Vol #2, Col #1: R.E.S.P.E.C.T., Find Out What it Means to Me

I lived under a certain amount of fear as a child, and you know what? It was good for me. No, my parents weren’t cultists, militant drill-sergeant types, or abusive alcoholics (let me make clear I’m abundantly thankful for that). However, they did instill in me very early on that no transgression was without its consequences and nothing, no nothing, in life ever comes for free.

If I talked back, stayed out too late, or got into any of the typical mischief teenagers do, there were consequences to be paid. As for the ability to compromise/negotiate said punishments enacted against me? Let’s just say that ceased to exist! Further, if I wanted spending money for various recreational pursuits, it sure as shit wasn’t just handed to me on a silver platter. Rather, from the moment I was able to walk and talk, I contributed to the household chores; at the age of seven, I was practically my mom’s full-on secretary.

What I’m trying to express in probably too many words is quite simply this: my parents were AUTHORITY FIGURES and it was through them that I learned not just the difference between right and wrong, but moreover the concept of respect, especially as it pertains to your elders and other persons within our social hierarchy, such as teachers and police officers, who demand the same sort of treatment.

Well, I’m not sure who’s to blame – perhaps it was the upsurge of bad TV talkshows (and their over-the-top degenerate guests) hosted by the likes of Jerry Springer in the early 90s, or the repeated media-hyped moral panics surrounding corporal punishment and its supposed potential for backlash – but since the Babyboomer generation, I’ve observed a marked change in what is being doled out as the “recommended” strategies for effective parenting/ parent-child relationships…and in my view, it ain’t for the better!

I mean, these days, parenting is apparently all about “befriending” your children, and allowing THEM to practically designate THEIR own punishments (if any) as THEY see fit. Parents are being instructed to hear their children out and negotiate with them in terms of what’s fair discipline-wise, even if it’s indisputable their kids made some serious errors in judgment. But, the worst of it is that parents who fail to comply with this laissez-faire attitude and actually try to encourage obedience from their children can be taken to court for “infringing” on their kids’ rights. I’m sorry, but I can’t think of something more ridiculous, and here’s why:

As Piaget noted many moons ago, humans typically do not start to become capable of rational, mature adult-like (ie: “operational”) thought, a prerequisite to the full comprehension AND chosen adherence to society’s norms and mores, until they reach between seven and 11 years of age. Further, according to Kolhberg’s "Theory of Moral Development", the internalization of universal ethics, along with the establishment of a sense of personal responsibility is highly contingent on proper socialization, as well as both the reinforcement and punishment of appropriate and inappropriate actions; respectively. In other words, kids, lacking the complex cognition necessary to understand why things are right or wrong per se, instead base their actions purely on consequences. Therefore, if parents refuse to acknowledge their role as the primary disciplinarians/moral teachers in the lives of their children (primary as in both first and most impactful), how the hell can we expect kids to ever adhere to societal rules and regulations, let alone respect future authority figures who will inevitably enter their lives via school, the workplace, and just life in general?

Despite the current fashion’s insistence that “friending” your offspring is the way to go, it has long been established by development psychologists that the MOST effective of the four parenting styles is the form classified as “authoritative”. The perfect combination of nurturance and boundary-setting, authoritative parents “monitor and impart clear standards for their children’s conduct. They are assertive, but not intrusive and restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive, rather than punitive. They want their children to be assertive as well as socially responsible, and self-regulated as well as cooperative,” (Baumrind, “The Influence of Parenting Style on Adolescent Competence and Substance Use“, Journal of Early Adolescence, 1991.)

The point I’m trying to get at is that, for one thing, there’s a reason why the Facebook group entitled, “If I Spoke to My Parents How Kids Talk Now a Days I'd Been Knocked Out!,” is so popular. The other point is this: can you name another 26-year-old who cried when issued her very first speeding ticket because she was so disappointed with herself for tainting her record of perfect law-abiding citizenship? Likely not.

I “get” parents wanting to be relatable to their children. Heck, I especially “get” parents wanting to try and minimize the potential for conflicts with their kin. But what I don’t get, and what you shouldn’t accept either is parenting WITHOUT a sense of discipline. There’s a wild epidemic out there spreading among many members of my own generation, along with the one that follows it, and that wild epidemic has been labelled quite concisely as “a sense of entitlement.” To the parents who “befriend” their children, all I’ve gotta say, is what the hell did you expect? As I wrote in my very first paragraph, nothing, indeed, nothing comes for free.

Vol #1, Col #14: Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?

I was raised Roman Catholic, so trust me, I, of all people understand the true meaning of hypocrisy. But let me clarify: it’s NOT that Catholicism (or any religious/spiritual doctrine) in itself is a flawed belief system. Rather, it’s what people do in the name of religion that has given it a bad rep; akin to that smart expression regarding guns and people and who’s truly responsible for killing. With that said however, I wonder what’s worse? Believing in something so strongly that it causes you to make lapses in judgment and be discriminatory towards others OR not believing in anything at all? To me, it’s the latter.

Coming from someone who was once engaged to a nihilist with sociopathic and anarchist tendencies, trust me when I say it’s scary what you can justify when you subscribe philosophically to nothing at all. After all, without religion, without spirituality, without some sort of moral foundation, what is there to keep you in check? Even Freud, the grandfather of the discipline of psychology, acknowledged that ‘the super-ego’ (our mind’s moral policing device) is derived from the internationalization of societal mores, and norms, of which religion plays a major role in establishing.

But since the Age of the Enlightenment, rationality has ruled supreme. While everyone is so quick to point the finger at God as the downfall of humanity, I’d like you to consider science as an equipotent force in causing self- and societal destruction. Allow me to elaborate:

Originally undertaken as a project intended to solve the energy crisis through the advent of nuclear, we all know what happened when the technology of the good old Atom Bomb got into the hands of the military. Then, of course, there are the countless atrocious experiments performed on twins and other “lucky” guinea pigs under the Nazi regime; the results of which contributed greatly to our modern knowledge of genetics and genetic manipulation (what a proud history we have there!). But, if we want to predate both of the aforementioned “brilliant” (and I use that term extremely facetiously) usages of science, society’s named “progressive” and “objective” force, we needn’t look far back to our history of colonialism which was largely informed by Social Darwinian and eugenics policies that justified the extermination, mistreatment, and forced sterilization of a ridiculous number of people - the so-called “inferiors” (ie: anyone who was not a member of the dominant white class and/or anyone who was insightful enough to challenge said class’ weak “survival of the fittest” validations).

The point is that while admittedly some pretty awful acts have been committed in the name of religion (The Crusades and Witch Hunts come to mind, among others), the VERY SAME THING can be said about science! But what makes science that much more dangerous in this capacity is that while religion is perceived as socially constructed, subjective, relying on faith and therefore NOT having all of the answers, as well as open to interpretation (mind you, unless we’re talking about the Fundamentalists, but they go into a category of their own), science, on the other hand, is given ULTIMATE UNQUESTIONED (moreover to use a religious pun, “infallible”) AUTHORITY in contemporary society. As explained in Bereska’s Deviance, Conformity & Social Control in Canada, “science is seen by many people as a purely objective discipline such that its claims to truth are frequently considered unaffected by political, religious, or commercial interests.”

Given that scientific pursuits are increasingly being funded by “big corporate”, I’d say this is particularly problematic. In fact a recent study, in Fast-tracking the Plague: Drugging America to Death, documented that, “96% of [scientific] authors with ties to pharmaceutical companies produced favourable results, while only 37% of independently funded studies of the SAME DRUGS showed favourable results.” I think I’ll let that quote speak for itself.

At the end of the day, it comes down to this – science AND religion are both merely belief systems. One is no more important, objective, free from partisanship, or truthful than the other (this, of course, opens the proverbial can of worms for an entire debate on exactly what is truth, but I guess you’ll all just have to wait ‘til next year for that dousy).

While science and its associated technologies undoubtedly has its merits, on its own, I question whether or not it is able to provide our citizens with the moral compasses we need and should be embracing when it comes to living our lives. You can call me old-fashioned but, I sincerely believe the world would be a much better place if we all learned to adopt the Ten Commandments as universal rules of how we should treat one another.

To that I add only one caveat: while I self-identify as a Christian, I would NEVER infringe my personal religious beliefs onto another person, and so while the first of the said Commandments suggest that there is only one God and that he/she/it is to be honoured solely, I suggest to all of you non-religious folk to read between the lines of this expression (ie: it’s about acknowledging the fact that there are forces over and above human nature, and that those forces, along with our fellow man and womankind deserve to be acknowledged and honoured even if we can’t always understand them. In sum, don’t lead a selfish solipsistic existence.) Amen to that.

Vol #1, Col #13: You Can’t Handle the Truth

I think things must have been easier in the Wild West. If you had a beef with someone, you called a duel, and whoever could pull their gun out of their holster with superior lightening speed well…problem resolved. But it wasn’t merely this method of “social control” that proved more effective (and straight to the point, I might add), but further the nature of the conflicts that emerged between people seemed to be largely based on more “tangible” concerns (ie: limited resources, whether in the form of food, water, territory and/or women).

In contrast, these days, and I propose it’s because we, as North Americans, have SO much (tell me when’s the last time you worried about whether or not you’d be able to find drinking water untouched by arsenic? Oh right, such a thing has never occurred in your lifetime!), we CREATE conflicts and social categories intended to enhance divisiveness (something I like to term “human-made drama”), that in reality don’t have very strong feet to stand on (sound familiar? 9/11 perhaps?).

A more down-to-earth example can be seen in the case of “internet flame wars.” I mean, honestly, can someone please explain to me the purpose of such juvenility, let alone the cause? As always, an instance from my very own life proves illustrative -- don’t you love it when real life serves as inspiration? I know I do! So here goes:

For absolutely no reason and without any provocation on my end, just the other day, some random chick posted up big and bold for the whole world to see, that she apparently hates me, in her Facebook headline (something I only learned about because it would seem we have some mutual acquaintances). Seeing as I’ve NEVER met NOR conversed with this individual in my entire life, I find it hard to believe that she could harbour such strong emotions toward me. I don’t know…maybe I’m crazy, but I am selective when I use said term, and you best believe that if/when I do employ “hate”, it’s for good (pardon my French) f-ing reason.

I guess I’m just of the belief that if someone has a grievance, they should have “the balls” to confront the other person to their face. (Talking trash behind peoples’ backs is underhanded and vicious. More importantly though, it also fails to solve anything! Oh yeah, and for those of you who think this is the more “polite” approach, I hate to break it to ya, quite the opposite is true.) Not only would this, I’m sure, prevent a whole hell of a lot of long drawn-out affairs that arise entirely from miscommunication (ie: it would give “the accused” an opportunity to explain him/herself), but further it is the respectful and mature way to broach said situations.

Perhaps my “flamer” was having an exceptionally bad day, but rather than host an introspective investigation into her own psyche in order to ascertain the underlying cause(s), she decided to project her negativity onto me to scapegoat any sense of personal responsibility. Or maybe…more simply, her actions were fuelled by jealously? In either scenario, I maintain that her animosity in my general direction was and remains unjustified.

There are a lot of individuals out there, in both the real world and cyberspace, with whom I don’t particularly mesh well (to put it lightly), but I don’t have the time nor do I wish to waste the emotion on creating hate postings. For what purpose? To put someone else down so that temporarily I can feel grandiose? I’d like to take this moment to send a personal message to my flamer: If the only vehicle through which you are able to develop a sense of confidence and self-worth is by putting others down, then my darling, you’ve got bigger problems than just me. But I digress…

To bring everything full circle, what this story so aptly demonstrates is contemporary humankind’s obsession with negativity (and yes it is an obsession, NOT a natural inclination - as they say, happiness is a CHOICE). Because we no longer have to direct the vast majority of our intellectual and physical faculties into acquiring the bare necessities of life, we have time for gossip, we have time for “flame wars”, we have time to bully – all instances of “human-made drama”.

We have forgotten that every word, every action, and even every thought that we put out there affects others. We have become so caught up in our own selfish individual existences that we tear each other down, without giving it a second thought, just to get ahead. We care about our lives now, instead of planning for the future. We externalize our desires, and blame everyone else for our failings. So, is money then the root of all evil? No, money is merely a medium of transaction. As for the aforementioned negative and obsessive line of thinking? Yeah, I’d say so. The truth hurts. Deal with it.

Modern society’s issues are indisputably human-made, but in the ever-so-slightly paraphrased words of Jason Mraz, “The remedy is [in] the experience.” We can AND should learn from our mistakes. And while I may be undertaking a “dangerous liaison” by pointing all of this out, “the truth” as another famous quote suggests, “will set you free.”

Vol #1, Col #12: One Pill Makes you Larger, One Pill makes you Small, And the Ones that the Doctors Give you?

Too fat? Too thin? Too stressed? Too lethargic? Too happy? Too sad? Too moody? Too mellow? Irrespective of your problem, society’s got a cure…at least that’s what the “medicalization model” tells us (ie: there’s a drug for everything).

While I’d be a fool to argue that all advances in health care technology are bad (ie: we’d still be suffering from outbreaks of scurvy and the bubonic plague without ‘em!), there’s something to be said about modern society’s obsession with the “quick fix” and the medical community’s response, “well, we’ll devise a diagnoses and just invent another drug for that.” I’d even go so far as to argue (as controversial as it may seem) that some of these so-called diseases that have reached recent scary degrees of prevalence have quite frankly been made up. Take ADHD, for example.

While I’m sure that there exists out there some people who truly have been/are afflicted with what was once known as “hyperkinesis” (perhaps due to brain circuitry differences), its rate of diagnosis in contemporary society has reached such epidemic proportions that it has made me seriously question exactly what it is we are trying to “drug” and therefore control (after all that is the purpose of medicalization, ie: social control).

Last time I checked, childhood was a time of innocence. Moreover, running about, getting into mischief, having seemingly endless energy, in my view, during one’s formative years is quite “normal”; after all, said time in one’s life is characterized by a lack of responsibility (we should savour that while we can!). And yet, somehow we’ve convinced ourselves that children who possess these traits are acting up, and are problematic to deal with. Well, if children do have excessive amounts of energy, problems maintaining focus, and/or are not responding to authority figures as well as they used to, I’d like to propose it’s not because of any kind of “new” psychological disorder. No, it’s because of the structure of modern society itself. Allow me to explain:

It’s virtually impossible, these days, for a couple to substantiate themselves with one only partner working (Moreover, society’s obsession with material accumulation forces many of us into positions we don’t truly find fulfilling just so we can earn a quick buck in order to retire sooner). Therefore, you end up with situations wherein if a couple has kids, parental supervision is limited. This is commonly dealt with via one or two means: 1) the children are left to be raised by the tv, their video games, and computer systems or 2) the parents outsource the task of raising their kids to daycare services and/or babysitters. In either case, the kid’s real folks well, because they can’t be around as much as they’d like, feel guilty and so they try to “befriend” their children. The result? A generation who has no respect for authority figures. You may think it’s harsh of me to say, but it is a good thing for children to live under a certain amount of fear. Trust me (and no that is NOT a statement in support of child abuse, don’t put words in my mouth).

Further adding to this dilemma, as discussed last week, is the over-processed and questionable foodstuff that the vast majority of us are consuming. Think about it – is it really so shocking that children have an excess in energy when everything you’re feeding them is full of sugar, hormones, additives, and god knows what else?

Finally, because parents are so busy trying to make ends meet, kids aren’t participating in active recreational activities to the same degree they used to. Instead of being out there in the sunshine kicking the can, playing ball, or even skipping double dutch – pastimes that at one point were rather common – instead they’d rather remain IV-ed to their video games, and television screens for their taste of entertainment. And seriously, we wonder why they have so much energy?

Hmm…makes perfect sense to me: lack of adequate supervision/discipline + unhealthy sugar-filled foods + the inability to expend one’s vigor? What do you get? Apparently ADHD!

That’s the thing with the “medicalization model” though. Instead of acknowledging that perhaps there’s a problem with the way in which society is structured, it takes all pathology right back down to the individual level. What few people realize is that the “discovery” of the above mentioned so-called “psychological” disorder now found so commonly among our youth, coincided with both a growing interest in child psychiatry and the pharmaceutical revolution. Still convinced it’s real? I don’t know, personally I’d like to see kids just be allowed to be kids for Christ sake, but that’s just me!

While modern medicine has allowed us to control and monitor the severity of physical ailments (something that I agree is uber-beneficial and in many cases, “life saving”), because we’ve now gotten a handle on said conditions, we’ve become increasingly focused on attempting to do the same thing with psychological maladies. The problem with this, of course, is that even neurologists, who specialize in the field, admit that there is still a great deal UNKNOWN about the brain and its functions. Further, in societies like North America, where we have EVERYTHING (ie: access to the basics like fresh water, food, education, work etc., not to mention a shitload of other unnecessary luxuries), the diagnosis of psychological disorders is disproportionately concentrated.

Maybe if we started making more informed decisions about our lives, and reworked our definitions of health to mean “optimal functioning” as opposed to “symptom-free, but on your third double double of the day” (well, and your second helpng of Advil to ward off the inevitable migraine that will coincide with your caffeine crash), maybe, just maybe we’d start to see where we’re going wrong. In sum, call me crazy, but it seems to me, that we CREATE as many diseases and disorders, these days, as we CURE.

I remember being a high energy obnoxious little brat of a kid. Guess what my parents did to counteract that? I was in every sport imaginable, my tv viewing was rationed depending upon the chores I completed each day, and I certainly wasn’t chugging down Pepsi or Coca Cola by the freakin’ case. I think I turned out quite fine if I do say so myself, and no believe it or not, I was never put on Ritalin.

Vol #1, Col #11: Domestic Bliss & the Glory of Food

I remember a few years back when I attended the orientation for my current post-secondary institute. The mother of someone who was to become one of my future classmates raised her hand in a frenzy to ask one of the coordinators who she could possibly pay to do her child’s laundry? I sat there astonished – uncertain as to whether I should be laughing or shaking my head in shame for the single reason that her kid was so ill-equipped for life, in his late teen years, that he didn’t even know when to use the spin or rinse cycle. My conclusion – that’s likely the least of his problems! This whole episode got me thinking…

While I could have simply written off this poor woman and her highly sheltered (moreover coddled) son as an anomaly, I started to look around. I realized what a rare thing in fact it was (and still is) to come across someone my age who is skilled in “the domestic arts” (and yes, they do constitute an art form of their own). But it’s NOT just people my age either – when it comes to good old fashioned home-cooking, making one’s house spick and span, or completing one’s own handiwork, it seems that most of us opt for the most “convenient” route, which when it comes to the latter of the two tasks involves the hiring of hands, instead of getting one’s own dirty. The consequence? Well, aside from spending unnecessary dollars, because these skills no longer occupy a place in our hearts (or minds) in which they are considered “essential” and therefore merit transmission among the generations, we, as a society, have become increasingly dependent upon one another for menial labour (read: increasingly de-skilled), and we all know who gets shafted with said ill-paying and undesirable jobs (no it ain’t us Ivy League grads, that’s for sure).

More than this however, when it comes to the “art of cooking”, in specific, I mean I’m not really surprised by the exorbitant amount of people knocking off from heart attacks, liver damage, or the like considering the crap (and yes, I said it bluntly) that most of us are consuming (and I’m not just talking the root of all evil here; that being the “fast-food” empire). God knows what the hell that neon orange powder labelled as “cheese mix” in a certain major corporation’s attempt at macaroni actually is, not to mention all of the additives that are, well “added” to our food, and/or all of the genetic tinkering that is going on. Frankly, just for pure “sanitary” reasons, I’d much rather make things from scratch (see the movie, Fast Food Nation, and I can almost guarantee unless you’ve got a real hardy stomach that you’ll seriously think twice about ordering in, eating out, and frankly just buying “ground-up” products in general from now on!).

Aside from how much our food processing and manufacturing has changed (oh the days before factory farming existed, I miss good ole’ Ma and Pa on their ranch, how ‘bout you?), along with our increased access to products that at one point were relegated to specific seasons and/or geographic terrains (thanks to globalization, we can now enjoy any fruit items we desire all year around, but one has to wonder how much pesticides, hormones, and whatever the hell else they’re putting in there for “freshness” you’re ingesting in the process), in my view it seems that our love of consumption (food that is, we’re all good when it comes to buying unnecessary materialistic items like Ipods and I say that as a musician!) has dwindled significantly. I mean whatever happened to the art of enjoying not just the meal itself, but the act of preparation? Why is it considered odd that I spend on average two hours a night making myself quite the lovely feast (well I am Italian, it comes with the territory!)? If you’re going to spend money on anything, shouldn’t your health top that list? Shouldn’t you care what you’re taking in as a source of nourishment and accordingly, take pride in making the necessary task of replenishment an enjoyable one? I don’t know, this all seems like common sense to me.

Undoubtedly, there’s a lot of misinformation (and blatant attempts at brainwashing for that matter) out there regarding making “healthier” eating choices. In fact, just the other day, I had a friend, who has never exactly been what I would call a striking example of someone who’s at the top of their game health-wise, actually try to convince me that there is NO difference between organic and factory-farmed produce, and that it’s all just media hype. Well I can tell you all in sincerity, that since I’ve gone organic and vegan, I have never felt or looked better – I’d say that’s pretty hard evidence to argue, but I’m not here to pick hairs (well I am, but not his!).

The point. The point. Yes I’m getting there. I guess I just find it rather illogical that so many people claim that the reason as to why they rely on those barely edible and highly questionable concoctions known as “microwave dinners” as their regular source of fuel (along with why they also don’t attempt to exercise, or leave their house really unless absolutely necessary) is that they just don’t have the time. It’s ALWAYS about time! Well, time in itself is a socially created concept (we don’t have “time”, as it were, to go there). Sure, the sun rises, the sun falls, people age, but this whole 24 hour clock business – it doesn’t exist in every culture.

**Moreover, the ironic part of this whole “time excuse” is that likely in the long run if people were to spend MORE time NOW investing into their health, they’d have MORE time OVERALL in their lives, thereby making this whole rushing about business to get everything accomplished within a limited timeframe rather pointless, and kinda humorous when you look at it purely as an observer.**

Ah, but this “time excuse” as I’ve just described hinges on a much deeper and more profound issue in contemporary life, and that my friends is our focus on retroactive thinking, as opposed to planning for the future wisely.

Whether it’s in regards to one’s health, social policy, environmental legislation, or even manufacturing protocol, it’s always about what will benefit us NOW at the cheapest cost and via the most efficient route. And we wonder why we are now paying for problems that were predicted centuries ago? Damn retroactive thinking – gets ya like a bitch every time. Perhaps that’s enough food for thought this week.

Vol #1, Col #10: It's in the Clothes We Wear & The Cars We Drive

While I’m no Aimee Brothman (Fanshawe's very own resident fashionista; for those of you who don’t follow her weekly style guide, you should!), I would like to think that I keep a pretty good pulse on what’s in “vogue”. Though admittedly I love my leather and denim, there’s a reason as to why designers consistently look to the past for inspiration, and why “retro”, as it were, has never gone out of style. Whether we’re talking Victorian corsets, pin-up bangs, silverscreen makeup and glamour, or 70s flair, all of these trends have and will continue to be revived (albeit with innovations and/or extensions) because they’re distinctive, original, and timeless in their constitution; rarely can the same be said about purely modern “crazes”. This assertion, however, extends well beyond the red carpet. Design-wise, things of the past had a lot more “personality”. Not only that, they were also far more durable. Perhaps an example would prove illustrative:

I’ve got this horribly ugly (well quite frankly, “fugly”, see the photo - I wasn't lying) bright neon orange hairdryer quite literally from the 1970s (it was my ma’s) manufactured by Gilette (at one time, there were known for more than just their razor blades). One of my girlfriends, on the other hand, insists on always acquiring the newest and latest in personal adornment devices, and so the other day picked herself up a brand spanking new supposedly “high quality” hairdryer. No joke, within a week, it stopped working and she had to get into this big song and dance with the manager at the store where she purchased it in order to try and get a refund, or at the least, exchange it for one of equal value (hopefully a more reliable model!). Funnily enough, this friend of mine, on several occasions, has outrightly refused to use my hairdryer on her locks, and in fact, makes fun of it quite regularly.

Ah, but you see, it may be ugly, but guess what? It works! It has worked for 30+ years, and with any luck, it’ll work for 30 more, and that my friends, is this week’s thought- provoking topic: how and why is it that we live in a world that supposedly is geared towards making things bigger, better, faster, more efficient, more convenient etc. etc. (you know all of those “tag” words big business likes to tote when promoting its products), and yet our products constantly break down, malfunction, “go on the fritz”, are recalled, and for that matter, are NEVER easily repaired?! In fact, many a time (especially when it comes to electronics), I’ve been told straight-up by sales associates that it would be cheaper and faster for me simply to just buy a new one.

But I, unlike so many, DON'T want to contribute to this idea of “consumption as waste”. I want to wear my jeans until the threads quite literally tear away from their seams and cannot be sewn back into place. I want to be able to drop my cell phone repeatedly, by accident, perhaps even put it in the dryer, and have it still work. I want to easily be able to acquire necessary upgrades for my computer, without having to purchase an entirely new machine. I want to know that when a company says it’s recycling, it ACTUALLY IS. Why you ask? Because what few people are aware of is that our waste – North America’s and the rest of the Western world’s – ends up in third world countries where migrant workers NOT protected by health, human rights, or sanitation policies, tear apart our items bare-handed in order to salvage whatever they can to make a quick buck (poverty leads to desperation). The consequence? Rampant outbreaks in disease resulting from exposure to toxic metals and chemicals that we put into our devices and other wastes in order to improve so-called “efficiency”…among other things.

The point I’m trying to make is that I look back fondly on a world that once admired Art Deco, instead of mass-manufactured (and cheaply made, well it’s all outsourced labour, come on) Ikea, where cars were made out of metal and built to last (get yourself a ’88 Chevy Conversion Van like I’ve got for touring, and you’ll get what I mean, she’s a beast!), where people held wardrobe swapping parties, and where when you bought something, because high quality items were rare and super-expensive, you valued those items, and so you made damn sure you were getting everything you could out of that sucker, before it was gonna bite the dust. I still very much live in that mentality.

I don’t care if I can get a Blackberry for $30 if I sign a three year contract nowadays, versus paying several hundred to acquire a cellphone the size of a brick in the 80s, the point is I want QUALITY, I want DURABILITY, and I want VALUE. Not only that, I want something to be more than just a commodity to me – I want aesthetic appeal. I want my possessions to speak to who I am, as a person. Come on you’re gonna tell me a 2010 Honda Civic is a hotter looking car than a 77’ Trans Am Firebird? No, I didn’t think so. Quite the same logic can be applied to something as basic as the difference in design between a modern day baby stroller and a 1950s perambulator.

Design was once about craftsmanship: making something truly unique, and priceless, in my view. Moreover said tasks were labour-intensive, and accordingly, products were built to “stand the test of time.” Contemporaneously, while we make wild claims that things are better – that society has “progressed” – I wonder, can you give me any logical reason as to why my 1970s hairdryer still rocks it like it’s no one’s business, but my girlfriend’s was pooched after just a few uses? I assure you it has NOTHING to do with how we care for our possessions, as for that matter, I’m rough on everything I love. Further, I’ve got thicker hair than her (in case you were wondering)!

I don’t know, maybe it just comes down to the simple fact that people don’t take pride in their work anymore – the poor quality speaks for itself. But that would lead to a whole discussion on Marxist’s definition of “worker and workplace alienation”; something, unfortunately, we don’t have time for.

Vol #1, Col #9: Rec Daze

I don’t know if it’s just me, this city, the schizophrenic weather as of late, or maybe for once I’m on to something, but in the limited free time that I do have, it really seems like there’s a lack of genuinely interesting things to do! I mean if you don’t get wasted, and aren’t looking to pick up some tail, what sort of activities are left for a gal to choose from?

The mall as a hangout? Well, that went out of style once I surpassed my designation as a “teen” (or really a “tween” by today’s standards). A movie? Frankly, with the exorbitant amount of cash they charge to watch something on the big screen, I’d rather sit in the comfort of my own home, rocking my flannels with vegan-friendly and healthful foods at hand to munch on, while viewing a flick. A concert? Don’t even get me started on the limited musical revues one can attend these days. Dinner? See the above vegan comments (we don’t have many restaurants appealing to picky eaters such as myself, and the ones we do have, well been there, done that). Perhaps the theatre? If it ain’t off-broadway in NYC, or at the very least a Stratford Shakespearean production, you can count me out. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – they just don’t make em (and by that I mean really anything AND everything) like they used to.

Long ago are the days where communities hosted large-scale dances, meet and greets, and community-oriented affairs just so their youth could have something to do (and well, to keep em out of trouble... It’s easier to police for juvenile delinquency when everyone’s gathered in the same place!). Even when London does get a festival going down in Vic Park, let’s be honest, there’s a pretty limited demographic that said events typically appeal to (and are INTENDED to appeal to). YET, you’ll notice pretty much everyone in the city comes out of their hovels to gather downtown because it’s SOMETHING (who cares what?! We’re so desperate for entertainment) to temporarily fill us with amusement.

I guess I’d just really like the opportunity to be able to attend a Beat poetry reading, a meditation/drum circle, a magic show, a philosophical debate and/or consciousness-raising seminar, a really emotional jazz performance, or a jump, jive, and wailing dance-off, if I felt so inclined ANY day of the week, not just as part of a special limited time offer sort of deal. A little maypole twirling never hurt anyone either! I’m not saying these things don’t exist altogether, but they are few and far between, and typically they tend to remain on the down-lo (read as: they’re poorly attended beyond the host’s family members, if at all). I mean even just having a genuine old-school 50s diner with a dance-floor, jukeboxes, roller-skating waitresses and all, (Why they ever closed down The Five & Dime is beyond me, it was ALWAYS busy!?) to congregate at with some of my closest pals would be an improvement. There are only so many times I can go out and sing karaoke.

What I’m trying to get at here is that (at least for kids my age) it’s not just the lack of venues offering such forms of entertainment, it’s also the people. We’ve changed. As my anti-technology discussion alluded to last week, it seemsthat there are really only two extremes:

1) you’re a shut-in who’d rather establish online penpal relationships than step out into the real world (god forbid! I know it can be a scary place, but come on people)

OR

2) you’re a sex-crazed party animal which is equally non-conducive to the aforementioned activities in which I’d like to partake.

Is it wrong that I fantasize sometimes about being swept away into a 1950s highschool romcom where all the girls get ready collectively in their Sunday’s Best to wow the boys at the Sadie Hawkins’ dance? Is it weird that I crave attending dress-up theme parties in the vein of full-on masquerades where everyone actually dresses up (and enjoys doing so, I might add)? What about storming off with a gang of 20 compadres to take over the local drive-in movie theatre, go on a crazy road-trip wherein you only make left-hand turns, or spend a day playing beach volleyball? Even hippie festivals like Woodstock far outdo the ones we try to host these days in terms of music, connectivity with others, the overall atmosphere, and quite plainly, as recreational pursuits.

Not to sound like a broken record, but again I really think the changes in what we value, then versus now, have played a considerable role. To think many people don’t actually celebrate their honeymoons or that foreign business dealings are often akin to vacations – I don’t know, it seems rather weird, moreover sad, to me. You work hard. You earn your money. Hopefully you achieve both doing what you love. But if you don’t, it’s even more essential that you value and get all that you can out of your much deserved R&R time. I mean money? You can’t take that to the grave with you. Memories? You and those involved most certainly will.

But no, instead the all-too-commonly embraced form of entertainment/social engagement is getting trashed to the point of temporary amnesia. Given what I’ve just said, don’t you see how this is rather counterproductive? But again, we gotta ask ourselves, what is it that is so wrong with our contemporary world that it causes people to want to engage in mind-numbing and mind-erasing activities as a form of leisure? Substance abuse, admittedly, is as old as humankind itself, but at one point it was primarily associated with religious rites and spirituality, as opposed to constituting the ideal form of escapism and social revelry.

While I would never opt for reviving the days of the Middle Ages where the ‘thing to do’ was watch criminals get tried, and tortured, I would like to see a bit more variety (not to mention more of a focus on “cultural and perceptual expansion”) in the typical recreational itinerary of us future leaders. Medieval Revival Fayre anyone? Come on, there’s gotta be someone out there too who believes that fun can be had without alcohol, stingy nightclubs, and clothing (if you can even call it that) that I affectionately term “slutwear” and “napkins”.