Jeremy's Blog

Felice Brothers in Seattle

2009-06-05T21:20:00.000-07:00

Yesterday a friend and I drove the three hours to Seattle in the grueling North West heat (Okay it was only 80F) to see the Felice Brothers. My buddy just introduced me to this band of brothers who hail from the Catskill mountains in rural New York. They took their act to the Big Apple and would play in the New York subway.

After hearing their first major release album (self titled) and watching live clips from the band on You Tube I decided I didn't want to miss seeing the Felice Brothers. I wasn't disappointed. They played at a small bar in North Seattle which was packed with young people as well as the old hippie folk fan.

Their act includes guitar, drums, base, accordion, fiddle, keyboard, and washboard. They wail on their instruments with intense passion and artistry. The result is a fresh organic sound with deep roots in folk and Americana styling. The most impressive thing may be their song writing capability. The songs include crime sagas, lonely love ballads, and drinking songs. They sound inspired by Dylan, Hank Williams, and Townes Van Zandt (whom they covered for one song).

I am definetley going to order their latest album (Yonder is the Clock) and check out some of their older repetuare. I also hope to see them come to Vancouver at some point but would definitely travel down the Coast to see the "Greatest Show on Earth" again.

I've attached one of the live clips from You Tube.

Jeremiah Wright or wrong and Obama's quest for an equal America

2008-03-21T00:40:00.000-07:00

Last week Barack Obama took alot of heat in the mainstream media and perhaps in public opinion because of the comments of his pastor Jeremiah Wright.

Many of the video clips were short sections of sermons all presented in a context of anti Americanism and reverse racism. The clips weren't long enough to present the entire message of Rev. Wright's sermons furthermore the discussion of the comments didn't take into account the historical and social or economic background behind the reverends comments.

As I watched the clips I was shocked, not by the content of the messages but at the fact that people were so outraged about the content. In my opinion Jeremiah Wright's comments were logical, insightful, and poignant. The fact that "white America" didn't understand them may just re-enforce some of Wright's points about the gap in realities for black America and white America.

Obama, in response, denounced a great deal of what Wright had to say. The presidential hopeful went on to give a lengthy speech on the history of racism in America. Many saw the speech as a historical moment. I think it is positive that Obama wants to present a hopeful message to Americans that racial equity is close at hand. He has said that he feels that Blacks have almost achieved equality with whites. However, I find this extremely hard to believe. In contrast to Obama's claims one need only to look at the footage from Katrina or statistics on prison populations and poverty. Equality is along way off.

There is also a danger, I believe, of people thinking that equality will be reached if Obama wins the presidency. Something that is perhaps the underlying message behind Obama's rhetoric. This is completely illogical. As my earlier blog post "the bi-partisan consensus" suggests the differences in policies between parties and politicians is really unsubstantial.

While I find it difficult to catch sound bytes on what Obama's policies actually are (I listened to about 34 minutes of his speech on race in America before he mentioned something about education and healthcare) they will likely not stray far from the kind of pro- corporate strategies of the Bush Clinton years. On the foreign policy front his policies will also likely be very familiar. While he takes lots of credit for not voting for the war in Iraq he has voted for increased military spending at every opportunity since. He is clearly a supporter of the military industrial complex which is sustained by actions like those in Iraq.

In conclusion the positive change that Obama speaks of and that so many seem so desperate for has to come from the actions of people. That is the true essence of democracy. People have to constantly challenge and critique those in authority whether it be George Bush or Barak Obama. People have to stand up when corporate greed and injustice threaten the environment and the wellbeing of one another. People have to stand up and take real responsibility for racism, ethnocentrism, and state sponsored terrorism. People have to continue to speak up and act up against war, torture, and violence of all kinds.

And I believe like Jeremiah Wright does that these truths have to be shouted about no matter how unpopular these truths are. I also believe like Rev. Wright does that this is the true meaning of the Gospel to declare freedom and good news both in spirit and in truth.

I will close this post with the comments of another Rev. ...Jim Wallis. I find that Wallis always finds a way of expressing current events in a clear and profound way.

Healing the Wounds of Race by Jim Wallis
It has simmered throughout this campaign, and now race has exploded into the center of the media debate about the presidential race. Just when a black political leader is calling us all to a new level of responsibility, hope, and unity, the old and divisive rhetoric of race from both blacks and whites is rearing its ugly head to bring down the best chance we have had for years of finally moving forward.
And that is indeed the real issue here. A black man is closer to possibly becoming president than ever before in U.S. history. And this black man is not even running as "a black man," but as a new kind of political leader who believes the country is ready for a new kind of politics. But a new kind of politics and a new face for political leadership is deeply threatening to all the forces that represent the old kind of politics in the U.S. And all the rising focus on race in this election campaign has one purpose and one purpose alone—to stop Barack Obama from becoming president of the United States.

Barack Obama should win or lose his party's nomination or the presidency based on the positions he takes regarding the great issues of our time and his capacity to lead the country and the U.S.'s role in the world. He must not win or lose because of the old politics of race in the U.S. That would be a tragedy for all of us.

The cable news stations and talk radio are playing carefully selected excerpts of the most potentially incendiary statements from Rev. Jeremiah Wright's fiery sermons. Wright is the retiring pastor of Barack Obama and his family's home Trinity Church in Chicago. Obama, while affirming the tremendous work his church has done in his city and around the nation, has condemned the most controversial remarks of his pastor. But the whole controversy points to the enormous gap in understanding between the mainstream black community in the U.S. and the experience of many white Americans. And that is what we are going to have to heal if we are ever to move forward.

Here is what I mean.

There is a deep well of both frustration and anger in the African-American community in the U.S. And those feelings are borne of the concrete experience of real oppression, discrimination, and blocked opportunities that most of America's white citizens take for granted. African Americans across the spectrum of income and success will speak personally to those feelings of frustration and anger, when white people are willing to listen. But usually we are not. In 2008, to still not comprehend or seek to understand the reality of black frustration and anger is to be in a state of white denial - which, very sadly, is where many white Americans are.

The black church pulpit has historically been a place of prophetic truth-telling about the realities that black people experience in their own country. Indeed, the black church has often been the only place where such truths are ever told. And, black preachers have had the pastoral task of nurturing the spirits of people who feel beaten down week after week. Strong and prophetic words from black church pulpits are often a source of comfort and affirmation for black congregations. The truth is that many white Americans would indeed feel uncomfortable with the rhetoric of many black preachers from many black churches all across the country.

But if you look beyond the grainy black-and-white clips of the dashiki-clad Rev. Wright and the angry black male voice (all designed to provoke stereotypes and fear), and actually listen to what his words are saying about the U.S. being run by "rich white people" while blacks have cabs speeding by them, and about the U.S.'s misdeeds around the world, it's hard to disagree with many of the facts presented. It's rather the angry tone of Wright's comments that provides the offense and the controversy.

Ironically, a new generation of black Americans is now eager and ready to move beyond the frustration and anger to a new experience of opportunity and hope. And nobody represents that shift more than Barack Obama. There is a generational shift occurring within the black community itself. This shift is between an older generation that is sometimes perceived to be stuck in the politics of victimization and grievance, and a younger generation that believes that opportunity and progress are now possible—not by ignoring, but by being committed to actually changing the facts of oppression and discrimination.

Barack Obama represents that hope of dealing with the substance of the issues of injustice while at the same time articulating the politics of hope, and even the possibility of racial unity. Obama's attraction to many who are white, especially a new generation, demonstrates the promise of a new racial politics in the U.S. But to be a leader for a new generation of black Americans, Barack Obama had to be firmly rooted in the black church tradition, where the critique of white America, the sustenance of the African-American community, and God's promise for the future are all clearly articulated. That's why he began attending Trinity Church, where he was converted to Jesus Christ in the black liberationist tradition of, among others, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

So it would be a great tragedy if the old rhetoric of black frustration and anger were to now hurt Barack Obama, who has become the best hope of beginning to heal that very frustration and anger. Obama has never chosen to talk about race in the way that Rev. Jeremiah Wright does on the video clips that keep playing, and indeed has never played "the race card" at any time in this election. It's been his opponents that have, especially the right-wing conservative media machine that wants the U.S. to believe he is secretly a Muslim and from a "racist" church.

This most recent controversy over race just demonstrates how enormous the gap still is between whites and blacks in the U.S. - in our experience and our capacity to understand one another. May God help us to heal that divide and truly bless America.

Fire sale! Where do your used clothes go?

2007-06-19T11:48:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting story from the CBC posted by a friend of mine...

From: CBC Article

Where old clothes go: Pedernales
The seamy side of donated clothing
Last updated June 18, 2007
By Sabrina Saccoccio, CBC News

A few weeks ago, Sebastian Velez spotted smoke from rising from the mountainside in Pedernales, a small border town in the Dominican Republic. Pedernales is the end of the road in the Dominican Republic between Santo Domingo and Haiti — a sleepy town set up to protect the capital from "invasions of Haitians." Although this time Velez knew immediately what it signalled, that wasn't the case the first time he encountered the smoke two years ago.

Velez, a Harvard University entomologist, happened upon the fires when he was studying bark beetles in the area's untouched forests. He also visits Pedernales to visit a local school that he and his colleagues are raising money to help build.

The flames come from blazing bales of Tommy Hilfiger jeans, cotton T-shirts and miscellaneous winter coats. The reds, greens and plaids are spilled out of a flatbed truck's cargo container at a dumpsite near the port town and set on fire.

Pedernales is home to one cement factory, an aluminum mining operation and a facility whose sole purpose is to sort and burn used clothing from North America.
End of the line

In the past an armed guard accompanied the delivery truck taking unwanted clothing from the Pedernales facility to a dump. Scavengers at the site would collect the garments to sell in shops or to local merchants.

That custom has changed, largely due to the frenzy over potentially valuable clothing in the piles.

Velez said sometimes there's a great find among the clothing heaps, which explains the occasional media image of poor Caribbeans dressed in designer shirts and hats.

It's the quest for those high-quality garments that led to tragedy and even one death among the scavengers.

"There are packs that hold jeans and very valuable stuff ... so people start jumping on the truck as it is moving," recounted Velez.

"One guy got entangled with the tire, and it ran over him and killed him. They have had many accidents like broken legs when the [clothing] packs fall on people."

After the fatal accident, the truckers began routinely setting the clothes on fire to discourage people from attacking the vehicle to scavenge the contents.

In what Velez calls a symbiotic relationship, now the driver and guard will allow the scavengers 10 minutes of sifting, in exchange for manually unloading the sacks of clothes that get stuck in the cargo bay when the truck dumps its load.

Once that time is up, the driver and guard, who work for the clothes sorting facility, set the piles ablaze.

Like most factories in the Caribbean, there aren't any signs on the exterior of the sorting shop, but Velez knows that people working there make about $180 US a month. Drivers take in around $100 US, the Dominican Republic's minimum salary.

"Most of it is coming from the U.S. because the boxes are from department stores saying Kmart or Wal-Mart. But they don't necessarily come from there. I think they're mostly coming from charities, because they're used clothes," said Velez. "They look exactly like what you would find in the Salvation Army and Goodwill."

That's not a problem for the local scavengers or people from surrounding regions who come to grab clothes to sell in retail stores or merchants picking up sacks from the sorters.

There's still a living — even a good living by local standards — to be made by selling used clothes that have made it all the way to the end of the line in Pedernales.

As Velez explained, "I talked to a couple who bought their house selling the clothes they collected there, but a house in Pedernales costs only $3,000."

My reply:
So, the clothes are made by these factory workers in Dominican Republic who make a pittance a day.

We buy the clothes for jacked up prices at the mall. Then a few months later after we get tired of them... or we are told that they are not "stylish" we give them to a charity.

The charity sends them back to the Dominican Republic where the impoverished factory workers get run over by trucks as they rummage through the clothing to find the same clothing they are told are "stylish". Everything else gets burned...Ah the intrinsic and @#@%#$d up cylces of the global market.

Presedential Election II - The Bipartisan Consensus

2007-06-05T23:29:00.000-07:00

Howard Zinn starts off one of his chapters in A People's History of the United States with the following passage:

Halfway through the twentieth century, the historian Richard Hofstadter, in his book The American Political Tradition, examined our important national leaders, from Jefferson and Jackson to Herbert Hoover and the two Roosevelts - Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. Hofstadter concluded that "the range of vision embraced by the primary contestants in the major parties has always been bounded by the horizons of property and enterprise....They have accepted the economic virtues of capatilist culture as necessary qualities of man.... That culture has been intensely nationalistic...." Coming to the end of the century, observing its last twenty-five years, we have seen exsactly that limited vision Hofstadter talked about - a capitalistic encouragement of enormous fortunes alongside desperate poverty, a nationalistic acceptance of war and preperations for war. Governmental power swong from Republicans to Democrats and back again, but neither party showed itself capable of going beyond that vision.

If we stop to ponder this passage we can't help but realize how honest it is. I've heard the electoral choices in the U.S. compared to the choice between Coke or Pepsi. Despite all of the hype and advertisement they are essentially the same. I have talked to friends who beleive that Obama or Clinton are going to win the presidency and make radical changes to the injustices in America and perpretrated by America throughout the world. Unfortuanetly this has never been the case! As Zinn points out and the historical record shows both parties will end up acting in the narrow vision bound by "the horizons of property and enterprize". That is not to say that I don't have "the audacity of hope" for change...but I find it difficult to believe in the possibility of change with the system the way it is.

Presedential Election

2007-05-16T09:28:00.000-07:00

I was in the States last weekend and noticed that excitement over the 2008 presedential election is on the rise. Forget Obama, Clinton, Guliani, or McCain the frontrunner in my eyes is the dynamic ticket I saw on this bumper sticker:

They've got my vote!

You can buy a sticker here

Steve Earle's Jerusalem

2007-05-09T00:51:00.000-07:00

I woke up this mornin' and none of the news was good
Death machines were rumblin' 'cross the ground where Jesus stood
And the man on my TV told me that it had always been that way
And there was nothin' anyone could do or say

And I almost listened to him
Yeah, I almost lost my mind
Then I regained my senses again
And looked into my heart to find

That I believe that one fine day all the children of Abraham
Will lay down their swords forever in Jerusalem

Well maybe I'm only dreamin' and maybe I'm just a fool
But I don't remember learnin' how to hate in Sunday school
But somewhere along the way I strayed and I never looked back again
But I still find some comfort now and then

Then the storm comes rumblin' in
And I can't lay me down
And the drums are drummin' again
And I can't stand the sound

But I believe there'll come a day when the lion and the lamb
Will lie down in peace together in Jerusalem

And there'll be no barricades then
There'll be no wire or walls
And we can wash all this blood from our hands
And all this hatred from our souls

And I believe that on that day all the children of Abraham
Will lay down their swords forever in Jerusalem

If the Utah Jazz were neopolitan they would have too much vanilla and not enough chocolate

2007-05-07T20:41:00.000-07:00

I was watching the Utah Jazz play the Golden State Warriors tonight and had a few questions:
Is there actually any Jazz in Utah? Secondly why do the Jazz seem to have so many white players? Come to think of it as long as I can remember they've had alot of white players? Is this a conspiracy? I googled it and found this on http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2737:

According to http://www.villagevoice.com/news/000...o,12566,3.html white people make up 21% of the NBA, which is an average of 2.5 white people per team. Before I go any further, let's take a look at the Utah Jazz rosters over the past 10 years.

2005: Okur+Kirilenko+Harpring+Giricek+Ostertag+Humphries = 6
2004: Harpring+Giricek+Kirilenko+Borchardt+Humphries+Lop ez+Handlogten = 7
2003: Kirilenko+Lopez+Ostertag+Harpring+Pavlovic+Giricek +Gugliotta+Handlogten = 8
2002: Harpring+Kirilenko+Stockton+Padgett+Ostertag = 5
2001: Stockton+Kirilenko+Padgett+Crotty+Ostertag+LaRue = 6
2000: Stockton+Ostertag+Crotty+Padgett = 4
1999: Stockton+Hornacek+Ostertag+Keefe+Padgett+Chilcutt = 6
1998: Hornacek+Stockton+Ostertag+Keefe+Fuller+Foster = 6
1997: Hornacek+Stockton+Keefe+Foster+Ostertag = 5

Over the past 10 years, the Jazz only once had a roster that didn't contain double the league's average of white people. At what point are we allowed to point fingers and say that this is intentional? After all, Salt Lake City is 93% white, and more than 70% of those whites are Mormon - a religion that has historically believed that black people did not choose sides between Jesus and Satan in the beginning of time (in 1978, the Mormon church decided to allow blacks to join, but they have never officially rescinded the claim that they are cursed).

Do you think there will ever come a time when Utah's roster will include a demographic makeup that is more in line with the league average? In a situation as unique as a basketball roster, how big a sample size is needed before it's no longer a coincidence? Is my 10 years enough, or must we go back further?

So what do you think? Is this a coincidence? I went to Salt Lake City during the 2002 olympics and I saw a few African American people...like 4 - I think they were the Jamaican Bobsled team.

I'm not saying that race should matter... when putting a team together you should select the best possible player regardless of ethnicity. However looking at the Jazz's (is that how you spell Jazz plural...isn't it already plural?) record you have to wonder if they are conciouslly showing favouritism to white players.

For the record...no African American cheerleaders either...although a few brunettes.

Some more comments on corporate social justice campaigns

2007-04-30T21:09:00.000-07:00

I think my previous entry raised a lot of troublesome and legitimate questions as also inticated by the valid responses. In this post I want to dig deeper into some of the reasons why we shouldn’t see multinational corporations as benevolent messiah’s (a role they try to cast themselves into). And that we should be worried about the amount of legitimacy we give them in this role.

I have already mentioned some of the obvious problems when I suggested charity campaigns like the A.I. gives back or Oprah’s red campaign are using their platform to pay service to social justice issues while at the same time making serious profit financially from the increased ratings and publicity/advertising dollars.

However the problem goes much deeper in my opinion. The problem is rooted in our modern capitalist paradigm. Corporations have realized that by advertising that they are socially conscious they can convince us that we can BUY social change.

Corporations advertise that they are environmentally conscious, that they are fair trade, or that they support AIDS in Africa… Thus we as consumers think we are making a difference when we buy fair trade coffee, when we buy a hybrid, or when we vote for the next American Idol. OR when we don’t shop at Wal-Mart or buy things made in China or that test on animals. This fits into our understanding that every action we make in life places us in the role of consumer. Whether it is voting, “church shopping”, or defining “who we are” by buying socially conscious brands or a red ipod.

So what…? If we are truly convinced that we can BUY a cleaner environment, an end to the suffering cause by AIDS, a more equitable world we are actually buying a blatant lie that we are being fed and the true legitimate change we can create is being squelched by apathy induced by ignorance.

In other words we CANNOT change the world through consumption patterns alone (In fact in these terms it seems like utter lunacy). We have to get off our collective asses and create the change. Our efforts should be channeled more towards legislative bodies than commercial organizations.

I have more to say on this but hopefully this is a springboard to more discussion and thought.

Just to avoid the obvious critique: Yes corporations should be socially conscious! In no way shape or means should we believe that their doing so is anything remarkable (we only do because we have been ingrained in the worship of profit) and that this should be the most insignificant side note in the struggle for a more equitable and sustainable world.

Some key readings I have come across that relate to this blog entry include:
The Rebel Sell by Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter – Here is a very good outline of the book’s premise
and Race Against Time by Stephen Lewis which I listened to in lecture form and deeply moved me ...I will send it to anyone who wants to hear it.

American Idol Gives Back

2007-04-25T14:11:00.000-07:00

Alright I was watching the American Idol charity special and couldn't help feeling a little disgusted by the self-congradualitory specticle of the whole thing. It reminds me of the passage on giving to the needy in Matthew 6:

1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Now I'm not trying to hold A.I. to this standard but I think the ethic of Jesus' teaching here deserves to be recognized. As the following article argues FOX and the A.I. empire will benefit by bringing in millions more than they will give while giving the false impression that they are trully benevolent givers and difference makers. In actuality Ryan announced that News Corp. would give 10c per call up to $5 million dollars. Meanwhile "Idol reportedly nabs as much as $700,000 per 30 second spot from its top sponsors. During last year's finale, it pulled in $1.3 million per spot." If you've ever watched the show you know that above and beyond the commercial spots it is an orgy of coprorate advertising from Ford to Coke to AT&T. This doesn't even take into account the massive sums the show is making in selling albums, spinoff tours, kareokee machines etc. etc.. So if American Idol is giving back they are giving back the change they found in those red couches backstage.

Furthermore I feel that the danger of campaigns like this one and Oprah's are that they give the caller into A.I. or the buyer of a RED gap sweater the imression that they are doing their part to create change...However, the numbers tell a different story ... but this is too big of a topic for one entry in my next entry I'll try to demonstrate the discrepencies in my next post.

STORY FROM TV SQUAD
Posted Apr 24th 2007 12:01PM by Liz Finn-Arnold

As we get closer to American Idol's self-proclaimed "historic" two-night Idol Gives Back charity event, I feel myself becoming more and more annoyed by all the hype. I'm so tired of hearing Ryan promote the star-studded event, as if FOX and Idol are single-handedly going to wipe out poverty, disease, and famine -- and all with a song in their pure, unadulterated hearts.

What's really bizarre about this upcoming over-hyped event is how much glowingly-positive buzz it has created. After all, this is American Idol we're talking about. The talent show seems to thrive not only on profit, but also on controversy.

Yet, where are all the naysayers and doubters? Where are the snarky bloggers? There is a small controversy about the charitable organizations that will benefit from this event. But other than that, I seem to be the only blogger in the universe cynical enough to think that this event sounds just a tad bit exploitive and self-serving.

I have to ask (because the entertainment journalists all seem too ga-ga over this event to do so): Is this for real or is FOX merely trying to boost their usually sagging late-April ratings and suck even more revenue out of its advertisers?

It seems to me that by attaching themselves to this charity event, American Idol has finally found a way to become untouchable. After all, no one wants to say anything bad about such a monstrous fundraising drive that will raise millions of dollars for poverty-stricken young people in Africa and America. Mark Shriver, head of US. operations for Save the Children (one of the recipients of the donations from the show and the focus of the Pro-Life controversy) gushed, "You have the biggest show on television making a real effort to change the world."

Yes, indeed, that's some good PR going on. Nice to see that journalists are eating this up and helping with the hype. But then again, who am I to question an event that even Bono has given his blessing to? Still, just because the outcome is honorable, and the parties involved have good intentions, that doesn't mean that the event itself is being held for purely unselfish, altruistic reasons.

It's called public relations, people. Corporate giants need to "give back" because it humanizes them, neutralizes their greedy image, and buys them good publicity. And it gives them tax write-offs, too. Of course, it's also the RIGHT thing to do. And there's probably even a bunch of people naive enough to believe that's the main reason these things are done. I've worked for non-profits and in public relations, so I'm not one of them. Heck, even Oprah doesn't go to Africa and build schools unless she can squeeze a TV special and some extra-special publicity out of it, securing her own saintly image.

I also think it's odd how much they've hyped this star-studded event, while doling out very few details about how much they hope to raise during this event. Having worked for the United Way, I know that charities generally set fundraising goals. Plus, the details we've gotten have been vague and sketchy. We've been told that Idol's sponsors (Ford, AT&T, Coca-Cola, and News Corp.) are donating a percentage based on number of calls. What exactly does that mean? They know Idol receives anywhere from 33 to 38 million votes. Shouldn't they come up with a formula based on estimated calls before, rather than after, the actual event? Or are they afraid they might over-hype the event and receive twice as many phone calls as expected?

The Philanthropy Journal contacted FOX, and they couldn't get clarification on any of the fundraising details. On their blog, the Philanthropy Journal criticized this lack of information and suggested Idol could maximize its fundraising by "treating its viewers like donors, cultivating them and engaging them with substantive information instead of shallow hype."

(EDITED TO UPDATE: On Tuesday night, Ryan finally explained that News Corp will donate 10 cents for every call received [up to a maximimum of 50 million calls] for a total of $5 million dollars.)

It goes without saying that raising money for impoverished families in America and Africa is a noble cause. And yes, it's fantastic to see celebrities show-up in support of such an effort. It's also amazing that the top-rated show on TV is going to dedicate an entire two-hour episode to raising awareness about these issues. But what would be even more amazing is if the network supporting such an event -- didn't have anything to gain by supporting it.

Will FOX profit from Idol Gives Back? It certainly will gain the "goodwill" and admiration of even the most cynical-minded critics for its efforts. However, with all the money they've made on Idol, they also could have simply given a hefty corporate donation -- without bringing all of this attention to themselves. After all, according to Advertising Age magazine, the show's franchise is worth approximately $2.5 billion, with $500 million coming in just from TV advertising each year. They clearly have the means to "give back."

Therefore, if they really just wanted to "give something back," they could have done so without creating a monstrous event that cast them in a self-congratulatory glowing light. Instead of asking for money from the public, they could have asked FOX and News Corp to dip into their corporate wallets a little deeper. Having worked in non-profits, I know that when donors truly gives from their hearts, there is no need for attention, publicity, or weeks of on-air patting themselves on the back. Yet, each week, Idol says, "Look at how generous we are -- aren't we wonderful?" Seriously, am I the only one who finds this self-serving?

Which still doesn't answer the question: Will FOX actually make money on this programming extravaganza? News Corp (the parent company of FOX) already generously pledged $5 million to the charity event. Is News Corp putting its money where its mouth is? Or is this just a token pledge? And worse, are they expecting to raise advertising revenue that far exceeds this pledge?

On September 21, 2001, the four major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX) came together to televise the star-studded 9-11 telethon, America: A Tribute to Heroes, organized by none other than George Clooney. All of the talent donated their time to that event which was televised uninterrupted and WITHOUT commercials. In 2005, NBC stepped up to host a two-hour celebrity telethon, Tsunami Aid: A Concert of Hope. This event was also televised without commercials. Also, in 2005, six networks (ABC, NBC, CBS. FOX, UPN, and WB) all simultaneously televised the Katrina telethon, Shelter from the Storm: A Concert for the Gulf Coast. Once again, the one-hour fundraising event was run commercial-free. I'm assuming these events were televised without commercials because the networks didn't want to "cash in" on these tragedies.

From what I can tell, FOX IS televising Idol Gives Back WITH commercials. And I'm only assuming this because I haven't heard declarations of anything otherwise. Considering the fact that American Idol currently pulls in the highest advertising rates, this is not a small detail worth glossing over.

Idol reportedly nabs as much as $700,000 per 30 second spot from its top sponsors. During last year's finale, it pulled in $1.3 million per spot. In comparison, Bones pulls in below average rates around $115,000 per 30 second spot. As you can see, by bumping Bones for the evening and offering two-hours of star-studded Idol entertainment, FOX is able to rake in a lot more advertising bucks. We're talking millions of dollars here. At $700,000 a pop, they only have to run 10 commercials and they make $7 million. Run 20 commercials, and they're making $14 million. Even in 2005, Idol's two-hour finale brought in over $40 million in TV advertising. With that in mind, News Corp's $5 million doesn't seem all that generous, does it?

Which is why this whole charity event rubs me the wrong way. Can't you see where I might find it a bit exploitive to use poverty-stricken children to attract A-List celebrities so you can hype a two-hour block of highly-desirable programming (which costs you very little to produce)? Especially, when this programming, which costs you little, generates huge advertising revenue and also boosts your ratings for another week. And as an extra bonus you have journalists around the world making declarations about your show "changing the world" and "saving the children?"

Interestingly enough, the biggest controversy surrounding the 9-11 and Tsunami telethons was instigated by FOX News' Bill O'Reilly. In 2005, O'Reilly said, "We want the telethon to be a big success, and we applaud the time and generosity of George Clooney and the other stars . . . But with power comes responsibility. And we expect all the telethon people to understand that." I agree with this statement, and I assume FOX does too. Of course, I'm not surprised that O'Reilly doesn't feel the need to personally scrutinize a celebrity-driven event hosted by FOX.

Perhaps I'm being overly-cynical, and FOX will break even on the night or even generously donate ALL of the advertising revenue generated by the event. I'm open to the possibility that I may be wrong and FOX is running the entire event WITHOUT commercials. I've tried my best to find the facts, but FOX publicity hasn't exactly made any of this clear. Outside of the on-air hype, we've received few details. I've emailed and left voicemails for FOX, and haven't received any immediate response. So I'm left with my questions.

One thing is clear -- FOX and American Idol are going to raise a lot of money this week. And this is a good thing. It certainly is about time the money-making juggernaut "gave something back." But I think it's worth asking what's in it for them? And I'm wondering why I'm the only one even asking.

Louis Louis

2007-04-16T21:03:00.000-07:00

I've been enjoying watching two guys named Louis this week. Roberto Luongo and Louis Theroux. Roberto has of course been unbeatable for the Canucks in the playoffs. Louis Theroux is a british documentary film maker who makes really interesting documentaries on fascinating people throughout the world. The clip I've posted is a documentary he did on the Westboro Baptist church in Topeka, Kansas. If you do a Google video/You Tube search for him you can find more. I also watched one on Thai brides. Louis really tries to bring out the humanity in all of the people he encounters even if they are completely deluded which they usually are...I'm watching one called Bible Bashers right now which is about born again Christians in Dallas Texas.

Be there!

2007-04-04T13:24:00.000-07:00

Rastafarianism and the Kingdom of Jah

2007-03-30T23:12:00.000-07:00

When most people think of Bob Marley's Rastafarianism they think only of marijuana. While marijuana is a part of Rastafarianism it is not nearly the whole of a very profound spirituality.

As I mentioned in the previous blog Bob suffered from the racism that accompanied the heavy weight of colonialism that hung on his ancestors shoulders. When faced with the western Christianity of their oppressors the Jamaican people clearly found it difficult to relate to this version of Christ. Instead searching for a Messianic figure the Rastafarians turned to Haile Selassie the black emperor of Etheopia, whose name translates into The Lion of Judah.

Old pirates, yes, they rob I;
Sold I to the merchant ships,
Minutes after they took I
From the bottomless pit.
But my hand was made strong
By the 'and of the Almighty.
We forward in this generation
Triumphantly. (Redemption Song)

This was the black messiah who would free them from their opression. Much like the teachings of Jesus Rastas believed this freedom would come through peace and love for neighbour more so than a political struggle. The struggle of the Rasta Man is against Babylon much like it is for the Christian - against the imperial powers of this earth that opress the poor and keep the people in spiritual exile (The Beast of Revelations). In "chanting down" these powers Bob's music can be seen as prophetic. In watching Bob perform a friend of mine from Trinidad agreed that he seems to eminate the Holy Spirit. Furthermore the "Rastafarians worship Jah or as the Isralites called him Jahovah, they follow many of the Old Testiment's laws in reverence for Jah.

Hallelu-Jah!)
(Hallelu-Jah!)

Love to see when ya move in the rhythm;
I love to see, when you're dancin' from within!
It gives great joy to feel such sweet togetherness,
Everyone doin' and they're doing their best
Huh, it remind I of the days in Jericho,
When we troddin' down Jericho walls:
These are the days when we'll trod t'rough Babylon, (na-na, na-na)
Gonna trod until Babylon falls. (Jump Nyabinghi)

In light of these factors I wonder whether one can claim that Rastafarians are part of a different covenant than ours. They may not know the saviour by the same name or skin colour but perhaps the fault of this can fall at the feet of those who brought Jesus to them at one hand and held them chained at the other. I find in the lyrics, music, and passion of Bob Marley a beautiful expression of man reaching out to his creator trying to express the longings of the soul and I believe that when we sit at the same table in the new creation I will hear the "Rasta Man Vibrations"...

Let's get together to fight this Holy Armagiddyon (One Love!),
So when the Man comes there will be no, no doom (One Song!).
Have pity on those whose chances grows t'inner;
There ain't no hiding place from the Father of Creation.

Sayin': One Love! What about the One Heart? (One Heart!)
What about the - ? Let's get together and feel all right.
I'm pleadin' to mankind! (One Love!);
Oh, Lord! (One Heart) Wo-ooh!
(One Love/People Get Ready)

"One Love" indeed!

Bob Marley - War

2007-03-18T23:50:00.000-07:00

Until the philosophy which hold one race superior
And another
Inferior
Is finally
And permanently
Discredited
And abandoned -
Everywhere is war -
Me say war.
That until there no longer
First class and second class citizens of any nation
Until the colour of a man's skin
Is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes -
Me say war.
That until the basic human rights
Are equally guaranteed to all,
Without regard to race -
Dis a war.
That until that day
The dream of lasting peace,
World citizenship
Rule of international morality
Will remain in but a fleeting illusion to be pursued,
But never attained -
Now everywhere is war - war.
And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes
that hold our brothers in Angola,
In Mozambique,
South Africa
Sub-human bondage
Have been toppled,
Utterly destroyed -
Well, everywhere is war -
Me say war.
War in the east,
War in the west,
War up north,
War down south -
War - war -
Rumours of war.
And until that day,
The African continent
Will not know peace,
We Africans will fight - we find it necessary -
And we know we shall win
As we are confident
In the victory
Of good over evil -
Good over evil, yeah!
Good over evil -
Good over evil, yeah!
Good over evil -
Good over evil, yeah!

This song is one of my all-time favourites by one of my all-time favourite artists - the prophet Bob Marley.
Whenever Bob sang it was froom the very roots of his soul. This song had so much personal attachment for him as he sung about many themes that deeply impacted his life:

Poverty and Inequality - He grew up in the slums of Kingston Jamaica in an area called Trenchtown.
Colonialism - Jamaica was under the burden of the British empire and still fealt the effects. Bob's father was a English man who left Bob's mother while he was a child.(Not to mention that the African Jamaican's came to the island as slaves.)
Racism - Besides the systemic racism Bob must have fealt growing up in Jamaica he also faced prejudices because of his mixed race.
African Liberation - Bob was a tireless campaigner for African liberation from colonialism from Angola to Zimbabwe.

Next blog: Bob Marley's spirituality: Rastafarianism and the Kingdom of Jah

I did it!

2007-03-16T00:07:00.000-07:00

This just in !! Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has admitted to being the second shooter on the grassy knoll...

Wait...he has also confessed to being the father of Anna Nicole Smith's child Dannie Lynn.

Kidding aside, is anybody really buying this story? Here we have a guy arrested 4 years ago kept in CIA secret prisons and then sent to GTMO. He has obviously been tortured and brain washed (the sections of his statement that reveal this have been blanked out). He had no right to a lawyer and was questioned by U.S. authorities who are the only ones to have heard his testimony and have released it after censoring the dirty bits.

They should have done a better job of censorship in my opinion. To make this thing even a little bit more believable they could have done without admitting that the testimony included claims of 29 other terror plots and the beheading of Pearl.

Even the 911 Commission report and other investigations have claimed KSM is "prone to exaggeration" and likes to inflate his immage as a "superterrorist".

Watching the CBC today (the CBC mind you, not even FOX news or CNN!) I heard them suggest that these claims may be used to further justify the war on terrorism. It made me shudder.

I'm not discounting the possibility that KSM could have had something to do with 9-11 (I have my doubts). But even so there are a multitude of reasons not to take what this guys saying with a remote grain of seriousness. And yet this is the justification for the war on terrorism? Much like the justification for the war in Iraq was built upon a mountain of B.S. I can smell the same stench.

The Power of Nightmares

2007-03-11T22:59:00.000-07:00

Somewhat related to my last blog on governments use of war to controll the public. I am posting a link to the video The Power of Nightmares which was directed by Adam Curtis and originally aired on the BBC.

The documentary follows the rise to power of neoconservativism in the United States and radical Islam in the Middle East. I think it's argument is made extremley well - that governments use dystopian nightmares rather than utopian dreams to govern. It really builds on alot of facinating details that influence global politics alot today.

One criticism that one might have of the film is that it underestimates Al Quaida and radical Islamic terrorism (it was made before the attacks in London). I disagree, I think the potency in the film is in that it demonstrates that this power struggle is about ideologies more so than actual logistics. In fact there is a poignant qoute late in part three of the film where the narrator suggests that the danger of Al Quida is not in an elite network of united terrorist cells which do not exhist but it is in the radical ideas which are influencing a young generation of disenfranchised Arab men. And of course vis-versa it underscores the ideological background of Bush and co.'s foreign policies.

Watch it and see what you think

War is Peace!

2007-03-09T15:02:00.000-08:00

A passage from George Orwell's 1984 written in 1948:

Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.

As I heard this passage today (I'm listening to the book on CD) I reflected on my earlier post "Lest We Forget" . Orwell imagined a time of continuous war under the party's slogan "WAR IS PEACE!". In this continuous and ambiguos war the enemy and the allies were constantly changing with little memory of the past - simply the feeling that "the enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil". In my previous post I discussed this kind of lapse of memory in relation to American involvement in the Iran-Iraq war. However, this incident is not an isolated one. It seems, since the dawn of the twentieth century the idea of continuous war has permiated our lives and is used by government as a means of controlling the mindset of the public in an Orwellian sence.

In 1948 when Orwell published 1984 the second world war had just ended and the Cold war mindset was beginning to seep into the public concience. 1984 itself was written in response to the Soviet authoritarian regime but obviouslly with wider implications. By the early 1950s the U.S. decided it was enemies with the Soviets who had worked together with the Allies in WWII. This fifty year long cold war lead to continuous wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Latin America. All the while the notion of the "evil empire" and the "soviet threat" was systematically propegated to the masses to induce an image of absolute evil in the "enemies" of the U.S.. This led the people to activley and passivley accept the wars as a necessary bulkwark against evil and an active protection and promotion of "Freedom" "Liberty" and "Democracy"...clearly these would be the slogans of America's "Big Brother". "War is peace" is not so different as many of the wars were fought under the guise of peace (Truman hailed the era of peace that had arrived when the wonderous atomic bomb was unleashed).

After the cold war ended a new threat needed to emerge in order for the continuos war to ...well continue. Enter the war on terrorism, with an even more vague mandate than the war on communism - the war on terrorism united the American public under the same party "slogans". As the president hailed a new era of peace in regions where war had ravaged for decades (as mentioned previouslly with the aid of America). Much like the citizens of Oceania the citizens of America seemingly forgot the lessons from previous wars and ignored or forgot the fact that absolute enemies such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran ...were once allies (they are still fighting with American weapons). On the home front the people still chant the parties slogans and accept the continuos war.

Of course things in America are not nearly as bleak as Oceana. The "thought police" exhist and are even more empowered through the Patriot Act, the continuous war rages on with little resistance although some, BUT there are some who stand up against the party and refuse to be manipulated by the hopeless messages it broadcasts through the "Ministry of Truth" and "telescreens" of the mainstream news media.

Some people dare to say that war and peace are antithetical and that peace can never be the end when war is the means.

Bob Dylan Song

2007-03-04T01:07:00.000-08:00

MASTERS OF WAR - BOB DYLAN

Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes

You that build the big bombs

 You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know I can see through your masks


You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy


You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly


Like Judas of old  
You lie and deceive


 A world war can be won 
You want me to believe


But I see through your eyes 
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain


 You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud


You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world


For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins


How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned


But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do


Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could


I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul


And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon


And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

Bob Dylan (1963)

Silent Spring and Sparrow Songs

2007-02-26T00:09:00.000-08:00

Any new father will tell you that your perception of life changes once you have a child. Not only do you experience life and understand it more wholy through the discoveries and growth of your child but you also realize that you have a new sence of commitment to bettering yourself and the world around you for your child as well.

With this background I will describe some of the emotions that I fealt reading Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962) this week.

First of all Carter - my five month old - has discovered birds. My wife or I will hold him up to the window and he will strain his neck to follow the flight of a crow or a sparrow as it dances atop a telephone wire or flies from tree to tree in our suburban neighbourhood. There is something absoultly exhilarating in Carter's expression as he discovers the wonders of bird watching and it obviouslly rubs off on us as well.

With this experience freshly etched into my heart and soul - along with the excitement at the idea of taking Carter bird watching to identify all of the beautiful and exotic species that visit our West Coast - I began reading Rachel Carson's Silent Spring one of the key literate contributions to the formation of the environmental movement. In one chapter she discusses the silencing of the bird songs:

Over increasingly large areas of the United States, spring now comes unheralded by the return of the birds, and the early mornings are strangely silent where once they were filled with the beauty of bird song. This sudden silencing of the song of birds, this obliteration of the color and beauty and interest they lend to our world have come about swiftly, insidiously, and unnoticed by those whose communities are as yet unaffected.
Rachel Carson, pp. 103

She goes on to describe why this silencing has taken place - largley responsible are the use of chemical pesticides and herbacides as well as the elimination of habitat and food sources.

My thoughts returned to Carter and I began to wonder if he/we were seeing or hearing nearly as many birds as I did when I was a child. I also wondered when was the last time I saw a Robin on my lawn eating an earth worm... I wonder if I just stopped noticing caught in my un-childlike state or whether there was actually a decline. I also wondered and shivered at the thought that when Carter is my age many of the species of birds and other animals will have "gone the way of" the __ insert any of the thousands of extinct species. Finally I considered the oft-mentioned scriptural reference to "His eye is on the sparrow" and wondered what a Creator would think of mankind's self-mutilating destruction of Creation. I know that my Western lifestyle is part of the system that is responsible for this destruction and I desperatley want to change... not only for myself but for my son and future children and for the Creator who's eyes and ears are seeing and hearing every silenced sparrow song.

The Revolution Will Not be Televised

2007-02-15T22:08:00.000-08:00

DIRECTED AND PHOTOGRAPHED BY KIM BARTLEY AND DONNACHA O'BRIAIN IRELAND, 2003 74 MINUTES

A documentary on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

Inside the Story - Lest We Forget

2007-02-14T14:54:00.000-08:00

U.S. officials are now backing down from their claims that Iran was supplying Iraqi 'insurgents' with arms to fight American troops. So if the Bush administration was looking for a reason to invade Iran they will have to look for another smoking gun. I think what gets lost is the irony of the whole situation. In the above picture former Sec Def Donald Rumsfeld is shaking hands with Iraqi aghemm former Iraqi prime minister Saddam Hussein back when the U.S. was supplying arms including chemical weapons to Iraq to fight their war against Iran. Furthermore several decades ago the American government through the C.I.A. was shipping weapons to Iran in exchange for funding to a terrorist group in Nicaragua (actions that were labeled as an illegal act of aggression by the U.N....

Somehow the double standards go unoticed and unmentioned.

However if the U.S. is wondering where all of the arms in the Middle East are coming from they don't have to look very far.

Bush backs down on Iran weapons claims

Why am I watching the Grammy's? I may as well just watch American Idol!

2007-02-11T22:38:00.000-08:00

Carrie Underwood totally deserved the best new artist Grammy award cause she's like totally awesome and so good I like loved her on American Idol she's so tallented and everything! I mean here's some of her lyrics:
"Everytime I see you I'm alive
You're all I've got
You lift me up
The sun and the moonlight
All my dreams are in your eyes"
And she's like the best singer ever and she probablly like writes her own lyrics and stuff anyway she's way more cool than like stupid British people with wierd sounding music that's like too not like normal and American and everything. Carrie Underwood's so good cause she like sounds like other people that are good and stuff.
She's such an inspiration and she totally deserves it....

Steve Earl's Rich Man's War

2007-02-06T15:30:00.000-08:00

Jimmy joined the army ‘cause he had no place to go
There ain’t nobody hirin’
‘round here since all the jobs went
down to Mexico
Reckoned that he’d learn himself a trade maybe see the world
Move to the city someday and marry a black haired girl
Somebody somewhere had another plan
Now he’s got a rifle in his hand
Rollin’ into Baghdad wonderin’ how he got this far
Just another poor boy off to fight a rich man’s war

Bobby had an eagle and a flag tattooed on his arm
Red white and blue to the bone when he landed in Kandahar
Left behind a pretty young wife and a baby girl
A stack of overdue bills and went off to save the world
Been a year now and he’s still there
Chasin’ ghosts in the thin dry air
Meanwhile back at home the finance company took his car
Just another poor boy off to fight a rich man’s war

When will we ever learn
When will we ever see
We stand up and take our turn
And keep tellin’ ourselves we’re free

Ali was the second son of a second son
Grew up in Gaza throwing bottles and rocks when the tanks would come
Ain’t nothin’ else to do around here just a game children play
Somethin’ ‘bout livin’ in fear all your life makes you hard that way

He answered when he got the call
Wrapped himself in death and praised Allah
A fat man in a new Mercedes drove him to the door
Just another poor boy off to fight a rich man’s war

Viacom puts the squeeze on Google

2007-02-04T22:45:00.000-08:00

I have enjoyed the convenience of using Google Video and You Tube to post video content on my Blogger blog, however, there is a dark side to this convenience as well... Google owns all of these internet services and has become part of an elite circle of media oligopolies in the global market. As these media giants expand our freedoms diminish. I can cite numerous examples of this in every mass medium of communication but I will stick to the story I read on the BBC today. Viacom the parent compant of CBS, UPN (or whatever it's called now), MTV, Blockbuster, hundreds of radio stations - newspapers and publishing companies, has asked You Tube to remove over 100,000 videos that contain Viacom content that isn't directly giving Viacom profit (although surely it is promoting more consupmtion of there media). Now this in itself does not come as a great surprise and I don't think the world will be worse off without being able to watch clips from Jackass or Tyra Banks yelling on America's Next Top Model. However, looking at the larger context I consider it to be a step in a general trend towards the controlling of the internet by these media conglomerations. The internet which is supposed to be a new DEMOCRATIC medium - Time magazine (part of the giant Time-Warner) called their person of the year (You) because of the popularity of sites like You Tube. Well I ask how much freedom we really have.

If we are being restricted from sharing meaningless media content which supports the media empire how much more are we being restricted and going to be restricted from saying things that are really important?

Just some food for thought...transmitted through a conduit of the very structure I am trying to critique.

BBC Article
Save the Internet (Hopefully Google doesn't erase this link

Comments on End of Religion Video

2007-01-25T23:48:00.000-08:00

The discussion on the End of Religion Video on Tyler's blog has been so good that I've been too busy following it to post on my own blog. Check it out! END OF RELIGION DISCUSSION

End of Religion

2007-01-19T00:53:00.001-08:00


A call to end war in the name of God.

War on Christmas?

2007-01-17T21:14:00.000-08:00

Originally Posted Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:06:35

The truth is there has been a war on Christmas for many years. The war is not being waged by liberal atheists or by immoral profit mongerers; it is a war being waged by the church themselves. When I say the “church” I am not trying to over generalize. Specifically I’m referring to the institutions of the church that have recently been in the media spotlight highlighting the purported “attack on Christmas”. This “attack” is being waged against the church by Wal-Mart, Target, the Gap, and the like. Apparently America’s largest retailers can underpay their workers, buy consumer goods made in ‘third world’ sweatshops, and rape and pillage the environment but when they mess with the Christ in Christmas they’ve gone too far. Well personally the Christ I know would be more concerned with boycotting large corporations for the previous offences than for not having his name on a banner in their store windows. The Bible tells of Jesus overturning the tables of the sellers whose malpractice was an affront to the ideals of his way of life. When did the church loose sight of this? When did the corporations get to define the meaning of Christmas?

In the second chapter of Luke, Mary sings:

He has shown strength with his arm;
He has scattered the proud in the imaginations of their hearts.
He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
And lifted up the lowly;
He has filled the hungry with good things,
And sent the rich away empty.

Jim Wallis of Sojourners Magazine highlights the meaning of this text:

“Mary is herself a poor young woman, part of an oppressed race and living in an occupied country. Her prayer is the hope of the downtrodden everywhere, a prophecy that those who rule by wealth and domination, rather than by serving the common good, will be overturned because of what has just happened in the little town of Bethlehem.”
(Wallis 130-131)

This is the true meaning of Christmas. Instead of allowing our celebration of the coming of Jesus Christ to be defined by the holy temples of American capitalism, we must realize that Jesus Christ came to overturn those who “rule by wealth and domination, rather than by serving the common good”. If we fail to realize this and fail to act on it by boycotting greedy corporations and speaking out against corporate and government policies that trample on the poor and oppressed in North America and the rest of the world then we wage a war on the true meaning of Christmas ourselves.

Wallis, Jim. God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It. San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2005.

The Other Hostage

2007-01-17T21:13:00.000-08:00

Originally Posted Fri, 9 Dec 2005 18:43:08

My prayers are with the eight hostages who may be executed after their deadlines expire. Seven of the hostages are, of course, peace-makers being held in Iraq. The eighth hostage is also a peace maker being held in California, Stanley (Tookie) Williams.

The seven brave men in Iraq were some of the first people to stand up against the war in Iraq. As was pointed out by Sunni Arab clerics who have called for their release. In this sense they are peacemakers who have stood up against the opposition from their government’s policies and against many of their countrymen who profess to be of the same faith yet fail to profess the Christmas message of “peace on earth and good will to men”. I pray that justice will be done and there will be peace on earth in that situation.

The man in the prison cell in California is being held for murders which he may or may not have commited. He was found guilty merley on circumstancial evedence. He is also scheduled to be excecuted despite the fact that he has become a vangaurd peacemaker in the gang culture of southern california. He has written several books and made a movie urging for a stop to the vicious cycle of violence in American inner-city streets. Despite these efforts an ultimate act of violence may be taken against him next week. So I do what I can and pray for God’s justice and peace on earth to come this advent season.

Not Suprised

2007-01-17T20:58:00.000-08:00

Originally Posted Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:36:05

Should we be surprised that the Neocons have so openly presented their new preemptive strike plan with nuclear weapons? I wonder if we should be surprised by anything anymore. I mean even the chief was “claiming responsibility” for his actions…or lack thereof today. In truth nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to this administration that seems blind to their folly. What am I saying they aren’t blind, they are perfectly aware of their intentions they just aren’t aware of the consequences. Well at least we can trust their intelligence agencies when it comes to WMD’s. They wouldn’t attack a country without proper evidence would they? At least not with nuclear weapons right…? Well I guess I wouldn’t be surprised.

RFK - Man of Sorrows

2007-01-17T20:48:00.000-08:00

Originally posted on Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:15:30

Today I watched a PBS documentary on the life of Robert Kennedy http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rfk/.

It moved me almost to tears to see the tragedy of RFK’s life and death and how powerfully this man was changed by grief and public responsibility.

I am convinced that had RFK not been murdered he would have become the President of the United States and made a profound positive impact in a tumultuous time in American life not unlike the situation of today.

It was with reluctance that RFK first joined the civil rights movement, then the ‘war on poverty’, and finally the anti-Vietnam-war movement. However, when Kennedy realized the moral implications of these movements he was compelled to pour his very soul into their ideologies.

Robert Kennedy said after the Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.:

What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or lawlessness; but love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or they be black …
Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world.

In these times of political unrest and polarity in American Politics we can only hope for courageous young men like RFK to stand up and speak against injustice and foolishness in the policies of the government. Men who will also learn from their experiences and through their suffering gain wisdom. RFK seemed to gain this courage and strength as he aged, this should be an example for all of us.

To take the good and evil that we are faced with and through it build a firm resolve to stand up for the causes of the downtrodden and oppressed peoples of America and the world.

God Bless RFK
1925-1968

HAPPY MLK DAY

2007-01-15T21:57:00.000-08:00

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

This summer a co-worker and self professed athiest asked me what good religion has ever done? A valid question, one that I as a Christian have been exploring at church collectivley as well as personally. I could have discussed that Jesus himself asked similar questions - challenging the religious institutions who were responsible for corrupt and oppressive practices in his time while ultimatley providing an alternetive example to religion in himself. Instead I pointed to a man who seems to be one of the most powerful examples of doing good in the name of his faith - Martin Luther King Jr. MLK was a prophet as great as Moses a man whom he paraphrased as he spoke longingly of his people's march to the promissed land, a promised land that is far from being reached as post Katrina events will attest to. However, MLK is in my opinion the prototype for what a Christ follower in these times should look like. A champion of the poor and oppressed, a crusader for peace and justice, and a humble servant of a heavenly master while servant to no man on earth. I could write endlessly of my admiration for MLK but instead I will post some of what I think are his most resonant qoutes.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

If a man is called to be a streetsweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great streetsweeper who did his job well.

Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression and out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light."

Martin Luther King preaches against war

2007-01-15T21:55:00.001-08:00


This speech was originally directed against the war in Vietnam. But today it is more relevant than ever. Made by Eric Blumrich

The resurrection...of my blog

2007-01-13T02:00:00.000-08:00

Well I haven't made a post on this blog since last May and I only created this blog for a class assignment (hence the early posts). However I was inspired by my buddy Tyler and I am resurrecting my blog as of today. I plan on posting ideas, questions, and content that will be thought provoking and foster some dialogue among myself and others, who are actually reading this.

Picture Our World

2006-05-19T09:39:00.000-07:00

This picture was concieved of and taken by a child in Buenos Aires Argentina. I like it because I doubt that the children even know the meaning of the gesture while at the same time it provides a stark commentary on what a child maybe ought to feel as a result of the conditions they face in a global economic system that has desimated much of the population of countries like Argentina.

A Blog on Blogs/Final statement/summary

2005-04-04T17:29:00.000-07:00

Blogs are all the rage these days, remember when raves used to be the rage? Then there were pogs… and now it’s blogs. I Googled “blog” on their news site and there were over nine thousand results! I’ll be honest I wasn’t hip to blogs before I took Communications 253. I had probably heard the word “blog” but I couldn’t tell you the difference between a blog and a bog. Enough conundruming for now…

My experience with blogging has been a good one. I have found out what blogs are, who makes them (everyone apparently), and how they can be used as a communications medium.

When I posted a message I found that the excitement of the blog was seeing what responses I would get back. Unfortunately I didn’t get many. I think that it is this interaction with blog material that makes blogging a useful communications tool. Anyone can create a blog on anything… but does this mean that their blog is actually saying something? Is their blog actually being read? At least some blogs encourage discussion on important issues such as social justice, politics, information technology and society. This discussion through posting comments and joining a blog community committed to a cause is important.

One blog community that I became enamoured with throughout the course was an alternative media site called The Guerrilla News Network or GNN. Many think that sites like GNN will provide a balance against the bias media that we are faced with in society. As government control of the internet increases I sincerely hope that sites like GNN and other blogging communities will still be able to provide alternative sources of news and information that is often more credible than mainstream media.

The Guerrilla News Network:
http://www.guerrillanews.com

Instant Messenger and Privacy

2005-04-04T16:50:00.000-07:00

My original plan was to do a poll on Instant Messenger asking users if they were concerned with privacy. However, I realised I couldn’t get away with just asking a simple yes or no question without getting into long conversations with people I’ve blocked for the sole purpose of avoiding long conversations. Pretty much the only people unblocked on my messenger list are people that don’t try to talk to me. Am I a bad messenger buddy? Probably… but I’ve already dealt with “why I hate instant messenger”. Today’s topic is the dreaded P word … Privacy.

One definition of privacy used by Richard Smith was that of Hendricks who said:
“You go through life dropping little bits of data about yourself everywhere.
Following right after you are big vacuum cleaners sucking them up (Smith, 2005).” These giant vacuum cleaners are corporations and in some cases criminals who can use our “data droppings” to market to us or to steal from us.

I never considered privacy as an issue while using instant messenger, unless my mom came into the room and started reading over my shoulder while I was chatting.However, in an online article I read from the Houston Chronicle they point out that AOL’s Instant Messenger services don’t promise that our conversations won’t be monitored. It says such right there in the terms of service agreement which we all read carefully:

". . . .by posting Content on an AIM Product, you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. You waive any right to privacy (Silverman, 2005)."

Does privacy matter to the average Instant Messenger user? Usually the nature of instant messenger conversations would seem uninteresting to interest snoops. However, AOL is part of one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, why wouldn’t AOL/TIME/WARNER use young messengers conversations to market their products to budding consumers. In my previous blog I discussed advertising on Instant Messenger, perhaps this is where AOL/TIME/WARNER will market their products which they know you like because they’ve been watching you.

Silverman, D. (March 13, 2005). N0 privacy 4 u, LOL!!!!!. The Houston Chronicle. Retrieved April 4, 2005, from http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/3081870

Smith, R. (2005). Week 8 Notes – Privacy. Retrieved March 7, 2005, from http://webct.sfu.ca/SCRIPT/cmns253bd1spring05/scripts/serve_home.

Instant Messenger and Advertising

2005-03-23T11:24:00.000-08:00

When we think of communications medium the first thing that comes to mind is probably not advertising, unless perhaps we are thinking of a billboard. Social software as I have pointed out in previous blogs is supposed to be democratizing and free from some of the evils of advertising that plague television and radio. I wondered if the truth was that the advertising on Instant Messenger is just subtler? I decided to do some research and see how many advertisements I was exposed to just by signing in to IM. On signing in a separate window pops up with flashy entertainment news headlines under the heading of “MSN TODAY”. Following are the ads that appeared in the “MSN TODAY” window:

Date.ca
Lava Life
Zip.ca – A DVD retailer.
Classmates.com
Shopping.msn
News.msn
Sympatico

After checking out these flashy advertisements, some included pictures or moving images, I looked at the advertising in the actual messenger program. At the bottom of the messenger window was a flashing advertisement for Monstor.ca encouraging me to visit their site and search for the job of my dreams. Along with the monstrous add (no pun intended) at the bottom of the window there were a number of more subtle ads appearing as buttons along the left of the messenger window. They included the following:

Q6- a new IM
Lava Life
Ebay
Workopolis.com – Another job search site.
MSn Money
Sympatico/MSn Shopping

So in the thirty seconds it took me to open Instant Messenger I had been exposed to 13 advertisements! What effects do these advertisements have on the average MSN user? In the early 1920’s radio was coming into the foreground of American society. Wade Rowland describes how the potential use of advertising in radio frightened the then Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, who is quoted as saying: “The ether is a public medium and must be used for the public good. It is quite inconceivable that it should be used for advertising (Rowland, 1999, p.162).”

Hoover’s fears turned out to be well founded as advertising went on to ruin radio’s potential to bring about public good. Today the Internet is supposed to bring about public good by providing more information and thus knowledge to societies. However, this is not happening. Through my analysis of advertising on instant messenger I have shown that advertising is quietly bombarding us in ways we fail to notice or consider. So what should we do about it? I feel that we should simply be aware of the fact that advertising is prevalent in instant messenger and to realize the affects it may have on the user.

Rowland, Wade (1999). Spirit of the Web. Toronto: Key Porter Books.

Does Instant Messenger Foster Democracy?

2005-03-09T16:05:00.000-08:00

In my last blog I discussed Instant Messenger’s status a convivial tool. I stated that although Instant Messenger can be considered a convivial tool I don’t believe it will aid in the transformation of society that some theorists believe convivial tools are capable of. In this blog I will discuss why Instant Messenger won’t transform society by making it more democratic.

When the telephone, another convivial tool, was introduced to Great Britain there was great concern that it would break down social barriers between the classes (Rowland, 1999, p.110). Anybody could have a telephone and could contact anyone else. As Rowland puts it:

“It was this fact of common subscription to a shared system that was the equalizing factor. The system treated everyone the same: nobody’s voice, nobody’s ring, was louder than anyone else’s on the telephone network (Rowland 1999, p.111).”

These aspects of the telephone apply to Instant Messenger in the same way and contribute to the democratizing influence of the technology. It is this democratizing influence that is the strength behind convivial tools. I believe that the technology of Instant Messenger as a social software has the potential to be a democratizing influence but there are several things that limit it’s potential for spreading democracy:

- Instant Messenger is mainly used for point-to-point communication which limits the ability to reach a mass audience with messages such as information on a political rally.
- Instant Messenger has a stigma of being used by young people and not by influential business people, or politicians. (If you want to talk to your M.P. you don’t instant message him or her.)
- Advertising has become a bigger part of Instant Messenger and it’s messages may dissolve meaning in political messages. (As was the case with radio.)
- Most users don’t try to use Instant Messenger as a democratizing tool. They use it for pleasure.

Having said this there are some people who do use Instant Messenger to build communities, and sometimes - political communities. In one article I read a group of hundreds of college students used the Internet to network a “global dialogue to nurture democracy.”

“For example, Eshobode Bello, a student in Nigeria, has begun chatting daily with Muhammad Sabbir Al Fattah Khan from Bangladesh, about such heady matters as environmental sustainability and war (Roach, 2004).”

This networking based on political ideologies can help spread democratic ideals throughout the world but in my opinion it doesn’t do much to actually bring about democracy. Someone in Nigeria and someone in Bangladesh can talk on a computer about democracy but until the Nigerian is able to gather his fellow Nigerians to the cause of a more democratic society in Nigeria, little will be accomplished in his dialogue. The power of democracy is in the people but Instant Messenger is doing little to unite mass groups of people. It is instead serving as a distraction from positive action and causing more people to stay at home and send powerless messages far across the void of a global community that is becoming more interested in consumer goals than democratic goals. As can be seen in the increased amount of advertising on Instant Messenger.

Rowland, Wade (1999). Spirit of the Web. Toronto: Key Porter Books.

Roach, Ronald (2004). Student Group Uses Internet to Foster Democracy. Black Issues in Higher Education. 21:6. Retrieved March 9, 2005 from Academic Search Elite (EBSCOhost)

Is Instant Messenger a Convivial Tool?

2005-02-25T19:34:00.000-08:00

In Spirit of The Web Wade Rowland discusses Ivan Illich’s term “Convivial” tools. In this blog I will explain what a Convivial tool is and why or why not instant messenger may be considered a Convivial tool.

Illich says convivial tools are tools that “foster self-realization, by enhancing the ability of people to pursue their own goals in their own unique way (Rowland, 109).” Several key features of Convivial tools are:

· They can be easily used by anyone
· They are used for a purpose chosen by the user
· They don’t inhibit anyone else from using them equally
· Their existence doesn’t obligate the user to use them
· They allow the user to express his meaning in action (Rowland, 109)

Rowland calls the telephone and the internet Convivial technologies (Rowland, 110). It would certainly seem that Instant Messenger would receive that title as well. Instant messenger is user friendly, it’s designed to be very simple and even a beginner could use it. The purpose of the program is definitely chosen by the user, whether it is to talk to a love interest or work on a school project (as mentioned in previous blogs). Using IM doesn’t inhibit anyone else from using the software so long as there are enough CPU’s in your home. There is equality in who can use instant messenger software because it’s free. Instant Messenger’s existence doesn’t obligate the user to use it per-se, however, there are often obligations to talk to people you may not want to. This problem is often avoided by blocking contacts or changing your appearance to “away” or “busy”. I have heard people express feelings of guilt for ignoring people’s messages but I don’t feel that there is a real obligation anymore than there is an obligation to pick up the phone when it rings. Finally Instant messenger allows the user to express his meaning in action, however, that expression is limited by the technology. The telephone is better for expressing meaning as vocal aspects such as tone of voice add more information to the message. Having said that audio and video feeds are available through Instant Messenger for those who wish to have the audio/visual aspects of communication.

Because of the factors I have pointed out I can conclude that Ivan Illich would call Instant Messenger a Convivial technology. But does Instant Messenger really “foster self-reliance and self-realization?” It seems a bit of a stretch for me to go that far. Instant messenger is definitely an almost universally accepted communications technology, much like the telephone was. I am still sceptical as to whether IM will be able to bring about the changes to society or the individual that some would claim it might. Stay tuned for more on this…

Rowland, Wade (1999). Spirit of the Web. Toronto: Key Porter Books.

Instant Messenger and Romance?

2005-02-12T17:53:00.000-08:00

Last week my wife and I watched the romantic comedy You’ve Got Mail. In the movie, Tom Hanks’ character, Joe, falls in love with Meg Ryan’s character, Kathleen, after they build an online relationship which includes emailing and instant messaging. As I watched, I was surprised to find myself analyzing much of the themes of the film in relation to CMNS 253. I actually enjoyed the movie and decided to dedicate a blog to the topic of romance/dating and instant messaging. Perhaps suitable considering Valentines Day will probably see a lot of single people logging in and looking for love.

My first objective is to point out ways that Instant Messaging is used for romantic relationship purposes. I have compiled this list from my own experiences and the experiences of my friends.
· Connecting with potential romantic partners
· Relationship building
· Flirting
· Cyber Sex
· Proposing and planning face-to-face meetings (dates)
· Communicating with a special someone

All of these uses were also included in You’ve Got Mail as Joe and Kathleen’s relationship progressed. One interesting fact is that their admiration of each other is based solely on their online relationship. They had previously met in person (without knowing it) and they despised each other. Of course being Hollywood, Joe and Kathleen end up living happily ever after. But is online relationship building really as effective as face-to-face relationship building? I would say, definitely not.

When talking to the person on the other end of the instant message you have no idea whether they are even who they say they are or mean what they are saying. In a face-to-face meeting you can see the person’s body language and facial expressions and get a more complete interpersonal message.

However, that is part of the beauty of using instant messenger. You can talk to the “hottie” from the party last weekend without blushing or worrying about your gaze wandering. You have time to come up with thoughtful questions and witty responses. And you can do all of this while slumping in your computer chair, in your boxers, with a slice of left-over pizza, while watching the game. This scenario seems to hark back to Kierkegaard and commitment. Flirting and talking to the opposite sex on instant messenger is easy because you don’t have to be committed and you can be someone you’re can’t be when you are interacting face-to-face.

This aspect of instant messaging can be dangerous to those who may use the social software to flirt at the workplace. According to a 2004 article in Business Weekly Online 24% of respondents say “they or their colleagues access the Web at the office for romantic or sexual purposes (Wahlgren, 2004) .” The article goes on to quote Lou DiLorenzo, co-chair of Bond, Schoeneck & King's labor and employment-law department:

"People get very casual with e-mail (or IM) because it seems distant and detached, but it can become part of your permanent record if it ends up violating workplace policies."

DiLorenzo goes on to point to the potential of perceived harassment through instant messenger conversations.

In conclusion, instant messaging is an easy, and safe way to seek possible romantic relationships. However, although a Hollywood happy ending may await instant messenger romance seekers, one must be careful not to allow the detached and easy qualities of communicating with instant messenger from the reality of acceptable relationship norms. Finally a romantic conversation on instant messenger will never be as complete as one in a face to face setting.

Works Cited:
Wahlgren, E. Cupid, Computers, and Colleagues. Business Week Online, 2/12/2004. Retrieved February 12, 2005 from Academic Search Premier (EBSco Host)

2005-02-04T18:50:00.000-08:00

Instant Messenger as a Study Tool?

I was in class last week discussing the paper I had feverishly written the night before when my friend Darrin told me that he and Julie had written the paper while talking on Instant Messenger and that it had been a big help. He asked me if I’d ever chatted with a classmate while writing a paper and I responded that the idea had never occurred to me. Can Instant Messaging be used as a study tool to help paper writing?

I’ve always seen at IM as a distraction when trying to type a paper so the idea that it could be used for group studying is new to me. There are times when I’m looking at the text or notes and I just can’t quite figure it out. I suppose the old cliché “two heads are better than one” could apply. If I were a positive instrumentalist, I would look at IM as a technological tool I should definitely utilize to increase my knowledge and improve my study skills (Smith, January 18). However, I don’t feel that Instant Messaging would be beneficial for me.

It does seem logical that Instant Messenger could be a useful study tool by serving as a connection for student dialogue on course material. The problem for myself would be distraction. If I log in to IM, I will see that I have new email messages. Once I check the email messages, the chances of being messaged by a non-class mate would be very high. Even after I block or ignore other would be chatters, I would have to focus on the conversation as well as the paper. Maybe my problem is that as a man I can’t multi-task? Either way it seems that having two tasks competing for my attention would be a detriment to my paper writing. The biggest problem is that instant messaging while writing a paper would distract my train of thought. For these reasons I can’t see IM being a useful tool for me to use while studying. This does not mean IM won’t or shouldn’t be used as a studying tool for other students.

In his paper discussing IM and education for Mount Saint Vincent’s University, Robert Farmer claims the use of IM in educational settings is still fairly low. He goes on to point out that this is hard to determine, however, because as in the case of my classmates it is not always a formal, educational, secure IM system that students are using as a study tool. Farmer concludes, “While it may be difficult to truly determine the level of usage within educational settings, one can expect usage to grow as more and more students of the information age mindset enter colleges and universities (Farmer, 2003).”

Farmer, Robert. (2003) Instant Messaging – Collaborative Tool or Educator’s nightmare!Retrieved February 4, 2005 from: http://naweb.unb.ca/proceedings/2003/PaperFarmer.html

Smith, Richard. (2005) Introduction to Information Technology. Retrieved February 4, 2005 from: http://webct.sfu.ca/SCRIPT/cmns253bd1spring05/scripts/serve_home

Søren Kierkegaard and Why I Hate Instant Messenger

2005-01-21T18:14:00.000-08:00

I didn’t always despise instant messaging. There was a time when my fingers would tingle with anticipation as I “clicked here to sign in”. I could type my username and password faster than any gunslinger in the west could draw their six-shooter. I’d wait impatiently for the little “signing in” window to disappear. Then instantly that familiar little blooop sound would signal a pop up and “*~Lizzete~* (my boyfriend is so hot)” says: yada yada yada. Within three seconds another blooop and “roo4you” says: yada yada. Then “sari-beri” has just signed in … etc. etc. etc.. I used to be able to flirt with 8 girls at a time while planning to get together and play basketball with “MR.AJ..(8)I've been watching u, watching me, and if destiny was meant to be I'm gonna hold U tight(8)” and discussing the latest hip-hop album with “Women be shopppin, women be shoPPIN! - Nov.13 (Sat.) my bday at Mirage, BE THERE! Guest line before 9pm”. However, the luster of instant messaging left me somewhere along the way. What happened?

That is the question, among others, that this blog will attempt to explain as it explores the social software of Instant Messenger.

“The public is not a people, it is not a generation, it is not a simultaneity, it is not a community, it is not a society, it is not an association, it is not those particular men over there, because all these exist because they are concrete and real; however, no single individual who belongs to the public has any real commitment; some times during the day he belongs to the public, namely, in those times in which he is nothing; in those times that he is a particular person, he does not belong to the public. Consisting of such individuals, who as individuals are nothing, the public becomes a huge something, a nothing, an abstract desert and emptiness, which is everything and nothing. . . .”
Søren Kierkegaard, The Present Age (1846)

In trying to understand Kierkegaard and think of how his writings might be relevant to Instant Messenger I came up with several ideas. My interpretation of what Kierkegaard is saying is this:
· Kierkegaard was pointing out that individuals have no real commitment because they are being overrun with information that hampers their commitment.

· The public feels emptiness because they lack that commitment and are moving from one piece of useless information to another.

I don’t know how accurate my paraphrase is? If you disagree, please comment. I will however tie Kierkegaard’s message into why Instant Messenger bothers me.

· I am being bombarded with often meaningless small talk (useless information) which does not all me to show commitment to one conversation.

· I feel that there is emptiness in using Instant Messenger. That is to say that I am wasting time giving and receiving what is usually useless information.

Kierkegaard’s message for his time is thought to be prophetic, applying to the so- called Age of Internet as well. I feel that a lack of commitment fostered by the overwhelming amount of information being sent to me at once is one of the main reasons I’ve grown to despise instant messaging. Jeremy Bryant

Kierkegaard, Søren (1846). The Present Age. Retrieved January 21, 2004, from http://webct.sfu.ca/SCRIPT/cmns253bd1spring05/scripts/serve_home

CMNS 253 Introduction ~ POST 1

2005-01-12T11:01:00.000-08:00

My name is Jeremy Bryant it is my third year of post-secondary education but my first year in the Communications Program as I transferred to SFU in the fall semester. I am taking this class mostly because it is a requirement but also because I want to better understand and critique the ways that new media are shaping society and how they can most productively be used.
I just completed CMPT 320 "The Sociocultural Aspects of Technology" which I believe will give me more insight into many of the topics we will be covering in this class. Because I'm not a computer science major the class was a challenge but it was very informative and relevant not only to this class but to my education as a whole. That is my most recent educational experience related to new media which I'm sure will be enriched by taking CMNS 253.

1. Richard Smith has two dogs. I don't have any pets but if I did I'd have a pet llama like Napoleon Dynamite.

2. Go to the eLive link, on the "Tools" part of the class web site at WebCT, and try the demo. Does the software work on your home computer? I don't have a computer at home currently but it works on the school computers. Can you hear the instructions? Yes, (if I had audio). eLive can be used to listen to a live or archived stream of the audio from the classroom. Would you use this technology to listen to the class live instead of attending lectures? Yeah for sure. Would you listen to lectures using this technology as a way of studying overview?Defiantly.

3. Are you using social software? I use email regularly. I used to use IM but I have grown weary of trying to multi-task so I don't use it any more. I share photos and information online through an MSN group with some friends from Bible School, which I guess is like a Blog.

4. I'm not a luddite but I don't have a mobile phone either at the moment. I was recently married and now that I have so many other financial responsibilities, I dropped the cell phone and the bills for a while. When I had a mobile phone I used it regularly but not for text messaging.

5. I'm a quasi geek. My total score was around 1.75. I want to be a bit geekier.

Jeremy Bryant