Saturday, November 1, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
A Badge of Honour or Primal Stupidity?
Sleeping with several women or having self-respect and dignity for oneself? Which is better? If you ask my roommates, sleeping around. If you ask me, dignity and self-respect. Granted, sleeping with at least 15 women by the time you're 19 is an accomplishment, but it why strive for that if not more? Twenty minutes later, especially if it's a one-nighter, you're no further ahead in life and your ball sack is a little lighter. Repeat that several times, and the end result is you've laid 9 random women.
On the women you date, do you necessarily need to jump into bed right away? It sets the tone of the relationship. Sure it might be fun, and you get to see her again, but do you get any further in life? The last time I checked, relationships were based on how well two personalities got along and how well they communicate, not how much sex they have. It's an empty relationship. Holding off does one of two things: a) shows you respect her and b) makes you more desirable.
When you add up the one-nighters and the women you've dated, is there really anything to be proud of? I ask this question as my roommates wonder why I haven't brought home some woman to forget about the next day after living here for almost seven months. They also ask why I lay the woman I dated for a month. It's simple, I don't feel the urge to get in the sack ASAP. As far as I'm concerned, it makes things more awkward than they need to be. The next woman I'll be sleeping with must be a serious girlfriend, not [insert name here...if you can remember it] from that bar I forgot I went to last night.
Even if I do bend my rules, it isn't something I'd go bragging about. I've got better things to do with my life than make the Guiness Book of World Records for most number of women laid by one man.
On the women you date, do you necessarily need to jump into bed right away? It sets the tone of the relationship. Sure it might be fun, and you get to see her again, but do you get any further in life? The last time I checked, relationships were based on how well two personalities got along and how well they communicate, not how much sex they have. It's an empty relationship. Holding off does one of two things: a) shows you respect her and b) makes you more desirable.
When you add up the one-nighters and the women you've dated, is there really anything to be proud of? I ask this question as my roommates wonder why I haven't brought home some woman to forget about the next day after living here for almost seven months. They also ask why I lay the woman I dated for a month. It's simple, I don't feel the urge to get in the sack ASAP. As far as I'm concerned, it makes things more awkward than they need to be. The next woman I'll be sleeping with must be a serious girlfriend, not [insert name here...if you can remember it] from that bar I forgot I went to last night.
Even if I do bend my rules, it isn't something I'd go bragging about. I've got better things to do with my life than make the Guiness Book of World Records for most number of women laid by one man.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Life Through Beer Goggles
Getting wasted...what's the attraction? It's a question I've asked myself for the past four years. Is there any benefit to it? Is there anything to gain? I tend to think there's more to lose. Friends, dignity, self-respect, etc. Is there really anything cool about being an ass and doing stupid shit because you can? I tend to think not.
Getting wasted is alright once in a while. Every now and then, you've got to celebrate achievements or just have a good time. When I ask the question, what's the attraction, I ask it in this context: why do it regularly?
I was talking with my roommate the other night about some staff functions coming up, which usually means drunk-fest with the co-workers. I work early mornings on the weekend so staying out late and drinking lots on a Friday night is a no-go for me. My roommate says to me you only live once. Upon hearing that, I thought, do I need to be wasted all the time? Isn't there more to life than trying to keep track of how many drinks lead you to the porcelain throne? I do like to have a few drinks, but I hate waking up feeling gross, especially when I have to work. It's bad enough I hate working when I'm not well rested. A few co-workers have told me I haven't worked a weekend unless I've worked half drunk or hungover. It works for them, it doesn't work for me. I want to perform to the best of my ability and it would seem irresponsible of me to get drunk in front of the boss, even if it's generally accepted. Even if my boss encouraged it, I would still hold back. I'm in a field I want to move up in, not some retail job where half my brain can get me through the day. On the other hand, if I wasn't working some unholy hour the next day, I'd probably take it further.
I digress. I'm also faced with a few other soirees in the coming months where alcohol consumption is encouraged. I don't see any need to do so, but I'm always faced with people who want to push it. Nothing gets accomplished other than a contribution to the sewage plant. You're out of commission for a half day, wasting most of it away. Why do it regularly? There's too much life to experience and too much to do. Sure you do stupid, amusing things, but are any of those things something to be proud of? I'd rather have a good time with friends, have just a few drinks, and remember what happened. I'm never in a race to see if I can drink more than the next guy, because that's just dumb.
Overall, more harm than good comes out if it. Once in a while is fine, but regularly is just dumb. I'm sure the next time I see some of my best friends from home, it'll be a night to (or not) remember. But that's ok, because how often do I see them?
Getting wasted is alright once in a while. Every now and then, you've got to celebrate achievements or just have a good time. When I ask the question, what's the attraction, I ask it in this context: why do it regularly?
I was talking with my roommate the other night about some staff functions coming up, which usually means drunk-fest with the co-workers. I work early mornings on the weekend so staying out late and drinking lots on a Friday night is a no-go for me. My roommate says to me you only live once. Upon hearing that, I thought, do I need to be wasted all the time? Isn't there more to life than trying to keep track of how many drinks lead you to the porcelain throne? I do like to have a few drinks, but I hate waking up feeling gross, especially when I have to work. It's bad enough I hate working when I'm not well rested. A few co-workers have told me I haven't worked a weekend unless I've worked half drunk or hungover. It works for them, it doesn't work for me. I want to perform to the best of my ability and it would seem irresponsible of me to get drunk in front of the boss, even if it's generally accepted. Even if my boss encouraged it, I would still hold back. I'm in a field I want to move up in, not some retail job where half my brain can get me through the day. On the other hand, if I wasn't working some unholy hour the next day, I'd probably take it further.
I digress. I'm also faced with a few other soirees in the coming months where alcohol consumption is encouraged. I don't see any need to do so, but I'm always faced with people who want to push it. Nothing gets accomplished other than a contribution to the sewage plant. You're out of commission for a half day, wasting most of it away. Why do it regularly? There's too much life to experience and too much to do. Sure you do stupid, amusing things, but are any of those things something to be proud of? I'd rather have a good time with friends, have just a few drinks, and remember what happened. I'm never in a race to see if I can drink more than the next guy, because that's just dumb.
Overall, more harm than good comes out if it. Once in a while is fine, but regularly is just dumb. I'm sure the next time I see some of my best friends from home, it'll be a night to (or not) remember. But that's ok, because how often do I see them?
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Price of History
Earlier this year, the City of Red Deer announced its intentions to purchase the Arlington Inn. It's an old hotel that dates back over 100 years and is of historical significance to the Province of Alberta and the City. It was in this building where one could argue that Alberta was born. Today, the Arlington hosts a pub and provides affordable housing to those with low income.
The City says it wants to purchase the building in an effort to revitalize downtown Red Deer. It would like to demolish the building, sell the property to a developer, and see a mixed commercial-residential building erected on the site. Residents were recently given eviction notices for November 14th.
The City's course of action is not the best way to revitalize the downtown. The building has historical significance, and more importantly, the building has character. It calls back to Alberta's early history and it would be a shame to see the building disappear. Good revitalization may include restoring the façade of the building, retrofitting the inside of the building, and even turn the residences into office space. The City should also aid residents of the Arlington in their search for a new home and should hold off on any work until they've found a place to live. Perhaps a municipal or provincial museum is in order given the building's historical past.
Architecture gives cities character, and the Arlington is no exception. Only one block away do the street signs read 'Historical Downtown.' Those signs may need to be replaced if buildings like the Arlington disappear if the area becomes overrun with skyscrapers. For example, it's difficult to find several historical buildings in downtown Calgary. I'm sure at some point in time they were abundant.
Progress may be the flipside of the argument, and I agree. Cities are living, breathing organisms where older buildings will eventually be knocked over. But that begs the question, do all historical buildings need to be demolished in the name of progress? A person I ran into on the street mentioned a historical building was demolished to make way for the bus terminal. Progress should honour history while looking to the future. One city planner who presented a plan to London City Council last year said a good city mixes the old with the new. Skyscrapers and tall office/residential buildings should be built behind older buildings. It gives city streets charm, while realizing the need to densify the city's core.
Revitalization doesn't always equal demolishing old buildings. It means incorporating them into the grand plan, unless of course you could kick it and it would fall over...the Arlington is not faced with that situation.
The City says it wants to purchase the building in an effort to revitalize downtown Red Deer. It would like to demolish the building, sell the property to a developer, and see a mixed commercial-residential building erected on the site. Residents were recently given eviction notices for November 14th.
The City's course of action is not the best way to revitalize the downtown. The building has historical significance, and more importantly, the building has character. It calls back to Alberta's early history and it would be a shame to see the building disappear. Good revitalization may include restoring the façade of the building, retrofitting the inside of the building, and even turn the residences into office space. The City should also aid residents of the Arlington in their search for a new home and should hold off on any work until they've found a place to live. Perhaps a municipal or provincial museum is in order given the building's historical past.
Architecture gives cities character, and the Arlington is no exception. Only one block away do the street signs read 'Historical Downtown.' Those signs may need to be replaced if buildings like the Arlington disappear if the area becomes overrun with skyscrapers. For example, it's difficult to find several historical buildings in downtown Calgary. I'm sure at some point in time they were abundant.
Progress may be the flipside of the argument, and I agree. Cities are living, breathing organisms where older buildings will eventually be knocked over. But that begs the question, do all historical buildings need to be demolished in the name of progress? A person I ran into on the street mentioned a historical building was demolished to make way for the bus terminal. Progress should honour history while looking to the future. One city planner who presented a plan to London City Council last year said a good city mixes the old with the new. Skyscrapers and tall office/residential buildings should be built behind older buildings. It gives city streets charm, while realizing the need to densify the city's core.
Revitalization doesn't always equal demolishing old buildings. It means incorporating them into the grand plan, unless of course you could kick it and it would fall over...the Arlington is not faced with that situation.
Friday, August 24, 2007
A Case for Fair and Balanced News on the Fox News Network
No, I'm not ingesting a narcotic. It is a rational argument. My argument does not try to justify any of Fox News' journalistic practices. It merely intends to explore why Fox might be able to use such a statement and how the network can get away with it.
Most importantly, Fox News wants you to believe that all of its reporting is fair, balanced, and just. Reporters are supposed to be flies on the wall, waiting for news to happen. They report on the events when they do materialize. They tell us the fallout of the event any other relevant information. To keep their objective position in the news world, Fox proclaims that "We report, you decide." That statement gives Fox some buffer room to say whatever they want to say. As a viewer, I decide whether the story is true, whether the facts are accurate, and whether I want to believe what I'm being told. On this statement alone, Fox lets go of some of their authority or integrity and places it upon the viewer. If viewers don't like what Fox told them, well it was up to the viewer in the first place to decide if the facts were correct. It keeps the fly on the wall effect if you will.
A perceived liberal bias in the mainstream media may also drive Fox to declare themselves fair and balanced. It is quite clear that their stories are not fair and balanced. More often than not they leverage the republican or conservative cause and dismiss the democratic or liberal one. The liberal point of view may not even get airtime, but if it does, the story is framed in a manner to undermine liberalism and praise republicanism. Fox may do this to counter its competitors which it views as liberal. Therefore, Fox News is balanced... it balances the other networks, but it does not balance its stories. Thus, it is also fair. If other networks can "do" what they "want," why can't Fox, it's only fair.
Historically, journalism was NEVER ever objective. It was ALWAYS biased. Newspaper barons like Hearst and Pullitzer developed a mainstream newspaper market in order to increase circulation. If you didn't offend anyone, you might get more readers. It also meant more advertising dollars because there are more readers. Journalism was political before that newspaper revolution. Perhaps Fox news is returning to a time when news was not an objective source of information.
In a nutshell, that is my argument for Fox being a fair and balanced network. It doesn't mean that Fox is a genuine source of news, it just means that the network may be trying to tackle a larger issue instead of making sure each and every story doesn't offend anybody.
Most importantly, Fox News wants you to believe that all of its reporting is fair, balanced, and just. Reporters are supposed to be flies on the wall, waiting for news to happen. They report on the events when they do materialize. They tell us the fallout of the event any other relevant information. To keep their objective position in the news world, Fox proclaims that "We report, you decide." That statement gives Fox some buffer room to say whatever they want to say. As a viewer, I decide whether the story is true, whether the facts are accurate, and whether I want to believe what I'm being told. On this statement alone, Fox lets go of some of their authority or integrity and places it upon the viewer. If viewers don't like what Fox told them, well it was up to the viewer in the first place to decide if the facts were correct. It keeps the fly on the wall effect if you will.
A perceived liberal bias in the mainstream media may also drive Fox to declare themselves fair and balanced. It is quite clear that their stories are not fair and balanced. More often than not they leverage the republican or conservative cause and dismiss the democratic or liberal one. The liberal point of view may not even get airtime, but if it does, the story is framed in a manner to undermine liberalism and praise republicanism. Fox may do this to counter its competitors which it views as liberal. Therefore, Fox News is balanced... it balances the other networks, but it does not balance its stories. Thus, it is also fair. If other networks can "do" what they "want," why can't Fox, it's only fair.
Historically, journalism was NEVER ever objective. It was ALWAYS biased. Newspaper barons like Hearst and Pullitzer developed a mainstream newspaper market in order to increase circulation. If you didn't offend anyone, you might get more readers. It also meant more advertising dollars because there are more readers. Journalism was political before that newspaper revolution. Perhaps Fox news is returning to a time when news was not an objective source of information.
In a nutshell, that is my argument for Fox being a fair and balanced network. It doesn't mean that Fox is a genuine source of news, it just means that the network may be trying to tackle a larger issue instead of making sure each and every story doesn't offend anybody.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Corporate Image or Corporate Responsibility
First of all, welcome to my new blog. I am going to attempt to post somewhat regularly here my musings on some grappling issues. Of course, if not obvious enough by the title, the first one will be about corporate image and corporate responsibility.
At school, I am taking a media studies program. For the most part, the faculty take a left leaning socialist view of the world. Most of my professors damn the man for all the nasty evil things he does like under pay his employees while overworking them, exporting jobs to the third world, and manipulating consumers to buy into their product. I won't discount anything that they're saying, because I do think a lot of that is true. I shamefully worked at Wal-Mart last summer and let me tell you, do they ever try in every way to assimilate you into Wal-Mart culture to the point where you'd worship the ground Sam Walton walked on. Fortunately enough for me, I could see through the bullshit, due in part to my own thoughts on the company and my program. That aside, the point is the man does not look out for the greater good of society, but will do whatever it takes to increase the bottom line each quarter.
Speaking of the bottom line, I was at a presentation featuring McDonald's president Louie Mele (oddly enough, the faculty of health sciences sponsored this presentation). He talked about McDonald's seeing its first loss a few years ago. To keep its lead in the fast food industry, Mele talked about how the company wasn't listening to its customers and the company wasn't with the times. In order to compensate, Mele said that the company introduced a contemporary new slogan, "I'm Lovin' It," salads, and other "healthy" food options. He said while the salads weren't hot items, he said the options needed to be there so that the health conscious people would still want to eat at Wal-Mart. Clearly, the bottom line is more important here than is the corporate responsibility. I'll touch on the corporate responsibility in a bit.
Contrary to his efforts to get more customers into his stores, in response to a question from the audience about childhood obesity, Mele said that its the customers who choose to go to McDonald's and that the kids do not go to his restaurants, but rather the parents take them there. I do give him credit there, until I'm reminded of his company's advertising campaigns. Happy Meals always come with toys, and to make sure you're children are loyal, tell them that they can collect 6 new Barbies or 6 new Hot Wheels cars, where only one is given away every week. The ad gets the kids wound up and the parent inevitably appeases the kids by heading to McDonald's once per week. Is it just me, or is that a form of telling the public to come to McDonald's regularly? I know Mele himself didn't advocate fast food every day, but the company ads certainly do. Therefore the bottom line is still important to McDonald's Canada.
Now onto corporate responsibility. Sure, McDonald's may do a lot of nasty things despite it's claims that its alright to eat in moderation (which I would agree with if I didn't feel like a sack of poop after having a meal there). With all the profits that McDonald's takes in every year, a large amount of it goes towards Ronald McDonald house. The house provides a place for families to stay while their children are receiving medical care of some form and couldn't get it in their community. Without this house, some of these families, possibly strapped for cash, may not be able to afford to go to the hospital with their children. If you think about other corporations, there are a bunch of services that wouldn't exist if it weren't for their generosity. This then begs the question, is it corporate image or corporate responsibility?
I would argue it is a bit of both. The company can't be seen to be doing all these bad things. However, does the company need to have their name plastered on whatever their sponsoring? That becomes advertising under the guise of charitable support. Giving money to charity is something that companies should just do without an advertising spectacle.
-Peter
p.s. I've got a free big mac coupon if you want it.
At school, I am taking a media studies program. For the most part, the faculty take a left leaning socialist view of the world. Most of my professors damn the man for all the nasty evil things he does like under pay his employees while overworking them, exporting jobs to the third world, and manipulating consumers to buy into their product. I won't discount anything that they're saying, because I do think a lot of that is true. I shamefully worked at Wal-Mart last summer and let me tell you, do they ever try in every way to assimilate you into Wal-Mart culture to the point where you'd worship the ground Sam Walton walked on. Fortunately enough for me, I could see through the bullshit, due in part to my own thoughts on the company and my program. That aside, the point is the man does not look out for the greater good of society, but will do whatever it takes to increase the bottom line each quarter.
Speaking of the bottom line, I was at a presentation featuring McDonald's president Louie Mele (oddly enough, the faculty of health sciences sponsored this presentation). He talked about McDonald's seeing its first loss a few years ago. To keep its lead in the fast food industry, Mele talked about how the company wasn't listening to its customers and the company wasn't with the times. In order to compensate, Mele said that the company introduced a contemporary new slogan, "I'm Lovin' It," salads, and other "healthy" food options. He said while the salads weren't hot items, he said the options needed to be there so that the health conscious people would still want to eat at Wal-Mart. Clearly, the bottom line is more important here than is the corporate responsibility. I'll touch on the corporate responsibility in a bit.
Contrary to his efforts to get more customers into his stores, in response to a question from the audience about childhood obesity, Mele said that its the customers who choose to go to McDonald's and that the kids do not go to his restaurants, but rather the parents take them there. I do give him credit there, until I'm reminded of his company's advertising campaigns. Happy Meals always come with toys, and to make sure you're children are loyal, tell them that they can collect 6 new Barbies or 6 new Hot Wheels cars, where only one is given away every week. The ad gets the kids wound up and the parent inevitably appeases the kids by heading to McDonald's once per week. Is it just me, or is that a form of telling the public to come to McDonald's regularly? I know Mele himself didn't advocate fast food every day, but the company ads certainly do. Therefore the bottom line is still important to McDonald's Canada.
Now onto corporate responsibility. Sure, McDonald's may do a lot of nasty things despite it's claims that its alright to eat in moderation (which I would agree with if I didn't feel like a sack of poop after having a meal there). With all the profits that McDonald's takes in every year, a large amount of it goes towards Ronald McDonald house. The house provides a place for families to stay while their children are receiving medical care of some form and couldn't get it in their community. Without this house, some of these families, possibly strapped for cash, may not be able to afford to go to the hospital with their children. If you think about other corporations, there are a bunch of services that wouldn't exist if it weren't for their generosity. This then begs the question, is it corporate image or corporate responsibility?
I would argue it is a bit of both. The company can't be seen to be doing all these bad things. However, does the company need to have their name plastered on whatever their sponsoring? That becomes advertising under the guise of charitable support. Giving money to charity is something that companies should just do without an advertising spectacle.
-Peter
p.s. I've got a free big mac coupon if you want it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
