Word of the Day: ‘Phantasmagoric’

Ooooo the ‘Abuse your illusions’ article really gets me rilled up!

Being critical of the news is a good idea altogether, as I don’t think they are the watchdogs of the government but rather are the watchdogs of anything that does not promote capitalism. Point being Chavez being labelled as autocratic. Hmmm, the fact that 56% of the people voted for him might suggest otherwise. This happened in Mexico recently as well when the socialist runner and his followers wanted a recount b/c they were concerned that it was rigged to ensure NAFTA remained a priority.

I really get angry when these types of media spins happen! I am totally a conflict theorist in the belief that everything is being constructed to protect the interests of the elite business class, but I wonder why not everyone can see this? I watched a documentary on Noam Chompsky and at one point it touched on NPR and how they edited his interview to suit political interests – ie not allow anything to radical (god forbid someone disagrees) to be spoken and the best thing about it: the whole flippin interview was pre-taped!

Then in 2005 I was listening to DNTO on CBC about an interview with Stephen Marshal author of ‘True Lies’ and he mentioned something about the amount of confirming sources required to prosect a politician. I believe it was something like 5-6 sources all showing the same thing in order for the claim to be crediable. This is uber scary, these people have free rein on public policies that funnel down to how we lead our lives. The whole ‘the personal is political’ is still totally valid, even if it was a slogan from the 60-70’s.

It upsets me that anyone not on the capitalist bandwagon is deemed undemocractic. Remember the quote from before ‘When democracy comes to American it will be in the form of facism’ – Huey Long? well the more we look at the media and how it plays into politics the more appears to be happening.

yes, now I am just ranting and need to stop. However, the amount of media misinformation is definetly something to rant about. Including Festivus.

Just Cuz it Humours Me

Festivus!

HAPPY VALINTINE’S DAY

HERE IS A LITTLE SOMETHING FOR THOSE IN LOVE 

ALICE COOPER – YOU & ME

 

AND THOSE WHO DON’T WANT TO BE IN LOVE ANYMORE 

PAUL SIMON REMAKE: 50 WAYS TO LEAVE YOUR LOVER

Scatter Brain

I did all my comments before I wrote my post and am now lost for what to say. Note to self: write post, comment after.

The chapter in the textbook was a little dry talking about television and how it works… well interesting but hard to comment on I suppose. I did find it very interesting that Quebec had a lot of French content and didn’t give way to American programming the way the rest of us do apparently. Mad props to the Francophone people.

 

As for Fiske, hmmm where to start? I really enjoyed his claim that we need to re-conceptualize ‘people’ by eradicating the pan-people perspective and allow diversity to enter our minds when we use the word ‘people’; this is a very good step in the right direction for inclusion of minorities and exclusion of the idea that people=white.

My beef was more on the maintenance of power relations in terms of economic power. Maybe I am out to lunch on this one, but Fiske talked about varying perspectives coming through television b/c we all have different meanings for different things, but he forgot to mention those who cannot afford television or cable. The ones who don’t have the opportunity to make meanings of what is coming through will have a hard time  giving their perspectives if they don’t have access to television to spread their opinion via ‘word of mouth’ - so the only people who really have any ‘power’ as viewers would be those who are economically advantaged. (I know it seems crazy to think some people cannot afford a television but it happens – note my sarcasm)

Second, those who are economically advantaged and are called out to through television commercials and programming… well are they really in the interest of breaking down power relations to fit a more diversification? Do they sit and think about all the people who cannot afford what they can and how they are going to start talking about poverty with their friends, or are they going to talk about how cool that new commodity is?  I like to think humans are good, but I honestly believe we don’t do anything unless we have self-interest in mind. So do I think that it is good to have people constructing meaning from a hegemonic system and then call it ‘diversity’ because we make meanings from the dominant culture, uhhhh… no. (This isn’t cynism Paul, this is critical realism)

here is my example: I am Cree and I really don’t see a lot of Natives on television in the dominant culture (‘North of 60′ doesn’t really register as dominant) how does my making sense of meaning really seem positive when the message I am getting it that Natives don’t register as mainstream b/c they are A) not important enough  or B) not enough Natives watch television. I think this is what Fiske was picking up on with the Aboriginals in Australia shifting their music identification from Country to Reggae (this happened in Canada for the Natives too), there doesn’t exist forums for everyone.

Now for some optimism in the form of pessimism: on the situation that there isn’t really a forum for Native identification (pessimism) we live in a post modern era were it seems no one’s identity can be fully recognized and reflected on television (this is supposed to be optimistic but I came up short – sorry dear reader I am lacking on this one)  

My point: there really should be one in there… I dislike the racialized identities of minorities that are promoted on television and although it maybe called a forum for viewers to think about their values and contrast them with the values of capitalistic ideologies, it continues to promote those (capitalist) values to the people who have no problem with them, thus neglecting to challenge them. Does this mean they will buy more of the products if all the people in the commercials are white and middle class? When everyone is watching for the race, age, gender, socio-economic status, sexual orientation (etc) of the people selling us things on televisions then I will agree with Fiske. My brain is full, I am done.

Is there really such thing as ‘just friends’?

Quick question: Is there such thing as ‘just friends’? Can someone be friends with an ex-fiance and call it ‘just friends’? Or would that seem absurd, or maybe cool? Does it depend on whether you are female or male, ie will women say yes or no more than men would?

What I Could Muster Up

Wow. No offense but this chapter was really dry and boring. I made it through, as I knew there was a light at the end of the rainbow. I wish I had more intellectual things to say about this chapter though. I don’t want to sound mundane about how much I like designing things in HTML code… that is waaaayyyyy more boring than the chapter.

Hmmm. OH! I loved the stats they gave though. I think it was very enlightening how many Canadians have access or use internet. And Wow, 65% of us spend more than 20 hours a month online. I wonder why it is that Canadians have the highest rates of internet use per-capita. Maybe b/c we are so spaced out that we use it b/c it is cheaper and unlimited than phoning people. Or b/c winters don’t give us many things to do (I say this b/c I am from the East Kootenays and Alberta winters are different from what i am used to) so we stay indoors.

Universal Access; this is an interesting concept. Although stats Canada says that people with internet acces and computer ownership are more likely to have higher than average incomes. Only problem is students own computers and live below the poverty line. I guess there aren’t sooo many of us that is makes a large difference in these stats.

I like the idea of equal opportunity for internet access, but does the internet drastically change someone’s living conditions or life, or is the internet more a reflection of people’s capital? I like that they mentioned the internet connected Canadians.

Childcare Debate

Like an idiot I decided to wear my 4 inch heel boots (as I cannot find my flats) to school for the women’s scholar presentation (how I ironic, I know) and now I am bound to the top of the university for sore feet reasons.

The presentation was absolutely reviting; it was on childcare. Now, I am sure most people won’t find childcare on a political relam interesting but it relates to everyone! If childcare cannot be found for families than either a parent (usually the female – I am not advocating this I am just stating the norm) stays home or they find childcare services with less training and possibly less quality.

Now, why this affects you. Well, for one it all affects us as consumers (not the best argument but one that really speaks to people: money). Studies show that children who have quality childcare are more likely to graduate high school, obtain better employment and subsequently imprisonment rates drop significantly (this is more for children in poverty). However, this affects you b/c your taxes drop; you don’t pay for people to be in jail you actually reap the benefits when they are tax paying citizens and your tax dollar can go towards something better; like health care for your loved ones.

How about the baby boomer’s retiring soon! Canada already has a worker shortage and when the boomers retire they are going to be creating more service industry jobs and will be creating more health care jobs. Where are we going to get this labour from? Well, working women (as the aren’t often the primary caregivers and thus are already in the workforce) and/or immigration.

BUT! here is the question postulated at the presentation: does the issue of childcare have to be in terms of instrumental economics or can we have childcare b/c it allows more women to enter into the workforce and not be confined to gender prescribed roles?

An interesting point is raised: do women really want to work for money (b/c domestic labour is work it just isn’t paid, which is ironic b/c in economic terms it would be one of the highest paying jobs)? The speaker’s response: can we think in a different paradigm where roles were reversed and we asked the question: do men really want to work? See where this is going… why do we assume the men love the workforce and women clearly dispise it. My opinion is that we assume women LOVE to be primary childcare givers b/c it is so ‘natural’ – which isn’t true for me personally.

However, my dad raised 4 kids on his own (with much help from extended family) and I am a feminist with alternative gender values and a boyfriend who really does want to be the primary caregiver. So I have all these oportunities on a practical and ideological level and I still feel like I should be the one to stay at home and raise children. This is HUGE for me b/c I feel like I am pressured into this giant social structure that romanticizes children and places women&children in one category – which is so true.

Anywho, what about single dad’s who need childcare? If there were enough of them then do you think it would happen? We think of this as a women’s issue but in reality it is a people issue – if it takes 2 set of chromosones to make a child then guess what: the child just so happens to belong to (gasp) 2 people – crazy I know. And I don’t want to attack men and talk about them as deadbeats b/c they aren’t! But if men aren’t posed with this issue that it maybe less personal to them. I don’t think that all men are running away and denying the issue I just don’t think it has been brought to the light for them… yet.

So how do people feel about childcare? Should men stay at home, should women stay home? Should both work? What kind of facilities do you want to see your children in? DO you trust the facilities that exist now, do you plan to do research into them before leaving your child (future or current) there? After all it is only our children (note sarcasm)….

Ethics in Capitalism?

Obviously I am not big on capitalism, as it is based on the exploitation of others and then packaged and called ‘free enterprise’ (if by free you mean no moral or ethically obligations, then yes, free is a good word)

I have beef with copyright, but more so beef with those who are fighting to keep oodles and oodles of billions and saying that information sharing goes against copyright. Case in point the music industry. I do buy music from artists I support, but I still feel uber bad when I think about how much of that money is going to the production companies. Now, it is the production companies that are fighting to track IP addresses and charge people with ’stealing’ music (this brings survillence to a whole new level when you really think about it). I disagree with this. If they reasonably priced music or the money was actually going to the artist (the majority of it anyways) then I may feel more obligated to stop downloading.

 

Do I feel bad for the artists who have been packaged and sold and then complain about us ’stealing’ music from them, no. It isn’t their music anyways… sorry but I tend to think that when you don’t write the lyrics or the music but you perform it, well ownership doesn’t really reside with you. But, I don’t think we should be paying good money to listen to this when it is free and the music companies should actually be paying us to listen to this crap.

This whole notion of ‘intellectual property’ and ethics in capitalism is very shaky. To begin with I don’t believe capitalism has a lot of ethics, so why are people being forced to abide by ethics that protect corporations with mass wealth? This seems to me like giving the master protection when she/he gets mad that the slaves are taking back power and she/he is losing it. Honestly, I don’t feel sorry for the master. 

Clever Degu

Alright I know I already posted Mike Myers but I ran across this and find it rather comical. My Degus can’t do this, but I am working with them to shake their paws for treats instead. Oh God, I am so nerdy… but it either that or the Roadhouse for spare time and well, I after being here for 5 years I just don’t like it there.

Fat Man in a Sprinkler – SPROKETS