Sometimes when I write my blog, I feel a little bit like Andy Rooney, from 60 Minutes. Think about it for a second. I sit at my keyboard waiting for inspiration to hit, but what usually comes out on the screen is drivel that nobody in their right mind could be bothered to read.
I think I've hit most of the same topics as he has too, from the rising cost of everyday items, to stupid products or television programs.
On the other hand, I like to think I've touched on some things of interest as well. I have discussed depression, disability and morality. Certainly I have written my fair share about the environment. Serious subjects may be few and far between, but that isn't really what blogging is about, is it? After all, I have described this space as a look into what's on my mind. We all have days when there just isn't much there.
The chief advantage the computer age has given us is the ability to record our daily lives in this fashion. We, as writers, can reveal as much or as little about ourselves as we wish to. In some cases, we talk about the issues that affect all of us, and in others, we get down to the nitty-gritty of just who we are. The important thing is that, as long as blogs exist, there will always be an outlet for our feelings and our creativity.
Do you ever wonder what it would have been like if the Internet had been around during key points of history? Imagine a soldier in the trenches of World War I, being able to put the hell he was experiencing into his own words, words that just anyone could read. People who made great discoveries in the early ages of civilization could have spread them farther and faster. In fact, the dark ages might never have happened at all.
As with any medium though, blogs can and do get used for less than noble purposes. It is the price we pay for advancement as a society. As the readers, at least we get to decide what is of value, and what can be ignored. In a repressive regime, even the press can be stopped. Ideas on the Internet are much harder to keep under wraps. Just ask the government of Burma.
Write on, fellow bloggers. Even if you do write trivia some days, at least it's trivia of your own interpretation.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Q: Do men ever grow up. A: No, our cartoons just get more graphic.
The title of this post really says it all. As I've gotten older, I never truly gave up watching cartoons. It's an art form that will never really die out. Not unlike the soap opera, which made the move from radio to television. I can see the day when cartoons are a major part of Internet content.
The worst part of it is that the core of cartooning has been lost. Most of the stuff you see these days is made in the animae style of Japan. That means big busted girls in extremely short school girl uniforms. Well, there is more to animae than that, but that seems to be the biggest trend, from what I've seen.
What comes out of North America are cartoons that you just don't want your kids watching, if you have any hope of raising something other than psychopaths. At first glance, The Simpsons, Futurama and the like may seem harmless. Wait for three minutes into the show. There is always some sexual, racist or antisocial content. Don't even get me started on South Park! There is a reason why these shows aren't supposed to be on before eight in the evening.
I'm more of a traditionalist when it comes to my cartoons. Give me a good episode of Bugs Bunny any day. Scooby Doo was another favourite. To this day, my father will snicker if you put in an old Scooby Doo tape and wait for a few seconds. Sometimes I think as we get older, our sense of humour atrophies, and the jokes have to become more and more crass just to get through.
Comic strips on the other hand, are another story. They are, for the most part, still the same, clean, family entertainment that we have always had. Which isn't to say that they cannot deal with adult issues. Being in the newspapers, they just have to do it in a mature, adult manner. I think the best examples of this is "For Better or For Worse" and "Baby Blues". Both have dealt with some pretty adult subjects in a way that does not offend the general reader.
I think that the older men get, the more infantile their idea of entertainment gets. As a man, I can say that without sounding like a sexist woman trying to bash males in general. What other guys will say is another matter.
The worst part of it is that the core of cartooning has been lost. Most of the stuff you see these days is made in the animae style of Japan. That means big busted girls in extremely short school girl uniforms. Well, there is more to animae than that, but that seems to be the biggest trend, from what I've seen.
What comes out of North America are cartoons that you just don't want your kids watching, if you have any hope of raising something other than psychopaths. At first glance, The Simpsons, Futurama and the like may seem harmless. Wait for three minutes into the show. There is always some sexual, racist or antisocial content. Don't even get me started on South Park! There is a reason why these shows aren't supposed to be on before eight in the evening.
I'm more of a traditionalist when it comes to my cartoons. Give me a good episode of Bugs Bunny any day. Scooby Doo was another favourite. To this day, my father will snicker if you put in an old Scooby Doo tape and wait for a few seconds. Sometimes I think as we get older, our sense of humour atrophies, and the jokes have to become more and more crass just to get through.
Comic strips on the other hand, are another story. They are, for the most part, still the same, clean, family entertainment that we have always had. Which isn't to say that they cannot deal with adult issues. Being in the newspapers, they just have to do it in a mature, adult manner. I think the best examples of this is "For Better or For Worse" and "Baby Blues". Both have dealt with some pretty adult subjects in a way that does not offend the general reader.
I think that the older men get, the more infantile their idea of entertainment gets. As a man, I can say that without sounding like a sexist woman trying to bash males in general. What other guys will say is another matter.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Civic duty
In my humble opinion, we've dropped the ball again in the things we teach our kids. In this case, it can partly be blamed on the school system, and partly on the rest of us. I am talking about teaching kids about their responsibilities as citizens.
When I was younger, the basics of the Canadian Constitution were covered in History class. The key stuff was learned by the end of grade six. Now, so much is crammed into courses that kids don't even have a nodding acquaintance with the way our government works until high school. By that time, it is too late. Students have developed an apathy towards their civic duty, or they are already being asked to participate in the system and are confused.
Maybe as family we should be doing more. Each time an election is called, parents and older relatives (eligible to vote), should discuss the issues with their kids. After all, the government we elect today will make policies that will affect them down the road. That is the approach we could take too. We could ask them what they think about things, and in that way show them that their opinions already matter.
Kids these days assume that they have the right to do as they please. From an early age, they have an attitude of entitlement. Part of coping with demanding children could be showing them that with any "rights" they want come responsibilities, like taking part in making decisions and carrying them out.
Just a thought, but maybe when children reach the age of five or six, we should start giving them a vote on some family decisions. People seem to learn best when they start doing things at an early age. Maybe give them a little say in how groceries are bought. Just as much responsibility as they can handle, and that won't cause major headaches if the wrong decisions are made.
My point, (Yes, there is one.) is that we should be teaching our kids about the way our country is run from a very early age. It should not be done through book learning, but by example. Take your kids with you when you go to vote. And for heaven's sake, do vote! Let's set an example.
When I was younger, the basics of the Canadian Constitution were covered in History class. The key stuff was learned by the end of grade six. Now, so much is crammed into courses that kids don't even have a nodding acquaintance with the way our government works until high school. By that time, it is too late. Students have developed an apathy towards their civic duty, or they are already being asked to participate in the system and are confused.
Maybe as family we should be doing more. Each time an election is called, parents and older relatives (eligible to vote), should discuss the issues with their kids. After all, the government we elect today will make policies that will affect them down the road. That is the approach we could take too. We could ask them what they think about things, and in that way show them that their opinions already matter.
Kids these days assume that they have the right to do as they please. From an early age, they have an attitude of entitlement. Part of coping with demanding children could be showing them that with any "rights" they want come responsibilities, like taking part in making decisions and carrying them out.
Just a thought, but maybe when children reach the age of five or six, we should start giving them a vote on some family decisions. People seem to learn best when they start doing things at an early age. Maybe give them a little say in how groceries are bought. Just as much responsibility as they can handle, and that won't cause major headaches if the wrong decisions are made.
My point, (Yes, there is one.) is that we should be teaching our kids about the way our country is run from a very early age. It should not be done through book learning, but by example. Take your kids with you when you go to vote. And for heaven's sake, do vote! Let's set an example.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Monuments and memorials
My wife and I went out to the cemetery to take the flowers from her father's grave. When we did, we noticed a new monument. It was extremely tall, and had the family tree engraved on the one side, with a brief history of the family on the other. It was amazing. The stone was a beautiful shiny black granite, with pictures etched and then sealed on the one side.
This left me to thinking about monuments that we leave behind, and the way that we want to be remembered.
Granted, my final arrangements have been made, and they do not include a headstone or memorial of any kind.
I think, if I were to leave anything behind in memoriam, it would be something that could be enjoyed by others. I'd like to create a park or green space, with a small plaque bearing just my name and the date that the park was founded. I would not want the park named for me, just knowing that I had left something good for others would make me happy.
There is this tendency in our society to buy our memorials. If you are wealthy enough, you get a building or a bridge named after you. I'm waiting for the day that Conrad Black decides to build his own palace, if he has any money left after his time in prison.
The prime example of all of this self-aggrandizement is Donald Trump. Trump Tower, need I say more?
Naming something for yourself is the height of arrogance, especially if it is something that you and your family will maintain control of for as long as possible. The true memorial is something you give quietly to the community. If you are remembered for it, then you can be said to have been a person of note.
I'd just like to earn enough respect within the community I live in that I will be remembered, even without my name on some fancy bronze plaque.
This left me to thinking about monuments that we leave behind, and the way that we want to be remembered.
Granted, my final arrangements have been made, and they do not include a headstone or memorial of any kind.
I think, if I were to leave anything behind in memoriam, it would be something that could be enjoyed by others. I'd like to create a park or green space, with a small plaque bearing just my name and the date that the park was founded. I would not want the park named for me, just knowing that I had left something good for others would make me happy.
There is this tendency in our society to buy our memorials. If you are wealthy enough, you get a building or a bridge named after you. I'm waiting for the day that Conrad Black decides to build his own palace, if he has any money left after his time in prison.
The prime example of all of this self-aggrandizement is Donald Trump. Trump Tower, need I say more?
Naming something for yourself is the height of arrogance, especially if it is something that you and your family will maintain control of for as long as possible. The true memorial is something you give quietly to the community. If you are remembered for it, then you can be said to have been a person of note.
I'd just like to earn enough respect within the community I live in that I will be remembered, even without my name on some fancy bronze plaque.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The green life
I was taking out the trash last night, when I saw a can lying on the lawn. It's not enough that I have to take care of my own mess, but then I have to deal with stuff carelessly thrown about the property? With all of the talk about living green these days, I would have thought that there would be more effort to preserve the environment.
With the availability of recycling here in town, Sandra and I produce very little in the way of garbage. The only thing we really throw out most is kitty litter. I don't know if there is an environmentally friendly way to dispose of that. If we had the ability to compost, we could eliminate even further waste. Coffee grounds and filters apparently compost down to some of the best soil.
I think my ideal situation would be where waste output would be less than five percent of what is brought into the home. That would mean some changes in the way we do things. For starters, we would need a home that is built to be as energy efficient as possible.
That isn't so much of a challenge today as you might think. It's all about knowing your lifestyle, and how to get the most bang for your buck. Further more, an energy efficient home does not have to look any different from any other. Construction methods must change, not the style. The house of the future will not look so different from the home of today. The appearance means little, it's the structure and planning that matters.
I think, where the environment is concerned, we need to look to the past to find the solutions for the future.
Why do we waste so many of the planet's resources when some of the best stuff is sitting right in front of us? It seems to me that we should be mining our landfill sites. It takes decades for a simple piece of paper to decompose in the dump. With just a little effort, that paper could be recycled and still more trees saved. There are enough cans in our trash to keep us supplied with metal for ages.
It costs so much less to recycle as well. In terms of aluminum, recycling used metal uses only twenty-five percent of the energy required to process raw bauxite ore. It seems to me that, just in economic terms, we should start using what we already have to hand much more effectively.
Wouldn't it be ironic though, to see bulldozers digging up what we have wasted for so long?
With the availability of recycling here in town, Sandra and I produce very little in the way of garbage. The only thing we really throw out most is kitty litter. I don't know if there is an environmentally friendly way to dispose of that. If we had the ability to compost, we could eliminate even further waste. Coffee grounds and filters apparently compost down to some of the best soil.
I think my ideal situation would be where waste output would be less than five percent of what is brought into the home. That would mean some changes in the way we do things. For starters, we would need a home that is built to be as energy efficient as possible.
That isn't so much of a challenge today as you might think. It's all about knowing your lifestyle, and how to get the most bang for your buck. Further more, an energy efficient home does not have to look any different from any other. Construction methods must change, not the style. The house of the future will not look so different from the home of today. The appearance means little, it's the structure and planning that matters.
I think, where the environment is concerned, we need to look to the past to find the solutions for the future.
Why do we waste so many of the planet's resources when some of the best stuff is sitting right in front of us? It seems to me that we should be mining our landfill sites. It takes decades for a simple piece of paper to decompose in the dump. With just a little effort, that paper could be recycled and still more trees saved. There are enough cans in our trash to keep us supplied with metal for ages.
It costs so much less to recycle as well. In terms of aluminum, recycling used metal uses only twenty-five percent of the energy required to process raw bauxite ore. It seems to me that, just in economic terms, we should start using what we already have to hand much more effectively.
Wouldn't it be ironic though, to see bulldozers digging up what we have wasted for so long?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
