Randomness #1

A while back on facebook, there was a bit of a chain letter going around. You know those "Tell me everything about you because you're bored and I'm bored and while I know it kinda seems like homework, well, it sure beats working!" things. I was tagged in a friend's "25 Random things" recently and it made me remember that I had actually done that a year ago.

But I hadn't found it easy. Who's good at describing themselves? I'd say probably no one. I can describe members of my family or friends or coworkers because I probably take a much more discerning look at them as they inter-relate with me than I've ever taken of myself. I'm trying not to use the word "judging", but I suppose that's likely what I mean.

In any case, after reading all about my friend's randomness, I went back to read what I'd come up with for myself. Every single one of them still rings true over a year later. So, Hmph! Cool. But it got me to thinking, that as vaguely as my bits of randomness were written, every one of them was indicative of a very real part of my persona.

The next 25 blog posts are going to be about the 25 Random Thing About Me. I'm going to try to really hash out why those things make me, well, me.

1. I love singing in the car to whatever crap is on the radio. Usually I only really belt it out when I'm alone because I'm not that good of a singer. It's not odd for me to sit in the car for a good 20-30 minutes after getting home, just a-wailing away.

I've always loved songs that are stories or are actually saying something. I'm not really a girl who only likes a catchy melody, but nor am I super able to enjoy instrumentals only, like jazz, classical, or Mogwai. For me, music is about relating and dealing. I know the arguments can obviously be made about the feelings conveyed by instrumental music, but perhaps I'm too simple for that. Or is it too complex? Not sure.

I'm a talker. I've been known to talk things to death and yet often I feel like I never successfully get my point across. In my personal life, I say things the way I need to say them, not the way that allows them to be heard. Know what I'm saying? Often times, I'll find feelings or stories perfectly conveyed lyrically by someone else. And I relate. And it feels better.

There are songs that bring me to tears every time I try to sing them. Kenny Rogers' "Coward of the County" is one of those songs, but lord help me, so is Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On". I blame the latter on Leonardo DiCaprio. Seriously, it's his fault for dying in that damn movie. Okay, well it probably didn't help that my Oma died not long after Titanic came out which, as I type and remember, is bringing tears to my eyes. But Coward of the County hits me in the chest too, because it's a story of such anguish and injustice. Lyrics move me.

I think lyrical music is perhaps the way I express myself the most empathetically. I am able to really hear what's being said in a way that I don't think I do when someone's only talking. Perhaps it's because the music establishes stronger connections in different parts of our brains? Those cadences reinforce everything that's being said in a way that I'm willing to hear it rather than glazing over when the person I'm listening to starts getting repetitive. Repetition indicates importance or it wouldn't bear repeating.

So I like lyrics, but why specifically in the car when I'm alone? Like I said, I'm not that great of a singer - nor am I too terrible, but I've had siblings make fun of me enough that it's made me self-conscious for life. I hardly think I'm alone in that, though. I mean, it's tough to find people who aren't somewhat ashamed of their singing voices. We're surrounded by possibly over-produced, yet seemingly amazing vocal talent in our culture. It's entirely understandable that no one really likes having to listen to me!

Since having my kid almost two years ago, my singing has come out of the car and into his nursery. My little boy became my audience before he was even born. Whenever I was alone with my bump, I sang my little heart out - voice straining and cracking at most of the high notes. When I was alone with my sweet infant, he got to hear lullaby after lullaby. To this day, he needs to hear "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" before bed and recently he's insisted on "Rainbow" too. I can't figure out if he means "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" or "Rainbow Connection" so usually he gets both. It may be a stall tactic on his part to avoid bed for a few more minutes (okay, it's *absolutely* a stall tactic), but frankly I think I actually sound pretty darned good when I sing them. So I do. Sometimes multiple times. Because he asks! And because I get to sing.

The best part of my singing to my son is now he's a singer too. He sings all of the time. The Alphabet, Wheels on the Bus, Row, Row, Row Your Boat - whatever it is, he sings and he's happy. I have caught tears in my eyes as I listen to my baby-come-toddler-come-little-boy express himself through music. I don't know if I've given him that by being so fearless as to sing in front of him, but I hope so. There will come a time where he becomes much more self-conscious and maybe a yet-to-be-born sibling will tell him his voice isn't great, but I hope that these years where he's listened to his Mama have instilled in him that it doesn't matter. Singing is good for the soul. And even if he only does it by himself in the car, that he knows he can. And I hope with my whole heart, that he does.

And the camel she rode in on...

Ann Coulter, extreme right-wing American pundit is in Canada this week for three speaking engagements at universities across the country. Ignoring the hypocrisy of the Harper government for allowing her into the country while just a year ago denying entrance to Galloway (Ms. Coulter's ideological opposite), and that her appearances are being paid for by two private American right-wing advocacy groups, she hasn't exactly had the welcome mat thrown out for her. Provost Francois Houle from the University of Ottawa wrote Ms. Coulter a letter prior to her event, gently warning her that our laws governing freedom of expression vary slightly than the way she might otherwise be used to in her homeland, and it may behoove her to educate herself on the implications of spewing vitriol that could be discerned as hate speak under our laws.

If you haven't had the chance to read Provost Houle's letter in its' entirety, you can read it all here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/22/ann-coulter-told-to-watch_n_508406.html

Responding to this letter, poor Ms. Coulter is saying she is going to file protest under the charter citing this letter as being targeted for a hate crime. How bogus. Ms. Coulter didn't receive this letter because she's a member of "an identifiable group", she was singled-out based on her own history, actions and words. Surely she has to take responsibility for the words that come out of her mouth and must respect the laws of a nation she's visiting. Americans have perverted the right to "free" speech so much that they don't realize that there are times when saying horrible things about whomever you please are harmful and shouldn't be tolerated.

On the message boards today, I have had to explain to more than one American who, while they seemed to have a rational wariness about the slippery slope of censorship, eventually came to understand that there is a difference between spouting opinion and criminally inciting hate. It is too easy for Canadians to presume that everyone knows what is actually considered "hate" under Canadian law. We all just kind of grow up knowing that. At some point we're taught that fighting fair is important and Opinion is protected under free speech laws only up until the point where it could impinge upon another's rights as protected by the Charter. Inciting violence or bigotry against a group is illegal and a crime. No one has the right to inflict harm on others - and hate speech does exactly that. Even if you take away the direct, face-to-face confrontation between hater and victim, if we allow people to teach hate against others based on race, religion, sexuality, gender, etc., we are welcoming into our sphere bigotry of the worst kind. I don't want our kids hearing this and thinking that any part of it is true. I don't want any student in Canada falling for her crap.

We do not impose this law lightly, but neither would many Canadians want to violate it. I remember only one instance in the past decade or so where charges were brought on a teacher (R vs. Keegstra) because he was teaching his high school students anti-semitic propaganda and rhetoric. Aren't we glad that we have this kind of actionable law on the books, so the likes of a man imposing his evil on impressionable minds can be held accountable in a court of law?

I've battled with myself over the pros and cons of censorship and it does worry me with its' potential to be a slippery slope. However, I have faith that in our rational, just society, there are enough checks and balances to ensure that no such slips occur. This law has existed in Canada for decades - there has been no slippery slope. It is rarely used, but every Canadian knows that preaching hate is intolerable and against the law. Civil society is maintained because people know they are expected to behave respectfully. It does not shut down intelligent discourse, but rather enhances it.

Canadian laws are different than American because our core values intrinsic in our law-making originate from the opposite ends of the spectrum - Collectivism at its' best rather than Individualism at its' worst. It is laws like this one, guided by Canadian morals, that have made Canada the tolerant, civil nation that it is today. If laws keeping people accountable for what comes out of their mouths are what makes it possible to have constructive debate on the most controversial of topics, I'm all for it. Just as our democracy keeps our laws in line with our values, so then do our laws keep us in line in case we might think to stray.

We've all seen what hate-filled propaganda can do and how divisive and dangerous it can be - from Nazis to Jihadists to Born Agains who take it too far - It's dangerous. It becoming the norm under the "protection" of free speech, polarizes discussion and makes it impossible to see the merit in your opponent's arguments. Being "allowed" to say whatever you want means you don't ever feel the need to check yourself. Courtesy and respect dictate that you must, at times, check yourself.

So Ms. Coulter, the Provost wasn't being a bigot when he warned you in a restrained, respectful manner that you might indeed need to watch your tongue. He was trying to do you a favour. Unheeded, someone might actually hold you accountable for the crimes your country lets you perpetrate against innocents.

I kind of hope she sees all of this as a dare and tries to push us on it. I surely hope there will be an unarmed Mountie at hand, ready to take her into custody at the slightest provocation. Afterall, she's been warned!

The rest of the world can't be wrong...

... can they? 

Americans. They've got it alllllll figured out. Capitalism. Freedom. Liberty and justice for all.... or at least those affluent enough to afford health insurance....

I don't understand the mentality surrounding the debate down south. I've tried to understand the "don't want to pay for lazy sods" argument, but it simply rings too... icky. What the hell is wrong with people?!?!?!?!

Growing up in Canada, I have difficulty wrapping my head around the fact that there are many rich people in the United States who have made their fortunes off of screwing sick people. And no one has rioted?! How?! Why not?! What is it in the American psyche that says this is "correct"? Not only correct, actually, but morally *right*? The idea that there is profit to be made off of someone's terrible misfortune is nauseating. There are a lot of people relying on that profit too! From the HMO CEOs to Joe Schmoe who has mutual funds in his 401K that include insurance company stocks. It's big business and Wall Street depends on those profits. From a distance, I guess maybe it's easier to gloss over. So then, is it all really so wrong? Well, yes. Down to its' very core, it is inherently wrong. The fact of the matter is millions of people's quality of life has severely suffered because of the existing system structure. That's not okay in a country that seems to think they're the best on Earth.

The following is a joke... kinda. The creator of the video (one of three he's made), Randall Terry, radio host stated, " That which is ridiculous deserves to be ridculed. In that spirit, we offer these pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia comic videos to mock the evildoers who are trying to make us their slave labour force. Some people will laugh, others will be heartily offended, and the KKK will say 'Amen!'"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgpwz4-5Cwc

I guess I'm closer to offended, but I laugh at the lengths these people are going trying to discredit what they know in their hearts is the only proper way. Man, are they scared! They just don't know what to do with themselves now that Bush is finally banished. It's *so* ridiculous, this idea that everyone should be medically cared for with no regard to class? They have to resort to the KKK and Hitler to make sure "rational" people couldn't possibly think it's a good idea? Don't they know that the second you drag Hitler into a "rational" debate, you've lost? It's simply poor tactics. Not to mention ridiculous.

I hear what so many of the right crazies and not-so-crazies are saying to bash Canada and our health care system. We're just a bunch of socialist communist who want to make people hand every hard earned dollar back to the government. How sublime it must be to be so mind-numbingly ignorant? You'd think with our country being so near and dear to them, that they'd know a thing or two about us... like, we're not Nazis... but apparently, not so! Taking care of our sick and dying equates us to Hitler. That's cool. Totally neighbourly and kind. Really?!? Assholes. Why is it we insist on staying friends with these people? Oh yeah... money. I guess we haven't succumbed completely to that devil, socialism afterall.

I *know* that this is not all of America speaking. I know many Americans, and they aren't the people I lump into this category and generalize about what selfish pieces of crap they are. I don't think there's a person in the country who could look a recently-denied former-policy holder in the eye and tell them it doesn't suck or that it's Right what's been done to them. No one is that ethically bankrupt! Hell, I mean, Obama got a lot of votes! That's encouraging! 

I truly believe that if this Bill passes, it will become one of the most defining moments in American history. Certainly one of the very most important things to come out of the first decade of the 21st century. Yes, that includes the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or 9/11. Americans have the opportunity to finish this decade from hell on a positive note. They have a chance to prove to the world that humanity and compassion matter and are crucial to founding a world that yearns for peace. This next year can't help but set the tone for the rest of the century to come. I hope that they realize how close they are to the precipice. If this past decade hasn't proven it to them, that *they* and their psyche are the world's inhibitor to peace, nothing will. Looking out for Number 1 doesn't do anyone much good in the long run. I wish I believed the majority of Yanks were intelligent enough to know that. Unfortunately, the last three months of townhalls seem to prove otherwise. Much to the world's chagrin.

I sincerely hope this Barak fella can pull this off in the end. So far he's weak out of the gate. Well, if by weak I mean not sinking to all-time lows like his opponents have. I'm honestly not sure how you're supposed to win against those people. I'm not so much of an idealist to believe the honesty of the argument alone could ever win against such dirty politics. There is so much vested interest in keeping the poor down. It's hard to compete with that kind of money and influence. I hope for America's sake that it's not *too* hard. If anyone can do it, this guy can.

Maybe if he's lucky, he'll have a grand-son who plays a counter-terrorism agent on TV... maybe the right will like him then?

The things we can do.

Every now and then a TV show or movie comes along that makes me think, "Damn! Why didn't I make that?" I always feel like I have so much to say, but I simply don't have the balls to do anything real with it. It's probably one of the main reasons I went to film school in the first place, but I've never been all that confident about my creative impetus. I'm good at sussing things out - especially with someone to bounce things off of, but have never really gone far enough to commit to anything or try to bring it about. 

I'm still young though... I've got some time...

The latest such show is The Philanthropist (Wednesdays at 10pm on NBC), starring James Purefoy and Neve Campbell. It's based on the real-life philanthropy of Bobby Sager. He started out just like main character Teddy Rist (Purefoy) as an entrepreneur who became obscenely wealthy through global acquisitions and capital solutions. But in 2000, he wanted more, so he and his family founded an organization called the Sager Family Traveling Foundation. NBC's website says: "He and his family hit the road, traveling to some of the poorest nations on earth, living in villages and cities in developing countries, practicing "eyeball-to-eyeball philanthropy" born of hands-on experience and on-the-ground understanding. Always looking for the most efficient and sustainable way to solve any issue, Bobby believed the best way to solve pressing issues was through catalyzing the efforts of other leaders, no matter where or who they were."

Admirable, right? If the show is any indication of the good this man has done in the world (and if you haven't seen it, each episode is like a crash course in geo-politics), we can only be grateful that such a person exists. 

In The Philanthropist, Teddy gets himself into some pretty sticky situations - usually to the detriment of his business partner and best friend, Philip. But you can't really blame the guy. He's there, on the ground, being confronted with the realities and having to figure out what he can do, what he *should* do to help. He's not really religious, but lives by his own code of ethics and morals that would stand-up to the strictest of scrutinies. Not that the choices he makes are easy. In fact that's the whole point of the episode based on the Burma/Myanmar situation. In a world full of religions, we are taught from birth that there is right and there is wrong. Good and evil. But Teddy shows us how so often that is simply not the case. He struggles and in doing so makes us question ourselves; our own morals. At the heart of it, what matters? What is the right thing?

What I like best about the show is that it puts faces to the conflicts. It's so easy to read the paper or watch the news, listening to the reporters filing their first-hand accounts from on location, but it makes you wonder why none of it ever hits home? Certainly these field reporters are out and about on their assignments. They *see* what the politics does to the people. They hear the stories. They see the atrocities that human beings do to other human beings.  But oh so rarely, does that *emotion* come across to those of us safe in the "real world". Are they really that ineffective at telling the stories or are we just that bad at listening? Occasionally something really horrible happens and we all sit up and take notice... for about 5 minutes... and then it's all "Hey did you watch Heroes last night", and bad things go on without us. Oh yes, I'm one of those people too.

But every now and then there's a body of work that reminds you. Sure you can ignore it if you try, but sometimes you can't look away. There's so much injustice in the world. We do some terrible shit to each other. I've been called a bleeding heart before, but that's okay. I'd rather my heart bleeds than is frozen to stone. We need to care about people more. The world is getting smaller and smaller every day courtesy of this inter-web thingy. We can no longer close our ears to the horrors and pretend we never heard because it was too far away. You'd think we would have learned our lessons by now, but to this day there are still many, many people who believe that their lives are worth more than others'. Serbian more than Albanian, American over African, Israeli over Palestinian, Arab over Jew. Hetero over Homosexual. Men over Women. All of these tensions exist today! Right now! Possibly next door or in your own home, but unless you try to deal with the individuals' rationalizations for their beliefs, these oppositions only grow and become more fanatical. It's not religion that's screwing everything up. It's the fanatics who have no one trying to reason with them, trying to make them see that sect they hate so much as real people, with family, and friends, and passions. 

Whether it's oil in Nigeria, or human trafficking in Western Europe, or military occupations in Burma, or inter-race relations in Kosovo, because of the show, I am more aware. My teen years were spent being oblivious to the civil war in Serbia. I didn't know who the two sides were much less why they were blowing each others' families up. I am a bit embarrassed to admit the my only insight into the depth of the 1000 year old conflict is owed to a television show. Yet again, I'm left to try to expand my empathy. I've struggled to be aware of others' challenges. I know that I can't know how other people feel, but I can try my best to understand. Though being particularly empathetic doesn't  really impact anyone's lives....

Unfortunately, the show also makes me feel even that much more daunted. I don't have the means to do that much good in the world. I just don't have it in me to change lives the way Sager has. I have no weight to throw around at hostile governments to ensure they treat their own people properly and it's unlikely that I'll rescue young women from a prostitution ring. I do sponsor a little boy from Senegal, so that's something I can do. 

I think what's most important to remember in these times of recession is that we are all able to do something to help those we can. Philanthropy is most often seen as a donation of funds or time to an organization or person in need, but it is so much more than that. It's about serving our communities and making them better. It's about the work we do and being a responsible consumer. All of our actions have implications on our neighbours, our country, and our world. If a TV show can remind me of all of that, the producers and all those involved in its' creation should be very, very proud.

Bettman's a hoser.

He hates Canada.

We all know it, but it's become abundantly clear: Gary Bettman hates Canada.

If there's one thing in the world Americans allow us, it's hockey. Hockey is ours. It's always been ours, and until Bettman became the Commish, there was never a thought that it could ever be anyone else's. But 15 years ago, the League wanted someone who could expand into the US. It's where the money is. I get that. In his first three years, he oversaw the relocation of three classic northern teams to the south - Winnipeg to Phoenix, Minnesota to Dallas, and Quebec to Colorado. The only city to get a team back since then is Minnesota, but I think even those fans would agree that it's just not the same cheering for the Wilds as it was for the North Stars. Wouldn't it be odd to see a team in Winnipeg that wasn't the Jets? "Um.... thanks for the team? We'd like our old one back, thanks."

The first decade of his mandate was hands down successful. He scored major contracts with Fox and then ABC/ESPN. Money the likes he'd never see from Canadian broadcastors. But that was pre-lockouts. First Fox and then ESPN didn't renew their contracts because they considered them over-valued. Now it's on Versus which is an itty bitty cable station by comparison. Apparently, Southerners don't give a flying fig about hockey. Who knew? Well... we did.

I understand the business acumen of trying to eke a bigger payday out of what appears to be a substantially bigger market. Phoenix has a larger population than Winnipeg - that'll never change despite the stupidity of human beings setting up house in a desert, but I digress... Phoenix is bigger, therefore more potential-hockey-fans-in-the-making. But that is where logic stops supporting Gary, and starts playing against him. It's hockey. It's a desert. Give. Your. Head. A. Shake. They don't care. They will never care. And they've proven that by putting the team's owner $100 million in the hole. Time to give up beating that dead horse, Gary.

And then we've got Balsille. That dude wants a hockey team, like soooooo baaad. He's being a bit of a smartass brat about it, sure, but he's tried twice now to do it the "right" way, so circumventing the League or not, he's doing his damnedest to get his own way. And he's a rich successful businessman not cool with being shut down, least of all by a schmuck like Bettman. He's got the cash and he really, really wants his toy. He will stomp his feet until he gets one. Figuratively. I presume.

Aside from Gary's sob story about not wanting to abandon the Arizona fans (because he doesn't like relocating teams?? ), there's really no point to his obstinancy. Everyone knows that. The money's here for the taking when it comes to hockey. If the Leafs doubled the capacity of their arena (again), they'd still sellout every game despite *never* making the playoffs. Put another team close-by and it'll be the same story. Screw K/W or Hamilton, the easiest place to sellout another team is Toronto. But then the Leafs might actually have to perform, so we wouldn't want to pressure them like that. It wouldn't be very nice. Hamilton it is.

So the only option left is that Gary hates Canada. Wonder what it is we did? Further to that, what's the point? I mean, we're Canada! You can't even let us have hockey?!? Really? Reeeeally?

For his sake, I hope he gets over it, because from where I sit, if he keeps this up, he just might be out of a job.

And I just might be okay with that.

Kids these days...

We are our parents' children. In my last post, I implied that the reason Generation Y is the entitled generation is because our parents have made us so. I generalize of course. Our personalities and tendencies are not entirely attributable to our parents; the ol' nature vs. nurture debate and all that. So scratch that. But it is hard to say that we are not products of our environments. We behave as badly as those with whom we keep society will allow and for the most part of our development, our parents are our primary influence.

It is a parent's job to establish and maintain moral and behavioural guidelines and boundaries for their kids. Part of the maturing process is struggling against those confines; breaking the rules, pushing the boundaries. To some extent, I would encourage this. Afterall, parents don't always know best. But for the most part, we rely on our parents to be our compass. We look to them to show us how to behave. Howbeit our parents are not perfect, so neither are we. But that's okay!

Alas, even as one of them, I must agree with the generalization that this generation has its' full share of brats. But if we're the brats, our parents are the enablers. It's no surprise to anyone, I don't think, that today's parents seem more concerned with being their kid's buddy, than that they've broken a rule and misbehaved. Parents want to be Loooooooved! They don't feel like they really knew their parents, or that their parents ever really loved them enough, and dammit if they're going to let their kids feel the same. And so they spoil and call it love. Some are even proud of their spoiling and with that, I want to show them a dictionary (to spoil: To damage irreparably; ruin). Nothing to be proud of.

Moreover, it is the manifestation of their guilt. Both parents likely have careers. They work long hours outside the home and perhaps feel like they're not giving as much time to their families as they'd like. So following through on consequences when their teen skips school or doesn't take the garbage out, well, that's just not really fair is it? I mean, they're a good kid, right? "He's just acting out. If I wasn't working until 7pm every night, Johnny would feel as loved as he deserves and wouldn't cut class." Oh yes, it's all very well documented behavioural psychology. Society has given kids a new lexicon with which to manipulate their parents' guilt to their own ends. We make a lot of excuses for them.

So when do we smarten up? As the next generation of parents, how do we fare? Worse? As we delay starting families for decades, and become even more unwilling to sacrifice our own selfish lives, do we become even more thoroughly out-of-touch parents than even our parents were? I really don't know how we're going to do. Today's babies will never know anything as archaic as telephones with cords attaching them to the wall, or a world without Google. As kids the worst we had it was Ronald McDonald enticing us to eat Happy Meals, but today's children are bombarded with media telling them what to eat, wear, think, do, love, hate... as parents, do we even have a chance?

These are the things I think about as I contemplate how ready I might be to give it a go. It's terrifying. I only hope when the time comes, I'll be strong enough in my convictions and confident enough in my choices, that I will be the parent my children require of me. Not their friend, their parent.

Stick a pin in 'em. They're done.

Back in high school, I read a book about demographics called Boom, Bust & Echo (David K. Foot) that I've never forgotten. I read it for a seminar I had to do in my Digital Media Studies class, and while it obviously doesn't have much to do with Digital Media, it was the practical applications of the theory that's always stuck in my head.

A quick history lesson for those of you who don't have a clear understanding of Canadian demographics: After our troops returned home from WWII (about 1947), well... they and their wives, they got it on. A lot. All of the couples who weren't able to begin or expand their families during the 8 to 9 years of war and clean-up, now did so eagerly. The same thing happened in the States, Australia, and Britain though their troops came home much sooner so their Booms are considered to have started in 1945. The Canadian Baby-boom lasted until 1966, but between 1947 and 1957 the population increased by a whopping 20% in just 10 years.

Following the Boom, came the Bust. Enter the 60s and 70s. Women's lib, along with other factors like raging inflation and the widespread implementation of birth control (!), meant that a lot less babies were born. Another contributing factor was merely that those of child-bearing years were born during WWII, and there just weren't that many of them. Less young parents equals less babies. This demographic cohort has been widely known as Generation X.

As the Boomers started a'child-rearing in the 80s and 90s, their offspring became known as the Baby-boom Echo or Generation Y. Again, lots of 20-somethings, means lots of babies.

Basically what it means, is the Baby-boom generation has been an undeniable driving force in our culture. Because it is preportionately so much a bigger part of the population, their whole lives, they have been catered to in almost all areas. Advertisers, marketers and all things market-driven have focused on Boomer needs as they age - following the money in such a massive cohort. Since birth, Boomers have always gotten exactly what they've wanted, when they've needed it. Imagine what that has done for their collective psyche.

Obviously this is a pretty simplistic view of our country's demographics, but you get the picture.

And so we get down to why I care about demographics. Well.. because they've got too much power over my life. Once I was made aware of their implications, it's easy to see them at play everywhere. You see, my parents are Boomers. I'm an Echo. Being at the forefront of these demographic cohorts has dictated much of the consequences of our lives and therefore molded the way we've seen our world.

The common complaint against we Echos is that we're spoiled, entitled brats. We've never had to struggle and we think the world is owed to us on a silver spoon. I'm not going to argue that, as I know there are groups of those kids out there, but more and more I'm seeing that same spoiled, entitled, bratty behaviour coming from the soon-to-be-retired Boomers. If the Boomers are our parents, well gee, I wonder where we got it from?!

I work at CBC and have been a permanent employee here for 3 years come July. Like the rest of the broadcasting industry, this recession has hit our advertising dollars hard and we're feeling it to the tune of 800 layoffs across the country. I am very much on the block. Doesn't feel so good, but I don't blame the Corp. I truly feel our management has done all they can to prevent this.

However, if a pink slip comes my way on May 18th, I know exactly who to point fingers at. You see, the Corp's hope was that almost all of the job cuts would be taken care of by voluntary retirements. Due to previous funding cuts resulting in workforce reductions, the CBC is left with a rapidly aging staff. Fulltime staff is dangerously inpreportionately Boomers, many very close to having their retirement numbers if they haven't already got them.

In my mind as an Echo, the retirement incentive is sweet; 1 years pay severance with an unreduced pension. For our generation, the idea of a pension is a bit of Holy Grail. We don't really expect to see a pension ... Ever. We know the Boomers will have drained public and private pension plans dry long before 2045 when the first of us would qualify. There simply aren't enough in the Bust and subsequent Echos to pay into them in any kind of sustaining way. So we've accepted it. It's not in the cards for us. Our retirements are our individual responsibilities; Start your RRSPs now!

My frustration has been mounting over the past few weeks as I hear more and more "should-be" retirees bitching and moaning about how the package isn't good enough. Historically, CBC severance has been a much more lucrative offering - often up to two years pay. My jaw drops at that and then falls to the floor when I hear that despite the differences in the situation and our society's financial woes, that 2 years is still the expectation. Brats. Spoiled, entitled, unneccessarily greedy, Brats.

I've yet to have one of the refusers explain to me exactly what it is they think is owed to them. They have been paid handily for their 30 plus years of service including what are still commonly referred to as the CBC "glory years" where money flowed and ridiculous amounts of overtime and freebees were the norm. Why is it that they should get an extra dime out of the Corp simply for retiring with full numbers? It doesn't make any sense to me. In my mind, you work, you're paid for it, that is where obligation ends. This expectation that your employer owes you more than that for *nothing* boggles the mind. I believe in unions and collective agreements, but this surpasses rights earned through collective bargaining. This is tantamount to greed at it's worst.

And so the frustrations mount. The work environment now pits oldtimers against the newbies in a stare-down that the newbies can't hope to win. We try to appeal to their decency, but their selfishness can't help but outweigh any sense of fairness to their younger colleagues. Precidents have been set, and that must mean they deserve it - earned or not. It is the way of the Boomer.

I don't begrudge them living out their later years on their cushy pensions. Those, they have earned and I envy them their futures. That's why I don't feel I'm asking them to even really give up anything! Go! Enjoy your retirement! Spend time with your grandkids. Travel. Do charity work. Or don't! Do nothing if you prefer. But please, just go. We're your children and you're hurting us.

You see, I ask nothing more than to have the oppurtunity they had. I'd like to have the financial stability to buy a home and start a family. I'd like to count on being able to be a productive contributor to the company and society. Is that so much to ask? That my life be able to begin?

And what of the poor Busters who long ago hit the glass ceiling that is the Boomers in top jobs? They've been waiting decades for Boomers to finally retire out of the best paying management positions, and it looks like they will continue to wait. The Boomers don't realize how comparatively easy they've had it, carving their ways through the world with their sheer force of numbers. Moreover, they don't care. I just wish they'd look beneath them every now and then to see the people struggling in their wake. We may give the impression that we're the silver spoon generation, but we're struggling. Oh man are we struggling!

It's time Baby-Boomers. You've had the last 60 years to dominate the North American Will. Please pass the torch.

Afterall... it's owed to us. We deserve it.

Or so you've taught us...