'Tis A Consummation Devoutly To Be Wish'd*

H/t The Toronto Star

* Hamlet - Act 3 Scene 1 - Apologies for the use of literary arcana, but you know what they say: Teachers never retire; they just lose their class.

The Digital Life

The Disaffected Lib recently wrote a post expressing ambivalence about the ubiquitous role that technology plays in our lives. It is an ambivalence I think many of us, especially those of an older generation raised on typwriters, print and analogue television, feel. On the one hand it has been an undeniable benefit, connecting us with a much wider world than we could ever know without the digital technology we now take for granted. On the other hand, the question arises as to whether or not a generation raised on instant access to information may have missed out on key critical-thinking skills that develop as a result of slow, deliberate and careful contemplation and processing of information.

Personally, I am not sure of the answer to that question. Every generation thinks that upcoming ones are not made of the same solid stuff of their elders. I do know, however, that there is the potential of great distraction thanks to today's technology, distraction to which none of us is really immune.

In today's Star, an opinion piece by Doug Mann entitled It's almost midnight for print culture posits a thesis that can be best reflected in this excerpt:

...the midnight of print is only a symptom of a more sinister cultural darkening brought about by digital media. This is a decline of the complex narrative as the centre of public life, the midnight of depth meaning.

Essentially, he argues that society's boredom threshold has declined as a consequence of the digital age, and that boredom is chiefly reflected in the declining interest in three key components of the examined life: complex arguments in theoretical thinking, extended adult narratives in fiction, and long serious conversations in everyday life.

From my perspective as a person of a certain 'vintage,' complex arguments may take a bit longer to process and grasp, but I am still very much interested in them. Mature fiction still appeals to me, and long serious conversations are an ongoing source of delight for me with certain select individuals. However, Mann's concern is not for my generation, but for the aforementioned young people without the larger context that we older guys and gals have.

Is he correct? I hesitate to embrace his thesis wholeheartedly, and even if my instincts suggest his logic is compelling, I could also argue that the above criteria have never had a wide appeal and may not necessarily be a victim of our current digital age, but rather a function of education and extensive and varied reading. While that observation may sound a bit elitist, I think it is true.

I would be very interested in hearing other people's views on this matter. Feel free, as always, to comment.

The Globe and Mail: A Study in Vindictiveness

As one well-acquainted with the scourge of depression and the toll it takes on both the sufferer and his/her family, it was with great interest that I recently read Jan Wong's account of her struggle with the disease in Out of the Blue. In what I view as an act of personal courage, the former Globe and Mail reporter whose wide-ranging work certainly enhanced the Globe “brand,” reveals at length the story of her mental descent as a result of toiling in what ultimately became an unsupportive and toxic workplace.

Even those whose lives have not been either directly or indirectly marred by this insidious sickness will doubtless be fascinated by the vindictive, almost Machiavellian machinations of the Globe's upper management once it no longer had any use for Wong, amply illustrating the sad fact that the newspaper business is just that, a business, with no tolerance for anyone who 'rocks the boat' in ways that discomfit 'the bosses.'

In her book, management at The Globe, both present and past, including Sylvia Stead, John Stackhouse and Edward Greenspon, come across as especially venal, petty and cowardly, essentially 'hanging Wong out to dry' after a story she wrote about the 2006 Dawson College shootings included a comment about cultural alienation in Quebec, linking it to two previous tragedies in La Belle Province. Controversy and condemnation of Wong ensued, and the Globe went into full defensive mode, ultimately essentially abandoning Wong to the rabble.

But the Globe wasn't quite through with Wong. Because the paper carries a great deal of clout and has substantial reserves with which to litigate, Wong wound up self-publishing her chronicle after her publisher, Doubleday, ultimately wanted her to censor her story, excising most references to her experiences at The Globe, an impossibility since her depression was caused by workplace stress.

Eventually, Wong won a severance package from The Globe, on the condition that she not discuss the details of it. In her book, after being fired by the Globe for time missed due to her depression, she talked about how she “fought back and won,” that her former employer “had caved” and that she had received “a pile of money.” It would appear that those comments were too much for the Globe, which will now receive back the severance after an arbitrator ruled that by saying those things, she breached her confidentiality agreement with the paper.

The self-proclaimed 'newspaper of record' would have us believe that they took this action based on principle; others could just as cogently argue that it was simply a continuation of the vindicativeness that essentially drove Wong from the Globe.

If you get the chance, I highly recommend the book; not only does it give valuable insight into mental illness, but it will also enable you to decide for yourself who is in the right and who is in the wrong in this matter.

Some Low-Hanging Fruit

Or should I say pork? I have a bit of a busy morning, so I am taking the easy route for now by dedicating this photo to our 'friends' in the Red Chamber and their federal government enablers:

I Just Couldn't Resist This One

H/t Canadians Rallying to Unseat Stephen Harper

All Good Pets Deserve A Reward

Having owned a magnificent Landseer Newfoundland dog in the past (the most human pet I ever came into contact with), I am well-aware of the importance of rewarding good behaviour. For example, if you ask him/her to shake hands, you toss your pet a treat. Rolling over, 'speaking', etc. all call for positive reinforcement.

I awoke this morning wondering what would be a lovely gift for those pets in the Harper government who, throughout the last parliamentary session, spoke faithfully in their master's voice. While the list is long, and perhaps others will be the subject of future posts, I will highlight here only one of the many who merit the highest of accolades:

Kellie Leitch

This hippocratic oath-taker has, this year and since her election in 2011, given all to her party, even her medical integrity, refusing, as she did, to condemn the export of Canadian asbestos to developing nations despite its highly carcinogenic properties. She also walked and talked the party line over Harper cuts to refugee health care, describing the measures as 'fair and necessary.'

Perhaps Kellie's greatest achievement and irrefutable evidence of her fealty to her dark lord, Harper, is her ability to spin a variety of permutations on the very limited talking points (on average, two or three sentences) she is permitted whenever she appears on television to defend the indefensible. Her extolment of Mr. Harper is stellar, and I think you get the full measure of the lady within the first three minutes or so of this video, which may also suggest a cabinet post in her future for her unwavering loyalty:

Since it is not within my power to confer political reward to Ms Leitch, I offer this humble yet highly symbolic gift to her and others in her pack:

Apparently this particular choke chain comes in a variety of sizes, and is therefore suitable for widespread gifting, no matter what size pet vies for one in the Harper caucus.

Is Trudeau's Poll Lead Such A Good Thing?

The latest polls show the Trudeau-led Liberals leading the Harper Conservatives 36% to 29%, with the NDP at 23%. Coincidentally, this petition from Forest EthicsEthics suggests it is not necessarily an occasion for celebration:



WHOSE SIDE IS JUSTIN ON, ANYWAY?

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has been in office just a couple of short months and already he's making friends with folks on the wrong side of the tar sands issue. High-fiving Alberta Premier Alison Redford for spending billions to lobby for the tar sands industry and then slamming Prime Minister Harper for not doing enough to promote the Keystone XL pipeline... really? Really?!

Does Justin Trudeau stand behind Canada’s First Nations and Canadians from coast to coast who are saying no to pipelines and tankers, or does he stand behind Big Oil?

Send your message to Justin Trudeau using our handy email tool. Use the sample message or write your own. It's time we let Justin know we're watching his support for tar sands very closely.

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s only been on the job for a couple months – and already he’s getting off on the wrong foot by sounding like he’s showing support for the tar sands industry by promoting the Keystone KXL pipeline.

As Canadians, we must let him know that he is wading into waters that we don't support by high-fiving Alberta Premier Alison Redford for spending billions lobbying for the oil industry. In the same breath he slammed Prime Minister Harper for not doing enough to promote the Keystone XL pipeline. As if billions in oil subsidies and massive cuts to countless environmental regulations weren’t enough?!