East vs. West: Cultural differences in the job interview
Friday, May 1, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
David Ahenakew's Seven Year Saga
Freedom of Beliefs and Opinion, or Incitement of Hatred?
The Sputnik - February 26th, 2009
After seven long years, two controversial trials and a hotly debated appeal, David Ahenakew finally received the verdict he feels he deserves. Provincial Court Judge Wilfrid Tucker handed a verdict of not guilty on Monday, clearing Ahenakew for the second time of the charges to wilfully incite hatred. Although Justice Tucker described Ahenakew’s statement against Jews in 2002 as ’revolting, disgusting and untrue’, he did not find that the crown managed to successfully prove that the statement was intentioned to incite hatred.
While Ahenakew heaved a sigh of relief over winning another legal battle - perhaps not the last as a result of his careless, bitter diatribe - a collective gasp of surprise echoed beyond the courtrooms where the verdict was handed down. Just as the disgraced, former senator’s statements were found to contravene article 319 in the Criminal Code of Canada in 2005, so did the verdict of not guilty contravene the public’s consensus on the matter. How was he found not guilty?
Article 219 stipulates that to be found guilty of the crime, a person must : 1) communicate statements, 2) in a public place, 3) incite hatred against an identifiable group, and 4) in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace. Now, consider the context within which the alleged crime was committed by Mr. Ahenakew; The controversial statements - among others, Ahenakew’s famous labelling of the Jews as ‘diseases’ that Hitler was trying to clean up during the Holocaust - were made during a recorded interview with a reporter following a public assembly. Prior to the interview, Ahenakew had just given an expletive-laden speech concerning public health of the First Nations People. He was supposedly fired up and was further provoked by reporter James Parker’s questions. The backdrop of the story alone provides several issues that are so pervasive they are almost unnoticeable to Ahenakew.
Ahenakew’s main defence was that the statements were made during a private conversation. To begin with, Ahenakew was fully aware that he was speaking to a reporter. Throughout the media’s coverage of the case, it was not mentioned anywhere that Ahenakew had insisted on going off the record. Seen in this light, it seems almost foolish for Ahenakew to plead innocence of Parker’s intentions and ignorance of how his obviously explosive statements might be transpired by the reporter.
The next pertinent point to consider is the venue of the alleged crime; The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations health conference where Ahenake gave his equally bitter speech was a public gathering. Members of the media were in fact invited to come as observers. If Ahenakew were to plead innocence by invoking the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms - particularly the right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression - I might have been partial towards his case, albeit with a few bones to pick. Any individual is afforded his or her own opinion and belief, and rightly so. But for someone in a highly esteemed and public official position such as Ahenakew’s to harbour such hateful sentiments - not to mention freely expressing them during past occasions - is nothing short of flirting with danger.
Like dirty secrets, such sentiments are bound to make themselves known sooner or later through our communicative faculties. The flaw, I would say, that brought about his downfall was Ahenakew’s lack of subtlety in expressing or concealing his sentiments. I do not for an instance support anti-Semitism. I am, however, an ardent supporter of article 2(b) of the Charter. It was Ahenakew’s personal right to hold such beliefs as he did, but I truly feel that it was wrong of him to transmit those beliefs either intentionally or unintentionally, if that is at all possible. Given the context, it is inevitable that his views would be made public. To issue such statements in such a context and later plead innocence, I think, implies a certain degree of malicious intent to incite hatred.
Among the many manoeuvres made by Ahenakew’s legal defence team - one of them being a claim that his anger was possibly caused by his insulin imbalance - one proved intriguing to me as student of journalism. Doug Kristie, Ahenakew’s lawyer, initially demanded that similar charges were brought upon the reporter, James Parker. Assuming that Ahenakew was in fact guilty of inciting hatred, Parker - by reporting and making the statements public - played a part in that incitement. Logically, if Parker had not reported on it, Ahenakew’s now famous statements would not have reached a wider audience than those present during the conversation. Technically, I think that argument may hold water. However, although Parker may have transgressed some ethical boundaries in his reporting, several points stand in his favour.
In the case of a recorded conversation, prior consent is required of only one party involved in order for the contents of the recording to be usable. This does not mean that the recording may be broadcasted. However, Parker did broadcast the interview and Ahenakew claimed that he did not consent to being recorded. This is perhaps where Parker may done himself a disfavour and put his ethical practices as a journalist in a harsher light.
Technicalities aside, let’s assume that Parker reported on the interview only in print. His report would still reflect Ahenakew’s anti-Semitic view which could eventually find their way towards a welcoming audience somewhere. What if Parker had taken this into consideration and refrained from reporting on Ahenakew. Would such sentiments done less harm if they were left unnoticed, ignored, unchecked? I would argue that it will do even more harm once they are disseminated into the public after years of festering in secret.
While his methods were questionable, I think Parker’s reporting on the controversial issue did a big favour to the Canadian public - while it stirred controversy - and one liable to continue for several more years - we were made aware of the presence of such malice in an influential figure in our society. The ensuing public outcry and Ahenakew’s subsequent removal from office was a result of that report. I think Parker deserves a collective pat on the back, at least, for having the guts to break the rules for the greater good.
The Sputnik - February 26th, 2009
After seven long years, two controversial trials and a hotly debated appeal, David Ahenakew finally received the verdict he feels he deserves. Provincial Court Judge Wilfrid Tucker handed a verdict of not guilty on Monday, clearing Ahenakew for the second time of the charges to wilfully incite hatred. Although Justice Tucker described Ahenakew’s statement against Jews in 2002 as ’revolting, disgusting and untrue’, he did not find that the crown managed to successfully prove that the statement was intentioned to incite hatred.
While Ahenakew heaved a sigh of relief over winning another legal battle - perhaps not the last as a result of his careless, bitter diatribe - a collective gasp of surprise echoed beyond the courtrooms where the verdict was handed down. Just as the disgraced, former senator’s statements were found to contravene article 319 in the Criminal Code of Canada in 2005, so did the verdict of not guilty contravene the public’s consensus on the matter. How was he found not guilty?
Article 219 stipulates that to be found guilty of the crime, a person must : 1) communicate statements, 2) in a public place, 3) incite hatred against an identifiable group, and 4) in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace. Now, consider the context within which the alleged crime was committed by Mr. Ahenakew; The controversial statements - among others, Ahenakew’s famous labelling of the Jews as ‘diseases’ that Hitler was trying to clean up during the Holocaust - were made during a recorded interview with a reporter following a public assembly. Prior to the interview, Ahenakew had just given an expletive-laden speech concerning public health of the First Nations People. He was supposedly fired up and was further provoked by reporter James Parker’s questions. The backdrop of the story alone provides several issues that are so pervasive they are almost unnoticeable to Ahenakew.
Ahenakew’s main defence was that the statements were made during a private conversation. To begin with, Ahenakew was fully aware that he was speaking to a reporter. Throughout the media’s coverage of the case, it was not mentioned anywhere that Ahenakew had insisted on going off the record. Seen in this light, it seems almost foolish for Ahenakew to plead innocence of Parker’s intentions and ignorance of how his obviously explosive statements might be transpired by the reporter.
The next pertinent point to consider is the venue of the alleged crime; The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations health conference where Ahenake gave his equally bitter speech was a public gathering. Members of the media were in fact invited to come as observers. If Ahenakew were to plead innocence by invoking the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms - particularly the right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression - I might have been partial towards his case, albeit with a few bones to pick. Any individual is afforded his or her own opinion and belief, and rightly so. But for someone in a highly esteemed and public official position such as Ahenakew’s to harbour such hateful sentiments - not to mention freely expressing them during past occasions - is nothing short of flirting with danger.
Like dirty secrets, such sentiments are bound to make themselves known sooner or later through our communicative faculties. The flaw, I would say, that brought about his downfall was Ahenakew’s lack of subtlety in expressing or concealing his sentiments. I do not for an instance support anti-Semitism. I am, however, an ardent supporter of article 2(b) of the Charter. It was Ahenakew’s personal right to hold such beliefs as he did, but I truly feel that it was wrong of him to transmit those beliefs either intentionally or unintentionally, if that is at all possible. Given the context, it is inevitable that his views would be made public. To issue such statements in such a context and later plead innocence, I think, implies a certain degree of malicious intent to incite hatred.
Among the many manoeuvres made by Ahenakew’s legal defence team - one of them being a claim that his anger was possibly caused by his insulin imbalance - one proved intriguing to me as student of journalism. Doug Kristie, Ahenakew’s lawyer, initially demanded that similar charges were brought upon the reporter, James Parker. Assuming that Ahenakew was in fact guilty of inciting hatred, Parker - by reporting and making the statements public - played a part in that incitement. Logically, if Parker had not reported on it, Ahenakew’s now famous statements would not have reached a wider audience than those present during the conversation. Technically, I think that argument may hold water. However, although Parker may have transgressed some ethical boundaries in his reporting, several points stand in his favour.
In the case of a recorded conversation, prior consent is required of only one party involved in order for the contents of the recording to be usable. This does not mean that the recording may be broadcasted. However, Parker did broadcast the interview and Ahenakew claimed that he did not consent to being recorded. This is perhaps where Parker may done himself a disfavour and put his ethical practices as a journalist in a harsher light.
Technicalities aside, let’s assume that Parker reported on the interview only in print. His report would still reflect Ahenakew’s anti-Semitic view which could eventually find their way towards a welcoming audience somewhere. What if Parker had taken this into consideration and refrained from reporting on Ahenakew. Would such sentiments done less harm if they were left unnoticed, ignored, unchecked? I would argue that it will do even more harm once they are disseminated into the public after years of festering in secret.
While his methods were questionable, I think Parker’s reporting on the controversial issue did a big favour to the Canadian public - while it stirred controversy - and one liable to continue for several more years - we were made aware of the presence of such malice in an influential figure in our society. The ensuing public outcry and Ahenakew’s subsequent removal from office was a result of that report. I think Parker deserves a collective pat on the back, at least, for having the guts to break the rules for the greater good.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Residents of Brantford Burn a Candle for Peace in Palestine
The Sputnik - January 7th, 2009
A fire is burning despite the cold night. Matches were passed around while candles were lit from hand to hand. As traffic along Brant Avenue slowed down to a trickle, a flurry of activities was causing a stir near the statue of The Unknown Soldier at the corner of Brant Avenue and Dalhousie Street. The Palestinian Association of Brantford (PAB) recently held a candle light vigil near the statue on Saturday evening. Their aim was to peacefully protest against Israeli aggression on Palestinians and to raise an awareness regarding the escalated conflict on the Gaza strip.
The dawn of 2009 saw Palestine shrouded in a familiar cloud of anxiety. Peace talks between Hamas and the Israeli Government failed yet again resulting in both parties engaging in air attacks which lasted for nine days and saw hundreds of Palestinian civilians dead. On Saturday, Israeli troops officially began a ground invasion of the Gaza strip at around 8 p.m. under cover of darkness. Israeli troops bisected the city in their efforts to locate and destroy Hamas’ military stronghold. The Associated Press reported that at least 20 Palestinians have been killed since the ground invasion began. Many fear that the number will increase as Israeli forces progress in their efforts.
An estimated fifty people attended the vigil to support the peaceful protest. They included local Muslim families as well as students from Laurier and Mohawk College. Supporters stood at the street corner holding placards, waved the Palestinian flag and chanted ‘One, two, three, four! Stop the killing, stop the war!’. Several motorists passing by showed their support by sounding their horns and waving their hands at the protesters. One protester passed out flyers to motorists stopping at the traffic lights. The flyers contained information regarding the situation in Gaza and how the Canadian Government can help end the conflict.
‘It’s a crime against humanity’ says Mohammed Chaudary, a resident of Brantford and ardent supporter of the Palestinian cause. ‘You tell me, anywhere in the world [do] you bomb a place of worship. Everybody’s telling them[Israeli government] to have a seize fire, let people live in peace but yet since they have the power, they think they can do anything. Just murdering women, men, kids, old and young.’ Mr. Chaudary’s passionate speech echoes the feelings of many. There has been world wide outcry of protests since the Israeli invasion began on Saturday.
Hamas claims that they began air strikes as a retaliation against the blockade that the Israeli Government imposed on the Gaza strip even while both parties were engaged in peace talks. Mohammed Chaudary believes this to be true. ‘When somebody comes to take your home, what [are] you going to do? You will resist!‘ he says.
Sumaiyah, a Palestinian-born resident of Brantford tearfully relates how her family living in the Gaza strip have been deprived of the basic amenities of clean water and electricity for the past nine months as a result of the blockade imposed by the Israeli Government. Born in 1948, she has been a witness of Israeli aggression on Palestinians all her life.
‘Israelis want land with no people…nobody understand[s] this. And they have been trying to do this for 61 years,’ says Sumaiyah. She expresses fear for the lives of her family members who currently live in the Gaza strip. Sumaiyah explains that the oppression of the Palestinian people by the Israeli government will not end as long as there is Israeli presence in Palestine. ‘We go from war to another war….the problem is not Hamas. They(Israel) need the land. What do babies [have to] do with Hamas?’ she asks.
Many Non-Government Organizations world wide have been untiringly calling for their respective governments to condemn Israel’s invasion of Palestine and for people to rally together and take action anyway they can. The candle light vigil held by the PAB is one of those efforts to bring peace to Palestine and bring the world‘s spotlight onto their plight. As one protester puts it, ‘I’m here to give my support. When people see this [protest], they will know about it and then maybe they will do something.’
A fire is burning despite the cold night. Matches were passed around while candles were lit from hand to hand. As traffic along Brant Avenue slowed down to a trickle, a flurry of activities was causing a stir near the statue of The Unknown Soldier at the corner of Brant Avenue and Dalhousie Street. The Palestinian Association of Brantford (PAB) recently held a candle light vigil near the statue on Saturday evening. Their aim was to peacefully protest against Israeli aggression on Palestinians and to raise an awareness regarding the escalated conflict on the Gaza strip.
The dawn of 2009 saw Palestine shrouded in a familiar cloud of anxiety. Peace talks between Hamas and the Israeli Government failed yet again resulting in both parties engaging in air attacks which lasted for nine days and saw hundreds of Palestinian civilians dead. On Saturday, Israeli troops officially began a ground invasion of the Gaza strip at around 8 p.m. under cover of darkness. Israeli troops bisected the city in their efforts to locate and destroy Hamas’ military stronghold. The Associated Press reported that at least 20 Palestinians have been killed since the ground invasion began. Many fear that the number will increase as Israeli forces progress in their efforts.
An estimated fifty people attended the vigil to support the peaceful protest. They included local Muslim families as well as students from Laurier and Mohawk College. Supporters stood at the street corner holding placards, waved the Palestinian flag and chanted ‘One, two, three, four! Stop the killing, stop the war!’. Several motorists passing by showed their support by sounding their horns and waving their hands at the protesters. One protester passed out flyers to motorists stopping at the traffic lights. The flyers contained information regarding the situation in Gaza and how the Canadian Government can help end the conflict.
‘It’s a crime against humanity’ says Mohammed Chaudary, a resident of Brantford and ardent supporter of the Palestinian cause. ‘You tell me, anywhere in the world [do] you bomb a place of worship. Everybody’s telling them[Israeli government] to have a seize fire, let people live in peace but yet since they have the power, they think they can do anything. Just murdering women, men, kids, old and young.’ Mr. Chaudary’s passionate speech echoes the feelings of many. There has been world wide outcry of protests since the Israeli invasion began on Saturday.
Hamas claims that they began air strikes as a retaliation against the blockade that the Israeli Government imposed on the Gaza strip even while both parties were engaged in peace talks. Mohammed Chaudary believes this to be true. ‘When somebody comes to take your home, what [are] you going to do? You will resist!‘ he says.
Sumaiyah, a Palestinian-born resident of Brantford tearfully relates how her family living in the Gaza strip have been deprived of the basic amenities of clean water and electricity for the past nine months as a result of the blockade imposed by the Israeli Government. Born in 1948, she has been a witness of Israeli aggression on Palestinians all her life.
‘Israelis want land with no people…nobody understand[s] this. And they have been trying to do this for 61 years,’ says Sumaiyah. She expresses fear for the lives of her family members who currently live in the Gaza strip. Sumaiyah explains that the oppression of the Palestinian people by the Israeli government will not end as long as there is Israeli presence in Palestine. ‘We go from war to another war….the problem is not Hamas. They(Israel) need the land. What do babies [have to] do with Hamas?’ she asks.
Many Non-Government Organizations world wide have been untiringly calling for their respective governments to condemn Israel’s invasion of Palestine and for people to rally together and take action anyway they can. The candle light vigil held by the PAB is one of those efforts to bring peace to Palestine and bring the world‘s spotlight onto their plight. As one protester puts it, ‘I’m here to give my support. When people see this [protest], they will know about it and then maybe they will do something.’
WLUSU Is Cooking Up A Winter Storm
The Sputnik January 7th, 2009
Students, get ready to be hit by a blizzard - a blizzard of fun, that is! WLUSU has a whole week of delectable activities planned for Laurier Brantford beginning January 26th. Amanda Flanagan, head of the 2009 Winter Carnival Executive Committee, likens the carnival to a second O Week where there will be a lot activities that students can get involved in, have loads of fun and win some prizes. Although, different from O Week, students will get the chance to form their own teams of ten to 15 members with two captains heading each team. ‘It’s going to be a week of random activities,’ says Amanda, and teams can have their members participate in activities that interest them and according to their availability. Keeping in mind that students still have classes to attend, WLUSU has a schedule of events so that students can make the most of the activities planned. ‘We don’t expect students to say, “OK, I’m not going to class for a week because it’s Winter Carnival”.’
The carnival’s flexible structure will most certainly help facilitate students’ participation in it’s activities. Amanda explains that the carnival will be a good chance for students to get to know one another. She feels that Laurier Brantford needs to boost it’s school spirit, and the Winter Carnival’s main objective is geared towards just that. ‘I find that [is] extremely important in Brantford because we don’t have varsity teams.’ Amanda explains.
Students can look forward to such fun activities as a cheer-off competition, a fort-building competition, some relay races and regatta games. There will also be a scavenger hunt where, at the beginning of the week, teams will be given a list of items which they will collect and hand in at the end of the week. Each item will carry different points. Amanda hints that the items may vary from maybe a pen to a goat. Teams will have to exercise their full resources to secure such item as a goat! ‘I feel like I can say with confidence that the winter carnival has something for everyone.’ Indeed.
Although the Winter Carnival is a continuing tradition at Laurier Brantford, Amanda explains that this is the first time that there has been a concerted effort to organize it into a full week of events. ‘Winter carnival every year has been so different that you could call it so many different things,’ says Amanda. WLUSU began planning for the carnival way back in November when it was still warm and sunny. It’s executive committee was hired to better organize specific components of this year’s event. ‘Last year’s was just thrown together at the last minute,’ Amanda recalls. Of this year she says, ‘…we took the structure out of Waterloo campus and kind of brought it here(to Laurier Brantford).’
Teams intending to participate are required to register at the Peer Connect Desk on either January 19th or January 21st. There will be a registration fee of $15C for each team. According to Amanda, there are already two full teams registered to participate and she expects there to be a lot more in the coming week. She hopes the Laurier Brantford Winter Carnival will continue with the support of the student body. ‘It’ll just be our tradition from here on out,’ she says with a determined nod. With WLUSU’s hard work and Laurier Brantford students’ participation, this annual event promises to be the start of a tradition that we can all be proud of.
Students, get ready to be hit by a blizzard - a blizzard of fun, that is! WLUSU has a whole week of delectable activities planned for Laurier Brantford beginning January 26th. Amanda Flanagan, head of the 2009 Winter Carnival Executive Committee, likens the carnival to a second O Week where there will be a lot activities that students can get involved in, have loads of fun and win some prizes. Although, different from O Week, students will get the chance to form their own teams of ten to 15 members with two captains heading each team. ‘It’s going to be a week of random activities,’ says Amanda, and teams can have their members participate in activities that interest them and according to their availability. Keeping in mind that students still have classes to attend, WLUSU has a schedule of events so that students can make the most of the activities planned. ‘We don’t expect students to say, “OK, I’m not going to class for a week because it’s Winter Carnival”.’
The carnival’s flexible structure will most certainly help facilitate students’ participation in it’s activities. Amanda explains that the carnival will be a good chance for students to get to know one another. She feels that Laurier Brantford needs to boost it’s school spirit, and the Winter Carnival’s main objective is geared towards just that. ‘I find that [is] extremely important in Brantford because we don’t have varsity teams.’ Amanda explains.
Students can look forward to such fun activities as a cheer-off competition, a fort-building competition, some relay races and regatta games. There will also be a scavenger hunt where, at the beginning of the week, teams will be given a list of items which they will collect and hand in at the end of the week. Each item will carry different points. Amanda hints that the items may vary from maybe a pen to a goat. Teams will have to exercise their full resources to secure such item as a goat! ‘I feel like I can say with confidence that the winter carnival has something for everyone.’ Indeed.
Although the Winter Carnival is a continuing tradition at Laurier Brantford, Amanda explains that this is the first time that there has been a concerted effort to organize it into a full week of events. ‘Winter carnival every year has been so different that you could call it so many different things,’ says Amanda. WLUSU began planning for the carnival way back in November when it was still warm and sunny. It’s executive committee was hired to better organize specific components of this year’s event. ‘Last year’s was just thrown together at the last minute,’ Amanda recalls. Of this year she says, ‘…we took the structure out of Waterloo campus and kind of brought it here(to Laurier Brantford).’
Teams intending to participate are required to register at the Peer Connect Desk on either January 19th or January 21st. There will be a registration fee of $15C for each team. According to Amanda, there are already two full teams registered to participate and she expects there to be a lot more in the coming week. She hopes the Laurier Brantford Winter Carnival will continue with the support of the student body. ‘It’ll just be our tradition from here on out,’ she says with a determined nod. With WLUSU’s hard work and Laurier Brantford students’ participation, this annual event promises to be the start of a tradition that we can all be proud of.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Me, Myself and My Car
JN201 Fall 2008
In a crowded market square in India, a young man sits under a tree and eyes his car in the fading dusk. He then gets into the driver’s seat, puts the car into gear and drives it straight into a wall. With a devilish grin, he shifts into reverse and drives the car full forced into an opposing wall.
In a crowded market square in India, a young man sits under a tree and eyes his car in the fading dusk. He then gets into the driver’s seat, puts the car into gear and drives it straight into a wall. With a devilish grin, he shifts into reverse and drives the car full forced into an opposing wall.
Next, he sits an elephant down on the front hood of the car, flattening it and crushing the headlights. He produces a sledge hammer and starts pounding the car’s body. Then came a hammer and chisel. The glow of a blow torch accompanies him into the night.
Dawn saw him, again, looking at his car. He holds a magazine centerfold up at an arm’s length, compares it to the car and smiles with satisfaction. Later in the evening, he drives the car down the street, windows down and radio blaring. He eyes a beautiful lady by the road who returned his advances with a seductive glance.
This is the commercial for the Supermini Peugeot 206, released in 1998. The young man was trying to mould his old model Ford into the newly released model that he saw in the magazine centrefold.
The jocular portrayal of this young man’s obsession in acquiring the new Peugeot 206 - by hook or by crook - is novel. However, the obsession itself depicts society’s attachment to automobile that, according to Dr. Ken Paradis, verges on the ridiculous.
An English professor at Wilfrid Laurier University, Dr. Paradis deals with the way cars are ‘fetishized’ through popular media in some of his lectures. ‘Basically a car is just a piece of metal that gets you from place to place,’ he says, ‘it’s popular culture that layers these values on them.’
He says, ‘Popular culture is about making images seem valuable…and cars are a primary part of [that].’ According to him, the way cars are portrayed gives people the false sense that they can express themselves through their cars, attributing to the cars a ‘fetish value’.
So, what triggered this bond between cars and their owners? According to Dr. Paradis, it’s an historical factor. ‘Prior to the 1940’s, almost all of built environment in North America is walkable,’ he says. Now, however, one needs a car in order to move around, ‘especially,’ adds Dr. Paradis, ‘in the suburbs.’
When a car is a necessity, not owning one indicates that you can’t afford one, and therefore ownership of a car symbolizes income status. According to Dr. Paradis, this is how the car acquired it’s ‘status value’.
Dr. Chris Alksnis, a professor of psychology at Wilfrid Laurier University, agrees that the economy has allowed for this attachment to develop into an obsession. According to her, continued dependence on the car as a mode of transportation has led people to see it as an extension of their personality. However, Dr. Alksnis feels that it is quite natural for people to channel their personalities through their cars. ‘People want to say something about themselves [and] it’s not unnatural to do that,’ she adds, ‘we express ourselves…by the way we dress, the cars we drive.’
Elwood Phillips claims his attachment to his car has a lot to do with nostalgia. ‘I’ve been in cars all my life,’ he declares proudly. As President of the Brantford Kinsman Club, Mr. Phillips organizes the club’s Annual Car Show. He fondly recalls acquiring his first car, a 1932 Ford Coupe, at the age of 14. ‘I used to go all over the country, I used to have a lot of fun with that car,’ he says.
Mr. Phillips now drives a Ford Ranger, ‘It’s my baby,’ he adds. Newer car models, according to Mr. Phillips, are not as easy to customize as old car models - a detriment to him because he says, ‘I like to see customized cars that have been chopped up and channelled.’
Although an avid car enthusiast himself, Mr. Phillips feels that the line between passion and a ridiculous obsession with cars has a fiscal value. In customizing a car, he says, ‘A reasonable amount would be around $10,000 US,’ but he adds, ‘It all depends on how far a person wants to go.’
Despite his affection for his ’32 Ford Coupe, he later traded the car in for a 1957 Ford Racer. When asked about how he was able to dispose of something so sentimentally significant to him, Mr. Phillips explains simply, ‘I had to, I wanted a [Ford] racer.’
Mr. Phillips’ attitude correlates with Dr. Paradis’s observation on the influence of consumer culture towards our behaviour. ‘What we’ve gained is a sense of individual self-definition,’ he says, ‘[where] every individual needs to tell the world who they are by buying things.’
Mr. Phillips‘s view on the matter echoes Dr. Paradis‘s, albeit in much simpler terms; ‘It’s an expression of you; you get known for your style and what you’ve done to your car.’
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Slacker Uprising
Starring Michael Moore as…the `Journalist`?
JN201 Fall 2008
JN201 Fall 2008
Michael Moore’s latest addition to his repertoire of satirical films about the US has caused as many tongues wagging and heads rolling as did his previous cinematic endeavours. Released less than 2 months prior to the 2008 US Presidential elections, Slacker Uprising was strategically placed on the election timeline to swing voters and carried a palpable message - vote the Republicans out of the White House. While the film has somewhat fulfilled its cause of propagating awareness among Americans about their responsibility as voters, some of the issues Moore raised in this film merit further scrutiny.
Throughout his tour to battlefield states, Moore consistently utilised a word to it’s full potential - ‘truth’. He fervently states that his film is not a propaganda. In the film, he chastised the press for letting themselves be used as a tool of propaganda by the government and that the American people would have opposed the US government’s decision to invade Iraq had they been properly and truthfully informed. ‘My movie exists to counter the managed, manufactured news which is essentially a propaganda arm of the Bush administration. My movies are the anti-propaganda,’ says Moore. This statement in and by itself is problematic. Slacker Uprising’s main objective was to influence public opinion, specifically from being for the Republicans to being against them. Propaganda, by the definition given by Britannica Online, is exactly what Moore is spreading through Slacker Uprising. In other words, Moore is running a campaign of his own, just like the politicos he is criticizing. The only distinction here being his approach - non rhetorical and aimed at middle America at the grass roots level.
During an interview about Slacker Uprising on Larry King Live, Moore summarized the 2008 presidential race as ‘Obama versus ignorance.’ He theorizes that, while people who vote for Senator McCain may do so out their firm belief in him as a leader, a large number of people will vote for the Senator out of ignorance. What Moore is directly implying here is consistent with his stand conspicuous in the film - that the US public has been kept in the dark about matters of war, economy, healthcare and others. However, the undertone of that statement and, most obviously, the movie, connotes that followers of the Republican camp are largely ignorant. The film was saturated with clips depicting Republican supporters as painfully inarticulate and, despite their admiration for Senator McCain, were unable to even form one coherent sentence of praise. On the other hand, supporters of Moore and his campaign against the Republicans were consistently portrayed as passionate, discerning and articulate about issues that concern the American public. This lop-sided portrayal of sources brings to question Moore’s integrity as a ‘journalist’ - as one who claims to be trying to clear up the ‘misstatements and untruths’ apparently spread by the American national media. His portrayal of Republican supporters can easily be seen as a conveniently ‘managed’ piece of information ‘manufactured’ to support his propaganda.
However, one has to question; is the journalist and the human being that he or she is to be kept separate? If the answer is yes then, how does one go about doing that? Linda Greenhouse, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter for the New York Times, exposed herself to a barrage of criticism when she voiced her disappointment in the US government during a public speech. This, despite her clean record of unbiased reporting throughout her career at the Times. Ergo the question - when does the journalist get to voice his or her personal stand? The answer to that hinges upon the context within which the journalist is operating. Michael Moore the concerned, patriotic, somewhat left-wing radical citizen has every right to stand up for his convictions. But, Michael Moore the neo-journalist, illuminator of misstatements and untruths, holds the obligation to disseminate to the public information that is non-partisan and independent of his bias.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Preserving The Arts
Why Should We?
JN201 Fall 2008
‘A bunch of people at a rich gala’. This was Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s description of those who objected to his proposed $30 million reduction in arts funding several weeks ago. While Canadians initially expressed their support for Mr. Harper’s plan, his vitriol against artists seemed to have been a step in the wrong direction. Opposition party leaders rushed to the scene with alternatives to ‘save’ the arts. Artists, already greatly perturbed over the planned cuts, criticised Mr. Harper for his singling them out as the ‘niche’ crowd. Paladins of the arts such as Margaret Atwood went so far as to publicly repudiate government funding as necessary to its survival.
JN201 Fall 2008
‘A bunch of people at a rich gala’. This was Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s description of those who objected to his proposed $30 million reduction in arts funding several weeks ago. While Canadians initially expressed their support for Mr. Harper’s plan, his vitriol against artists seemed to have been a step in the wrong direction. Opposition party leaders rushed to the scene with alternatives to ‘save’ the arts. Artists, already greatly perturbed over the planned cuts, criticised Mr. Harper for his singling them out as the ‘niche’ crowd. Paladins of the arts such as Margaret Atwood went so far as to publicly repudiate government funding as necessary to its survival.
Across the country there was a widespread shaking of heads regarding the Prime Minister’s narrow definition of the arts. Canadians, as it turns out, have a greater awareness towards art and its tautology to culture. Although Mr. Harper has since backtracked on his proposals, Canadians – artists and non-artists – are still riled up and making noise. So what is it about the arts that merit such concern?
Lorrie Gallant of the Woodlands Cultural Centre which received over $50,000 in government funding in 2007 thinks that art is a vital component of education. ‘Art goes hand-in-hand with education – it’s a total package that must come together,’ says Ms. Gallant. The centre, which focuses on First Nations art and education, relies heavily on the use of art in its classrooms. From her experience as an Education Expansion Officer at the centre, Ms. Gallant firmly believes that art in the classroom is indispensable. Says Ms. Gallant, ‘We absorb more in learning by engaging our sense of touch, our sense of smell, sense of taste – your food is an art. We absorb so much more than compared to just learning from a textbook.’
Dr. Lisa Wood, a professor of English and Contemporary Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University, strongly agrees. She regularly uses popular media such as images and films in her class to stimulate discussion amongst her students. Compared to conventional lectures, she finds that they are more comfortable talking about abstract ideas when there was something palpable to refer to. ‘Ideas are ideas,’ she explains, ‘but if they [the students] are not able to relate to those ideas, they become irrelevant.’ Apart from education, Dr. Wood also believes that art plays a vital role in our culture. ‘It’s a sterile world if we don’t pay attention to aesthetics,’ she says.
The First Nations people, like many other cultures, rely on their artwork in defining their cultural identity. Motives in a beadwork, according to Ms. Gallant, can explain the history of the family that made it. She feels that, because the world is growing so fast, different cultures have begun to merge into one. That has made it even more important for First Nations people to hold on to their distinctly unique heritage through the preservation of their art.
For Brad Woods, veteran Storyteller and frontman for The Great Wooden Trio, art has the power to bring people together. He recently organized a ‘house concert’ where he invited his neighbours to a night of music and stories. ‘We drive by their houses in our car every morning and we hardly know them,’ he says. For Brad, the impromptu concert was an example of what his art of storytelling did for his community.
The impact of art in our culture and education varies significantly from one community to the next or even from one individual to another. However, there is no denying the importance of its preservation, as Brad Woods says, ‘There is no substitute for art. If there’s no art, there’s no culture, no community.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)