What I have to say in any language is rather irrelevant if the core of its essence is nothing more than about me. - 07-08-07

Lorsqu’on a le goût de se débarasser de nos jeunes on fait la guerre. - 24-03-07

Once carnavals had freak shows now television has reality TV. - 21-03-07

With so many of us searching for our inner child is it any wonder that the contemporary word for house is “crib”?. . . - 26-10-06

A present whose rampant revisionism of the past, (being neither as horrific or demented, grandiose or heroic - as all of the revisiting makes it out to be ) desecrates the legacy of our ancestors and lies to our children. - 15-2-06

Most corporations with poor customer service are easily identifiable through:

1. an evident lack of corporate-head listing - i.e.: few if any responsible people at the top are listed, identified or “contactable” from their web site pages or hard-copy documentation.
2. any and all responses to comments or complaints - if they are ever forthcoming - are form letters - repeatedly used for any and all communications, no matter the issue.
3. No responses ever deal with the issue at hand
4. corporations in this category make it an almost total impossibility to speak to an actual live person.
5. Answering machines always state the most blatant of corporate lies: "your business is important to us". and lastly:
6. clients are always made to feel guilty or responsible for a product’s failure.

And. . . silly us, we keep on buying products from these companies. . . - 17-01-06

The greatest problem faced by the proverbial caveman was stupidity, the greatest for modern man - his choosing to be ignorant. - 19-10-05

Noise. . . Complaint Limits Time Preschoolers Can Frolic in Playground. . . A nursery school in London, England received a complaint and noise abatement order. Children "noises" are now considered a detriment to the peace and tranquility (!!!) of our neighbourhoods - as are church bells in many of our world's most romantic cities. (We really are going to hell in a hand basket aren't we.) - 10-11-05

It is safe to say that a contemporary society which holds dear the 19th century concept of "tolerance" as a socially uplifting quality is yet incapable of the more sophisticated requirements of an assimilated recognition and acceptance of the “other”. - 01-10-05

North American life must be at a point of imminent decline and self-destruction when the only entertainment which seems to grab our attention is a reality-tv format whose focus is anchored in the following:

All of these programs (and more) are based on how inept and dumb everyone is. Rather than focus on the wonders of discovery and learning or being encouraging these shows promote the concept of generalized dependance on those who are "better" at whatever it is that we are not - in essence "everything". . . Without "experts" and "professionals", it seems, we the lowly peons of this world are nothing more than the worker ants on the hill.

It seems that the only qualifications a professional television "betterer of dumb people" has to have are:

Communal dreams can never become real when depression rules a self-centered mass, submissive to a governance lost in its own maze of absolute directives. - 28-07-05

How self-righteously we look upon the past. Through arrogant revisionism we unashamedly impose our “more enlightened wisdom”. And this is done not because we live in more righteous times but rather, by focusing on a resurrected past (as defined by our sight unseen superiority), we can with greater subterfuge, redirect attention away from present-day sins, our sins. - 11-07-05

Re:     Van Gogh’s Ailment Rings True For Many
          Dr. Marla Shapiro - The Globe and Mail - Health Section, Page A11,
          Tuesday, July 5, 2005, Page

Health professionals walk a razor-thin tight-rope when they popularize  the dissemination of  medical information. But then, being informed is certainly better than being ignorant, isn't it?. Knowing that others suffer the same fate we do does dispel the notion that we are alone in times of difficulty. This is healthy. But there is always a danger in popularizing medical chats, whether they concern tinnitus, cancer, heart diseases or other physical and mental anomalies. Illness discussions can too easily become par for the course on day-time TV and this can lead us to define illness as an  affirmation of our existence. Anxiety arises when generic symptoms and varieties of potential causes of diseases are as casually presented as sports scores. Feelings of “I suffer, therefore I am” too easily become the norm and victimhood a lifestyle  when an era is rife with constant reminders that something out there lurks - and will get us all in the end.   
 
In light of this,  articles on Vincent Van Gogh’s illnesses, Michelangelo’s propensities, Caravaggio’s criminality, Rembrandt’s malaises or Goya’s vision problems have become common media fare. These discussed “hero-health” issues are not presented to highlight talent, mastery or achievement but to reduce prominent figures to a lower rung on the importance ladder - to make them more like us. Does this promote health? I doubt it.

Had Vincent Van Gogh been a contemporary of ours, I can’t help but think he never would have had the strength or courage to interpret and share with us his wondrous visions of colour, shape and emotions.  Rather, he would have been prodded and probed to focus more and more on the negative elements of his life. He would have been, unwittingly, encouraged to be discouraged, desperate and dependent, a victim of circumstance. Yes, Vincent did complain to his brother Theo that life was hell; that he was being attacked by some unseen yet always vicious “ringing” devil. But, thankfully, never once was “victimhood” his artistic muse. In this, Vincent Van Gogh was more mentally healthy than our enlightened times could ever hope to be.  The Masters did not create because of some imposed or self-inflicted problem. They were great because, above all else, they created “despite” the physical and mental trials and tribulations they encountered. Now, that is heroic and healthy - and something to popularize through the media.

Health at best has little to do with "doing something to not be ill". Health is being as fully alive, as encouraged and motivated as we can possibly be during the time that we have - despite the problems we encounter along the way. If being alive was celebrated instead of focusing on its faults we'd all be physically and mentally healthier. If meals were not food but rather delectable reasons to meet and converse and share - if movement and grace and activity were celebrated atop pedestals as they once were - if we appreciated the sensually exquisite grandeur of the human body rather than be obsessed by it - if our navels were not the main focus of our purported righteousness and anxieties - possibly the contemporary dependency on mood altering “vitamins” would not be so great and maybe fewer children would be anorexic or obese, attention deprived, hyperactive, anxious or despondent.

Associating the achievements of the greats with the diseases they encountered is opportunism. Discussing “health” (read illness) in such an "I'm an informed consumer"(?) mode is ridiculous. If anything it deforms our perception of what health truly is and insults and demeans those amongst us who, daily, face and deal with “real” physical and mental anomalies in which we have no control.

The "greats” suffered (just like we do)? This is akin to soap opera information-dispensation, not encouragement and direction.  Popularizing chats about every disease known to man, like diets, simply makes us more anxious and unhealthy. Reinstating an updated version of the 5BX Plan would be more proactive and healthy than making illness palatable. Is the health of our societies truly what we are going for? If yes, then a “sufferings-r-us” approach doesn’t cut it. July 5, 2005

I have difficulty understanding the June 12th, 2005 article entitled: Prince William’s Degree Outshines His Father’s - London - Agence France-Presse, National Post, Section A Page 2.

Was the goal of this article to congratulate William on his Masters’s Degree? Or was the article about Charles, the Prince of Wales, not being as smart as his eldest son? Or is it simply that the author is incapable of giving out a compliment without diminishing another to give weight to his comments?

In the mind’s eye of this writer, does the recognition of William (being more than he was prior to his diploma) necessitate his father being a “lesser” man now that William has “achieved”? Am I to presume that all parents are worthy of public ridicule the day their offspring surpass them academically?

Are we readers being invited to sneer at an illiterate man or a smarmy-pants IT specialist who gets bested? - gets surpassed by his own “smarter” son? Should we now accept as “normal” that a plumber, carwash attendant, stock clerk, teacher, minister, painter or prince should feel less-than, the day their children surpass them in any way shape or form? How sick a concept is that!

That the son in question is William and the father, Charles, has nothing to do with the conscience, or lack thereof, in this story. But that this article was even considered a worthy filler says much about the quality of leadership at the level which OK's such inserts.

Anyone who considers berating one person in order to make another look great is in serious need of a psychological mind-set make-over. - 13-06-05

Deconstructing the Collapse - Dan Gardner - Ottawa Citizen - Reading Section - Page C7 - June 05, 2005

Commentary: If John Raulston Saul writes to make us think he has succeeded in doing so with his latest: “The Collapse of Globalism”. Whether or not we agree with his writings is irrelevant. Whether or not globalism (globalization) is collapsing is another story altogether. Nonetheless, his ideas are worthy when taken in as one part of a multi-dimensional conversation - a discussion of theories.

But focusing on the market as prime player in the fall or maintenance of “global unification” is too limiting. There has always been local, regional national and international trade - despite the varied contexts, visions and creative output possible only in a world of mesmerizing differences. Though wars have been and are still fought due to differences, markets will always flourish whether globalization is in or out - but only IF differences are maintained - only if the Yin is balanced with Yang.

Sameness is what should be feared. This not-to-be-ignored element (goal?) of globalization can only render us indifferent (if not fearful and eventually catatonic). Taking a market cue from Saul, please allow me a minuscule digression re: sameness.

Automobile sales, this year, are “seriously” down. Prices are good, quality is high, the paint on the cars sparkles. So why are sales so low? The answer is far from academic or statistical. Rather it is human. There is nothing unique about today’s cars, nothing to differentiate them significantly from last year’s, or for that matter the cars of every other world manufacturer. We have gone from the exciting zaniness of early 20th century design to the lackluster boredom of the late 20th and beyond. (Try and find your car when you’ve lost it in a mall parking lot!)

Sameness is “in”. It is, universal - based on a “build it and the suckers will buy” economic base. So-called global visions have deteriorated creative juices. Every car (and other products) look the same, feel the same, are the same. And (finally) sales are down - simply because we (and our pocket-books) gradually discover the silliness of it all. Apple Computers saw the light a few years ago and saved itself from oblivion by giving its product a “real” new and improved look and feel.

Simplistic as this example may seem, it reflects on a larger picture. With the dumbing down to a level of sameness individuals are finally asking themselves if they have not been or are not being duped. Advertising and promotion have reached a level of saturation which highlights how “(d)numb” we have become. Are our cultural, ethnic, religious and social differences, which give colour and texture to the world, next in the globalization cross-hairs? I wager they already are. The Free-market concept is too limiting a view when globalization is discussed. The humanity in human intercourse must be addressed if salient points are to ring true. In this Saul’s book is deficient.

That political and marketplace technocrats have absconded with globalization is obvious. The precepts are based on “facts and figures” and “fear of the other” rather than on human expectations, needs and wishes and healthy marketplace competition. In this context, globalism comes too close to being “homogenization” - a fabric of small numbers of economic controllers and larger numbers of submissive consumers - resulting in the rendering of the world’s people “same”.

With technocracy’s manufacture of globalization over the past several decades the dangers are far from simply market directed - though it cannot be denied that local, regional and national manufacturers and retailers do increasingly suffer. And that, in essence causes much of the negativity in certain obsessive aspects of nationalistic fervour.

Nationalism, in this global context, is increasingly perceived as a dirty word - if not an out-dated concept. But ironically, and despite ourselves, we counter negative market effects by adopting a new more rigid definition for the nationalism: "protectionism".

But what is there, “really”, to fear in nationalism? Essentially, political and market ideologies have absconded with the term - degrading its true essence. France, through its recent no vote, spoke volumes on the subject. Whether the vote, politically or economically, should have been no or yes is a moot point. The result of this plebiscite was not a rejection of unity but rather an expression of a population’s uniqueness to be maintained and recognized - a refusal to accept the "dying" aspect of the French fact, the French self. The national pride of individual French persons was at stake. The "no" said more about the threats of sameness than all of the theoretical output on the “good” or “bad” of European or world unity (read globalization).

Yes, nationalism at its worst does at times express itself through unwarranted aggression. But nationalism at its best refers to the essence of Canadianism, Americanism, le fait français, Italianism, being Mali, Sudanese, Chinese. Without rejection of others it refers to a nation’s roots - being who we are rather than what we must be in order to meet cultural, ethnic, religious and, especially, market demands. It does not mean that “the other” is rejected but rather that building on the riches and pride of belonging, of community, of respect for traditions and language and culture are primordial. It means that the greatness of unique and creative mind-sets and aspirations must, while evolving with the times, be preserved and enriched. It means not being overwhelmed by a numbing sameness which denies cultural diversity and creativity - the magic of the world’s richness.

As a philosophical treatise on civilization and its difficulties, Jane Jacobs is a more “realistic” read. But, there is a John Raulston Saul sentence worth noting: “They cannot see or appreciate complex realities. . . because they are blinded by (the simplicity of, on one hand, and submission to on another) dogma.

But then, accusations against political agendas and marketplace realities aside, of what is there to fear in this oh so contemporary world if not our own acquired need to have everything “easy”. . . It is time we involved more than technocratic principles to all of our “individual” futures, time to recognize the responsibilities which accompany the privileges we enjoy. Because when “easy” is the “buy” word it is not long before the perceived subservience of individuals to the power-brokers of the marketplace becomes a universal reality. - 05-06-2005

How fascinating it is that, in this advanced modern era, we are so easily convinced that in order to stand out all we have to do is to be liked, look like and buy the same things as everybody else. . . even if that means being and buying into that which has little if anything to do with who and what we are - and at worse, is related to that which is the lowest common denominator. 05-05-05

As long as a finger is pointed at the problem, the cause slinks by unnoticed. - 96

Meditation used to be a holy, noble act practiced by esthetes and priests and saints who would then transmit to us all the discoveries they have made. Today, we make of it an anxious mantra whose role it is to wish reality away. -81