the benefits of being deaf and blind

This is the worst thing I've ever seen in my life. In fact, it's so bad that it actually makes me angry. It makes me angry because somewhere there is a music producer who actually thought that the public would buy something as atrocious and offensive as this. And it makes me angry that, in all likelihood, he is right.

There is no bottom to this barrel we call American culture.

CNN: "Abu Ghraib was 'Animal House' at night"

An excellent example of self-delusion on the media vs. public scale:

CNN.com - Report: Abu Ghraib was 'Animal House' at night - Aug 25, 2004

Choosing words wisely

everyman should write poems
choose wisely every word
for words chosen
are forever frozen
though it may seem absurd...

CHOI FM has clearly failed to choose their words wisely this time, and the CRTC should not back down from pulling the plug. Link to CRTC denial of licence renewal.

What is interesting about this story is how little of the actual words spoken have been included in the news stories. Here's an excerpt from the complaint:

49.
Commenting on a news story about the mistreatment of a patient in a psychiatric hospital, host Fillion stated the following on CHOI-FM on 8 May 2003: "[translation] Why don’t they just pull the plug on him? He doesn’t deserve to live. The guy’s a freaking burden on society." A few minutes later, a worker from the treatment centre called the host and said that the wing in which the serious cases, like the one being discussed, was referred to by staff as "the zoo." After that call, Mr. Filion added, "[translation] What I think they should do in the zoo is fill up the rooms, and then there’d be a switch, and once every four months, they press the button and just a little bit of gas comes out, and then you go in and pick it all up and put it in bags."

It is not surprising that the mainstream media wouldn't talk too loudly about this kind of thing. It's a freedom of speech thing, and the media always take the freedom of speech side. The other side is of course the abusive nature of the comments, which certainly deserve some criticism and debate over-- I don't want my radio broadcasting that kind of material.

From 98.1 CHOI-FM Supporters on the Hill:

What i think really worries me with this situation is that there was no clear distinction between when they were talking news and when they were talking shit. It's one thing when you see this stuff in an opinion piece that is clearly labled as such, but I don't think that that was the situation here.

Also, for those of you who saw the demon... er... demo on the hill, did you notice how completely monocultural it was? With all the punk rock an' white folk it was an eerie throw back to the skin head days...

So it's interesting to remember that Quebec City is quite "monocultural", and not particular and do not travel much, so that's why the station gets so much fervent support. But also why it is scary to see how fervent that support can be, and for what, exactly? The only ALTERNATIVE ROCK station in town. Did it ever occur to these people that once it's gone that void will be filled in a matter of days? Perhaps it has, but the people just love the personalities so much they can't bear to see them go. And if so, then what this guy said really IS a problem.

We as people should choose our words wisely, and those in the media, particularly broadcast media, should be held to an even higher standard. The radio is not a book you can close. Sure, you can turn it off, but perhaps not before you become thoroughly offended by hateful comments such as those. One poster comments that some people, kids mostly, take a lot of what shock jocks say as the gospel truth, even when they are speaking satirically. They think that the DJs are cool, so they say things like they do. The DJs are launching lots of negative memes.

Part of the issue is with the nature of radio as a medium. If the radio had a disclaimer on it, perhaps, like what is possible on TV, it would be easier to tolerate. Unlike newspapers, there is no way for the viewer to control what is being communicated to them. You don't mistakenly read the editorial and think it is news. You don't turn on Law and Order and think it is the news. But you might turn on the radio and think the guy shouting, "George Bush is a pig-f**ker!" is actually telling the truth. This is why radio-scares happen like The War of the Worlds thing. Only on radio.

The line between satire and slander is a fine one indeed, as is the line between edginess and offensiveness. Even as I write this I'm aware of other arguments I've made that those people near the line almost always have a point to make that no one else is talking about. One comment dealt with the fact that some students at Laval University happened to be children of dictators in foreign countries, and how no one at Laval says anything about it. A valid topic for discussion? Perhaps, as long as it doesn't offend too many people, I guess.

I'm torn between acknowledging the damage powerful media in the hands of morons or maniacs can do to a society, and the ability for someone with a perspective to voice that opinion. I'm off the mind that radio is too powerful a media to spout radical messages of that sort. Save it for the weblog, M. Fillion-- I'm afraid that radio was meant to be bland.

find anything on anyone

Imagine sometime in the future, after the internet has been around for a long time, each and every person in the world has had some sort of experience on it and, in a nutshell, we are all perfectly "plugged in": We use the 'net for email, instant messaging, shopping, banking, planning vacations, handing in homework assignments, sending coworkers documents. In addition, a large proportion of us have personal websites, weblogs (like this one) and many use mobile devices to access and post information to the internet. Countless millions of pieces of personal information zoom around the globe day and night. To even a greater extent than today, the internet will be so entrenched in our daily lives that we will be unable to function without it.

Now imagine a company starts up, offering to share your personal information with anyone who wants it, for a small fee. By merging databases from various places-- government, commercial, banking, and perhaps more nefarious sources, like websites you've visited, libraries or video stores.

Imagine if every single piece of information the internet as a whole has collected on you, was visible to the public. If you visited a website, the date and time you did would be visible. If you purchased a golf club on eBay, that would be visible too. If you once volunteered for a political fundraiser, participated in a rally, argued with a troll on a message board-- what if it were all contained in a single text document, searchable under your name, at the click of a mouse?

Sound far-fetched? Perhaps. Maybe the laws in place will keep such information from becoming publicly accessible. But so much of our information is in private hands, can we trust that Microsoft, or Google, or Asianhotties.com will actually fulfill their privacy agreement? Did you even read what their privacy statement said? And even if Microsoft keeps its promise to not share your data, and Google keeps its promise not to be evil, who's to say that some shady organization won't intercept or steal those databanks at some point in time?

If you don't like the idea of your friends and neighbours knowing intimate details of your life, you should watch what you "outer" on the 'net. Because once it's out, it's out.

Imagine a world where you have your fetish tattooed on your forehead.

Blind dates will never be the same.

Google Search: find anything on anyone

"War On" morons (hmm, there's an idea...)

Linguistics prof. George Lakoff dissects the "war on terror" and other conservative catchphrases. As myself and others have said before, you can't have a war on terror, and yet every journalist calls it just that. The key point: liberals must stop using these terms created by the conservatives because it is those terms that keep them in power.

I'll call the Bushies and their kin "War on" Morons. It's easy to stay in power when you've got a war to fight. Maybe when Kerry wins, he'll start the "War on Morons" just to finish the Bushies off..

iraqi reality?

This is new to me. A glimpse into a soldier's life in Iraq:

Live and Redirect Part 2

stem cell research

Can someone explain to me why stem cell research is an election issue? Are Americans so mindless that Ron Reagan gives a hyped-up speech and suddenly everyone supports pursuing this mysterious and unproven area of science? You can't tell me that the American people actually understand the myriad issues that surround it. But the Kerry campaign knows that taking a position on it is a sure-fire bet to get a certain number of people's attention. I could not possibly survive in politics, where you can't expect to win through reason and good judgment, by convincing people to vote for you for the right reasons. You have to convince them to vote for you for a bunch of wrong reasons, because those are the only ones that they can understand.

It's so pathetically sad. This election should be a landslide, and it probably won't be, because the population is so damn ignorant.

Stuart Smalley vs. Bill O'Reilly

I think it's hilarious that Bill O'Reilly refers to Al Franken as Stuart Smalley, referring to the character Franken played on Saturday Night Live. O'Reilly does it, of course, because Smalley was neurotic, effeminate, probably gay, and susceptible to bouts of insecurity and anxiety about nearly everything. In other words, he was a man with feelings. O'Reilly, on the other hand, has shown the capacity for one (1) emotion: anger.

Stuart Smalley was self-reflective, analytical, and never stopped trying to improve himself. O'Reilly doesn't have time to examine himself, because he was convinced long ago that he's always right, and anyone who questions him is an enemy.

To me, this connection is obvious. When will O'Reilly stop reminding his listeners that he is the self-righteousness to Smalley's self-reflection, that he is the anger and hate to Smalley's hope and acceptance?

I couldn't think of a better juxtoposition of values myself. I'm glad O'Reilly drew my attention to it, because it could very well be the start of his own descent into obscurity.

what the terrorists want

Something that has always struck me as odd is this idea that we, as freedom-loving westerners, should refuse to react to terrorism in the way that the terrorists "want us to". What exactly is that? What do the terrorists want?

Well, if you listen to Bush, the terrorist hate our freedoms, so one thing they want is for us be unfree. Well, this is being accomplished quite effectively since September 11th, but only partly because of the terrorists. Mostly it is because of stupid decisions of the Bush administration.

We know that terrorists are aiming to strike fear into the hearts of people, but more accurately, they are trying to get our attention. They want us to ask ourselves, "what did we do to deserve this?" They want us to examine what our policies are that oppress their people, and change the way we live to allow others to enjoy what it is that we enjoy. They want us to stop practicing terrorism in their countries. They want us to treat them like humans worthy of life and liberty, and show concern for the welfare of less-fortunate peoples.

And what would be so bad about that?

Would it be bad for us to stop being so damn arrogant? Would it be bad for us to learn a thing or two about the outside world? Would it be bad to stop thinking life is about driving the minivan to the Wal-Mart every weekend and pigging out at McDonald's? Would it be bad to think about people who live in poor countries? Would it play into the terrorists hands if we spent a bit less time working and more time playing with our kids?

If the terrorists want John Kerry to win this year's election, should you vote for Bush?

Laughter

Majority Report Radio has a clip of GWB at his comedic best. We are reminded that behind all humour is grievance, and we laugh to keep ourselves from crying...

The Case for Internment

Eric Muller provides a counterpoint to Michelle Malkin's "The Case for Internment" which apparently provides a justification for the wretched treatment of Japanese-Americans during the Second World War. It never ceases to amaze me the number of "intellectuals" that are willing to step up to make ridiculous statements in order to push extreme agendas.

I remember a time not very long ago, when it was completely inexplicable that the German people stood by during the Holocaust. It was so difficult for us to understand, that most of us were content to assume things were so different then that in essence, they were all just "crazy"; it was just an abberration of collective insanity caused by the stresses of war. Well, I've long thought that the world around me has become a bit insane, but when will somebody stand up and say "ENOUGH ALREADY!"

A book justifying the internment of American citizens?? Have we slipped that far??