You've probably been wondering what happened to my blog in the last few weeks. Well, a good portion of it is still in my head amongst all the other clutter. Problem is, I just haven't had the time to put fingers to keyboard.
Don't get me wrong, I love writing. You've probably noticed how I am incapable of making a succinct point in less than 5,000 words.
Lately, much of my time and energy has been directed at an Internet radio station called CJIM. This has been a pet project of mine for about a year and a half, and it has grown significantly in that time. Just recently I added a regular contributor to the station in Daniel Iorio, a local musician and writer (among his other vocations). There are plans to add more content from other contributors in the coming months.
The station is non-profit, which means funding its operation comes solely out of my 'fun money.' That is to say, whatever is left after all the bills are paid, or more accurately: Canadian Tire money.
Radio is a life long-passion of mine, so this project, despite the demands on my time, is pure joy. The fact that other people are jumping on board is just icing on the cake.
All this to say, my blogging days will be significantly fewer in the foreseeable future. I know there were a few of you who actually looked forward to reading my online rants, so to you I apologize. You'll just have to get a subscription to 'O' magazine.
It's been said that it is better to do one thing well than several things poorly. In my case I hope to do fewer things better and hope for the best.
My priorities have been, and continue to be: family first, career second and everything else just has to fall in line. It certainly won't make me a rich man, but some of best things in life are the simplest, and I wouldn't trade them for the world.
Of course, there's no point in having a project if you can't contribute yourself. So, if you want to hear a radio version of the Shroom Chronicle, I invite you to tune into the aptly named Shroom Show which you can hear every Thursday evening, 9 PM (ET) on CJIM.
How do I tune in, you ask? Well, tune in is a deceptive term, log in is more apropos. Go to www.cjim.ca and click on Listen Live and viola, live streaming audio.
One proviso, it is a rock station, so if your ears are at all sensitive to the occasional wailing guitar riff, this may not be for you.
See you on the radio.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
Shouting For Nothing
I've refrained from wading into the whole Dire Straits - Money For Nothing - bru ha ha, mostly because at the moment there's just a lot of shouting and defiance, but not much else.
As you know, the Canadian Broadcasts Standard Council (CBSC) recently deemed the song unsuitable for airplay. The song includes the word 'faggot' and is used in the context of two blue collar workers referring to '80s musicians as seen on MTV. The CBSC has not banned the song outright, it will allow airplay of a version with the word in question edited out.
It was a complaint by an unnamed member of Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered community (LGBT) that resulted in the ban. What happened since has been a veritable frenzy of mouth-frothing editorials about censorship and the impending collapse of western civilization brought on by the dreaded slippery slope.
For the record, I don't agree with the ban. That is not to say I am necessarily fond of the word. I have listened to enough stories from friends in the gay and lesbian community to know how hurtful it can be.
It should be noted that this is not simply a curse word. Most of us are at least accustomed to the F-bomb and most of it's six buddies being omitted from television and radio. Although they do manage to slip out in music from time to time. The word in question is a slur. Not just a general slur, like idiot or moron, faggot is intended to demean a very specific segment of society.
Have I ever used it? Absolutely, and yes, in most cases I was referring to that specific segment of society. Why? Most likely to build up my own self-image at the expense of someone else. Did I mean it to be hurtful? Sometimes I did.
I don't use the word any more because things have changed. Friendships with those in the gay and lesbian community have done much to enlighten my point of view over the years. Today I feel shame and embarrassment for my callous and ignorant abuse of individuals based solely on their sexual orientation. Recent reports of young people committing suicide after years of physical and mental abuse because of their orientation have further altered my viewpoint.
Does banning a rock song make this all better? No, not really. Nor do I think it is fair to make Dire Straits the target of society's anger and sadness over the ignorance that has resulted in those recent tragedies. I get what the band was doing back in 1985. Then, the term faggot was common to blue-collar language of the culture, even if it was a bit racy for the time. To target the artists for their form of expression is just another form of injustice.
The only way I can sum up my attitude on the issue is this: Money for Nothing is a great song with an ugly word.
What is unfortunate in all of this is the way in which the issue was handled, essentially igniting a lot of useless fervour without achieving anything of value. Imagine an entirely different scenario. What if instead of going to the CBSC, the LBGT approached the band directly? Perhaps they could have spoken openly about the pain they associate with the word. Discuss the recent cases of young individuals driven to take their own lives to escape years of abuse. What if they could have encouraged the band to release a special edition of the song with revised lyrics, while taking the opportunity to raise awareness of the issue. Perhaps they could have used a portion of the sales to fund programs that offer support to those affected by this crisis. Suddenly we've taken all of the frothy-mouthed editorialists and swivel servants out of the equation and we might actually have achieved something positive.
We have to concede that censorship is a complex issue. While we are particularly aggrieved when any sort of limits are put on art, at the same time we are unable to agree on what exactly defines art. If we talk about the slippery slope of censorship, what direction does the slippery slope travel with no censorship. What if an artist considers exploitation and torture to be art?
I don't know where this debate will end, if at all, but here is what I do know:
I believe in, and defend, the right of free speech as the cornerstone of this country's democracy.
I do not believe in, nor will I defend a word like faggot.
I understand that what is acceptable now may someday change with time and experience.
No matter what happens, I will not be bullied into taking sides on a issue.
No matter how loud people want to shout.
As you know, the Canadian Broadcasts Standard Council (CBSC) recently deemed the song unsuitable for airplay. The song includes the word 'faggot' and is used in the context of two blue collar workers referring to '80s musicians as seen on MTV. The CBSC has not banned the song outright, it will allow airplay of a version with the word in question edited out.
It was a complaint by an unnamed member of Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered community (LGBT) that resulted in the ban. What happened since has been a veritable frenzy of mouth-frothing editorials about censorship and the impending collapse of western civilization brought on by the dreaded slippery slope.
For the record, I don't agree with the ban. That is not to say I am necessarily fond of the word. I have listened to enough stories from friends in the gay and lesbian community to know how hurtful it can be.
It should be noted that this is not simply a curse word. Most of us are at least accustomed to the F-bomb and most of it's six buddies being omitted from television and radio. Although they do manage to slip out in music from time to time. The word in question is a slur. Not just a general slur, like idiot or moron, faggot is intended to demean a very specific segment of society.
Have I ever used it? Absolutely, and yes, in most cases I was referring to that specific segment of society. Why? Most likely to build up my own self-image at the expense of someone else. Did I mean it to be hurtful? Sometimes I did.
I don't use the word any more because things have changed. Friendships with those in the gay and lesbian community have done much to enlighten my point of view over the years. Today I feel shame and embarrassment for my callous and ignorant abuse of individuals based solely on their sexual orientation. Recent reports of young people committing suicide after years of physical and mental abuse because of their orientation have further altered my viewpoint.
Does banning a rock song make this all better? No, not really. Nor do I think it is fair to make Dire Straits the target of society's anger and sadness over the ignorance that has resulted in those recent tragedies. I get what the band was doing back in 1985. Then, the term faggot was common to blue-collar language of the culture, even if it was a bit racy for the time. To target the artists for their form of expression is just another form of injustice.
The only way I can sum up my attitude on the issue is this: Money for Nothing is a great song with an ugly word.
What is unfortunate in all of this is the way in which the issue was handled, essentially igniting a lot of useless fervour without achieving anything of value. Imagine an entirely different scenario. What if instead of going to the CBSC, the LBGT approached the band directly? Perhaps they could have spoken openly about the pain they associate with the word. Discuss the recent cases of young individuals driven to take their own lives to escape years of abuse. What if they could have encouraged the band to release a special edition of the song with revised lyrics, while taking the opportunity to raise awareness of the issue. Perhaps they could have used a portion of the sales to fund programs that offer support to those affected by this crisis. Suddenly we've taken all of the frothy-mouthed editorialists and swivel servants out of the equation and we might actually have achieved something positive.
We have to concede that censorship is a complex issue. While we are particularly aggrieved when any sort of limits are put on art, at the same time we are unable to agree on what exactly defines art. If we talk about the slippery slope of censorship, what direction does the slippery slope travel with no censorship. What if an artist considers exploitation and torture to be art?
I don't know where this debate will end, if at all, but here is what I do know:
I believe in, and defend, the right of free speech as the cornerstone of this country's democracy.
I do not believe in, nor will I defend a word like faggot.
I understand that what is acceptable now may someday change with time and experience.
No matter what happens, I will not be bullied into taking sides on a issue.
No matter how loud people want to shout.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Fearbook
This is it folks. Time to start burrowing into the ground. Build your shelters, stockpile your supplies, put a sack over your head, the end is coming. And what, pray-tell, is the sure sign of impending doom you ask?
Global warming?
The economic meltdown?
Birds falling out of the sky?
No, much worse. Goldman Sachs invested in Facebook.
Aaaaah, run for the hills, save the women and children, call 911 ... wait ... what?
Last week I caught an episode of PBS talking head Charlie Rose. He and a panel of economic experts were analyzing the global investment banking and securities firm's recent investment of (US) $450 million in the social networking giant Facebook.
Now, I'm no financial expert, far from it, but listening to the tenor of the conversation it was fairly easy to identify the underlying theme: fear. I always sort of admired Charlie Rose as an interviewer for ability to extract more in-depth viewpoints of his subjects and engage in thoughtful conversation regarding the issues of the day.
Apparently all of the insightful probing and intelligent discourse took a vacation when news broke of Goldman Sachs investment. The crux of the conversation revolved around the new-found legitimacy that Facebook had gained. Goldman Sachs is a large and well-established firm, an investment from them is tantamount to going from D-list actor to winning an Oscar.
What proceeded from this observation was the list of companies and investors who should now be 'afraid.' This included everyone from Google to Microsoft. At one point, an analyst went as far as to say some of these companies should even be 'terrified.' The used military terms like 'assault' and 'fortification' in their discussions of business strategy.
If I didn't know better, I could have sworn that Facebook had just taken over the world, with Goldman Sachs giving them the maps to the world leaders homes.
A lot of this fearful thinking is owed to the fact that nobody really knows what the growth of Facebook means. One of the descriptions floating about the net is that the number of Facebook members is so large, if it were a country, it would be the third most populated on the planet. Oooo, scary stuff.
But it isn't a country. If anything, Facebook is a good idea whose massive growth is attributed to the proliferation of technology and the internet across the planet. Facebook users are comprised of a huge diversity of people, with an equally diverse number of opinions and not all of them are friends. The only thing they have in common is the service. In much the same way, just about everybody in the world uses some form of phone, does that mean phones are taking over the world?
I'm not even sure it's founder, Mark Zuckerberg, really understands what the explosion of Facebook means; and with a gajillion dollars in his pocket, I don't suppose he cares.
It's not the thing we're so afraid of, it's the change it brings. Facebook is changing the way people use the internet, how we interact socially, while also breaking down our traditional understanding of how companies should function. Facebook will likely render some services obsolete and force other companies to close their doors. But isn't that how the business world works? For every company pushed out, two more will find a way to ride the new wave.
I get it. There are times when we should be cautious about the latest new thing. History informs us of the importance of careful scrutiny in exploring the undiscovered country. History also informs us that burning witches and persecuting revolutionary thinkers was not the best way to deal with the unknown.
I often wonder why it is we are so willing to be afraid, and less compelled to discover. Is there a strange comfort in our fears? Is it not easier to demonize that which we do not understand than to give up what is familiar?
If Facebook even exists ten years from now we might wonder what all the fuss was about. Having spent a few decades on this planet I've come to realize that change comes whether it is welcome or not. Amazingly though, we manage, we adapt and we move on. As big and mysterious as the Facebook phenomenon is, it is essentially just a human creation for our own amusement. It's time will come too.
FDR still has it right.
Global warming?
The economic meltdown?
Birds falling out of the sky?
No, much worse. Goldman Sachs invested in Facebook.
Aaaaah, run for the hills, save the women and children, call 911 ... wait ... what?
Last week I caught an episode of PBS talking head Charlie Rose. He and a panel of economic experts were analyzing the global investment banking and securities firm's recent investment of (US) $450 million in the social networking giant Facebook.
Now, I'm no financial expert, far from it, but listening to the tenor of the conversation it was fairly easy to identify the underlying theme: fear. I always sort of admired Charlie Rose as an interviewer for ability to extract more in-depth viewpoints of his subjects and engage in thoughtful conversation regarding the issues of the day.
Apparently all of the insightful probing and intelligent discourse took a vacation when news broke of Goldman Sachs investment. The crux of the conversation revolved around the new-found legitimacy that Facebook had gained. Goldman Sachs is a large and well-established firm, an investment from them is tantamount to going from D-list actor to winning an Oscar.
What proceeded from this observation was the list of companies and investors who should now be 'afraid.' This included everyone from Google to Microsoft. At one point, an analyst went as far as to say some of these companies should even be 'terrified.' The used military terms like 'assault' and 'fortification' in their discussions of business strategy.
If I didn't know better, I could have sworn that Facebook had just taken over the world, with Goldman Sachs giving them the maps to the world leaders homes.
A lot of this fearful thinking is owed to the fact that nobody really knows what the growth of Facebook means. One of the descriptions floating about the net is that the number of Facebook members is so large, if it were a country, it would be the third most populated on the planet. Oooo, scary stuff.
But it isn't a country. If anything, Facebook is a good idea whose massive growth is attributed to the proliferation of technology and the internet across the planet. Facebook users are comprised of a huge diversity of people, with an equally diverse number of opinions and not all of them are friends. The only thing they have in common is the service. In much the same way, just about everybody in the world uses some form of phone, does that mean phones are taking over the world?
I'm not even sure it's founder, Mark Zuckerberg, really understands what the explosion of Facebook means; and with a gajillion dollars in his pocket, I don't suppose he cares.
It's not the thing we're so afraid of, it's the change it brings. Facebook is changing the way people use the internet, how we interact socially, while also breaking down our traditional understanding of how companies should function. Facebook will likely render some services obsolete and force other companies to close their doors. But isn't that how the business world works? For every company pushed out, two more will find a way to ride the new wave.
I get it. There are times when we should be cautious about the latest new thing. History informs us of the importance of careful scrutiny in exploring the undiscovered country. History also informs us that burning witches and persecuting revolutionary thinkers was not the best way to deal with the unknown.
I often wonder why it is we are so willing to be afraid, and less compelled to discover. Is there a strange comfort in our fears? Is it not easier to demonize that which we do not understand than to give up what is familiar?
If Facebook even exists ten years from now we might wonder what all the fuss was about. Having spent a few decades on this planet I've come to realize that change comes whether it is welcome or not. Amazingly though, we manage, we adapt and we move on. As big and mysterious as the Facebook phenomenon is, it is essentially just a human creation for our own amusement. It's time will come too.
FDR still has it right.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Resolution Revolution
Happy New year everyone. By now, most of you are back to the regular working routine and trying to figure out how to pay for the holiday expenses. I myself am trying to wean my way off a diet that included fudge as a major food group. So much for a healthy lifestyle.
Like many others in the work force, we begin the year with hopes that the epic recession of recent years will become a distant memory and that perhaps our jobs might be a tad more secure. The past couple of years have been dicey to say the least, and while most of us have scrimped to get by or amassed big debt to cover expenses, there are those for whom the economic downturn had little if any noticeable effect.
Recently an Ottawa-Based group with the lofty title of the Canadian Centre on Policy Alternatives (CCPA) revealed that the nation's top 100 CEOs earned an average of $6.6 million in 2009 while the average Canadian made about $43K. If you're not to keen on math, here's the figure you need to know: those CEO salaries amount to 155 times that of the average Canadian.
Of course, the timing of the report is aimed at a news cycle hungry for post-holiday stories related to the financial woes of the vast majority of the country. Still, the numbers are jarring.
Add to this mix the number of celebrities who make obscene amounts of cash, a few of which seem to do little to warrant any compensation, and all of the professional athletes with bulging wallets, and the gap quickly becomes a chasm.
If we look in the opposite direction of the economic scale, we see hundreds of millions in developing nations struggling daily for the basic necessities of life.
Something is wrong with this picture.
Over the years, society has developed some clever ways to intellectually dodge this issue. Suggesting that the rich should be required to contribute a larger portion of their wealth to create equality of opportunity is quickly labelled socialist or communist. In a free-market economy, with the emphasis on free, as in the freedom to take as much as you want without the pressure to share, personal wealth is often considered an entitlement.
Maybe the problem isn't so much wealth, but the way in which it is regarded. Is our disdain with society's gazillionaire's really about social inequality or is it that what we really want is our cut?
Prior to the holidays, comedian Bill Maher created a hilarious and thought-provoking video message that wondered aloud if North America's newest and most popular religion had become stuff. Here is the link if you missed it.
The observation that religious fervour is not dissimilar to our obsession with wealth is a brilliant and revealing notion. In both cases, we are easily fixated by those things that serve our own personal needs while at the same time seeking to separate ourselves from others. What is the difference between considering oneself lucky and considering oneself chosen?
It would be easy to blame religion or spirituality or wealth for what ails society, but concepts alone cannot be at fault. If our faith lies in money to answer our problems we are doomed to failure. So too, if our faith is placed solely in ritual and institutions to find meaning, we are likely to find ourselves lost rather than found.
The New Year is a good time to de-clutter our lives, to get a fresh start. It's also a good time to consider the year of opportunities that lie ahead. Instead of wondering if the New Year will be good for us, maybe we should be considering how it could be better for others.
Wealth will come and go. Spirituality can centre us, but without action it achieves little. The one thing we do share is this new beginning.
What we do with it will define where our faith really lies.
Happy 2011.
Like many others in the work force, we begin the year with hopes that the epic recession of recent years will become a distant memory and that perhaps our jobs might be a tad more secure. The past couple of years have been dicey to say the least, and while most of us have scrimped to get by or amassed big debt to cover expenses, there are those for whom the economic downturn had little if any noticeable effect.
Recently an Ottawa-Based group with the lofty title of the Canadian Centre on Policy Alternatives (CCPA) revealed that the nation's top 100 CEOs earned an average of $6.6 million in 2009 while the average Canadian made about $43K. If you're not to keen on math, here's the figure you need to know: those CEO salaries amount to 155 times that of the average Canadian.
Of course, the timing of the report is aimed at a news cycle hungry for post-holiday stories related to the financial woes of the vast majority of the country. Still, the numbers are jarring.
Add to this mix the number of celebrities who make obscene amounts of cash, a few of which seem to do little to warrant any compensation, and all of the professional athletes with bulging wallets, and the gap quickly becomes a chasm.
If we look in the opposite direction of the economic scale, we see hundreds of millions in developing nations struggling daily for the basic necessities of life.
Something is wrong with this picture.
Over the years, society has developed some clever ways to intellectually dodge this issue. Suggesting that the rich should be required to contribute a larger portion of their wealth to create equality of opportunity is quickly labelled socialist or communist. In a free-market economy, with the emphasis on free, as in the freedom to take as much as you want without the pressure to share, personal wealth is often considered an entitlement.
Maybe the problem isn't so much wealth, but the way in which it is regarded. Is our disdain with society's gazillionaire's really about social inequality or is it that what we really want is our cut?
Prior to the holidays, comedian Bill Maher created a hilarious and thought-provoking video message that wondered aloud if North America's newest and most popular religion had become stuff. Here is the link if you missed it.
The observation that religious fervour is not dissimilar to our obsession with wealth is a brilliant and revealing notion. In both cases, we are easily fixated by those things that serve our own personal needs while at the same time seeking to separate ourselves from others. What is the difference between considering oneself lucky and considering oneself chosen?
It would be easy to blame religion or spirituality or wealth for what ails society, but concepts alone cannot be at fault. If our faith lies in money to answer our problems we are doomed to failure. So too, if our faith is placed solely in ritual and institutions to find meaning, we are likely to find ourselves lost rather than found.
The New Year is a good time to de-clutter our lives, to get a fresh start. It's also a good time to consider the year of opportunities that lie ahead. Instead of wondering if the New Year will be good for us, maybe we should be considering how it could be better for others.
Wealth will come and go. Spirituality can centre us, but without action it achieves little. The one thing we do share is this new beginning.
What we do with it will define where our faith really lies.
Happy 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)