'm nearing the end of one of my increasingly-routine weekend stints with the fam up in Haliburton.  For anyone who doesn't know, Haliburton is the little hamlet in Central Ontario that I spent most of my childhood growing up in - since I was 7, to be exact.  For those of you who are Ontarians, you may recognize it as the place you once visited when you were invited up to your ex-girlfriend's brother's best friend's uncle's cottage; if you don't, it can be sufficiently described as like Muskoka, (surely you've heard of Muskoka!) but without the pervasive presence of Corporate America and snobby celebrities.  It's really quite a nice little place, with an emphasis on little: the village of Haliburton that I live in (to be distinguished from the larger general area of Haliburton that most "citiots" associate with the name) has a population of around 1500, growing at about .003% per year (statistics courtesy: myself).  Heck, even the region is so small that Blogger keeps putting that little dotted red line underneath it every time I spell it (no, wise webmaster, I did not mean to say that I lived in a "halibut").  

So, you get the picture - Haliburton is small.  In fact, there's only one semi-major intersection in the whole town, and until I hit high school, it also contained the only set of stoplights.  Despite this singular minor road junction, however, I perceive the town as being at a major cultural-socio-economic crossroads (how's that for a literary device?  Good ol' Mr. Cooper would be proud!).  As I already mentioned, it's in the heart of "cottage country", meaning that during the summer the population skyrockets, with boat trailers and Ford Expeditions clogging streets that probably haven't been widened since the horse and buggy became obsolete.  Unlike many other tourist towns in Central Ontario, however, Haliburton has maintained a genuinely "local" feel, partly characterized by the absence of big-business franchises (although this is slowly changing: a nearby village, Minden, got the first Tim Hortons in the county a few years ago, thereby rendering unnecessary the 1 hour journey one had to take if they were jonesin' an Iced Capp).  More significantly, I've always gotten the feeling that Haliburtonians have a unique character, whether you consider their (or our - I continue to experience an identity crisis as to whether I, an immigrant to the region, am a true "Haliburtonian" or not) mannerisms, the slight twang in the accent, or even the extraordinary capacity to know the name of at least half of the people they see when they go downtown for a loaf of bread.

In my opinion, this distinctiveness - or even identity, I suppose - has proven to be positive in some ways, and negative in others.  I think the positives are by far the most salient.  For one thing, everyone needs a unique place that they can call their own, with it's own characteristics, features, and oddities.  I feel that Haliburton (as a region) more than provides for this need, not only in itself as a whole unit, but also in that it can be subdivided into sub-units that people identify with to an even greater extent.  For example, I was always known amongst my pupils as one of the few kids who actually lived "in town", whereas others had to be bussed in from all over the county.  When asked where in the region they live, people almost always identify with a general lake or road area (i.e. "I live on the Harburn Road" or "I live on Drag Lake"), kind of in the same way as someone in Toronto will say they live at Bloor and Bathurst.  Living in Guelph, in contrast, I don't get nearly the same sense of loyalty to a community or area.  Obviously, interaction with neighbors is naturally more common in contexts where there is this sense of belonging, which is another plus.

For all of the positives intrinsic in identifying with a community such as Haliburton, however, I think there are some less-obvious challenges.  Broadly speaking, I think a certain unhealthy rural-urban divide continues to be perpetuated, where small-towners are alienated by people from the city, and vice-versa.  Undoubtedly, this can be partly attributed to ignorance on the part of tourists and cottagers, who despite spending all of 15 weekends a year in the area, often act as if they own the place.  However, from my experience, some locals often view people from the city with a good deal of suspicion, and can even be downright mean (the term "citiots" that I jokingly used previously wasn't used very jokingly when I first heard it a couple of years ago).  Although I feel living in Guelph for four years after growing up in Hali has given me a perspective on both sides, I still can't quite figure out what the source of these types of differences is.  And it really bothers me, since I have some great friends from both contexts, and am convinced that both demographics are made up of mostly good people.

This rural-urban divide - which I think must be fairly universal throughout Canada - has pretty big implications for a town like Haliburton.  I mentioned earlier in a poorly thought out pun that Hali is at a type of "crossroads".  What I'm referring to is the uncertainty as to the place that Hali has within a broader cultural, social, and - most importantly - economic context.  It's undebatable that tourism is what the town has going for it economically, but in order to fully cash in on this potential, it's likely that certain unorthodox decisions are going to need to be made.  For example: although ideas such as eco-tourism may be scoffed at by some within the region, it has be recognized that in an age of global warming and rising oil prices, traditional  recreational activities such as motor sports are becoming less and less affordable and desirable.  Financially, certain steps need to be taken to invest in the attractiveness and "quaintness" of the towns (Haliburton and Minden, notably) themselves, even though this may involve the municipal government and local business owners making short-term sacrifices, such as cutting into savings or taking out loans.  This is essential if the region is going to be able to compete with big-name cottage country brands such as Huntsville and Parry Sound, regardless of how big of sellouts these places are (ouch!) ;)  Just as in big cities, a certain degree of central planning is also needed regarding the town layouts and property development, in order to make sure that investments being made contribute to greater long-term prosperity (read: Tom doesn't agree with the five-storey old person condo building being build down by Head Lake!  Sorry, small town politics rant).  Of course, to focus on tourism as the primary agent of economic growth means that animosity and opposition to a greater presence of urbanites needs to significantly recede - a tough pill for many from Haliburton to swallow, considering the high horse that the Southerners tend to often ride in on!

Looking back on this posting, I think it's one of those pieces that I wrote in order to process some thoughts that were whirling around in my head.  Not really sure how interesting this type of stuff is for non-small towners, but hopefully it gives you a bit of a perspective as to the differences that exist between living in the city, and living in the country.  The issues regarding environmental impact, financial investment, and central planning are all hot-button in Haliburton at the moment, so they've been forefront in my mind (my old man actually just got into a bit of a vocal sparring match with the reeve over the said condo development - pretty funny to hear him rant about it over dinner!)  I'm sure Jill Brown (fellow Haliburtonian who has the pleasure of also living in Guelph, and thus constantly hearing me rant about happenings in our stomping grounds) would appreciate a break from hearing me out (so graciously, I might add), so if you ever want my two cents on live in Hali, just bring it up!  

Cheers

Tom

Where's our focus?

As anyone who's every casually followed American politics (in my opinion, the only way to follow them and stay sane) knows, the evangelical right always keeps itself within an arms length of major proceedings, such as election campaigns.  From what I can tell, the recent Democratic nomination was no exception, with conservatives slamming Barack Obama from all sides on religious issues ranging from speculation that he's a Muslim (because that would be a real outrage, wouldn't it?) to some ill-advised comments made not by him, but by his pastor.  John McCain has also recently come under fire for his comparatively "progressive" (gasp!) views on things such as the environment and abortion.  Of course, from a purely secular, civil point of view, the Christian right, as a citizen's lobby, has every right to express it's political views (just as the arms lobby does - note that just because I recognize their right to speak, doesn't mean I agree with the amount of influence they're allowed to yield in governance).  Even if, from the outside, the American electorate appears to consist largely of incompetent morons, democracy gives them the right - in the words of Henry Mencken - to "get (what they want) good and hard".  

The Christian right's democratic allowance to express its views, therefore, is not what I'm concerned about.  I'm not even going to delve into the issues that guys like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell brought up - if you want a summary of the perennial pro-life - pro-choice joust, tune your TV to run-of-the-mill 60 Minutes or Larry King Live programming.  What I'm increasingly skeptical about isn't the issues that the Christian right is concerned about, but rather the one's it isn't eager to address.  From a biblical perspective, the priorities of leaders such as Dr. James Dobson are often way off base from where an influential Christian leader's efforts should be concentrated.  Simply put, why is there so much Focus on the Family?  Don't get me wrong - as an institution, the concept of family is addressed on numerous occasions within the Bible, notably in the Paul's letters.  However, the family unit has somehow become the central focus of the most visible representatives of Christianity in North America (maybe even the world), with issues such as poverty and social injustice somehow deemed the domain of liberals and the occasional evangelical counterculturalist (i.e. the Ron Siders and Jimmy Carters).  Furthermore, dialogue has been further concentrated by limiting the breadth of topics deemed relevant to ensuring the maintenance of "family values" to issues such as homosexuality and abortion, consequently rejecting important issues such as the impact of individualism and materialism on our children.

With these concerns in mind, I decided to lug out my trusty Strong's concordance (the utilization of which is as much of an arm exercise as one of the brain), and do a topical index search for homosexuality.  Perhaps surprisingly to some, Nave (editor of the topical index) only identifies 12 instances where the issue of homosexuality is addressed in the entire Bible; moreover, a few of them are contained within the same general passage (e.g. Leviticus 18:22, 20:13).  Although I may be wrong, I don't believe Christ ever specifically addressed the subject (also suggested by the absence of a Gospel reference in Nave's account), although he clearly touched on related issues such as sexual morality and healthy relationships.  

This is in stark contrast to the amount of emphasis the Scriptures place on topics such as poverty and social injustice.  With another glance at Nave, I find that the list of references under the heading "poor" is exhaustive, taking up close to an entire column in what must be pt. 6 font.  Although the results for "injustice" were more modest, there were still more than twice as many references as there were to homosexuality.  Purely out of curiosity, I also did a search on "family".  Despite there being a bit more than half a column of references, the first specific that I noticed was the editor's disclaimer that "the concept of the family in the Bible differs from the modern instutution", presumably as a forewarning to the fact that many of the passages had little relevance to ideas of "healthy family" that Westerners seem to occupy themselves with.  Granted, not all of the references under "poor" dealt specifically with material poverty; the abstract idea of "spiritual poverty" is also touched upon.  However, close examination of the listings reveals that the vast majority of the passages deal with material poverty.

Obviously, this doesn't even come close to being a complex hermeneutical examination of these subjects.  However, the involvement of Christians in politics - and social issues in general - has, at least in my mind, become more of a forefront issue amidst all of the US election hype, so I figured it would be good to provide some food for thought.  And not just for people in the US: to identify the disproportional preoccupation with issues such as homosexuality as being a problem contained within the American evangelical community would be unwise, given the weightiness of these issues in Canadian electoral politics and social activism.  I'm not sure how much these issues come up in other democratic contexts around the world, but I'm sure that in many cases the attention paid to them is significant.  Overall, I'm certain that if followers of Christ are going to be the "salt and light" that Jesus says we're to be in Matthew 5, we're going to have to stop ridiculously confining our attention to a few issues, and be at the forefront of the battle against much broader causes of evil and injustice in the world today.

Wow, that was far from being the longest blog post I've ever written, but I feel like I just ran a marathon.  I'm going to go drink a big glass of milk, or orange juice, or whatever I can find in my parents largely grocery-deficient kitchen (guess that's what happens when there cease to be puberal youths raiding the cupboards 24 hours a day).  My current state of unemployment, coupled with the fact that I'm starting to grow bored with Tiger Woods PGA 2008, means that I should be blogging more consistently over the next couple of weeks.  So keep an eye out!  Have a great weekend!

Cheers

Tom

Back to the real world

Cover letters, resumes, PlayStation 3 - this is the extent of my life right now.  Sad, I know, but it's hard to get an entry level job in the field of international development!  For one thing, much-touted job search sites like monster.ca and workopolis.com are of hardly any use at all, since they cater mainly to people who are looking for jobs that normal, responsible folks have, like nurses and cable TV technicians.  Just leave it up to UofG to turn me into some sort of counterculture idealist with delusions of employment grandeur!

Luckily, things have started to gather a bit of momentum, if not exactly fall into place.  I have a phone interview with the director of a small NGO on Monday, which I think has the potential to go very well.  From the little I know about the position, it's one that would allow me to start working in the area that I love; that's everybody's true American Dream, isn't it?  Whether it puts a tin roof over my head and a bowl of granola on the table, is far less certain.  I'll keep you posted.

So, now that I'm back in a part of the world where - for better or for worse - nothing exciting really seems to happen, I'm forced to start living vicariously through bbc.com again.  Although I suppose I should count my blessings that I'm not in a few parts of the world at the moment; here's a few tidbits that I found interesting / disturbing:

"Iran discounts 'attack by Israel'"

First of all, let me just say that this is absolute madness on a number of levels.  Firstly, I'm with Iranian officials in believing that there's absolutely no way that this happens, especially given the continuing uncertainty of the country's nuclear ambitions.  Sure, they've been pretty sneaky with the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, but there's still not a sufficient amount of evidence suggesting arsenal buildup to justify a preemptive strike.  Even if we find out that they do have the bomb (which, in all honesty, wouldn't surprise me), there's no way that the US allows Israel to start what would undoubtedly be the most destructive war of the 21st century thus far.  Not going to happen, especially - I'm somewhat sad to say - with Bush on the way out, and a new bunch of politicians trying to get into the good books of the electorate.  After all, American domestic politics does seem to have as big of an impact on international events as any brand of geopolitics.

Secondly, this is absolute madness in that if it did happen, it would undoubtedly be the most destructive war of the 21st century thus far.  I guess I got ahead of myself a little with that one, so I'll move on.  

"Mugabe condemns opposition 'lies'"

By claiming that his party isn't responsible for violence against the opposition MDC, and stating that "only God" can remove him from power, in the same breath, Mr. Mugabe is really upping his credibility.  Not.  It's obvious that he's only making passive attempts to convince an increasingly wise world that elections in the country aren't being rigged, but his claim of divine right really makes him out to be a clown.  Seriously though, the prospect of MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai pulling himself out of the running really scares me.  If this were to happen, it would essentially constitute a defeat of people-rule at the hands of authoritarianism, and perhaps set a precedent for other struggling democracies throughout the world.

How is this situation going to be remedied, and an environment conducive to the democratic process be created?  Given the scale of the violence directed towards MDC supporters by Zanu-PF hands (see video link on website for an example), a peaceful resolution from within the country is probably not going to be reached.  Outside intervention of some kind is needed, although this is perennially easier said than done.  I'm not totally up to spec on what type of initiatives are currently in place, although I heard something about the EU issuing some sort of resolution against the Mugabe administration.  Gordon Brown (UK PM) has issued numerous statements condemning Zanu-PF, but as far as I know nothing has really come out of them.  From what I understand, South Africa is being far from assertive in encouraging a free vote, although to their credit they must be engaged in quite the balancing act between democratic ideals and regional stability at the moment.  I sure as hell know that sanctions aren't the answer; it's already evident that the ruling powers don't give a damn about the welfare of the average Zimbabwean Joe, due to the implementation of oppressive economic policies.  Inflation is through the roof, and sanctions are only going to cause more people to starve.  Despite the common flaws of multilateral intervention, I'm convinced that a UN resolution is crucial if the crisis is to be resolved.  Only when Mugabe and his thugs come under international pressure - as a result of a common resolve, which only the UN is equipped to facilitate - will he be forced to back down.  Regardless of it's failures, the UN has shown the ability to act with intentionality (i.e. 20 000+ troops headed to Darfur), and it needs to do the same here, although I'm not sure in what capacity.

I was going to comment on three stories, but that last commentary got a little out of hand.  Hopefully people have realized that the blog isn't dead post-Asia, and will offer up their comments on some of the subjects I've addressed.

Cheers

Tom

Photos up on Facebook

You'll probably have to read that a couple more times, in order to process it. So go ahead, take a minute.

Done? OK, well I assure you it's true - I've actually started uploading photos from my trip! Seeing as I have no desire to do it twice, I'm only going to post them on Facebook, and not on this blog. If you haven't added me already, the email I use for Facebook is tabel@uoguelph.ca (don't worry, I won't stalk you unless you're really good looking). If you don't have Facebook yet, give into the urging of The Man, and complete the sale of your soul. The photos will be worth it!

Cheers
Tom

Tearing up...

"Aww, isn't that sweet! Tom's getting sentimental about the fact that he's leaving a part of the world that's grown close to his heart in the last 5 months! I really love it when a guy can show his emotions like that..."

Took the words right our of your mouths, right girls? Wait, you mean the whole "sensitive man" approach isn't all that Hollywood cuts it out to be? Dang you, Toby McGuire, and numerous other not-so-manly-man-actors that I've been modeling my moves after since early adolescence! Dang you!

OK, so that was perhaps one of the more bizarre fabricated dialogues that this blog has seen. Might as well go out with a bang - this is my last installment in the Orient, after all (I've determined that the occasion also justifies my use of over-exotic colonial vocabulary). Flew into Delhi late last night, and my long, predictably grueling flight to Toronto will commence at 2 AM tonight, if all goes to plan; something that I shouldn't take for granted, however, if I allow my first impressions of Indira Gandhi International Airport to generate some broader conclusions. Piece together every tidbit I've written in the last 5 months on the general state of Indian infra structure, and use your imagination to paint a rough picture of what I'm talking about.

Luckily, my air arrival at Delhi wasn't my first impression of India (although my arrival at Chennai airport, which wasn't a whole lot better, was), and I had a whole lot of good memories rush back the second that I stepped out of the terminal. During the taxi ride to my guesthouse - with the pollution-riddled air rushing into my face, and mid-20s local dudes laughing and pointing for no apparent reason at the white dude in the back of the minibus - I really did have a bit of an emotional moment. I realized that despite my unforgettable experiences in SE Asia - Thailand, Laos and Vietnam - India remained the place that I felt closest to, most at home.

I think India has a strange way of making foreigners feel at home, compared with other countries. All of you that have traveled in India, hear me out: I assure you that this statement is not an indication that I'm currently high on opium. Sure, it might seem like an absurd claim at first, considering the fact that India can be one of the more uncomfortable places to travel, in general. The lack of western amenities, which are more readily available in places like Thailand, is an example of a factor that can occasionally alienate a foreigner from the Subcontinent. It's a country that can be really inhospitable at times, and can thus thus pose a challenge for even the most weather-beaten backpackers.

However, I regard this lack of "hospitality", in the widely understood sense, as being contributory to the "homely" feel of the country. By forcing you to adapt to the culture and grim-and-bear scenarios and conditions that you may feel a bit uncomfortable with (i.e. squat toilets), I think India is actually inviting you to become part and parcel with it, as opposed to remaining a semi-detached tourist. Kind of like being immediately invited to sit down and socialize at the kitchen table of a family you just met, as opposed to the well-groomed, but comparably impersonal, parlour room. I really get the feeling that I've experienced the "real India" more so than any of the other countries that I've been in, and not only because I've spent more time here. Looking back, I really appreciate this, and hope that this blog will inspire others to visit India, and experience the genuineness that it's people show towards tourists, if we let them. OK, so they'll show it towards them whether we "let them" or not. It's all good!

I'm going to run - I'm jonesin' a masala dosa for breakfast, and I'm going to meet up soon with a couple of Swedish guys that I've been constantly running into at random intervals throughout the trip (this type of occurrence is certainly one of the joys of backpacking). Despite my imminent departure, I won't by any means be shutting down this blog anytime soon - keep checking in the next couple of weeks for some follow up posts! Specifically, I have a feeling I'll write a little bit on my feelings towards the whole idea of "backpacking", as well as fill ya in on what Ontario will have presented me with upon my arrival.

Cheers,
Tom

Continued neglect

is what my blog has been suffering from as of late. If you were expecting some sort of opening-up regarding parental neglect, don't worry; Mom and Dad did a splendid job making me their object of constant attention. Although it would have been nice if they heeded my calls to add another morning of the week onto the sweet-cereal allowance (no doubt my inevitably suber-cyber-savvy kids will track down this blog in 2030, and use it as evidence for hypocrisy charges).

Anyways, getting back to the blog neglect issue. I have no good excuse this time around, as usual. I recently spent a week on a beautiful tropical island that's quickly embodying modern tourism's ideal synthesis of "natural paradise" and "modern convenience", so needless to say, net access was readily available. Feelings of guilt and betrayal of my sizable fan base spurred me to promise myself that I'd write another blog by the time I got to Delhi, which was originally scheduled to happen late this afternoon (Thursday, June 5th).

However, apparently even Bangkok's spankin' new Suvarnabhumi International Airport (say that five times fast!) can't perfectly handle the "76 flights an hour" it boasts ("Tom, you're such a nerd! How did you know that?!?"), as evidenced by the fact that my flight to Calcutta was cancelled. As usual, however, Jet Airways came to the rescue, and within 5 minutes of me running all panicky to the check in desk after a quick glance at the arrivals screen, they'd booked me into the also spankin' new 4 star Novotel airport hotel for the day, as well as placing me on the direct flight to Delhi tonight (which was to be my final destination anyways). I just finished ravaging the complimentary breakfast buffet (which was huge), and plan to imminently hit up the artificial jungle paradise pool complex. Dang those late flights!

Anyways, I'm out of time on the net. I'll post my final trip blog tomorrow (tear).

Cheers
Tom