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...

He should know better...

A week and a half after the antagonist blowhard on Fox's late, late night Red Eye show insulted Canada to the Nth degree, Stephen Harper, our illustrious Prime Minister thought it made sense to give Fox News the only sitdown interview with an American network yesterday while in Washington. Does he hate Canadians so much? I know that Fox is a "Conservative" mouthpiece, but we're talking American Conservative, not Canadian Conservative. Even Harper is more left wing than *Fox*! Isn't he???

Turns out, yes, he is. Chris Wallace, Fox's interviewer tried his damnedest to get Harper to criticize Obama and lambaste America's current public policymakers, but to his credit Harper didn't embarrass us too badly. I'm trying to be the bigger person in saying that. I'll admit that I was cursing and swearing this morning when I heard he'd given Fox an interview, but after reading the transcript I have to say that besides him sitting down with them in the first place (which I still think was a bad PR move), there's not a heck of a lot bitch about. Like I said, Wallace tried to get him to talk shit, but in the end, Harper kept his head and even went so far as to appear moderate. Read below:

WALLACE: You were the last industrial nation to go into recession, and one of the great joys of this job is you study up on things, and I learned that, in fact, in 2007, you started cutting taxes, and your corporate tax rate is 10 points lower than it is here in the U.S. Am I correct in that, sir?

HARPER: I -- I forget what the relevant American rate is, but I can tell you that our goal is to have a combined federal-provincial corporate tax rate of no more than 25 percent. We’re on target to do that by 2012. We will have significantly -- by a significant margin the lowest corporate tax rates in the G-7, and that’s our -- our government’s objective.

WALLACE: Do you believe that’s better for the economy than President Obama’s plan to raise taxes on the wealthy and some businesses?

HARPER: Well, I’m not going to be drawn in, Chris, as you can imagine, to commenting on American domestic policy. Let me just say that the United States has a significantly different problem than Canada, which is even before this recession, the United States was running a significant budgetary deficit. Canada is in budgetary deficit now only because of the recession, only because of stimulus measures, and we will come out of it. We will go back into surplus position when the economy recovers. So there is no need in Canada to raise taxes. I’m -- as a conservative, I tend to oppose raising taxes at the best of times. But we have not got the structural budgetary deficit that exists in the United States. It obviously limits the administration’s options.

While he doesn't come out and say "Bush screwed you guys, Obama's doing the right thing", that's certainly what he implies.

So... kudos to Harper for not being a complete ass, but the question still remains why he chose Fox in the first place? Left or Right wing politics aside for a moment, that news organization recently supported inflammatory comments about the uselessness of our military and joked about our dead soldiers. Not cool in the best of times, and I understand not lending credence by responding to it, but for the Prime Minister to ignore it to the point of *rewarding* them with an interview??? Really?? Really. It's just sketch. It's not like there aren't other News services that he could've met with. CNN anyone?!? I'm not a huge fan of them either, but at least it's not Fox. They pay the likes of O'Reilly and Coulter and Gutfield to spew vitriolic trash to the most ignorant of American society. Giving them a legitimate interview thereby legitimizes the other nastiness they broadcast. Why would our Prime Minister want to do that? If he must, perhaps he should wait until he's not the public face of Canada, please and thanks.

What I find even more frustrating is that until recently (and by that, I mean not until this fall's election campaign 3 years *after* becoming Prime Minister), Harper refused all media requests for interviews. He's only sat down with CBC twice - once with Mansbridge during the campaign, and then again the day of Obama's visit. Both times, I thought Peter was even-handed and fair and Harper wasn't put on the spot anymore than Opposition Leaders have been when they've had their many, many opportunities. So up until 6 months ago, Harper hated the media. He couldn't control it so he shunned it. But things seem different now. He knows he has an image problem so, he's getting out there. My problem is how.

Not only did he choose to sit with Fox while in Washington, but also with foreign correspondants from Canwest (Global) and CTV. Who's missing there?

Yeah, yeah, we know he doesn't like the CBC. The past weeks' funding disputes have highlighted his antipathy about CBC's existence. But to obviously make a point of granting right-leaning media access to him and exclusively leave CBC out... well again, that's just sketch. If he's really trying to fix his image, he needs better PR people. It doesn't help him win centrist voters to appear more and more propagandist based on his choice of medium. The medium is the message, remember? Even if his words are moderate and fair, choosing only to appear in right-wing media is a mistake. It's still merely preaching to the choir, catering to his base. That's not going to work. He's tried that in the past two elections and only wound up with a minority each time and not because he won the elections, but more that the Liberals lost them.

So if he's trying to make himself look better, I'm not sure he's figured out how. I'm happy to let Harper continue to screw up his image. I'd simply prefer he didn't do it on the international stage and drag us along with him.

Day Light Savings Rocks

I'm looking out the window at 7pm and it's still light out. Thank gawd!! For those of you in the world where the sun is never up past 6, I pity you. Living on the equator, you have no idea what it means to have daylight well into the evening hours, but it is one of my favourite things about summer. There's so much to do when it's warm outside that it seems imperative that we have more sun in which to do it. I guess at the equator, you have summer all year, so you don't have to cram all of your outdoor activities into the few months of the year with temperatures over 20, but north of the 49, daylight savings time means that the World on its axis is just being fair. The great equalizer. We have -30 degree winters, but at least the sun's up past dinner-time for most of the year!

Or at least *now* it's most of the year. I never thought I'd say this, but thank-you George Bush. With daylight savings earlier it means that it's 7pm and I still don't have to turn the lights on. In March. Fan-freakin-tastic.

So it's coming. Tomorrow is supposed to be 14 degrees and sunset's not until 7:30ish. The weather, I'm sure, is a tease, but the sun never lies... Winter has an end. Spring is coming.

Wahoo!

The Brits, they know a thing or two.

I think of myself as a socialist. It is the political state of mind that I can most identify with. And those to the south of us look up here and squirm at how socialist a state we are. But why do we have that reputation? Universal Healthcare? Is that it? Having spent the past week in England it hit me over and over again how much more we could be doing to take care of each other, but we just can't seem to get there.

Time and again, there were signs and advertisements and notices that were meant to impress upon the Brits where and how and why their taxpayers dollars were being spent. Construction on the Tube was plastered with the words "Updating YOUR Underground". Museums including the National Gallery and the Tate are all free admissions and historic sites and monuments are under a governmental umbrella called the "National Trust".  What all of these things say to me and, more importantly, the British public, is that these things *belong* to them. They're theirs. Yes that means that they need to be financially responsible for them, but in reciprocation they get to be proud of them all. That is an incredibly profound feeling, to feel like each individual contributes and so it's a part of them. Walking into Canterbury Cathedral or the Roman Baths, each and every Brit can hold their heads high and claim ownership. Those are their things. Their places, their history, their stories. 

When they introduced the National Health Service (socialized medicine) after WWII, it was communicated to them as something that was being done by each of them for each of them. It was explicitly expressed, that "this is not a charity, but is paid for through your taxes". I can only imagine what it would have been like trying to pick up the pieces after the Blitz had demolished so much of the country. I can see that they felt demoralized. Having just fought a losing battle for so long only to be ultimately "rescued" by the Yanks (and yes, us too), the British were not used to *not* being the super power. Collapse of the British Empire and all that. So to then have the government say, "Hey, we're going to pay for your doctors, because we know none of you can afford it right now", well, that's just another shot at their dignity, isn't it? That is exactly the feeling I imagine poor Americans who are still against medicare must have. It's about pride. Silly perhaps, but oh so powerful. 

So when it comes to "selling" socialism, the Brits seem to have it nailed. It really is all in the approach. Obama take note? Socialism is not about charity. It's not about the dole, although I know that conservatives' arguments against it are that they don't want to bleed and sweat for Mr. Lazy McLazerson to survive without bothering to get off the couch. I get that. I do. And while there are exceptions to every rule, I truly don't think that for most people, human dignity allows for that. Most people do not want to be charity cases. Most people do not want the hand-out. I certainly don't want to be in that position, ever! At the same time, I think it's crucial that we look at the big picture and make sure our society allows for doing what's Right and not solely what's most economical. Anyone who has a baby gets a year off work subsidized by the government. This is the Right thing to do, and no woman (or man) should ever feel guilty about it, because it is *their* right paid for in advance by deductions from their salaries. Healthcare is the same, as is EI and CPP.

These are things our forefathers fought long and hard for and I'm afraid that our complacency in difficult economic times means that we'll collectively forget how important these programs are. There are things that have been left to us in Trust from generations past to hand over to generations future. That trust is sacred. We need to somehow work it into the national psyche that we are here to take care of the future and that the present, well, is fleeting. I've been speaking of government programs, but of course it also applies to our historical monuments and above all, our environment which is perhaps the single greatest monument we have. Canada is still such a vast frontier. We really don't have any right to ruin this land for the sake of our own limited, immediate gains. 

I see what the Brits have done and I'm jealous. But they also have a lot of issues. Homelessness, public drunkenness, an expectation of the dole. I don't want that here. I want to see our social programs as therapy, and less like the permanent crutch it can turn into. Our programs need updating so that people don't get stuck in their dependancy. In all, though,we're doing okay. We're a fledgling little Constitutional Democracy, and we've done well by ourselves so far. I'm proud of that. However, we could still do so much more! Daycare, pharmacare, post-secondary, green industry, better transit, organic food, protected waters... there are so many more things we could do to make our lives better. So many more things that would help ease the burden on *all* of us. It wouldn't be charity. We'd pay for it. Through our taxes. They'd be ours. They'd belong to each and every one of us. Above all, they'd belong to the future.

You can be my Yoko Ono

Anyone who knows me, knows that the Barenaked Ladies are a longtime favourite of mine. And so, I would be remiss if I said nothing about the departure of Steven Page from the band.

I've given it a day or two to sink in to see how I really feel about it. Sure I'm sad, but mostly I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed that he thinks he needs to leave to do solo work which doesn't make sense because he's been doing that for at least the past 5 years. I'm disappointed that the new woman in his life might just possibly have something to do with this, and I'm disappointed by his timing. The guys have been talking for months about their "big 20th anniversary" this year. There was supposed to be a box set and a celebratory tour in the fall.

So why couldn't he have waited? What is so pressing right this very moment that he didn't feel he needed to live up to those commitments? Not that I know him on any kind of personal level, but it just doesn't seem like him. He and the rest of the band have always taken their obligations to their fans very seriously. More than any other musical act I've seen, they are true performers. Their shows aren't about special effects or highly choreographed dance numbers (at least ones that aren't done in jest). Their shows are about them just being themselves. They are fallible, humble and self-deprecating in their hilarity. They are consummate professionals. As such, considering how long they've be hyping their 20th year, it's a surprise that Steven wouldn't ride it out.

Steve has often been criticized for seeming aloof and standoffish when he's not "on". Offstage, not performing he seems uncomfortable with the attention. As intelligent as he so obviously is, he doesn't have a heck of a lot to say to his gushing followers. He's appreciative, but never seems to want to deal with the fame aspect of his career. Can't really blame the guy.

Then he meets this new girl. The break-up of his marriage didn't surprise me. Anyone who's paid attention to his lyrics has been party to the progression and then demise of that relationship. But this new girl seems to pump up his ego like his high school sweetheart never did. The MySpace superfan has managed to intrigue him in a way that has captivated him instead of turn him off. Wow, that seems a little harsh, but getting him caught with coke doesn't win her too many points with me. She simply doesn't seem to fit the life he's created for himself as a family man who's passionate about social justice and the environment. And perhaps that's exactly why he's into her? It's disappointing that his "life is just one big pun". Middle-life crisis? Really?

But more than anything, I'm disappointed that I didn't have a chance to say good-bye. I know they're not going anywhere - not really. But a little heads up and a chance to see them all together one last time would've been nice. I just listened to the download of their last show from the cruise they just wrapped up, and well Steve, I love ya, but it kinda sucked. You were funny and all, but I sure wish that your last gig as a Lady would've been as stellar as I'm used to instead of the flat, strained, note-missing attempt that it was. Oh well... That's the fallible part of them that we love. I've seen these guys live more times than I can remember and I now cherish how obsessive Mark has been in making sure I got to see every show they played, being at a bookstore in North York or the ACC or the Mod Club. I have an iPod full of classics and improvs that won't leave the rotation for quite a long while. My consolation is that living in the boys' hometown, I have every expectation that they'll perform together somewhere, for something, eventually.

I guess in the end, the guys don't owe me a thing. They've given voice to many different times of my life and I hear new things in their lyrics all of the time that make me smile, weep or both. Thanks Ladies, for the past 20 years.

Oprah's a Bad Influence

*** I wrote this on February 5th and posted it as a note on my Facebook. I figured I'd put it here as well to start this thing off...


I watched Oprah the other day... yes, I'm that girl... It was an episode about money and being thrifty in hard economic times and there was a segment about a woman who makes it her "job" to save her family as much money on groceries as possible. Sounds rational, doesn't it? So I watched hoping to get some tips I could apply. In the end I was horrified by her methods so much so that I wrote to Oprah about it.

A little backstory: The woman took us to the supermarket. Amongst her tips for buying on sale, etc. her main advice is to use coupons. Now I've been known to benefit from a coupon or two, but in good conscience I could never go to her extreme. "See this bag of carrots is on sale for 49 cents, but I have a coupon for 50 cents, so FREE CARROTS!! And check to see if your store accepts double coupons because then you can save twice as much. This bottle of shampoo is 88 cents, but I have two 50 cent coupons so THAT'S FREE TOO!" And so on, and so on... In the end, her $127 worth of groceries (all on sale already) cost her $37 because of coupons. In my mind, this kind of consumer is evil. It's selfish and it's wrong.

My comment to Oprah is below:

--------------------------

I have to say straight out that while watching this show two days ago, I couldn't help but be disappointed that this is the kind of behaviour that Oprah is promoting. Can't you all see that this kind of consumerism is narrow-minded, short-sighted and incredibly selfish? Perhaps it is because I'm Canadian (and have more of a socialist mind), but I see this as an extension of the mindset that has got America into trouble in the first place. "What I want. What I need." - with no thought to cause and effect.

Nothing is free. Nothing should be free. Everything comes from somewhere. Someone grew those carrots and spent time and energy and money to do so. Someone made that shampoo. Someone had to drive the truck to get everything to the store and someone had to stack the shelves. The farmer and the resource miner and the manufacturer are the backbone of any economy and the American consumer seems intent on screwing them any and every chance they can because it helps their immediate individual bottom line. $127 worth of groceries should never cost less than $40. Coupons are not money. They are a reward for being a loyal consumer. Who's winning in that situation? It might seem like you are, but that's a fallacy. How are you helping the economy? The farmer's being screwed because he's getting pennies for his produce. The manufacturer has to layoff line workers because they can't sell their product for the cost it takes to make it. What you all seem to fail to realize is that eventually, that's going to come back to bite you. Economies are cyclical. What goes around, comes around. If you insist on getting your carrots for free, next time, there may be no carrots on the shelf for you to scam. Or at the very least, the farmer will have a lot less revenue to spend in turn on your services.

It's going to be a long and painful lesson for Americans to learn how to pay for things what they're *really* worth. Products in America are ridiculously cheap compared to prices paid around the globe. You don't realize this, but neither do you seem to care. Shampoo should *never* cost only 88 cents in the first place, and scamming it for free is wrong. It's stealing. It's taking food out of someone else's mouth for the sake of your own pocketbook. Shame on you. Fair value and fair trade are ideas that "Joe the Plumber" will struggle to identify with as Americans have never been good at thinking how their actions affect others. There is an inherent selfishness in the American psyche that I'm not sure will ever go away. So far this is and will continue to be your downfall.

The trick is everyone insists on being "paid what they're worth", but they refuse to pay someone else enough for the value they offer. This deficit *will be* recouped somewhere down the line. Nothing is free. Everything comes from somewhere and a price must be paid for it either in cash money or in kind.

I heartily implore that as more and more layoffs occur and more families are struggling to make ends meet, please try to bear in mind what affect your actions will have down the line. If you want cheap produce, go to a farmer's market. That way you know that every penny is going to the person who's done the work. If you must save every dime you can, by all means, wait for the sales, comparison shop, be savvy. But "double couponing" is just immoral if it means getting things for free. You may be having a hard go of it, and that's unfortunate, but if you're thinking "better him than me", you're only hurting yourself because eventually, you're just biting the hand that feeds you.

Flair for the dramatic

I've been told by quite a few people in my life lately that they think I should be writing. Apparently I have a knack for it, but I think what's more likely is they know I need an outlet in which to vent. I tend to react quite strongly to things that I read, or experience in my life. I always have an opinion (Right or wrong).

But it seems that mostly I'm not entirely incorrect, and have influenced others in what I think are positive ways. So what the heck, I'll give this a shot.

I haven't quite decided my goals for this blog, so don't be surprised if one day I'm critiquing a movie and the next railing against international injustices. I do my best to listen to others and educate myself before I open my mouth, but admit there are moments where my feelings spew straight from the heart.

For those of you who take the time to read and/or comment on my ramblings, thank-you. It's good to be validated!