(I haven't blogged about reality television in awhile, have I?
This one's for you, Johnny.)
Question One
Anne Murray is:
a - a hit songwriter & vocalist
b - a former shill for "The Bay"
c - a masculin, mediocre, has-been, pants-suit wearing leader of the Canadian Idol Mentoring Gestapo.
If you said "all of the above", you'd be mostly right.
Betcha you didn't remember she was in commercials for The Bay, did ya? Just a bit of trivia.
You're welcome.
As we were watching the contestants' performances on Monday night, my husband commented on how many fantastic Anne Murray songs they had to choose from. For a moment I thought, "he's right, she is quite a hitmaker." Then I came to my senses and realized that he's old and has bad taste and doesn't know what he's talking about.
It doesn't matter, becuase I didn't hear any of them sing an Anne Murray song anyway. I heard The Pride of Port Hood sing a Gordon Lightfoot song (incidentally, about an unfashionable pluz-size clothing store...weird). I heard Earl sing a Fugees jam, and Theo destroyed a Ray Charles classic.
So, what was.......
Huh? What did you say?
What do you mean there's another contestant?
Oh yeah, that guy. He's cute, but too 'S Club 7' and not enough 'Jim Cuddy'.
Moving on.
If Anne Murray was so iconic and gush-worthy, not only would we have all recognized the tunes as Anne Murray tunes, but the Idol people would have devoted the entire show to her work. Instead, they had the four guys withstand her nationally-televised verbal siege against their singing skills, stumble through a song to appease her, and then change the subject entirely. Classic!
But whatever, like it or not, she graced the stage this Tuesday evening. And did she sing one of her famous hits? Nope, she sang a Monkees song. How fitting. Anne Murray week and scarcely an Anne Murray song in sight.
Taking a page out of the middle school choreography handbook, Anne, apparent master of the Grade Seven Shuffle, moved drone-like about the stage, looking one unfortunate hip replacement away from retirement. Though she does have pretty good skin for a 97 year old woman, her gobble-gobble thingy distracted from her alto-rendition of "Daydream Believer". But what's not to like about the catholic-church-choir-ish warbling of a woman who sounds like she's either in the thick of purberty or trying unsuccessfully to dislodge her testicles from someone's steadfast grip.
A few end notes.
I'm glad Earl went home. He made my living room smell like marijuana and stupidity.
I'm surprised Mitch has made it this far. He's talented, but I didn't think he had enough national appeal. I was wrong.
Theo is going to win whether Cape Bretoners like it or not. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it's true, and he deserves it. But look on the bright side: within six months you'll be able to catch Mitch playing at Shindigs in Port Hawkesbury for $7.
And lastly, Zack Werner is the biggest loser who has ever appeared on television, even when you count Elizabeth Chiu and Howard Stern. He thinks he's so much funnier and wittier and everything-else-ier than he actually is, and it's obnoxious. The only reason it doesn't bother me much is because I have a husband and family life, and he goes home to his hamster, plays Warcraft on the computer, and cries himself to sleep.
On that note....
FIN
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Chatterbox
There's a line from the movie Shrek that really struck a chord with me. When Princess Fiona shockingly exclaims that Donkey can talk, Shrek says, "yeah, it's getting him to shut up that's the trick." Whoever wrote that line definitely has kids.
My oldest son was a very early and sudden talker. I have video of him taken at Christmas of 1999, and he was only blurting single words like the usual "mom" and "ba-ba". In a video taken just two weeks later, he was speaking in full sentences, and he was only about a year and a half old.
My friends used to get such a kick out of how much he liked to talk, and the things he was capable of saying. My memory isn't great, and I don't remember a lot of examples of his lingo, but I remember how articulate and witty he was. Older ladies used to approach him in the grocery store and gush over him, "oh, look at the cute little baby! Yes you are! Yes you are! A-pffffftt. A-pffffftt," while poking his belly. Much to their surprise, he'd usually reply with something like, "I don't know you, you are not a-sposed to touch me." He still looked like a baby, but talking to him was like talking to a five year old.
Here we are ten years later, and I promise you he hasn't stopped talking since 1999. The cute factor might have lessened considerably, but that hasn't affected the frequency. I often think he could be used by some police agency to crack criminals into cooperating, because this child could talk someone right to death. And ask questions? Either he's on the world's most epic quest for knowledge, or he just likes the sound of his own voice. Maybe a bit of both.
Some might say he gets it honestly, but that's besides the point.
In the past few weeks I've relived the "just learning to talk" scenario all over again, with my younger son. He's a late talker; he just turned three and only recently has he begun speaking in full sentences. And what sentences they are.
There is nothing funnier than a child finally being able to verbally express what they have probably been dying to get out for months and months.
Fits of frustration and screaming "no!" at the television and the fridge, have been replaced with, "Mom, want to watch Scooby Doo", or "not banana, want some cheese".
Better still, he's been absorbing the same songs and movies and phrases since he was a baby, so to hear him start singing the theme song from The Backyardigans word for word, is great for a laugh. He's nothing if not a fan of repetition, and the movies Cars and A Bug's Life (among many others) have played on a loop in this house for a long time. Now he can quote lines from these movies verbatim.
Unfortunately, my younger son isn't nearly as friendly as the other one was at his age. My older son would have talked to anyone, and usually did. The baby isn't as much of a people person, and strangers don't always get a great reception from him.
For example, the other day at the mall our cart was blocked by someone chatting in the middle of the aisle. My son had no bones about telling the shoppers, "you're in the way! Move your stuff, right now!" Some parents would be embarrassed by an outburst like this, but really, what can you do? They're kids, and they call it like they see it. As much as I hate to say it, I'm used to his abrupt proclamations in the middle of the dollar store; hey, at least he's paying attention.
And it's easier to forgive a few painful moments when they're normally so polite. My kids might regularly speak out of turn, but they have excellent manners. Even the three year old says "pweeze" and "fank you" and "skuze me", and my older son holds doors for people and knows how to give a proper apology.
When you're a stay-at-home mom with small kids, the funny stuff is what gets you through the day. Somehow or another, my youngest has just adopted a British accent, and greets me every morning with a "Hello, Roger!" as if he's straight from the heart of London. You'd have to hear it, but believe me when I say it's hilarious. Also, the vocabulary variations can be quite funny, and I've enjoyed many stories about "bunglebees", "chuckamilk", and how "peckeroni pizza smells like dog poop."
I suppose these years are called "the best years" for a reason, and when the constant chirping in my ear is almost too much to bear, I try to remember how lost we'd be in silence.
My oldest son was a very early and sudden talker. I have video of him taken at Christmas of 1999, and he was only blurting single words like the usual "mom" and "ba-ba". In a video taken just two weeks later, he was speaking in full sentences, and he was only about a year and a half old.
My friends used to get such a kick out of how much he liked to talk, and the things he was capable of saying. My memory isn't great, and I don't remember a lot of examples of his lingo, but I remember how articulate and witty he was. Older ladies used to approach him in the grocery store and gush over him, "oh, look at the cute little baby! Yes you are! Yes you are! A-pffffftt. A-pffffftt," while poking his belly. Much to their surprise, he'd usually reply with something like, "I don't know you, you are not a-sposed to touch me." He still looked like a baby, but talking to him was like talking to a five year old.
Here we are ten years later, and I promise you he hasn't stopped talking since 1999. The cute factor might have lessened considerably, but that hasn't affected the frequency. I often think he could be used by some police agency to crack criminals into cooperating, because this child could talk someone right to death. And ask questions? Either he's on the world's most epic quest for knowledge, or he just likes the sound of his own voice. Maybe a bit of both.
Some might say he gets it honestly, but that's besides the point.
In the past few weeks I've relived the "just learning to talk" scenario all over again, with my younger son. He's a late talker; he just turned three and only recently has he begun speaking in full sentences. And what sentences they are.
There is nothing funnier than a child finally being able to verbally express what they have probably been dying to get out for months and months.
Fits of frustration and screaming "no!" at the television and the fridge, have been replaced with, "Mom, want to watch Scooby Doo", or "not banana, want some cheese".
Better still, he's been absorbing the same songs and movies and phrases since he was a baby, so to hear him start singing the theme song from The Backyardigans word for word, is great for a laugh. He's nothing if not a fan of repetition, and the movies Cars and A Bug's Life (among many others) have played on a loop in this house for a long time. Now he can quote lines from these movies verbatim.
Unfortunately, my younger son isn't nearly as friendly as the other one was at his age. My older son would have talked to anyone, and usually did. The baby isn't as much of a people person, and strangers don't always get a great reception from him.
For example, the other day at the mall our cart was blocked by someone chatting in the middle of the aisle. My son had no bones about telling the shoppers, "you're in the way! Move your stuff, right now!" Some parents would be embarrassed by an outburst like this, but really, what can you do? They're kids, and they call it like they see it. As much as I hate to say it, I'm used to his abrupt proclamations in the middle of the dollar store; hey, at least he's paying attention.
And it's easier to forgive a few painful moments when they're normally so polite. My kids might regularly speak out of turn, but they have excellent manners. Even the three year old says "pweeze" and "fank you" and "skuze me", and my older son holds doors for people and knows how to give a proper apology.
When you're a stay-at-home mom with small kids, the funny stuff is what gets you through the day. Somehow or another, my youngest has just adopted a British accent, and greets me every morning with a "Hello, Roger!" as if he's straight from the heart of London. You'd have to hear it, but believe me when I say it's hilarious. Also, the vocabulary variations can be quite funny, and I've enjoyed many stories about "bunglebees", "chuckamilk", and how "peckeroni pizza smells like dog poop."
I suppose these years are called "the best years" for a reason, and when the constant chirping in my ear is almost too much to bear, I try to remember how lost we'd be in silence.
Monday, August 11, 2008
The Pleasures of Few
I'm not an outdoor girl at all, so ATV riding isn't my thing. I don't take pleasure in the thought of donning a camouflage unitard and rubber boots, rip-roaring through the mud at 70km per hour (in fact, I might have night terrors after just writing about it). However, to each his own, and if that's what you like to do, far be it from me to interfere with the lawful enjoyment of others.
Unfortunately for some, that won't stop me from complaining about it.
There are good reasons why kids aren't allowed to drive cars until they're 16, and kids might be better served by having those reasons more closely examined and applied to the laws pertaining to riding ATVs. I know lots of people say there's a vast difference between cars and ATVs, but in my opinion these people are fooling themselves. They're gas-powered vehicles capable of high speed and requiring coordination, skill, foresight, and instinct that is not yet developed in children. If you don't believe me, ask the vice-president of medicine at the IWK Children's hospital in Halifax, who's statements I borrowed from.
But whatever. If you want to allow your child to ride one, that's your business. Maybe the thought of proper training is enough to help you sleep at night, but the statistics on injuries and fatalities involving kids on ATVs make a pretty good argument to refute any justification as far as I'm concerned.
Also worth mentioning is the damage these all-terrain vehicles do to terrain. The cause and severity of much of the destruction is debated, but anyone who has ever walked through the woods and seen huge tire tracks that have torn up a bog a million times over should be able to admit that they are causing damage, at least to some extent.
I found dozens of websites that cite the irreparable damage ATV usage has caused, and the rebuttals aren't very convincing. I even read this explanation by a self-proclaimed ATV enthusiast and promoter: "We're not damaging anything, creatures actually live in the ruts left by our machines, and they know to jump out of the way when they hear us coming. The ones who don't make a great snack for the raccoons. It's like the circle of life." Uh-huh. That's just what Elton John was singing about.
But let's pretend I have no problem with ATVs whatsoever. Why should I be expected to pay for others to ride them?
A few weeks ago, our government, and ultimately the taxpayers of Nova Scotia, had to foot the bill for a fleet of 66 child-sized all-terrain vehicles. That bill wasn't chump change - it totaled $230,000, not counting the extra $40,000 Premier MacDonald threw in for a training program and a study on the health benefits of riding. After imposing new restrictions on ATV-ers in 2006, I guess Rodney felt the need to make it up to them.
Here's a little list for everyone to consider, especially those who are stewing in disgust over the decision to back out of the purchase: roughly 11,500 textbooks, 3 teacher's salaries for one year, 460 home heating rebates in the amount of $500, equipment for rural and out-of-date firehouses all over the province, a few dozen daycare subsidies.
Those are just a few things that could be purchased with the almost quarter-million dollars those machines cost us, and hopefully the importance of people's ATV hobby pales in comparison to the importance of the examples I have listed. Premier MacDonald must have thought we had more pressing priorities, since he decided to get refunds for all the equipment purchased.
All-terrain vehicle riding can be a dangerous hobby, especially when a participant isn't properly trained or using the right equipment. The same thing can be said of hockey and of bicycle riding. Last time I checked, the government wasn't doling out cheques for helmets or shin pads, nor were they buying a truckload of BMXs or funding a pricey bicycle training program (even though a far greater majority of children in Nova Scotia ride bicycles than ATVs).
As parents, we decide which activities our children participate in, and we are expected to incur the expenses that go along with it. If for some inexplicable reason you want your child to be an expert ATV rider, make your own arrangements. You shouldn't expect the whole venture to be paid for by taxpayers, most of which don't even indulge in your same extra curricular activity. Unless of course you want to start paying for my son's football gear and future driver's education classes. That wouldn't seem fair, would it?
Our province doesn't have money to waste on the pleasures of few.
Unfortunately for some, that won't stop me from complaining about it.
There are good reasons why kids aren't allowed to drive cars until they're 16, and kids might be better served by having those reasons more closely examined and applied to the laws pertaining to riding ATVs. I know lots of people say there's a vast difference between cars and ATVs, but in my opinion these people are fooling themselves. They're gas-powered vehicles capable of high speed and requiring coordination, skill, foresight, and instinct that is not yet developed in children. If you don't believe me, ask the vice-president of medicine at the IWK Children's hospital in Halifax, who's statements I borrowed from.
But whatever. If you want to allow your child to ride one, that's your business. Maybe the thought of proper training is enough to help you sleep at night, but the statistics on injuries and fatalities involving kids on ATVs make a pretty good argument to refute any justification as far as I'm concerned.
Also worth mentioning is the damage these all-terrain vehicles do to terrain. The cause and severity of much of the destruction is debated, but anyone who has ever walked through the woods and seen huge tire tracks that have torn up a bog a million times over should be able to admit that they are causing damage, at least to some extent.
I found dozens of websites that cite the irreparable damage ATV usage has caused, and the rebuttals aren't very convincing. I even read this explanation by a self-proclaimed ATV enthusiast and promoter: "We're not damaging anything, creatures actually live in the ruts left by our machines, and they know to jump out of the way when they hear us coming. The ones who don't make a great snack for the raccoons. It's like the circle of life." Uh-huh. That's just what Elton John was singing about.
But let's pretend I have no problem with ATVs whatsoever. Why should I be expected to pay for others to ride them?
A few weeks ago, our government, and ultimately the taxpayers of Nova Scotia, had to foot the bill for a fleet of 66 child-sized all-terrain vehicles. That bill wasn't chump change - it totaled $230,000, not counting the extra $40,000 Premier MacDonald threw in for a training program and a study on the health benefits of riding. After imposing new restrictions on ATV-ers in 2006, I guess Rodney felt the need to make it up to them.
Here's a little list for everyone to consider, especially those who are stewing in disgust over the decision to back out of the purchase: roughly 11,500 textbooks, 3 teacher's salaries for one year, 460 home heating rebates in the amount of $500, equipment for rural and out-of-date firehouses all over the province, a few dozen daycare subsidies.
Those are just a few things that could be purchased with the almost quarter-million dollars those machines cost us, and hopefully the importance of people's ATV hobby pales in comparison to the importance of the examples I have listed. Premier MacDonald must have thought we had more pressing priorities, since he decided to get refunds for all the equipment purchased.
All-terrain vehicle riding can be a dangerous hobby, especially when a participant isn't properly trained or using the right equipment. The same thing can be said of hockey and of bicycle riding. Last time I checked, the government wasn't doling out cheques for helmets or shin pads, nor were they buying a truckload of BMXs or funding a pricey bicycle training program (even though a far greater majority of children in Nova Scotia ride bicycles than ATVs).
As parents, we decide which activities our children participate in, and we are expected to incur the expenses that go along with it. If for some inexplicable reason you want your child to be an expert ATV rider, make your own arrangements. You shouldn't expect the whole venture to be paid for by taxpayers, most of which don't even indulge in your same extra curricular activity. Unless of course you want to start paying for my son's football gear and future driver's education classes. That wouldn't seem fair, would it?
Our province doesn't have money to waste on the pleasures of few.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Criminal Negligence
I watch a lot of news from around the world, but few stories have caused my blood to boil like the case of Paddy Brogan.
Mr. Brogan was charged with criminal negligence and impaired driving causing death following an incident just outside of North Sydney, where he hit and killed a six-year-old boy with his vehicle. He had been drinking, and his blood alcohol level was well over the legal limit.
Mr. Brogan was acquitted of causing the boy’s death after pleading guilty to driving drunk.
If you’re anything like me, you’re probably astounded and baffled that this scenario is even possible. How can you be drunk behind the wheel and kill someone, yet still skate on criminal charges? It’s unheard of.
That is, unless you have connections.
Paddy Brogan’s brother is Nash Brogan, one of the most well known lawyers in Cape Breton. The defense team consisted of Nash and Derrick Kimball. It must be nice to have clout.
The arguments made in this case are almost inconceivable to the average person. The defense claimed that even though Brogan was under the influence, he was not driving drunk. Such an argument seems redundant to me, but they suggest that his blood alcohol level was not high enough to constitute his being labeled as drunk, and they claim there is a very important distinction between “drunk” and “impaired”.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve never heard of another instance of a court of law making or recognizing that distinction. As far as the law is concerned, when you’re over the limit, you’re over, and splitting hairs over terminology won’t help you.
Were the tables turned, the Kimball-Brogan crew would be spewing precedent and screaming, “drunk is drunk,” and any suggestion to the contrary would be laughed out of court in minutes. I guess it’s easier to be hypocritical when you’re defending one of your own.
Another argument states, and experts testified, that even a sober and alert driver would have been unable to avoid this accident (and I use the word accident very reluctantly). According to testimony, Brogan only had a little more than a second to react, and any driver is incapable of averting disaster with so little time.
While there may be some accuracy to that from a mathematical perspective, it’s pushing the boundaries of the truth when you look at the big picture. If you’re sober driving through a residential area, you’re expecting to see kids roaming around, and you adjust your driving accordingly. If you were to see a boy on a bike up ahead and moments later he disappeared, you’d automatically become more alert and slow down, wondering where he went and slowing down in case he popped out of nowhere. It happens, and when sober, you’d make allowances for that.
A man who has been drinking is likely not thinking about little boys on bikes when he’s behind the wheel. He’s thinking about driving straight and not swerving, whether there’s a cop around the next turn, and whether he smells like booze.
Regardless of the testimony, you could never convince me that the driver’s impairment didn’t affect his reaction time. Even assuming the experts are correct, it can easily be said that his impairment did in fact contribute to the occurrence of the incident overall, and that should be significant enough to warrant punishment.
But the most infuriating aspect of this case were the statements made by defense attorney Kimball on the CTV news the day after the verdict. For an otherwise intelligent and educated man to appear on television and make ridiculous statements was embarrassing to watch, as I heard him suggest that this little boy’s parents were somehow responsible for his death.
Can you imagine? He said that accidents like this might be avoided if parents kept a closer eye on their kids. Maybe that’s not exactly pointing the finger, but it translates into blame as far as I’m concerned. It’s hard to fathom the amount of nerve and insensitivity necessary to make statements like that.
Sure, we’re responsible for watching our kids, but it’s unreasonable to expect parents to run around holding on to the back of their son’s bicycle seat. No fancy law degree should be able to convince parents that responsibility for a vehicular fatality involving alcohol should be blamed on anyone other than the driver of the car. Period. And it’s reckless to infer otherwise.
People all over Cape Breton are outraged at the result of this verdict, as well they should be. Not only because it defies logic, but because if it were anyone else, they’d already be in jail.
Mr. Brogan was charged with criminal negligence and impaired driving causing death following an incident just outside of North Sydney, where he hit and killed a six-year-old boy with his vehicle. He had been drinking, and his blood alcohol level was well over the legal limit.
Mr. Brogan was acquitted of causing the boy’s death after pleading guilty to driving drunk.
If you’re anything like me, you’re probably astounded and baffled that this scenario is even possible. How can you be drunk behind the wheel and kill someone, yet still skate on criminal charges? It’s unheard of.
That is, unless you have connections.
Paddy Brogan’s brother is Nash Brogan, one of the most well known lawyers in Cape Breton. The defense team consisted of Nash and Derrick Kimball. It must be nice to have clout.
The arguments made in this case are almost inconceivable to the average person. The defense claimed that even though Brogan was under the influence, he was not driving drunk. Such an argument seems redundant to me, but they suggest that his blood alcohol level was not high enough to constitute his being labeled as drunk, and they claim there is a very important distinction between “drunk” and “impaired”.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve never heard of another instance of a court of law making or recognizing that distinction. As far as the law is concerned, when you’re over the limit, you’re over, and splitting hairs over terminology won’t help you.
Were the tables turned, the Kimball-Brogan crew would be spewing precedent and screaming, “drunk is drunk,” and any suggestion to the contrary would be laughed out of court in minutes. I guess it’s easier to be hypocritical when you’re defending one of your own.
Another argument states, and experts testified, that even a sober and alert driver would have been unable to avoid this accident (and I use the word accident very reluctantly). According to testimony, Brogan only had a little more than a second to react, and any driver is incapable of averting disaster with so little time.
While there may be some accuracy to that from a mathematical perspective, it’s pushing the boundaries of the truth when you look at the big picture. If you’re sober driving through a residential area, you’re expecting to see kids roaming around, and you adjust your driving accordingly. If you were to see a boy on a bike up ahead and moments later he disappeared, you’d automatically become more alert and slow down, wondering where he went and slowing down in case he popped out of nowhere. It happens, and when sober, you’d make allowances for that.
A man who has been drinking is likely not thinking about little boys on bikes when he’s behind the wheel. He’s thinking about driving straight and not swerving, whether there’s a cop around the next turn, and whether he smells like booze.
Regardless of the testimony, you could never convince me that the driver’s impairment didn’t affect his reaction time. Even assuming the experts are correct, it can easily be said that his impairment did in fact contribute to the occurrence of the incident overall, and that should be significant enough to warrant punishment.
But the most infuriating aspect of this case were the statements made by defense attorney Kimball on the CTV news the day after the verdict. For an otherwise intelligent and educated man to appear on television and make ridiculous statements was embarrassing to watch, as I heard him suggest that this little boy’s parents were somehow responsible for his death.
Can you imagine? He said that accidents like this might be avoided if parents kept a closer eye on their kids. Maybe that’s not exactly pointing the finger, but it translates into blame as far as I’m concerned. It’s hard to fathom the amount of nerve and insensitivity necessary to make statements like that.
Sure, we’re responsible for watching our kids, but it’s unreasonable to expect parents to run around holding on to the back of their son’s bicycle seat. No fancy law degree should be able to convince parents that responsibility for a vehicular fatality involving alcohol should be blamed on anyone other than the driver of the car. Period. And it’s reckless to infer otherwise.
People all over Cape Breton are outraged at the result of this verdict, as well they should be. Not only because it defies logic, but because if it were anyone else, they’d already be in jail.
In This New Age
What would we do without computers? I like to think it would be easy to revert back to the days of snail mail and encyclopedias, but realistically, I'm not sure I would make the transition so smoothly.
A few short months ago, I decided to solve my chronic computer woes by buying a brand new laptop. As a person who acquired their first computer only three years ago, this was a big deal for me. I'm used to error messages and insufficient space issues from a pre-historic desktop, so in comparison my new computer is like a little slice of technological heaven.
This past week, my laptop's monitor broke. It's a factory problem covered under warranty, but unfortunately it needs to be sent back to Dell for repair, which means I'll be without a computer for almost two weeks. For lots of people, I bet that doesn't even register as a problem. For me, it's a fate worse than death.
When you have the internet, you're used to things being instant. With the internet, my friend from Iqaluit can give me a virtual tour of the house she's planning to buy, from the interior paint to the landscaping. I can see pictures of a baby born in Edmonton before the family even gets home from the hospital. Didn't make it to the wedding in Halifax? No problem, I can watch a video of the bouquet toss the very next morning. My world is literally at my fingertips.
I can't even fathom doing things "the old way". Couple gets married on Saturday in Halifax. They get their film developed on Monday or Tuesday, divvy up a few shots, buy a stamp, and get an envelope mailed out by Friday. The following Wednesday I receive the pictures in the mail, a full eleven days after the wedding took place, and that's assuming we live in some alternate universe where brides make sending pictures to their friends their top post-wedding priority. But it's just one example of how the instantaneousness of the internet has spoiled me.
Perhaps this is a better example: writing this article. Twenty years ago, I'd be writing it by hand. I'd have to count the words manually, proofread it incessantly until I was sure I had caught all the mistakes, type out at least one copy on the typewriter, and deliver it to my editor. Now, with the magic of "backspace", I can write and re-write and edit till my heart's content. Cut and paste my way through spell check and word count software, attach the finished document to an e-mail, and voila - done like dinner. What used to be a week-long project has become a simple, five minute task. It's incredible when you think about it.
Another huge change has been with the concept of reference. You know your product has succeeded when it's name becomes a verb, as I'm sure anyone who has "Googled" something will agree. A high school project used to involve hours of research and perfecting your Dewey Decimal skills, but these days, Wikipedia will tell you all you need to know about Albert Einstein or the history of democracy, or anything else you could possibly need information about, no matter how obscure. Maybe you're like me and appreciate the value of a good old fashioned textbook, but even I'll admit that cnn.com has been my source on more than one occasion.
And when I'm craving a healthy dose of nostalgia, YouTube is always there for me to rely on. A conversation with girlfriends about how funny an old music video was doesn't have to be fruitless anymore. We may have long since thrown away our VHS of every popular song on Video Hits, but we can watch any video (clips of any show or movie for that matter) by simply typing the name in YouTube search. What a beautiful thing for someone like me who's a bit stuck in the 80s.
Facebook is probably my favorite "tool". Everyone is busy with life, and staying in touch with your friends can sometimes be a challenge, to say nothing of people you've lost touch with. Facebook has allowed me to stay in contact with childhood friends, family members living away, and college buddies. I can see their kids, chat live with them, find out when they're coming home, and the list goes on. As any Facebook regular will attest, you feel a bit out of the loop when you've been off-line for an extended period of time.
And that's my dilemma. The world will continue turning while my computer is being fixed, and I'm sure I'll survive a week or two without the convenience of the internet. It'll just take me a little longer to get caught up with the rest of you.
A few short months ago, I decided to solve my chronic computer woes by buying a brand new laptop. As a person who acquired their first computer only three years ago, this was a big deal for me. I'm used to error messages and insufficient space issues from a pre-historic desktop, so in comparison my new computer is like a little slice of technological heaven.
This past week, my laptop's monitor broke. It's a factory problem covered under warranty, but unfortunately it needs to be sent back to Dell for repair, which means I'll be without a computer for almost two weeks. For lots of people, I bet that doesn't even register as a problem. For me, it's a fate worse than death.
When you have the internet, you're used to things being instant. With the internet, my friend from Iqaluit can give me a virtual tour of the house she's planning to buy, from the interior paint to the landscaping. I can see pictures of a baby born in Edmonton before the family even gets home from the hospital. Didn't make it to the wedding in Halifax? No problem, I can watch a video of the bouquet toss the very next morning. My world is literally at my fingertips.
I can't even fathom doing things "the old way". Couple gets married on Saturday in Halifax. They get their film developed on Monday or Tuesday, divvy up a few shots, buy a stamp, and get an envelope mailed out by Friday. The following Wednesday I receive the pictures in the mail, a full eleven days after the wedding took place, and that's assuming we live in some alternate universe where brides make sending pictures to their friends their top post-wedding priority. But it's just one example of how the instantaneousness of the internet has spoiled me.
Perhaps this is a better example: writing this article. Twenty years ago, I'd be writing it by hand. I'd have to count the words manually, proofread it incessantly until I was sure I had caught all the mistakes, type out at least one copy on the typewriter, and deliver it to my editor. Now, with the magic of "backspace", I can write and re-write and edit till my heart's content. Cut and paste my way through spell check and word count software, attach the finished document to an e-mail, and voila - done like dinner. What used to be a week-long project has become a simple, five minute task. It's incredible when you think about it.
Another huge change has been with the concept of reference. You know your product has succeeded when it's name becomes a verb, as I'm sure anyone who has "Googled" something will agree. A high school project used to involve hours of research and perfecting your Dewey Decimal skills, but these days, Wikipedia will tell you all you need to know about Albert Einstein or the history of democracy, or anything else you could possibly need information about, no matter how obscure. Maybe you're like me and appreciate the value of a good old fashioned textbook, but even I'll admit that cnn.com has been my source on more than one occasion.
And when I'm craving a healthy dose of nostalgia, YouTube is always there for me to rely on. A conversation with girlfriends about how funny an old music video was doesn't have to be fruitless anymore. We may have long since thrown away our VHS of every popular song on Video Hits, but we can watch any video (clips of any show or movie for that matter) by simply typing the name in YouTube search. What a beautiful thing for someone like me who's a bit stuck in the 80s.
Facebook is probably my favorite "tool". Everyone is busy with life, and staying in touch with your friends can sometimes be a challenge, to say nothing of people you've lost touch with. Facebook has allowed me to stay in contact with childhood friends, family members living away, and college buddies. I can see their kids, chat live with them, find out when they're coming home, and the list goes on. As any Facebook regular will attest, you feel a bit out of the loop when you've been off-line for an extended period of time.
And that's my dilemma. The world will continue turning while my computer is being fixed, and I'm sure I'll survive a week or two without the convenience of the internet. It'll just take me a little longer to get caught up with the rest of you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
