A book burning? Haven't we been through this before...



So in a few days, on the anniversary of the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center, which was perpetrated by religious/political fanatics another group of religious/political fanatics plan to burn the holy book that they equate with the aforementioned terrorists.... perfectly logical of course.

The story behind this... stupidity, come from a pastor named Terry Jones who leads a small fringe group of Christians in the town of Gainesville, Florida. Mr. Jones decided that the Quran was the 'word of the devil' and decided that burning 200,000 copies of the book would "call attention to something that is wrong" - oh sweet irony.

In any event, there really are so many things wrong with this - it really is hard not to bash ones head against the wall at the amazing ignorance displayed by almost everyone involved in this.
So where to begin, well let's break it down:

First of all, the burning of any book is a crime against the intellect that God supposedly blessed these people with. To use a nifty quote "...but he who destroys a good book, kills Reason itself, kills the image of God..."
The basic premise being that instead of trying to understand or learn, these people are rejecting anything different from themselves and will violently protect the conformity they seek. This Church group shares common traits with other familiar historical groups such a very prominent 1930's German political movement, a Russian regime change and the clergy of Grande Cache, Alberta.

Second, the media - oh the fucking media, asking all the wrong questions and trying to provide all the wrong answers. A small fringe group of about 50 people plan to do something incredibly stupid (which is their right as Americans), this then garners international attention with various pundits ranging from Vatican scholars to Angelina Jolie to Sarah Palin weighing debates about freedom of speech, security and blah blah, blah. The main (publicly admitted) consensus is that the book burning is wrong (duh) and it may invite reprisals and endanger the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Seriously all this media attention only shows how much misunderstanding and ignorance these people harbor and how far we have to go before there really can be open and honest discussions regarding religion. If a group of 50 people decided to go to a public park and light their flatus, they should be arrested for indecency but beyond their own idiotic behaviour there wouldn't be much of a story. We all would just conclude the people who conducted such an event were drunk, morons, inbred or some combination thereof and agree that the education system might need some overhauling.
The media thrives on controversy and will try to create it where none exists, and if a story has a moderate amount of 'the big C' then we get the fun media circus we enjoy during such events such as the Michael Jackson trial, or the Britney Spears meltdown, balloon boy and so on. These stories are covered with a lot of irrelevant information and opinions with very little factual information - oddly enough, events like the BP oil spill which actually required more facts was treated in much the same manner.

Lastly, the only thing that people are doing is reacting to this story, trying to bring their own viewpoint on what is almost a non-issue. Even the ever insightful Sarah Palin has quipped on twitter that the Quran burning is an "insensitive and an unnecessary provocation - much like the building of a mosque at Ground Zero" ...huh, it's no wonder that she doesn't like the r-word.
With everyone condemning the good Pastor and his congregation it would really be silly if Muslims of the world got angry over such an insignificant group. I honestly feel sorry for the people of Gainesville and the small minded frightened people that Terry Jones has gathered around himself. They are so terrified of anything foreign and unknown that they will not risk trying to understand what it is they are trying to destroy. Such people should be pitied, and anyone who would declare a call to arms over their actions is no better.

Oh what the heck, is it too late to catch the bandwagon?

So while it would probably be more worth while to write about the: Vatican's new laws, Avandia drug, BP's capping success (they really need a sarcasm emoticon) or Cowboys defending their way of life, instead the series of Old Spice commercials and the social media phenomenon that it has become is what these manly words shall be devoted to.

If you don't follow twitter, facebook, or read the news then you may not have heard of this feat of social media marketing and the popularity of the Old Spice Manly Man.

The often random commercials combined with the over the top machismo portrayed by former Football player Isaiah Mustafa became the most popular videos on youtube, though the real genius of the advertising campaign is the interaction with consumers.

After the first series of commercials were produced they used twitter and facebook to 'tweet and retweet' the videos while targeting celebrities and popular accounts that had large followings. They then posted video responses to questions that users had 'tweeted' or posted on their facebook page.

Even a few celebrities got in on the fun, the interactivity and hilarious videos caught the attention of the mainstream news and well... that darn bandwagon got pretty darn full.

So, what is the point in commenting on this? Not much really, while one does have to admire the skill in which this advertising campaign was compiled and it does demonstrate the proper use of social media to get a 'message' out - it is just another way to sell something to consumers.

Sure the whole this is entertaining, heck I am on a mission to eventually watch all these hilarious vids at some point, however it also shows just how shallow social media is. While the media will heap praise on the campaign for its genius (ie success - if it had flopped there wouldn't have been one word of the 'genius'), it also shows that entertainment is still the driving force of information in this age.

To be fair, social media has been used to highlight issues, unfortunately is more of an 'after the fact' event that cannot really be used to prevent problems at this point. If we lived in an ideal world (a hilarious hope I know), social media would be a way of keeping informed of topics so as to prevent harm to the public interest. For example, say if social media was used to provide accurate information before the second Gulf War, or highlight the safety cutbacks at BP as well as growing conflicts within the MMS so that a public outcry might have ensured action before there was every an oil spill to talk about.

As it stands Social Media is just a recycling centre for old ideas and marketing gimmicks, people will see something interesting and post, comment and like. There really isn't anything wrong with that, I just wish people would stop treating the 'Social media' as some great advancement in our society, it really isn't that great for society - marketing maybe, society no.

Rethink?... Uhm, where was the first thought?

The above video is part of an ad campaign by Corporate Ethics International (CEI), the purpose of this video and a series of billboards in 4 US cities is apparently to try and impact Alberta's tourism industry (though it was a bit late to impact Stampede).

Already there has been backlash ... unfortunately mostly in the form of poorly constructed arguments and a certain amount of nationalistic outrage, and while it is justified to some extent - it couldn't hurt to actually look at the whole issue before getting indignant.

Reuters had a good article that actually went a bit deeper than many of the Albertan Papers on what was happening, according to CEI their campaign is in response to lobbying by oil producers and the Albertan Government to "block legislation like low-carbon fuel standard legislation that would help [them to] make the transition (from fossil fuels)."

So setting aside the validity of claims and the various facts regarding this whole circus, it boils down to:

CEI didn't like the influence of the oil lobby which was affecting their goal of independence from fossil fuels, so they decided to launch an international campaign to damage Alberta's image.

The equivalent would be your neighbor handed out leaflets to petition for a ... giant windmill to be built in the block and in response you go around and say that they sodomize goats.

The oil sands may indeed be an environmental disaster waiting to happen, but there are two problems with CEI's campaign, first the real contention they have is with the lobbying done in the state, and second - by attacking the image of Alberta directly they really aren't going to get any political support. Certainly not from Albertan politicians who can smell the popularity of seething anger from the populace already, and even in the rest of the US, CEI is making itself look like just another 'fringe hippie tree-hugger' group that favours sensationalism instead of effective change.

That said, I admit that CEI does have a point, unfortunately instead of taking the high road and trying to get people to understand the real issues involved they joined the ranks of the LCD's by alienating the opposing side so any chance of negotiation or compromise is completely out of the question.

Well, at least they got their name published in the papers, though I doubt anything will be accomplished aside from a lot of huffing and puffing from both sides.

I have a fondness for stories, even the really odd and truly weird, how can one not be intrigued by movie titles such as "Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter". Anyway I came across a movie entitled "Doggy Poo" which I found quite difficult to wrap my head around.

According to the description it is about a 'doggy poo' searching for the meaning of life and... well that's it.

Now the meaning of life story has been done before, there was Monty Python's take on it and my favourite being the answer of '42'. So is there really a need for a story about a dog poop finding meaning?

I suppose it shows that even the most absurd and reviled of things has purpose... still, it's a friggin animated poo!

Top Stories?

In what is becoming an increasingly annoying trend, it seems more often than not "important" or "top" news stories deal with the most meaningless of subject matter in terms of what is going on in the world. The above screen capture shows how the 'Top Stories' in Google news are mostly dealing with entertainment - only three of the topics have world relevance and two of them refer to the same thing (guess which ones - hint: _._. Joe).

Is it really so important to know what Carrie Underwood is doing? Sigh, actually can't get too worked up about it since I realize it's difficult to read the factual news day in and day out, though I can't help but get annoyed when news coverage is so blatantly supporting the creation of celebrities by devoting articles and front page space to extraordinary trivial events - I actually think I would be happier not knowing who or what a Bieber is.

Then again, maybe it goes both ways, entertainment is important to people and if they want to isolate themselves with shallow and meaningless news... the 'if it makes you happy' argument is hard to refute. Probably the only point where it gets retarded is when the same people complain about the world or start trying to bring their own viewpoints to situations around the world. A famous incident is the Miss South Carolina Q and A, though it's even scarier when these people get into politics.

I guess in the end, to each their own, just be sure to read up before deciding to join the conversation.

Oh those darn Fascist Socialists...

A fellow was handing these flyers out in downtown Calgary the other day. I honestly gave it little attention as usually the things people hand out in the city core are of questionable merit... but this handout in particular irks me due to the amazing ignorance that it tries to mask with sentiment and symbolism.

A cursory glance and it would seem to be a noble cause in stopping the spread of Nazi influenced companies - the swastika is a nice touch. Yet if one reads the pamphlet it becomes obvious the person who organized this .... is a bit off his gourd to say the least.

First off, the title 'Fight Socialism' under which a crossed out swastika would make the uninformed believe that the Nazis were Socialists - nothing could be further from the truth, literally. The Nazi Party was based on Fascism, which is actually on the far-right of the political spectrum.

// A small side note, the terms left and right were believed to be coined in France during the revolution. The aristocracy sat on the right while the commoners sat on the left, so it originally started as a representation of interests of the wealthy elite and the average commoner.//

Socialism is on the far-left of the political spectrum - which naturally is at odds with Fascism and vice versa.

So just with the title and underlying symbol the aforementioned leaflet is already of dubious merit. Of course it then goes on to call for a boycott of companies that were based in the original "Axis of Evil" (except for Japan oddly enough - perhaps too many companies to list). While the rest of the information on the leaflet appears to be based on facts, the information ranges from direct quotations to opinionated drivel.

Calling for a boycott in 2010 for atrocities committed in the 1940's is a bit behind the times, especially considering that most of the companies and countries involved had to perform their mea culpas quite a while ago, for example the Nuremberg Trials which dealt justice to a number of Nazi Political, Military and Economic officials. In any case the author of the leaflet seems to believe that these companies should forever be shunned for their involvement in their countries policies.

Though to practice that ideal one would have to boycott nearly every company in existence, forgo driving (oil companies aren't saints), even give up that soft drink as coca-cola purposely split their company so they could keep doing business in Nazi Germany (Fanta anyone?).

While I have to admire the intentions to an extent, spreading misinformation and ignorance is the wrong way to do it. Instead of calling for 'boycotts' I'd rather call for social responsibility in all things, people should know more about what is happening in the world around them - economically and politically. There should be decisions based on the facts available at the time and a honest realistic view of the products that people purchase, and the politics that people support.

Of course that ideal is quite a bit harder as most people would prefer not to know that Hugo Boss designed the uniforms of the Nazi Schutzstafell or SS - though to be honest, as evil as the Nazis were, they had pretty nifty uniforms.

/* This was actually an article submission I wrote but thought I'd put it on the blog anyway */

Journalism

We live in a world where information is power, the more one knows about what is going on in the world the better able we are to make informed decisions and predict the impact on others. For most people, the demands of daily life leaves little time to digest the events of the world at large let alone seek out information on current topics that may spark their own interest or affect their livelihood in some way.

It may be here, that today’s Journalists provide a vital service to the general public by collecting and formatting information that ideally is: easily understood by the public, free from personal bias, provides enough factual information for the audience to either reinforce or reconsider their own opinions.

Especially in a democratic government which operates under the assumption of an informed and engaged electorate, journalism becomes a pillar supporting the foundations of society. To quote Thomas Jefferson:

Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;... whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights. -Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789.

People rely on the journalistic profession to provide information of what is happening in their own elected government, without journalists investigating and researching events people would be unable to make informed decisions on who has best represented their interests or if elected officials have lived up to the promises they made when voted into office.

With the weight of such a responsibility to the public journalists must also aspire to a good standard of journalism where they provide their audience with information without colouring it with personal bias, as well as recognizing as many different perspectives or ‘angles’ of a story to present the reader with as much of a complete view as possible. A good example is a recent article on the CBC website entitled “McGuinty doesn't rue secrecy on G20 law”, which explains some of the aftermath of the security surrounding the G20 world leaders summit held in Toronto.

The article balances the opinions of Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty with criticisms from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association regarding the granting of broader police powers granted during the summit as well as a lack of public information about the new regulations. The article also provides background information on the event, providing facts into the powers used and reaction of those who were affected by it.

To maintain this standard of good journalism a journalist should exhibit certain qualities and interests to excel at the profession. Primarily they should have a strong sense of curiosity to discover the truth behind what they are writing and a keen power of observation to uncover stories from the most innocuous places. When writing the ability to keep a neutral tone requires integrity and a sense of balance to present as many different sides as possible would serve a journalist well in their career serving the public interest.

Journalism plays an important role in our society, though perhaps too often it is taken for granted as people look to be entertained rather than informed about our world and the events that drive it. However, if journalists hold to their duty to their readers by keeping true to the ideals of providing accurate, balanced and relevant information to the public then perhaps when things get too far wrong, they may be relied on to set things right.

Of Disneyland for Rednecks and the protection of money

For various reasons/people/interests I've been doing a lot of writing recently, not much of it very good mind you but it's kept things interesting when I could actually get something expressed in a reasonably presentable format.

Now that its for the most part over I remembered I had a blog that no one ever visits that is a great place to write a few of the inane observations I've made in the past while. Whew, and boy were there a lot of things going on... from the colossal impact of British Petroleum to arguably the more well known impact of the latest i-gizmo and it's... performance issues.

More locally is the upcoming 'Greatest show on Earth' in my current city of residence or the Calgary Stampede (though just Stampede is fine) is just under a week away. It is a big event to be sure and it is quite something to see the entire City get into the mood by putting on their western best or perhaps just a stetson, oddly enough I've never been quite able to get into it. Perhaps it's because I've honestly never been quite a big fan of the whole 'Wild West' era, though the discovery that the event is sometimes called 'Disneyland for Rednecks' in other parts of Canada was a bit of a revelation.

In all honesty it's not that bad, I think it is the over-commercialization that makes me groan in disgust when I think of the stampede. Talking to some of the older Calgarians they mention that the Stampede was quite different and better 20 years ago... granted they probably feel the same way about everything in general.

Speaking about the number 20 (the segue is a bit of a stretch I know), Canada was also host to the wondrous G20 summit where the financial representatives of nations and banks got together to deal with the 'global economic turbulence' caused by the financial industry in the leading industrial countries... yeah. On that note a new book is coming out that should be of interest to them that looks at 800 years of economic history and how the previous leaders all thought "This time will be different".

While it may not seem like the G20 is worth the cost for the host Country (at least that's what critics of Stephan Harper accuse) by far the most talked about news to come out of it was the behaviour of the much maligned protester. I'm sure they must believe that the best way to get their point across is to damage property and in general cause mischief, though it's nothing new for the G20 summits.

As I've written before, protesting for the sake of attention is shallow and probably idiotic in the grand scheme of things. For example there was a group of cyclists protesting to demand more facilities and bicycle paths in Toronto, and they protested by riding en-mass downtown causing traffic congestion and basically inconveniencing the average motorist.

While I support cycling and believe their demands have merit - is frustrating the average person going to make your point heard? It really shows a lack of common sense to the point of a total disconnect with reality to assume that by making a lot of noise you'll get your way all the time. Sure it may work for little children but surely we have grown past such behaviour... surely...

If they really wanted to change laws, they should be working to get the public on their side instead of alienating them. Write letters, encourage people to ride bikes, push for an environmental tax break for cyclists - make people want to cycle instead of drive rather than frustrate and annoy them.

Hmm, actually got a bit off topic, what I really wanted to write about (as I reminded myself from the title), was the recent ICE (immigration and customs enforcement) take-down of a multitude of online video streaming websites. Avoiding the issue of piracy, I find the whole affair a bit disturbing, not because of any idea of rights and freedoms but rather the whole thing smells of government spending resources to protect the money of private businesses - that aren't doing too badly at all if box office figures are to be believed.

The MPAA, RIAA and any other organization have the right to protect their intellectual property, and we've all seen those FBI warnings at the beginning of DVD's. It just seems that these organizations have tried the legal route to no avail and have somehow convinced the government that these streaming sites are run by 'organized crime' out to make money from the hardworking movie industry which brought us such recent gems as, The Killers and the Last Airbender.

If ICE officials were at least honest and said directly, "We are protecting the perceived financial interests of these organizations, and while the sites may be run by fans or ordinary people the creators have a right to determine how their product is distributed"

Instead they made it sound as if they arrested career criminals masterminding evil plots against the freedom loving people of the world, it becomes comically one sided.

Though for me, if there is an organization called Immigration and Customs Enforcement trying to figure out why they would be so interested in raiding the homes of "people who have no respect for creativity and innovation" instead of dealing with issues that actually cost lives such as drug and human trafficking. The only reason I can come up with is that the organization ICE is becoming more interested in protecting money than people, they are basically doing the dirty work of the studios who don't want a repeat of the bad public image they received from the random lawsuit method of deterring piracy.

Anyway I doubt that piracy will ever truly be eliminated, and while the actions and attitude of ICE doesn't quite sit well - at least they didn't come out with a rap song about it.

The Joys of Social Networking.

Recently came across this on Youtube.





Anyway the vid is pretty hilarious Hair Rock ode to the dangers of parents and facebook. So it got me thinking about how it almost seems as if the Social Networking phenom is becoming a victim of it's own success. If everyone you know has access to a page that you update with everything in your life... it can lead to a lot of complications to say the least.

The obvious solution is to have privacy settings to group people into levels of access and have most information kept to a close circle - but then doesn't it get to the point of idiodicy?
If one has to spend as much time on facebook keeping track of social niceties as in real life (with the addition of viral permanance of things posted on the net), then I would think the hassle would make a lot of people just stop using it.

Politicians and other public figures have already been burned simply by not understanding the danger in posting your unfiltered thoughts to the whole world.

If someone stood on a street corner and shouted their every thought for all passersby - one would naturally assume they are insane, yet posting the very same thing for the whole world to see in a semi-permanent medium... well, that's just social networking.

Meh, it's all in good fun though, social media is a great thing as long as people understand what they are dealing with, as the saying goes "It's all fun and games till someone loses an identity".