I just can’t get on board with the idea that humanity is getting worse. What makes people think that it was ever significantly better overall? I know that sounds rather rhetorical but I am actually interested in the answer.

There are some things that tempt me towards the ‘everything’s going downhill’ pov, notably areas of British life that have changed dramatically either post WW2 or post industrial revolution (can’t decide which was more pivotal right now – perhaps neither!):

• Technology
• Communication/Media
• Family life
• Food

There are probably more but these leap out at me.

Technology and Communication/Media, I presume, are more advanced than they have ever been before. However, that is clearly not a bad thing all round. The now hackneyed charge that all the new types of communication are destroying real relationships doesn’t hold much water for me. Without exception email, Facebook, MySpace, msn, texts, blogging…have enhanced my relationships with others. Including my family. Perhaps that’s just me. More serious, perhaps, is the way that modern technology etc. has sped up the pace of life. But is that really the case? All (I can’t think of any exceptions) my friends who have lived for some amount of time in Australia or South Africa say that the pace of life there is so much more relaxed and yet they have access to the same technology in those countries.

Oh, there is so much more to say about my first two bullet points (a little taster: freedom of speech, photography, propaganda, hyperreality, charities, medical technology, the Hippocratic oath, image manipulation, transport, pollution, weapons…), particularly about the press . However, nothing that I think of really convinces me that humanity is being damaged by these in a way that we have never been damaged before.

That’s really the same for the state of family life and food (in modern-day Britain, at least) both of which are pretty miserable at the moment. When were they ever that much better overall? The problems and the causes vary immensely over time and location but there have always been horribly malnourished people and appalling mothers and fathers en masse.

Is the problem facing humanity, in fact, simply that there are so many more of us living on an elderly globe? There are more people doing the same amount of wrong things and it’s too hard (as it always has been) for most people, most of the time to step away from the glory of wealth, the pleasure of a quiet life, the horror of suffering or the temptations of what is just out of reach… to take the long view and act. Earth may be slowly (or quickly) dying but compare its rulers, children, youth, parents, teachers, managers, writers, role models, wealthy, poor, etc. to their equivalents in times gone by and I’m not sure there’ll be much in it.

And yet, we’re still here. Somehow, people manage to scrape away the dirt and find love, dreams, talents, pleasure and hope. That is a sign that humanity hasn't gone down the drain with a final glug. This is too. Whatever rises above the rest.

I just commented at length on Toby's blag and now I feel like I should put a post on mine but can't really be bothered to write loads again.

It was a year ago that I tried to blog every day. That was an effort.

Things I would like to do in the next few days:

• Y11 folders
• PSHE plans
• All our filing
• Varnish table
• Research skips?
• Clear out garage and understairs cupboard
• Marking
• Finish my picture

Just thought I'd write that list there and then. You can ask me how it goes. You probably know the answer already.

Went to see David Ford on Saturday. Brilliant! Apart from some rude people. Tone of voice and kindness/politeness, etc are all so important. I know I slip up in those areas too but it really riles me when people are rude to me! Me, me, me.

Well. Here is another post. I've been put off blogging because I don't know the answer to the among/amongst issue. So I'ma ignore that one for the mo and tell you about a dress.

It is blue, has a swooping v-neck, is baggy until below the hips then tight down to the mid-upper thigh. That's where it stops. I love it. It looks so much better than I thought it would. And it was only £2. Woot.

I also have:

• more tights. Thank God.
• a black skinny polar neck
  
• colourful (easily distinguishable) socks. Thank God.
• vest tops.

Luckily it was one of those trips when we all actually needed everything and we all found it too. So no guilt or frustration.

Right. Now I'm going to go make Cec feel ok about washing up stinky old lunchboxes. She just sighed from the heart.

With love. El

Toby asked me to do a Grammar Thought on while/whilst. I’m struggling to find a definitive answer (art not science) on this but here are the views I have discovered in my (not very extensive) research.

‘Whilst’ is an adverbial genitive
I won’t go into genitives here, not least because I’m only just starting to understand what they are, so focus on the ‘adverbial’ bit of that term… ‘whilst’ describes/adds to verbs so only use ‘whilst’ when the next word is a verb. Otherwise it’s ‘while’:

Whilst speaking her hands trembled.

While she spoke her hands trembled.

I think this view appeals most to my logical mind. Yes, I do have a logical mind. The logic just gets tempered by some other stuff.

‘Whilst’ precedes a vowel; ‘while’ precedes a consonant
This view holds that ‘st’ is an excrescent suffix, simply added to aid the flow of a sentence. Just like we don’t say ‘a orange’ (we add an ‘n’) we’d add ‘st’ (and scrap the ‘e’) to while when saying, for example, ‘while abseiling I painted my nails’.

I’m not sure this view really works as the last sound in the word ‘while’ is a consonant therefore the flow is not disrupted: consonant ending + vowel beginning is not a problem for flow whereas vowel ending + vowel beginning is.

‘Whilst’ is British/archaic/formal/written; ‘while’ is the opposite
The sub-heading speaks for itself. I think it’s wrong though! Well, it’s certainly not true for me. I have, however, read that The Times and The Guardian’s style guides do specify that their writers should only use ‘while’ because 'whilst' is archaic.

‘Whilst’ is temporal; ‘while’ means ‘whereas’ (or vice versa!)
Apparently this is the rule for American legal language. This would mean that both of the examples under the first sub-heading should be ‘whilst’ because they both explain what’s happening at the same time (hence the term ‘temporal’) that something else is happening. ‘While’ would be used to draw attention to a contrast: ‘Karen’s the obvious choice as she is good at her job while Mike is not’. The only problem with this is that it’s not how most people distinguish between the two and you know the deal with language changing according to how it’s used…

So, I don’t know. Sorry. Perhaps just choose one of the options and stick with it so that at least you’re being consistent. Has anyone got a copy of Fowlers? What does that say?

n't.

What a busy time recently. I'm really enjoying my job. Which is making me work harder. But I think I might be feeling a bit stressed underneath it all. Do you ever get that slight feeling that perhaps you're just, but only just, keeping it all together? I think perhaps everyone does but the difference is that some people ignore that feeling and some people embrace it. Not sure which is better. Madness intrigues me because I sometimes think mad people are just closer to reality or a sense of themselves than everyone else. Are the rest of us missing out?!

Don't worry, I'm not belittling mental illness. I know it's real and horrific.

Toby has put Radiohead on repeat because he figured I wouldn't notice and therefore wouldn't complain. Which I didn't. Though wouldn't have complained anyway because I'm enjoying it. A shock for y'all there.

Not my hobby. This guy's hobby.