No Place Like Home

I love my apartment, I really do, but maintaining it isn't always easy.

No matter how hard I try, there will always be dust seeping through the cracks and a gradual buildup of waste that needs tending.  Regular maintenance is essential to keep it in pristine condition.

Otherwise I very much enjoy my apartment; I like spending time in it, playing games, watching movies, sleeping, eating, writing pointless nothings on the computer...all in all, we spend a lot of quality time together.  Even cleaning can be fun, if one is in the mood for it, play some music, get down to business...a real sense of accomplishment.

The key, as I have noted, is consistency.  The apartment must be cleaned on a REGULAR basis (capitals are mine).  It's amazing how fast something you love can fall apart without regular maintenance.

If I were only to work on it once a year, let's say on an 'anniversary' of cleaning, it would be a total disaster before I could even lift a broom.  Even if I doubled that amount and also made a point of caring on the recurrence of the day I moved in (the apartment's 'birthday', if you will), it would be an uphill battle.

Statutory holidays wouldn't be enough, either.  I also couldn't get away with 'only when there's company coming over'.  No, we're talking a daily basis here...every day I must do something to keep my apartment fresh and alive.

It doesn't always have to be huge; it can be little things like keeping the dishes from piling up or wiping down the sinks after use.  Closing the closet doors is a good habit, as it keeping junk off the floor (if it is, in fact, junk, it should be pitched; otherwise I must determine what the item is for and put it in the appropriate spot).

This is important.  I mean, it's not like I can just move somewhere else.  I've made a commitment; I have rent to pay and lots of furniture to sit on.  I can't just trash the place, get tired of it, and haul my stuff elsewhere because keeping the place clean is too much 'hassle'.  Like I said, I love the place.

Do you have an apartment?  Or a home (mobile or stationary)?  Do you take regular care of it, or do you just expect it to be clean when you get back without having to lift a finger?  Do you expect it to maintain itself?  Pardon me for saying, but that sounds a tad impractical...

Rainbow Connection

Seems it's been so long since I last wrote on here, they've completely changed the menu layout. Took way too long to find the "NEW POST" button...

Then again, haven't felt the rush of pithy venting for a while...

So it's pride week again, bang the drums and sound the trumpets, calling all fanatics its time to put your opinions on display for all the world to see! The more outlandish the better! Please, sign your name to something that will tarnish not only you and your own, but everyone who legitimately espouses the same dogma as you claim to!

This goes both ways, just so you know...each side of a debate has its share of people with high rage, low intellect, overdose of self-righteousness and 1 tbsp plus 1 tsp of free time. Of course, my response is: why can't I post my opinion, too? Isn't is as valid as everyone else's?

The answer is, it IS. To elaborate, my opinion should matter as much to you as everyone else's...that is, little to not-at-all. Make up your own damn mind.

But what really stimulated this upsurge is the recent furour over Oreo's decision to support the current festivities with a graphic depiction of an inappropriately multi-coloured cookie. It was a bold move, considering they've only just been forgiven their blatant attack on segregation. Even the so-called 'white' oreo was a thinly-veiled sham...I know there's still chocolate in there! YOU CAN'T FOOL ME, KRAFT!!!

What got my attention, though, is that it was the picture of the rainbow that really set people off. I personally don't know when the rainbow became a symbol of the equal-rights movement (I know it celebrates unity in diversity), but lest we forget, it has longer still had a much deeper root within the Christian faith itself.

Yes, the old boat-builder himself, Noah (of 's Ark fame) was promised by his (your, my, our) God that never again would a great disaster wipe out the world, in spite of whatever sins people might commit, and to solidify this pact a (you guessed it) rainbow was crafted in the sky...and in faith, the reason this same symbol appears after a rainstorm is as a reminder that the precipitation is only a temporary thing, never again rising to humanity-erasing levels (hey, optical physics, go straight to hell!)

Now let's examine this, shall we? Point one...God used a rainbow as a symbol. Thus, by railing against those who do the same (be they marchers or munchies) you are inadvertently railing against the same Almighty for whom you claim to be railing.

Point two...the promise. There will never be another disaster to wipe out sinners. Hear that? NEVER ANOTHER. Yeah, let's check it again, just to be sure. Oh, there it is, Genesis 9:11, NEVER ANOTHER. So please, stop wasting time and cyberspace with your prayers to 'rid the world of sinners'. Ain't gonna happen. You're stuck with the planet as is. Learn to deal.

Point three...the whole sinners thing in the first place. Let's look at Noah again. When God decided to rid the world of sinners (and right now you're thinking, great idea, all for it), he selected one good family to survive the storm. That's the carpenter himself, his wife, and three sons. (Side note: even THEY weren't all winners; one of Noah's sons was later condemned for staring at his father's boarding ramp while the old man was piss drunk. Also, Noah was apparently an alcoholic.)

So let's look at ourselves now. Ask yourself, am I that family? Am I Noah, or one of his sons? Notice Noah's parents didn't make the cut (though to be fair, they may not have been alive...the man himself was about 200). Nor is there mention of cousins, uncles, distant relations. Just the immediate family. No friends, neighbours, fellow church-goers. Five people. One family.

Out of the entire fucking world.

If there were to be another flood (impossible, of course...see point two), only five people in one family would survive. Hate to say it, but I'm pretty sure that's not me. Pretty sure it's not you, either. I can't imagine everyone in Noah's time was a murdering rapist. Might have been a few folks who just stole handkerchiefs or double-parked their donkeys. Didn't matter, though...if you weren't Mr. Perfect Noah, down the drain ye went.

Maybe, instead of condemning it, we should be extremely grateful for the rainbow. As far as I can tell of the world today, it's the only thing keeping us dry.

Grammar Lesson

WARNING! THIS POST CONTAINS EXPLICIT CONTENT!

As a devoted student of English and, at the same time, an unrepentant s***-disturber (I'm keeping the first paragraph clean in order to post a preview without offending any online censors) I'm sad that I never came up with this until now. This would have been a wonderful submission for a grade school vocabulary test.


The Parts of Speech:

For today's lesson we are going to examine the parts of speech in the English language and, to emphasize the lesson, we will take a single word and show how its context actually determines its role in the sentence. This word is "fucking".

VERB: A word describing an action. "They were fucking all night long."

NOUN: A person, place or thing. "The sound of fucking kept him up all night."

ADJECTIVE: Describes a noun. "He is a fucking maniac."

ADVERB: Describes a verb or an adjective. "They wouldn't fucking stop" or "That was fucking insane".

INTERJECTION: Expresses emotion. "Fucking jerks!"

ARTICLE: Specifies a noun. "The man who's noisy lovemaking kept me awake." = "Fucking guy!"

Does everybody understand? Excellent. You are now ready for adulthood.

Healthy Debate

So the Ontario government wants to make Physical Education mandatory until Grade 12. Let's not beat about the bush...here are a half a dozen reasons why this is a stupid idea:


1. Gym facilities in Ontario schools cannot accommodate every single enrolled student. Because phys. ed. has been, for most students, a drop-as-soon-as-possible course, tracks and pools and sports arenas have been constructed as needed and no more. To build adequate facilities to give every student in Ontario a PROPER (note the capitalization) exercise regimen would cost a great deal of money that I, frankly, do not want my taxes being wasted on.

2. We've already cut high school down to four years. That's barely enough time to complete required courses for any major university program (doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc.). If a largely unnecessary course became mandatory, any student who wanted to get a good university admission without completely burning out would probably have to take a fifth year, again costing the taxpayer more money. ADDENDUM: Universities tend to look down on people who take extra years of high school and/or have phys. ed. on their transcript (the stereotype is, of course, that they must not be that bright). Ontario students are therefore being handicapped in the race for admissions.

3. If you want to improve children's health, a standardized one-size-fits-all school program is possibly the worst way. Affordable, accessible, and above all ENJOYABLE after-school sports programs are a much better option. Forcing everyone to play basketball, even those who hate or aren't good at basketball, is beyond pointless. Allowing each child to choose a sport and/or activity that they're actually interested in...hmm, maybe they'd put more effort into that? Am I mistaken?

4. We are no longer allowed to fail students in public education. That's right, even if you're dumb, we don't want you to feel bad about it so we won't make you look foolish by being the only 15-year-old in grade seven. I'm not saying whether this is a bad thing or a good thing...but it should at least be consistent. I was an overweight, nonathletic high school student. If we can't embarrass the dumb kids, why must we force the fat kids to wear embarrassingly tight track shorts and jiggle sweatily around a track for forty minutes a day?

5. There's a reason that the antagonists in pretty much all high school movies are the gym teachers/coaches. I'm not saying they're all evil...but the 99% that are give the other 1% a bad name.

6. Phys. Ed. classes do not make you healthy, especially required ones. Everyone I know (myself included) who has lost a significant amount of weight has done so on a self-motivated basis. If you really want to get healthy, you will go out and do it yourself. Even military enrolment is voluntary. Good health cannot be forced.


Obviously I'm against this on a personal level because...well, because I hate phys. ed. But I think I've made some pretty reasonable arguments here. If you're the political type, and this actually does come on the table, please ask your MPP to at least think it through. Health is important, no question. Obesity and heart disease are serious problems in our society, no argument here. But there's a difference between ANY solution and the RIGHT solution. Mandatory gym classes may be the former, but they are most definitely not the latter.

A Short Post

Not usually one for this, today I found myself addicted to a rather lengthy online thread populated primarily by two repeated posters. One was a member of Occupy Canada, speaking out against fascism in all its forms. The other was an individual who disagreed with the first and his ideas, believing that Canada is nowhere near the level of a true fascist state and that the Occupy movement is an over-exaggerated waste of time.

The point, however, is not the arguments. The point is that the Occupy Canada representative made clear, well-reasoned arguments where premise led to conclusion, responded to each counter-argument succinctly and consecutively, and demonstrated a decent command of the English language. His opponent, on the other hand, peppered his comebacks with swear words, personal insults, and every fourth or fifth word of each paragraph was misspelled.

For Christmas, I received a book that transcribed the recent Toronto-based public debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens on the subject of religion. I loved the present as it touched two of my deepest passions: 1. Theological Debate, and 2. Feeling smarter than people. This second one became more prevalent the further I read.

Granted, the time allotted for each argument was brief (first problem, right there...seriously, five thousand years of human development and we come to "tell me how religion has made the world better/worse in five minutes or less". You're basically inviting immature argument...or worse, snappy sound-bytes, but more on that later). Still, one would have hoped that two of the most advanced minds of our time could have come up with something even slightly orginal.

Blair: "Love"
Hitchens: "War"
Blair: "Aid in Africa"
Hitchens: "AIDS in Africa"
Blair: "Mother Teresa"
Hitchens: "Mother Teresa" (that one was at least slightly clever)

It went on as such for the duration. I lost count of how many times they brought up Israel and Ireland. It isn't that these aren't important points, to be sure, but they aren't particularly original. Worse, they aren't really points that can be argued with. No one is going to argue against Charity and in favour of Genocide. (Simpsons Season 4: "Amber, do you think the bill of rights is a good thing or a bad thing?" "Um......GOOD thing [bats eyelashes]"). The purpose of the debate was to argue the cause, not the effect. If they had really wanted to convince me, one or other of them should have been arguing that religion was what INSPIRED the things they were talking about (good or bad, depending on the viewpoint). But in the total of twenty minutes they each had, they barely even scratched the surface.

The fact is, argument is dead. It's been a moderately-paced process, confined largely to the latter half of the twentieth century. Can you imagine a time (and it did exist) when crowds gathered in town halls to watch a two-hour debate? In the nineteenth century, that was a "movie"! The advent of television brought the same info-tainment into the home, but the results were unexpected...suddenly the content of the argument mattered less than how the speaker looked on camera. 24-hour news reels (which I have previously lambasted) made it necessary to not only always have an off-the-cuff remark, but frequently to become mindlessly repetitive when original ideas ran dry. Human beings became broken records, even after they didn't use records anymore.

And now we have the internet. Unregulated, ungoverned. There are no rules, no guidelines. Anyone who wants to can splash their opinion out there for all to see (yes, I know, myself included). This is a wonderful thing; it means that debate is no longer confined to people with political power or money. If you have a good idea, there is an inexpensive way to make it public (i.e. beyond your drinking buddies). This is what enables the so-called 99% to be heard.

But there's a problem...there are no rules, no guidelines. Anyone who wants to can splash their opinion out there for all to see (yes, I know, myself included). And if you make an argument that I don't like, no matter how well-thought out or reasoned, I can come back with "Ya well u r a idiott" and post it at the same level, in the same font and style as whatever you have written. And if you're pure of heart, you will dismiss it and continue with your intellectual defence. Then again, after 1785 posts of the same derogatory slur (oh, forgot to mention, there are no time limits; you can post as often as you want, all that matters is your upload speed) you, too, might become worn out and drop down to my level.

Suddenly, "x+y=z" becomes "Your a f***ING idiot" (try getting away with that in a math class). It's retroactive, too...look at the Republican debates on television these days. What had once been a forum for educated discussion has degenerated to the same cynical mudslinging one would expect on a Facebook wall. Who can say the most pithy, memorable thing in the least amount of time? It's one of the worst fallacies in debate: attacking the debater instead of their argument. And it seems to be the order of the day.

There are reasons for this, of course, many reasons. It easier to curse at someone than to actually sit down and think out a reasonable statement. There are so many public forums nowadays that you almost HAVE to reduce your arguments to a single sentence; otherwise people will scroll down to the next item. No one bothers to read anything of length (frankly, I'm very impressed that you've gotten this far! Good for you, mate!). And, of course, the real bugbear of society...lack of proper education. No one argues properly because no one is taught how, and the standard is not maintained in the world at large.

Please, please, PLEASE make a counter-argument to anything I've said that you disagree with. And PLEASE make it even more long-winded than I am, full of big words that I need to look up in a dictionary...because debate is, at the end of the day, about learning things beyond what is contained in your own mind. You don't have to agree with your opponent...but just maybe the process will open you to new ideas that you otherwise would never have had.

And please, everybody, use the damn apostrophe key. It's getting lonely.

Real Live Monster

What's new with you? Nothing much? And me? Well, turns out I was traumatized as a kid and didn't even realize it!

I suppose some backstory is required. During one of my more recent bouts of nostalgia, I mentioned that I missed listening to some of the cassettes (anyone remember that great technology?) that I possessed as a child...in particular, Sesame Street's brilliant 'Born to Add' compilation. For those of you unfamiliar with this particular piece of genius, the album was an early-80s release combining parodies and sound-alikes of classic rock groups, songs and styles. Bruce Stringbean told his baby that they were 'Born to Add', Mick Swagger moaned that he could get no 'Co-operation', and so forth. The cleverly-altered lyrics were further complimented by fully mature instrumentals, as opposed to the pleasantly synthesized tones commonly associated with children's music.

Of course, it being the heyday of the show, the songs were also secretly educational. The Count and his bats helped us 'Count up to Nine', we learned about the circulatory system in 'Every Beat of My Heart', incredibly concise rules for healthy living are outlined in 'The Ten Commandments of Health' (too bad more kids didn't listen to that one; we may not have had all the problems we have today), and 'The Opposite Song' was about...well, you get the idea. Educational AND entertaining? What a concept!

So my wife, loving lady that she is, tracked down the most current CD release of this album and I found it neatly wrapped in my Christmas stocking. I promptly listened to the first track twice, admitting that this (in addition to the universally acclaimed 'Put Down the Duckie') was what first sparked my interest in the saxophone...there is a dynamite solo between the second and third verses. It was at track 2, however, that the surprises started.

The current cut contains fourteen tracks (the original had only thirteen) and four of them are new songs, written for the show after the original album had been released in 1983. Conversely, three of the originals had been removed. Two of them, I realized right away, were "Letter B" and "Hey Food", both Beatles parodies. While irritating, this isn't particularly surprising...given the legal controversies around anything Beatles-related, it only makes sense that the company would want to avoid unnecessary challenges by removing said sound-alikes (apparently there was some kerfuffle when the album was originally released, settled peaceably after MJ picked up the rights).

The third deletion, I admit, I honestly could not remember. It required judicious use of Google, at which point it all came back clear as day...second song from the end, where 'A Little Girl' (such creative nomenclature!) belts out Janis-Joplin style that "I Want a Monster to be my Friend". This isn't a particular parody of any song that I've ever heard, so why remove it? Again, thanks to Google and Wikipedia, the answer was quickly found:

If I make friends with a friendly monster
I'll let him bounce me on his knee
I'll let him do whatever he wants to
Especially if he's bigger than me!

In 1984, one year after the album's release, a protest was lodged with the producer's that this song, and these four lyrics in particular, encouraged child molestation. Yes, you read that correctly. A Sesame Street song about playing with a fictional friend might actually encourage children to (as the protest worded it) "give in to the inappropriate advances of adults".

As I mentioned, I grew up listening to this album. Throughout my childhood I was at no point placed in the above-mentioned scenario and I am thankful for that. Likewise, my heart goes out to any victims of abuse...it is absolutely unacceptable and I do not want to give the impression of downplaying in any way what a serious problem it is in our society. THAT BEING SAID, I really DO NOT THINK that (had the situation arisen for me) my first thought would have been "The puppet girl on Sesame Street said it was okay to play with big hairy monsters, so I guess I'll let this guy bounce me on his knee if he really wants to..."

This is always a difficult argument and it must be made carefully, not only because it involves such strong emotions but because there is such a delicate line to walk between over- and under-reacting. It goes without saying that the writers of this song never had this thought cross their minds for a moment (at least, I fervently hope not), and that as a result the song is innately harmless and should be left alone. That is followed by the rebuttal that, meant or not, it is better to be safe than sorry and as no one is really getting hurt by the deletion (except my aforementioned nostalgia) there is no reason NOT to remove it.

What it boils down to, for me, is the simple question: "Where does it end?" Anyone my age or older has seen the tepid pablum that passes for children's entertainment nowadays, Sesame Street included. That isn't even nostalgia talking; the 1980s featured Jim Henson, Fred Rogers, Fred Penner, Bob Homme (the Friendly Giant), Ernie Coombs (Mr. Dressup), to name a few...I could probably go on for paragraphs. The fundamental difference I see between then and now is the quantity of condescension, that is, the way that shows nowadays treat kids quite literally with 'kid-gloves', while the entertainers of the past spoke to kids on a simple yet respectful level. To quote Robin Williams, "You don't play DOWN to them, you just play TO them"

The sadly humorous part (and I know you're all thinking it on some level) is that a lot of the names I have mentioned or COULD mention would probably be accused of having similar tendencies to the monster song. Whether seriously or as a source of cynical comedy, our currently revisionist mindset is unforgivably harsh towards children's entertainment. Which, in turn, causes further restrictions on the part of producers and broadcasters, eventually reaching a point where every frame and every word is examined under a microscope for even the slightest hint of controversy. There are people out there with telephones and far too much time on their hands...that's all it really takes.

As I have said, this is a difficult and emotional debate and I do not claim to be absolutely right one way or the other. Yes, there are certain things that children should not see. But that is the responsibility of parents, not television screens. Do our children know the difference between right and wrong, fantasy and reality? If they don't, it isn't Cookie Monster's fault. Concerns about programming content should not be cause for complaint; rather, they should be looked at as "teachable moments", a chance to educate and inform rather than blindfold and shield. To tell the honest truth, I'm rather looking forward to having my own opportunity in years to come...

By the way, another track on the 'Born to Add' album is about a party where a group of monsters "Honk around the Clock". What do you think THAT encourages?

Function Malfunction

The biggest problem with 24-hour news stations is finding enough "news" to fill 24 hours. The major problems of the world, at least as far as those of us not directly involved are concerned, can be adequately summarized in a one-hour space each day. In fact, that's exactly what media has done for decades. It was only comparatively recently that someone thought it a good idea to summarize the same items again and again ad nauseum.

Funny thing, I didn't even notice Ms. Aguilera's lyric flub on Sunday Night's Superbowl. But turning on the radio the next morning, I actually began to wonder whether a football game had been played at all. As far as the news outlets were concerned, anything and everything of interest that evening ended with a "rocket's red glare."

Yes, I actually heard the term "lyric malfunction". Which reminded me that this wasn't the first time the sport (the whole point of the event) was pre-empted by the lacklustre, overblown musical performance meant to keep the drunks amused during breaks in play. Apparently, "the Twitter feeds were abuzz" all night with talk about the mistaken words.

And yet, with all of this coverage, comment, and conversation, not ONE news outlet addressed what I believe to be the most important question stemming from this event...

"WHO CARES?!?!"

I love silly stunts and YouTube, don't get me wrong. Watching some numbnuts try to snowboard off his roof and ending up ass-over-tip in a tree is a great way to get a laugh. But it would be a lot less funny if, after said idiocy, the hosts spent the next 48 hours or so discussing its implications.

"Did you see when he went in the tree?"
"Yes, I was thinking...how could you be so dumb as to snowboard off your roof?"
"Right, and then he ended up IN the tree."
"I wonder if he realized he'd made a mistake."
"Yeah, I could see his face, I think he realized. But by then, of course, it was too late."
"So what do you think will happen now?"
"Well, I think he'll keep snowboarding, but maybe not off anymore roofs.
"Yeah, or at least if he does, he'll make sure there aren't any trees around!"
"Ha ha ha! Too right. Well, to discuss the whole 'moron-in-a-tree' aspect of American life, let me introduce our panel..."

And so on. That would be the worst episode of AFV ever, because they'd only show one clip and spend the rest of the time reviewing it. That's not comedy. That's not even news. It's what twenty-four-hour-a-day news is...a waste of time.