Vol #2, The Grand Finale: To Err Certainly IS Human

Perhaps one of the most fascinating aspects of the human mind is our ability to seemingly rationalize anything. The Holocaust, The Aral Sea, Watergate, Eugenics, Residential Schooling (and believe me folks, I’m just scratching the iceberg here) – they all “seemed” like “good” ideas at the time. Or perhaps, our resistance to change even when slapped in the face with more than compelling objective evidence trumps the former. For example, can anyone sincerely give me a non-bias legitimate reason as to why we re-elected Bush or why many of us continue to stuff our bodies with toxic foods and substances even after we’ve had near brushes with death from doing just that?

Don’t get me wrong – I’m NOT anti-human nor do I think that would even be possible considering I’m too part of this species, genetically-speaking. The problem I have however is that I find it very difficult to swallow the fact that we are supposedly “superior” in terms of our intellectual makeup when time and time again, we not only commit the most preventable (and often plain stupid) of errors, but further we act in ways unquestionably detrimental to our very existence. And for what? A little extra green in the bank? To undermine the work of others in order to get ahead (again read as: money)? To try and combat one’s own personal self-esteem issues and failings through juvenile name-calling and domination tactics? To what end? Why such a need to control? Why such a superiority complex? Why do we go out of our way to live an adversarial existence instead of in harmony with ourselves, our planet, and all of the wonderful things we have to be grateful for?

In the end, it comes down to this: if we still lived in the wild and had to fend for ourselves against the elements and nature’s other inhabitants, as well as gather sustenance through our own accord, I can assure you that it’d be US who were on the verge of extinction. So again I ask you, how is it that we are the more intellectual of creatures? Yes, we’ve created a great number of tools and technological devices to aid in our survival, but in turn we’ve also created diseases, weapons of mass destruction, environmental degradation (which WILL kill us off if it’s not culled sooner as opposed to later), HATE, WAR, exploitation, slavery, rape, unwarranted violence (ie: not a means of self-defence), and WORSE many of these aforementioned creations have now become a form of amusement for many through media. For the more sensitive or perhaps apathetic, we’ve also got drugs and mind-numbing entertainment pursuits to escape into our own selfish existences and be blinded from all of the pain, suffering, and agony that we continue to reap onto this world.

On the other side of things, in the animal kingdom and even our own humble beginnings, conflict was/is justifiable: it’s inherently based on limited resources whether we’ve talking food, shelter or mates OR distinctive/outright threat (ie: a means of self/group-preservation). There is a sense of kinship to protect one’s own and a sense of duty and honour to sacrifice oneself if it means it’ll save one’s offspring or “pack”. There is an understanding of living in harmony with the natural world and never taking more than one’s entitled share. There is a deep connection with the forces so that disaster planning and evacuation can be well-executed without privileging certain groups over others; if certain groups appear “privileged”, it’s merely a symptom of natural selection as opposed to the preservation of certain classes, religions, races etc. Every member of a pack is expected to pull its own weight and praise isn’t given to some over others as such a concept would lead to divisiveness and therefore put the health and safety of the group at risk. Because motivation is “other-oriented”, there isn’t time or tolerance for corruption, cheating, lying, stealing or other self-serving malicious intent. There’s no need for an established legal system as society itself is self-monitoring. Actions are primarily based on the simple instinct to survive. One species doesn’t flourish to the detriment of another: there is room for predator and prey, flora and fauna, microscopic and giant.

There is a human social structure equivalent to what I’ve described above and it goes by the “evil” (as propaganda would have you believe) names socialism and/or communism. Call me old-fashioned but I really do believe we could learn a thing or two from our Neanderthal brothers and sisters…not to mention the REAL world. The natural world is after all the only one that truly matters.

Throw away socially-constructed differences. Throw away money. Throw away Ipods. Throw away corporate conglomerates. We can and have in fact survived without all of these things for some time. Throw away oxygen, fresh water, food and shelter – I can’t see us getting very far.

Vol #2, Col #17: No News is Good News

I’m a sucker for a good biopic. Though I can’t quite put my finger on why it’s the case, there’s something just more appealing to me about watching a film that’s based on true events and real life people that once existed.

While it was no grade A cinematic experience (ie: it was a “made-for-tv” movie), the other day I bore witness to “The True Story of Bonnie & Clyde”. Compiled from documents and narratives from those who knew them personally, the aforementioned screenplay detailed the borderline abusive and extremely manipulative relationship that existed between the couple.

Now, if it weren’t for my chance viewing of this film, I still would very much be under the misconception I’m sure many of you shared with me that both Bonnie and Clyde were equally matched renegades who happened to find each other and spiral madly into a romantic affair based on their shared love of violence and crime. Well my friends, I hate to burst your bubble, but this media spun sensationalistic version of their tale couldn’t be further from the truth. All of this led me to question: “what has the role of the media (moreover “the news media”) become in modern society if recounting stories from purely objective factual stances is clearly no longer their strong suit?”

Now, it’s no new “a-ha moment” that the media (in all of its forms) sadly need to first and foremost appease their corporate sponsors and advertisers as said companies allow them to continue to exist. However, not so long ago I do recall the expression, “freedom of the press” being heralded when a controversial story broke, and investigative journalism being something one aspired to.

These days, on the contrary, the vast majority of Canada’s mainstream media is owned by only a handful of corporate conglomerates that regurgitate the same news items among themselves. Not only does this lead to a skewed perception of reality, but further it censors dissenting thoughts because it’d be “bad business practice” to out the conglomerate(s) responsible for keeping you employed no matter what their other business dealings may reveal.

With the upsurge of citizen journalism (ie: newstelling by the people) because of the blogosphere, camera cell phones, and sites like Youtube, despite its obvious flaw in that it lacks any sense of established “standard”, there was a growing sense of hope that the “news” would revert back to the reporting of factual events and happenings about which the public has a right to know as opposed to sheer propaganda for corporate sponsors. But, it would seem that nothing is sacred as marketers are now locking jaws onto any opportunity they can to promote their products and services on free-to-use social networking and citizen journalism sites.

While one could argue that what I’ve outlined above captures the very rationale behind and need for public government-funded broadcasters, in my experience, I hate to say it, but they typically aren’t much better in terms of business practises. With restrictive broadcasting guidelines and a similar bureaucratic all-seeing eye, the news that passes through filter upon filter upon filter before reaching the public is very much a “whitewashed version”; hardly what we should expect, moreover demand from those who are supposedly the “watchdogs of our nation.” This, of course, makes sense though given that many governments, in recent years, have allowed big businesses to bypass legislation (including laws associated with universal human rights, no joke!) purely to keep their economies a-booming. But I digress…

The point is this: as dictated by several associations, including the Society of Professional Journalists, there exists a code of ethics, akin to the Hippocratic Oath that physicians are to abide by, in order to protect the public and “professionalize” the field. “Truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability” are values that are supposed to be held paramount to all others if one chooses to undertake this line of work.

People make decisions based on the information with which they are provided. Said decisions lead to actions which have real-life consequences. While information is accessible through many outlets in the modern age, many of us still rely heavily on the news media in order to remain informed. If we are supposed to act intelligently as informed citizens, I don’t think it’s too much to ask of our news media to do just that (ie: inform us, NOT selectively and NOT with bias).

Vol #2, Col #16: Counting…Speech?

In the spirit of the season, last week on that special day on which we traditionally consume copious amounts of turkey (well, tofurky for us vegans), I wanted to publicly display my gratitude…in other words, “give thanks.” As my friends and family are scattered both near and far, it seemed to me that the most obvious way to reach such a dispersed group would be by taking advantage of one of the ever-populating social networking sites, like Facebook.

So there I was composing an epic speech acknowledging that I was appreciative of everything from my man to my cats to the food in my fridge, and just as I went to post it as my status, a nasty little pop-up window appeared informing me that apparently I’m too thankful as I had overshot the character count by some hundred words. Left with no choice, I revised and edited, rephrased and rewrote. By the time I was finally able to post my acclamation, I worried it had both lost its essence and further that people would begin to believe that I was ill-acquainted with the laws of syntax and how they apply to the English language (ie: I had to remove all apostrophes and other proper grammatical markers, as well as use the digital form for all numeric references even if they were below the number ten just to make it fit).

Luckily, my loved ones understood – they’ve always known me to be a verbose creature – but this whole ordeal got me ruminating and I came to the following conclusion (as posted on my wall directly below my FB status, and yes I’m quoting myself): “I suppose it’s a rather sad reflection on modern society if most people CAN compile their complex thoughts into such restrictive word limits OR that further most people WON’T devote time to reading something that exceeds said word limits.”

Now the ironic part about my conception of this conviction is that throughout my highschool academic career (something to which my mom can contest), anytime I could get my hands on Cliffs Notes instead of actually delving into real literature, I would jump on the opportunity; the only exceptions being for works of my lovers from beyond the grave Billy S. and the man who told tales of all-telling hearts (I know, further ironic – these are two authors that most highschoolers can’t stand or understand for that matter.). All of this changed however when I hit college…

Perhaps it was a lack of maturity or just a god awful selection of texts (ie: “Death of a Salesman” anyone?!) or a combination of the two, but I truly didn’t begin to appreciate the written word as a “page turner” (thought I’ve always enjoyed writing) until I embarked on my six year post-secondary stint. But my love for books didn’t originate as a consequence of crime fiction, romances, or poetry (though those are all wicked genres). No, it was the textbook, specifically those of the Social Science variety, and later the autobiography that made me re-think my firmly established hatred of literary scholarship.

So why am I telling you this? Well, for starters, it seems to me that it is a rare person indeed who spends their evenings inside simply cuddled up with good books anymore. Oh, we can devote countless hours of watching reality tv shows or worst viral videos, but to appreciate literature or transcribed life stories, well clearly that’s not as worthy of a time investment (note the sarcasm).

Secondly, even when we read, because we have become so ingrained with a “live fast” mentality AND because so much of the information that we now access is electronic in nature, we tend to skim over a lot necessary detail which results in frequent miscommunications (ie: I’m sure all of you have been in a texting war with someone due to misinterpretation of what was being expressed).

While it’s just speculation at the moment, I recently heard that physical book publishing is increasingly going out of style because of the upsurge of handheld device ownership and internet usage in the classroom. In its place, it’s been suggested that the books of the future will be purely electronic in nature, complete with hypertext systems that allow for easy navigation from section to section.

I don’t know about you, but staring at a computer screen for hours on end personally makes me dizzy. Further, I think it’s a fair statement to suggest that intangible works of art (whether mp3s separated from their albums and their artwork or jpeg renderings of da Vinci’s finest) aren’t as valued. Does this mean that the future of Romeo & Juliet is looking even more grim? I certainly hope not!

The truth of the matter is this: you read more and you read more deeply when you have to caress a book’s physicality, just like you appreciate a marvel of nature more in person than in history books. For your own sake as well as the sake of the amazing array of fine literature and philosophical thought we’ve developed throughout the ages, learn to appreciate the art of reading, and no 140 character word-limit tweets don’t count.

Vol #2, Col: #15: From “We’re All in this Together” to “Every Man, Women AND Child for Themselves”!

I’m 26 years old and I’m a member in a union. No, I’m not a mechanic or a tradesperson, nor is my membership mandatory because of the company with which I’m employed. On the contrary, a great deal of persons (particularly those within my demographic) working within my profession, avoid my union like the plague. But I’m not here to try and sell you on the member benefits of the American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM, for short) – you can easily peruse said details for yourself by taking a hop, skip and/or jump over to their official website. Rather, I’m here to question why it is exactly that voluntary unionism is on the decline, and what this means for us good old “worker bees” versus “The Queen”.

For those of you who also read my music advice and insight column, “So You Wanna be in a Rock Band?”, in my discussion of legal provisions I feel professional players should become acquainted with, you’ll note that I briefly mentioned how and why unionism first developed back in the mid-1800s.

In a nutshell, as factory work and industrialism began to grow exponentially, instances of worker exploitation and maltreatment (not to mention a lack thereof of any safety or health protocols) become widespread. The solution (for a long time anyhow) was for the proletariat to bind together in their shared “class consciousness” and collectively fight the powers that be (ie: the bourgeois) in order to negotiate better labour conditions. Unsurprisingly, considering that those with the most political bargaining power tend to be high income earners/contributors (a fact still relevant), union formation has been deemed illegal in many territories throughout history.

We’ve obviously come a long way since industrialism prevailed, as evidenced by the fact that more and more traditional factories are ceasing operations annually. For the few that have managed to stay afloat, the employment of robotic labour forces is becoming an increasingly popular trend. Further, in recent times, abuses of power committed by unions (as opposed to employers) have created cause for concern: our own city’s bus drivers demanding higher wages during a time of economic depression speaks for itself. Understandably then, I can appreciate why unionism has cultivated a bad reputation as of late and why persons, particularly those my age, have become skeptical toward it, along with virtually any other longstanding “traditional” business practise.

But this drive away from uniting in a “fight against the man” toward taking any and all actions (whether honourable or not) in order to ensure that one comes out ahead also has to do with a social mentality shift. The obsession with being incessantly tuned into one’s iPod that appeals to one’s individualistic selective tastes (and therefore tunes OUT everyone and everything else around oneself), just barely begins to scratch the success.

Think about it, in addition to caring about the livelihood of one’s fellow employees, being a member of the union also stood as a symbol for taking pride in one’s profession and a desire to be part of a movement that could make a difference in the wider social domain. Much like the way of the Dodo, the idea of collectivism, whether we’re talking about joining forces in a fight for the implementation of legislation that encourages environmentalism or simply having the backs of those within one’s immediate vicinity, seems to have, by and large, gone extinct.

I’ll give you that issues of inflation, high taxation rates, and a lack of permanent/stable jobs available on the marketplace are too key contributors. Ironically however, these social dilemmas – the things that have driven us toward this newfound excessive self-focused mentality – are the very SAME things that union supporters and other social collectives sought to prevent.

Vol #2, Col #14: How about a Little Substance Between all that “Fluff”?

I recently found myself quite bored at my day job. Almost always there’s something for me to do to chip away at the old 9-5 (either work-related or personal). But this past Sunday, with no new client inquiries and prime touring season yet to take hold, I found myself in a situation that proves rare in my life: I had TOO MUCH free time! Anticipating that we wouldn’t get hit with a sudden influx of activity (I had worked the day prior and it was much the same), I planned in advance. From a stack that’s been building up since last April (no word of a lie), I gathered some 10 magazines in hope they would provide me with some amusement as a means to pass the time.

Admittedly, it’s been a long time since I’ve even conceived of having a moment to sit back, relax, and delve into something non-academic or career-oriented; given this, I prepared myself for a very different reading experience, prior to cracking open the spines. While I’ve never held delusions that women’s fashion magazines primarily contain in-depth thoughtful analyses of the modern world, at one point in between the hair colour, acne, and jewelry ads, there was room for cheeky editorials, touching personal stories or at least somewhat interesting featurettes…apparently NOT anymore.

Ad after ad after ad followed by thinly veiled “fluff” pieces for companies no doubt contributing to the magazines’ payroll, and yet MORE ads is what I encountered. Christ, I couldn’t even read the sections regarding health advice, without having products pushed in my direction that would no doubt “cure” the very ailments that were being discussed. Coincidental? I think not!

The sections, however, I found most “interesting” (and I use that term loosely) were those of the “readers’ letters” in which women (and I suppose perhaps the occasional man) sent in their praises for their favourite mags and all they have to offer. Seeing as I’ve previously established that beyond being pimps for consumerism and materialism the magazines collectively lacked altogether in the substance department, I came to the conclusion that these so-called “readers” must too either be on the magazines’ payroll, or at the very least work for the companies who got sweet deals on their advertising rates.

A recent attempt at watching a little on the boobtube proved equally disappointing. My viewing experience, one that was sub-par at best (and I’m talking about when the program was actually ON) ended rather abruptly when I just couldn’t deal with being inundated with commercial, after commercial any longer. If there’s anyone out there my age or younger who STILL listens to the radio by CHOICE (ie: NOT because it plays in the background at your workplace), you’ll find much the same: the sheer volume of campaigns for publicity completely overpower any sense of enjoyment and entertainment the media once offered. Ironically, ads that I once upon a time looked forward to taking in (ie: the “coming attractions” and “coming soon to DVD” trailers that previously held homes on movies you rent from the store) have been for all intents and purposes eliminated!

I will give marketers that in today’s oversaturated and over-stimulated world, reaching let alone maintaining the interest of a given target population is proving increasingly difficult (hence, why we are now seeing annoying efforts to have our social networking sites fully infiltrated with promotions for this thing and the next). With that said however, I’d like to point out there are certain products and services that, at this point, really do NOT need to be promoted, even if they’ve undergone “makeovers” or have had “improvements” made to their model. Perhaps advertisers are aware of this fact and simply don’t want to lose their jobs? Let’s take something as common sense as the razor blade:

Frankly, I personally don’t really care if I’m buying “no name” or store brand so long as I’m getting the specifications I desire fulfilled. Price too, weighs heavily into the equation. Do I really need to see yet another Mach Three or Daisy Razor commercial demonstrating their ever expanding razor heads? Not really. I know what works for me. I know what doesn’t. I can’t be the only one.

This trend toward “OVER-advertising” is certainly not helping any, given our current economic state. People are down and out because of money problems, work stresses, and/or familial discord. Consumerism is championed as the cure. Rather than address the TRUE issues that underlie their malaise, people are being taught they can have it all if they continue to spiral into debt by gratifying their needs in an immediate and superficial manner through impulse buying. Need I point out, in the immortal albeit paraphrased words of The Beatles, “you can’t buy me [or anyone else] love.”

Vol #2, Col #13: Now That’s Entertainment!

James Dean: Icon. Legend. Tragic. Those were the three main adjectives that came to my mind to describe the “Rebel Without a Cause”, before I had the opportunity to watch his self-titled biopic starring James Franco. After being privy to the film however, it seems my list needs to be amended to also include the term “lucky”.

While there’s no question Dean ensued a great deal of torment in his personal life, in part accountable to his poor relationship with his father, the loss of his mom at a tender nine years of age, not to mention the disallowance to marry the love of his life because of belief differences, if it weren’t for THREE distinct breaks he was handed, I can assure you that at least TWO of the aforementioned terms would have NEVER come to be associated with his namesake…nor would the posthumous Academy Award nominations.

As told by the film, after being disowned and ejected by his pops for dropping out of business school, break numero uno came when Dean set up an informal meeting with broadway-acclaimed actor James Whitmore. Despite having no money to pay for tuition nor formal training beyond appearing in minor roles for his highschool’s drama club, Whitmore, then the headmaster of a prestigious acting academy, took Dean under his wing concluding that those who aspire to be “great” rarely come from fortunate social situations.

Break two: wishing to pursue in the footsteps of his idol, Marlon Brando, Dean submitted himself for roster consideration to the acting agency famed for representing the former. While the agency’s frontrunner felt that Dean’s unconventional character (ie: he refused to audition for anything other than lead roles) and free-spiritedness (ie: he smoke, drank, and made a habit of street racing) could make him a potential risk to their reputation, the individual granted with “second-in-command” status willingly (AND successfully) took on Dean as a side project, in her spare time, for which she did NOT receive any compensation from the company.

Finally, and most importantly…When offered the opportunity to audition for a key role in the play, “The Immoralist”, which would prove to be instrumental in both launching him onto the big screen and landing him an exclusive contract with premier movie studio, Warner Brothers, Dean initially showed up unprepared and with broken glasses (due to a drunken haze the night prior) which prevented him from being able to read the script.

Taking an inexplicable liking to Dean, the lead casting director offered him up $10 to have his specs replaced, and instructed him to return later that afternoon for a “do over”. Dean, instead, used the money to eat and memorized the script by running lines with the food vendor. Hours later, Dean waltzed back into the theatre and nailed the part. When asked why his glasses remained cracked, Dean begrudgingly admitted to using the money for grub. As for the casting director’s reaction to the “slap in the face” his generosity had just received? He was nothing more than amused!

Now, I’m reciting this tale to you all in hopes of demonstrating something very important about the entertainment industry: just how much it has changed in the past 60 or so years…and I’m NOT just talking technology (though it plays a major part).

Anyone who has attempted to single-handedly work themselves from the bottom up in this biz is all too acquainted with the reality that you can only get so far, without having an “in.” While this is old news, the expression “no unsolicited materials” is something entirely new, and said expression already is or will become the nemesis of any true contemporary aspiring talent.

Agreed, because of reality T.V., because of Youtube, because of the emphasis on celebrity culture, because of the ever-expanding plethora of social networking sites AND even more largely because of enabling technology, everyone from my neighbour’s grandma to “the crazy cat lady” has somehow convinced themselves they are worthy of their “15 minutes of fame.” While I believe that ALL persons of the world do have something to offer, whether big or small, I do NOT believe that everyone is equipped with the same abilities. In a nutshell, leave “the arts” to those who have proven themselves “artists”.

Given this “over-saturation”, I understand the necessity and desire on the part of industry representatives to choose to exclusively work with fellow companies and individuals who’ve proven themselves in the past. However, as they say, “without risk, there’s no reward”. Don’t kid yourself, economics, anymore, play a major role in this “decision-making process”.

What I’m trying to get at is this: the difference between was happened with Dean (someone unquestionably worthy of his acclaim) and the reality of our current industry can be summated by a simple comparison between his talent/originality and that which is brought to the table by the popstar currently “in vogue” who’s been allotted iconic status who is, in reality, nothing more than a mere amalgamation of the most controversial aspects of Alice Cooper & Madonna…minus the talent. In another nutshell, marketability (and who you’re either sleeping or doing lines with) has come to supersede all else.

Find me contemporary society’s on-screen equivalents of the brooding, yet suave Humphrey Bogart and the sexy without letting it all hang-out Lauren Bacall. Show me a current songwriter who deserves to be recognized among the likes of Bob Dylan, Janis Joplin or Otis Redding. Show me a television program that is able to compel its audiences without having to rely on massive CGI explosions, petty drama, digital enhancements, explicit scenes of “viewer discretion” and the like. Oh wait, you CAN’T…and if you can, I bet my bottom dollar the talents responsible for delivering said real, genuine, and admirable ability likely struggle to get representation.

Vol #2, Col #12: In Defence of P.M.S., a Treatise of the Menstruating Female Mind Intended for the Male Reader

Admittedly, I’m a right bitch one week out of every calendar month. But you know what? I and my fellow females are damn well justified in acting this way.

You try experiencing nausea, cramps, migraines, bloating, sugar cravings, surges in your bodily temperature, and of course, skin breakouts (not to mention the obvious: hormonal changes), and be in a good mood about it!

Worse, even if I have no intentions of ever bearing children, I have the “privilege” of going through this on a monthly basis for a minimum of 40 years…not to mention what comes next (ie: menopause). No word of a lie, there have been times where I’ve been in so much physical pain because of “mother nature”, I’ve been rushed to the emergency room only to have a male physician not understand what I was going through and send me home abruptly without even attempting to entertain my concerns.

Yes, it’s a fact that women’s pain threshold is much higher than that of men’s (we do have to be able to withstand childbirth you know?), but given that our “monthly friend” makes us weak and fatigued because of the sizable loss of iron from our systems, coupled with the ultra-sensitivity and insecurity that results from our blemished water-retaining appearances, it only makes sense from a psychological perspective that we get depressed, moody and easily stressed out.

If you want a comparable circumstance to which you (ie: my male readers) can even begin to relate, think about what would happen if after a long sweaty trek you got lost in the wilderness with no water or food that would satiate your intense thirst and hunger. You’d start to act a little out of character too! Throw cramps, and everything else unsightly I previously mentioned into the equation, and the pleas of temporary insanity would undoubtedly start being expressed full-force.

Ah but that’s just it. Men, for the most part, don’t even begin to try and understand what it is women are going through during their periods (YES I SAID IT! OOH WHAT A DIRTY DIRTY WORD!), and therefore are rendered incapable of empathizing. Well fellas, let me let you in on something: if any of you ever intend on getting married in the future, at some juncture you’re going to have to throw away the immature childhood notion that women get “icky”, “gross”, and “bitchy” every 28 or so days, and that you don’t want to hear anything about it, let alone go to the store to pick up feminine supplies or Advil. Fertility (as demonstrated by menarche) is after all vital to carrying on your family’s name, and I have yet to meet a man who craves a “marriage without children”.

The point: in the words of blonde bombshell Marilyn Monroe, “if you can’t handle [us] at [our] worst, then you sure as hell don’t deserve [us] at [our] best”…see even Marilyn had bad days.

I will give you, however, that most of you are ill-educated when it comes to the subject at hand (the elementary and secondary schools’ educational systems are pathetic, at best, when it comes to explaining this process). So, in order to get a handle on things, this doctor’s recommending a serious heart-to-heart with your sister, best girlfriend, or mother sometime soon. If this doesn’t sound like your cup of tea, well then, leave us the fuck alone for a week’s time and no one will get hurt. 

Sometimes, I really think we’d all be better off if villages still practised the tradition of sending away all of their menstruating women to community huts where they can happily bitch, cry for no reason, and suffer together in peace. Girls weekend anyone?

Vol #2, Col #11: Flying Solo

I never thought that acquiring something that belonged to me in the first place would be so difficult or that further, I would somehow be made to feel at fault for wanting it back…. That was until I flew with Delta. That was until the beginning of December.

With London’s first snowfall of the year, city closures and changes in transportation were understandable. It wasn’t safe as we were underprepared; accordingly, a lot of things, including my flight back home from the US, were cancelled.

All of this I could understand and tolerate (mind you, we have had worst snowfalls in the past, and “state of emergency” statuses certainly weren’t issued. Plus which, we did have four days of warning that the early December “winter wonderland” was headed our way, but I digress). My travel woes, on the other hand, can entirely be attributed to lousy customer service and a lack of attention to detail; something for which no excuse, in my books, is justified. Allow me to explain:

Because there are no direct flights from NYC to the Forest City, my flight itinerary had me first flying to Boston, then Detroit, and then finally ending up at home. When I arrived in Boston, I was called to the counter by a ticketing agent only to be informed that ALL flights to London for the day had been cancelled. I was given two choices:

1) I could stay overnight in Boston and grab my two connections tomorrow or

2) I could flight to Detroit, stay overnight there, and fly back to London the next day. HOWEVER, and this is a BIG however, I was not given any assurance that my flights home wouldn’t continue to be cancelled for subsequent days thereafter and seeing as I have a job and a life (which most people do) to return to, this wasn’t very comforting.

At this point, I made inquiry as to where my baggage was considering I had to pay additional monies on top of my flight fare to ensure it was checked all the way through to London. I’d also like to add that I made it abundantly clear, at this precise moment, to the ticketing agent the importance of me staying with my effects as it included, among other things, my very expensive touring guitar.

The clerk with whom I spoke assured me that my guitar and other possessions were on the flight to Detroit and that it would be a huge hassle to have them removed. With this in mind, he explained to me my best bet was to pursue option number two.

Despite feeling incredibly ill due to motion sickness (the turbulent flight surely didn’t help) I took him on his word and flew to Detroit. When I got there, guess what? The Detroit representatives informed me that my baggage was NEVER checked onto that plane.

While in Detroit, the representatives told me I was to phone a customer care number upon arrival at home to find out the status of my stuff and make a claim. You’d think it’d be that easy, but no if I wasn’t already irritated enough (especially considering I had to shell out an additional 350 bucks to a cabbie just to get home that night), I then had to navigate my way through five different phone numbers (all of which were automated) until I could finally speak with a real-life person. She informed me that my belongings would be coming on a flight the next day, and that I had 24 hours to make a formal claim, otherwise the airline could not be held liable for my losses. Of course, claims can ONLY be made in person at airports and London’s airport, as I’ve already explained, was CLOSED! If you can believe it, that next flight that was supposed to be my luggage’s saving grace, too got cancelled…apparently due to “poor weather”; interestingly, ALL of the other airlines that fly into London had been coming and going just fine.  

I finally conceded and ventured out to London’s airport, only to be encountered by some of the worst and most uncompassionate customer service reps I’ve ever dealt with. After I explained all of the b.s. I’d already been through, they actually threatened to NOT allow me to file a claim because at this point, I was rather irate.

I don’t know about you, but I’d like to see where it says in the Delta “employee handbook” they’re able to hold people’s personal possessions hostage and refuse to help them, simply because they are justifiably upset? Further, I’d like to see them bursting with fruit flavour had the roles been reversed. I mean, how would they feel if something they valued tremendously on which their professional existences relied got lost and mishandled in such a matter?

It has been over a month since this whole ordeal began, and while I got my belongings back within that week (mind you I had to spend over a hundred dollars to temporarily replace my toiletries just so I could function in the meantime), I’m STILL waiting for a refund as my request was received, then lost, then re-received.

Now, I’ve worked in many customer service positions, and accordingly, have dealt with many an angry customer. The difference is that I’ve always understood that their anger has nothing to do with me personally, and that truly, the only way to get such persons to stop yelling in one’s face is to do what your job description details: help them resolve the situation, not hinder them further. Seems like common sense to me. So much for “valuing one’s customers”, let alone the “customer is always right” mentality.

I’d also like it to be known that I’ve been travelling the world since I was 15 and have NEVER and I mean NEVER had to deal with this kind of ridiculousness in my life. I mean, do I seriously have to buy insurance for everything I take anywhere for fear that no one seems to be able to do their job right?

Situations such as the one I’ve described above, however, are NOT isolated to Delta or air travel. It seems to me that the bigger and more “faceless” a company grows, the less its employees give a shit about their customers because they figure they’ll never be held liable. The big boss, after all, only comes down for one day every few months. So, as long as they “look” really good during his/her stay (notice I deliberately didn’t say as long as they “work” really hard, they just have to appear that they are doing so), the rest of the time they can get away with murder.

Further, the movement toward corporate conglomeration is responsible for the eradication of independently-owned Mom & Pop Shoppes that actually value their customers. In a nutshell, the former runs the latter into the ground through sleazy marketing tactics, and by underselling their products/services to such a degree that if the independent stores dared to match prices, they’d go out of business because they wouldn’t be able to afford their overhead. So much for a market-based economy that allows customers choice eh?
The worse of it though is the fact that big businesses are increasingly outsourcing their service centres to places like China and India (for economic reasons again. Slave labour certainly is cheaper!). So, when you have a local problem, NO ONE you phone, even if they wanted to, is able to resolve it for you.

Let’s face the facts: economics rule supreme these days and have many a time superseded even the power of politics and human rights. But, when this line of thinking results in mismanagement and inefficiency, I wonder how do these companies justify the payoff? I can’t be the only customer willing to bitch and moan and eventually concede that I’ll never be sending any money their way again. In closing, dear Delta: you suck, and you best believe I’ll be telling all my friends.

Vol #2, Col #10: Breaking Up is Hard to Do…Especially When You Live in a “Wired World”

I don’t know about you, but I’m definitely one who ops for a “clean break,” whenever possible. Regardless of whether we’re talking a business deal gone awry, a messy split with a romantic partner, or a desire to cease communications with someone you’re not quite certain as to how they ended up on your friend’s list in the first place, once the presumed benefit of continuing the relationship has been lost, I frankly don’t see the point, especially if final discussions turn heated or dwindle down to nothing more than juvenile personal attacks. Let’s face it folks, we can’t be friends with everyone and if someone no longer wishes to have us in their lives, we should respect that.
Now, if you just interpreted what I stated as self-serving, don’t kid yourself – ALL relationships are based on some idea of mutual perk, even the seemingly altruistic ones (ie: people participate in charity work yes to help those less fortunate, BUT ALSO because it provides them with positive recognition by others in society, it looks good on the old resume, and because it provides oneself with a sense of purpose, fulfillment, and satisfaction that you are “giving back”).
This “alliance strategy”, of course, can be traced back to our evolutionary history: it is and always has been in the best interest of any species to maintain strong ties to its kin in order to ensure protection and survival of its kind. Kin, in the modern sense of this perspective then, can be defined as those with whom you share the SAME values, morals, attitudes, beliefs, passions etc. – these are the individuals with whom you already have and/or wish to make a connection. On the other side of things, there are those with whom you’ve had falling outs, and/or those whose values, morals, attitudes, beliefs, passions etc. are dissonant to yours. From a “survivalism” perspective, this latter group stands in the way of the perpetuation of people like yourself; therefore adding to their “fitness” by expanding their network isn’t in your best interest. Make sense? In other words, you are who you hang with.
So what does all of this have to do with being “old-fashioned?” Well, frankly because we live in such a “wired world”, it’s next to impossible (particularly if you work in the entertainment business, like myself) to maintain any sense of anonymity. Essentially what I’m trying to say is that nowadays even if you block all incoming hate mail on one social networking site from an established antagonist, you can easily find yourself being “cyber-stalked” through another or worse, having your identity “mimicked” without even knowing it, whereas eliminating delinquents from your life at one point was as easy as changing your phone number.

I mean seriously I’ve had ex-bfs from h.s. with whom things ended EXTREMELY unfavourably along with my old h.s. bullies friend request me on Facebook – are you kidding me? Why the hell would I want anything to do with them? Moreover, why the hell would they want anything to do with me? I’ve still got my battle wounds, and those are not really times I wish to ever revisit. Thanks.

While admittedly, people are far too free-wheeling about the level of personal detail they are willing to put online, I also feel that the idea of privacy is being disregarded to a whole new level because of social networking sites and the “net”.

The other day, for example, a teenaged girl got suspended by her school because someone anonymously sent her principal a photo, stolen from her Facebook page, which demonstrated her participation in underage drinking. Agreed, this is an illegal act that should be sanctioned, but seeing as the drinking did NOT occur on school grounds and that likely the photo was submitted by one of the girl’s adversaries (no doubt because someone stole someone else’s boyfriend), I really don’t feel that the principal was justified in getting involved. If anything, he should have contacted the girl’s parents and allowed them to deal with her as they saw fit.

The points I’m trying to make here are as follows:

1) it is NEVER in proper taste to air one’s dirty laundry publicly.

2) Be respectful of the desire for privacy of others. I mean, considering how easy it is to track people down these days, if they wanted you to be in their lives, you likely already would be.

Finally, 3) If someone has decided they feel it is necessary to “cut you out”, accept it; continuing communications, after all, is only likely to merit you a higher place on their shit list.

Vol 2, Col 9: “Exper-tease”

I swear, everyone thinks they’re a bloody expert. Well, let me let you in on something folks – just ‘cause you read a single Wikipedia entry, watch a documentary, or peruse a National Geographic article on a given subject does NOT entitle you to a valid opinion. True, when it comes to abstract ideals like love, much of one’s perspective is formulated based on his/her feelings. Therefore, I nor the next person can justifiably tell you that your feelings are wrong as they are governed by the laws of subjectivity. Further, there is NO logic in emotion (ie: oftentimes the way you feel is not rational given the circumstances; something which I’m sure we can all attest is a “truth”). With that said, the problem I have is NOT with peoples’ feelings (who am I to judge that?). No, the issue I seem to keep encountering pertains to the breeding of ignorance and misinformation. Worse, the persons who are doing said “breeding” somehow have convinced themselves that they are worthy spokespeople on subjects in which they have little to no formal training.

Par exemple: just the other day I was watching a news broadcast about the obesity epidemic in the US. No word of a lie, the so-called “expert” they brought in claimed that a good majority of this problem could be attributed to the fact that the foods we are consuming are being cooked in plastic containers.

According to this “expert”, the plastics in which foods are packaged contain chemical compounds he has coined “obesogens” which interfere with the body’s natural homeostasis, therefore detrimentally affecting our metabolic rates (ie: the amount of calories we burn, the amount of food we need to consume to be satiated, and the amount of fat that is stored versus burned off per meal). Now, I would never discount that wrapping our foods (or anything else for that matter) in plastics is highly problematic as yes they do contain many toxins that should NOT be ingested in any capacity. HOWEVER,

1) this “expert”’s argument allows obese individuals to entirely skirt the blame for their situation by failing to acknowledge that it may be the ACTUAL QUALITY OF FOOD they are consuming that is at least partly to blame (not the mention their lack of exercising).

2) this so-called “expert” (from my reading of his bio) has NO actual qualifications in the domain of health and nutrition. In fact, he is a Professor of Surgery and holds a Masters in Business.

While medical doctors do receive some health and lifestyle training, I have it on good authority that this is a very LIMITED aspect of their seven year foray at school (as the old adage goes, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”), not to mention there is a growing proportion of doctors/clinics that have direct ties to pharmaceutical companies (for research funding purposes) making their “health advice”, I should think, at least a little bit partisan.

If you think that I’m just picking on the media and what they choose to disseminate as “fact” however, you’re wrong. According to a seminar I attended last year put on by accredited mental health care professionals, there is a growing proportion of “average joes” engaging in self-diagnosis practices and diagnoses of their close friends and family. Christ, if we went by what everyone “claims”, we’d all be labeled as suffering from manic depression and/or obsessive compulsive disorder. But I should point out that this phenomenon is NOT exclusive to health concerns – it’s everywhere and in regards to everything, and strangely even manages to make unquestioned leaps of faith (ie: like kids who claim to be proficient and skilled musicians simply because they can rock GuitarHero or businessmen questioning their mechanics because so and so at their work, who works in a completely unrelated field I might add, said that they didn’t need to have their car’s oil changed every 5000 clicks to ensure optimal functioning….right)

Although in some ways, as a lifelong D.I.Y.-er, I find it empowering that “knowledge” is no longer relegated to the rich, super-educated or the clergy, and that we now have collaborative forms of collective experiences being shared globally, this newfound accessibility of knowledge requires the development of new abilities: namely superior b.s.-detecting skills (checking people’s credentials before taking what they say as “fact” might be a good starting place), and the learning of the differences between information, entertainment, and infotainment, especially given that “citizen journalism” has gotten such a grasp over the mainstream, and the mainstream has become corporate controlled.

Now, if you’re thinking, “Hey, wait a minute Ms. RCP, with all of this knowledge talk, you yourself are being a hypocrite,” I’d like to point out that

1: I’ve been hired by this fine newspaper of yours to share my OPINIONS based purely on my own observations and experiences

2: you are welcome to disagree with me or IGNORE me anytime, and

3 MOST IMPORTANTLY, I have NEVER once stated that what I’m saying is “fact” (unless it’s an observation, of course) or that I’m an expert (yes, I have knowledge in an assortment of domains, but I humbly admit there is always far more I can learn). Therefore, in conclusion, what you are reading is MY TRUTH and a truth to which I feel others may be able to relate to; hence why these articles are published in the “editorial” section.

*Little known fact about Wikipedia*: a few years back, there was a young man verging on adolescence who felt entitled to have an opinion. Claiming falsely that he was a post-graduate of several of the most prestigious academic institutes worldwide, he successfully had his incorrect “edits” on a multitude of important subjects accepted by “the free encyclopedia” and averted detection for quite some time. One has to wonder, how many people first off read his information? Worse, how many people accepted his information as “truth”, and then committed actions based on it? Scary ain’t it?!