Archive for News commentary

The whine of a generation

Cry baby cry!

We are young/heartache to heartache we stand/No promises, no demands/love is a battlefield.

OK, so Pat Benatar was talking about love, but if you swap love for life, those lines could be the battlecry of my generation — or at least that’s what we’re being told to believe.

It started last week with a column by Rob Carrick in The Globe and Mail entitled “2012 vs 1984: Young adults really do have it harder today.” In his column, Carrick laments the life of us 20-something nowadays: broke and in low-paying jobs even as the price of things, such as houses and cars, have risen astronomically. Carrick wrote:

I had it easier than today’s twentysomethings, and I have no problem saying so. But quite a few others can’t see what all the fuss is about when it comes to the financial concerns of today’s young adults.

“Finally!” was a common refrain from those in my generation. “Someone who gets how I feel and how hard it is to be me!”

I read Carrick’s column and walked away with a medicore feeling. I didn’t see this as a battle cry. This wasn’t the refrain of a generation. Are things tougher for my generation than my parents? I don’t really know. I can say my parents had it rough while I was growing up, but it was such a different time. I commented on this recently when my boyfriend and I went shopping for tablets.

Back when I was a kid, I remember my parents saving for months and months and months to get a CD player or finally a VCR. Nowadays, my generation seems to live in a kind of “I want, so I buy.” When was the last time you really saved for anything? Personally, I don’t even remember it.

But sure, OK, we have it harder today.

Then this week, Carrick published a letter from a 29-year-old man thanking him for what he wrote. This man, who is the same age as me, lamented the things he’ll never be able to do because things are so tough for us right now. Here’s an excerpt (the man was kept anonymous, so not to hurt his job hunting chances):

At the age of 29, I’ve likely forever lost the following opportunities due to cost and probable inability to make up for lost wages and career potential:

- Getting married.

- Having children.

- Owning a home that’s bigger than 500 square feet. (hint: that’s not big.)

- Studying any more, whether that means grad school, law school, or even just night classes at a random community college.

- Retirement. Sure, I’d love to be investing for it. But with what money?

The piece goes on about how this guy applies for 100 jobs in the hopes of snagging 15 interviews, and how he continues to repeat the process. Like Carrick’s last piece, many of my peers leaped on to this as a battling cry.

I posted my response on these four points on a friend’s Facebook wall, but here they are:

  • You can get married without a big giant paycheque coming in. If being “married” is so important to you, then go to City Hall and spend $140 on the licence and get married there. This guy is whining he can’t afford the party that usually comes with getting married — the party is not the same as getting married.
  • Having kids: Poor people have kids. Full stop. Sure our generation hoped to plan better for our kids and have the money, the time, the whatever, but it doesn’t always work out that way. My parents didn’t have all those things and I survived. Love is the most important thing when it comes to having kids, and as J.Lo says, Love don’t cost a thing.
  • Owning a home that’s bigger than 500 square feet: Again, I wonder where this guy is looking at buying. If it’s in Toronto and Vancouver, then you’re right, it’s expensive. But there are ways to make it work. Did I ever expect to own a home this young? Nope. Is it hard? Definitely. But I’m making it work despite not bringing in the millions I so obviously deserve.
  • Studying any more: Again, get off your high horse. In theory, I don’t “have the money” to be taking extra classes, but I’m finding a way to. And if I go back for a master’s, which I’m seriously considering, I will be doing it with the help of OSAP. I’m not above having to take out a loan that I pay back. I still owe $18,000 on my undergrad and am happy to pay that back every month. I would not trade having to pay for my education for anything. I know I wouldn’t have the same value for it if it was free.
  • Retirement: You’re right. We’re all going to work until we die. Poor us.

Now, I’m not saying our generation doesn’t have it hard, because we do — every generation does (heck, my grandmother was born into the start of the Second World War, her parents lived through two world wars and a Great Depression). But we’ve got to stop feeling like we have it the hardest of any generation that ever came before us because it just makes us seem entitled. Yes, entitled.

While I’m sure his job search is hard, I haven’t heard of anyone who applies for that many jobs at once. Which makes me wonder what industry this anonymous letter writer is searching in.

And my second question goes back to my observation about the difference between my parents’ generation and mine: Do we not have the disposable income to get married, have kids, buy a house and save for retirement, because of all the gadgets we buy?

Next time you lament how you can’t afford a downpayment for a mortgage, look at where you’re spending money: smartphones, gadgets, dinners out etc.

And another thing that’s different from our generation compared to our parents: In 1984, university degrees were rarer. More people went to college. That’s not the case today. An undergraduate university degree nowadays does not guarantee you a job, you need more to stand out from the pack.

That being said, sometimes it’s all about luck. I know a 23-year-old recent immigrant to Canada that just landed a job paying almost $50,000 a year — and she has no post-secondary education.

Yes, things are tough for our generation, but let’s quit whining about it already.

Photo by ahmadzamri on Flickr.  

Good luck, Gabby

I didn’t know Gabrielle Giffords before January 8, 2011.

Why would I?

I didn’t live in Arizona and wasn’t particularly plugged into that part of American politics. Sure, I’m sure I saw her name in news stories and reports, especially after Arizona’s controversial immigration law was passed. But as with most other American congressmen and women — and even governors — her name just didn’t stick.

Then January 8 happened. I remembered following the events of that day on Twitter, especially her “death” — which was later proven to be untrue. That day was the first time in a long time I turned on CNN to follow the events in Arizona.

I don’t know why, but Giffords’ story struck a chord with me. Even before we knew anything about how she was doing.

After the first post-shooting images of her were released, I was even more struck by Giffords and her story. She looked so happy, so at peace, so OK.

Giffords’ first television interview was with Dianne Sawyer. I spent most of the hour in tears watching in amazement at the videos of this woman fighting so hard to be who she was all over again.

“She sounds like a child,” my boyfriend commented after one section where Giffords spoke.

He was right, she did. She spoke in short, usually one-word sentences. She looked confused when she was asked some questions, but I still saw so much hope and possibility from her.

Late last year, Gabby: A Story of Courage and Hope was released — a book by Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly. The book told the story of Giffords’ life before the shooting, but more of it took place in the days, weeks and months that came afterward. How she fought to build her life back — to walk, to talk — to learn everything all over again.

Of course, the real question was whether Giffords was going to run for re-election this year. Whenever it was asked, Kelly always gave the same response: The decision was Giffords’ alone to make, and she had until May to make it.

Then this weekend we got more news from Giffords. Only this time, it wasn’t about her future aspirations. This time it was about her present situation. She had decided she would be resigning her congressional seat.

In a video released on her website, wearing a red jacket almost just like the one she was shot in just over a year ago, Giffords said farewell:

“I will return,” Giffords promised, smiling in a way that you could almost see the “old” Gabby shining through.

She promised that while she was getting better, she needed to take some time to focus on her recovery. And while she didn’t expressly say she wasn’t planning to run again, the video made it pretty clear that her political career was probably done.

The New York Times reported Sunday night that Giffords would end her term in congress finishing the Congress on Your Corner event in the supermarket parking lot where she was shot one year ago.

Perhaps because of that decision, and so many others, I still see hope from Gabrielle Gifford. Sunday’s events reminded me of some of what she had written in Gabby‘s final chapter entitled “Gabby’s Voice:”

Hope and faith. You have to have hope and faith.

Everything I do reminds me of that horrible day. Just rolling onto my side is hard. Hard to sleep at night. Reminds me of how badly I was hurt. It was hard but I’m alive …

Long ways to go. Grateful to survive. It’s frustrating. Mentally hard. Hard work. I’m trying. Trying so hard to get better. Regain what I’ve lost. Want to speak better .

Trying to get back to work … I’m so sorry I’m unable to work right now.

I hope I never have to fight a battle like the one that Gabrielle Giffords is fighting, but I know I will fight smaller battles throughout my lifetime.

I hope like Giffords, no matter how tough my fight may seem or how futile it appears to be, I hope I am able to hold my head up high and carry on. I hope no matter how dark things may seem, I am able to say exactly what Giffords said:

I will get stronger. I will return.

 

Of that, I have no doubt.

Good luck, Gabby.

Photo for blog post a screengrab from Giffords’ video announcing her resignation.

Why Ben Roethlisberger is not a rapist

Move over Dire Straits; some other “unfit” songs for Canadian radio

Thursday morning news broke that the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council had deemed Money for Nothing by Dire Straits “unfit” for Canadian radio due to their use of the word “faggot” in the lyrics.

In response, Dire Straights has been a trending topic on Twitter for two days now, it’s been steadily climbing up the iTunes Canada chart (as of this writing it was No. 56) and three radio stations plan to play the song for an hour straight in protest Friday night.

So in the spirit of the Canadian Broadcast Standard Council, here are some other songs that came out years ago, but due to political correctness, should be banned from Canadian radio until the offensive term is bleeped out.

5. Louie Louie by the Kingsman (1963

Did the FBI ever fully complete their obscenity investigation into the lyrics of this song? Until we know what they’re really saying here, we should cut this from radio.

4. Blame Canada — South Park (1999)

Really, this should go without saying.

This song incites hate toward Canada, and puts our wonderful nation at fault for everything it can think of (“it seems everything went wrong since Canada came along”). And, they have the nerve to call us “not a real country anyway.”

Don’t even get me started on the Robin Williams performance of this at the Oscars in 2000 (just goes to show you, even the Oscars can reward hate speech).

3. I Touch Myself — the Divinyls (1991)

Come on, we all know what she really means here and Canadian radio is not the place to talk about such things.

Could you imagine being in a car and having to explain these lyrics to a child? What are the radio programmers out there thinking?

Absolute disgust.

2. Relax — Frankie Goes to Hollywood (1983)

“Relax don’t do it/When you want to go to it/Relax don’t do it/When you want to come.”

Released in 1983, this song barely made much a splash on the charts. But after it was banned in 1984 by the BBC due to the sexual nature of the album’s artwork and this song’s lyrics, it shot to No. 1 on the U.K. charts.

Perhaps Money for Nothing will see the same sort of chart explosion after it’s ban in Canada.

1. Raise a Little Hell — Trooper

Yes, Trooper is a classic Canadian band and I don’t like banning them from Canadian radio either, but sometimes you have to make hard decisions.

This song is a call to arms, encouraging revolution (“If you don’t like what you got, why don’t you change it?”) and we can’t be encouraging Canadian citizens to participate in changing their country.

This song also must be the next song banned on Canadian radio after its use on This Hour has 22 Minutes where Canadians politicians encouraged the Canadian public to vote in the 2000 election. Just sickening.

What songs do you think should be banned from Canadian radio and why?

The Russell Williams hearing: When is too much too much?

When I was 13, Paul Bernardo went to trial.

Every day on my way to school, I’d steal The Hamilton Spectator‘s news section from our front porch and read the prior day’s details in court while I walked. My teachers looked the other way when I arrived with my reading material, but no doubt were less-than-impressed to see a child take such a vested interest in such a horrific case.

I don’t remember those details clearly anymore. I know what Bernardo and his then-wife Karla Homolka did, but I don’t remember the court details except reading about them on my way to school. Years later as an adult, I bought Nick Pron’s book on the case, Lethal Marriage. It was the hardest book I’ve ever read.

Even the disappearances of Leslie Mahaffey and Kristen French didn’t hit me hard. It wasn’t until my mother and I started to watch the made-for-TV movie on French’s disappearance that I cried about it. The only thing that has stuck with me ever since that case is the shoe French left behind when she was snatched. Now every time I see a lone shoe on the street, I get a chill down my spine.

Along with everyone else in the country, I was shocked when Col. Russel Williams was arrested and charged with the murders of Jessica Lloyd and Marie-France Comeau earlier this year. Not because of the crime at that point, but because of the fact these murders were committed by someone so high-ranking in the military.

Then the colonel plead guilty, which meant we wouldn’t have to wait for the details of his crimes, we’d get them almost immediately.

The press decided to live-blog and live-tweet the court proceedings. The details were explicit and sickening. The way the press has decided to cover this hearing has raised a lot of questions about whether the coverage has gone too far.

People on Twitter are complaining that the tweets are crossing a line. Some are unfollowing journalists. Even other journalists were saying that there has been too much released to the public. The details and exhibits from the court are mind-bending, so where do we draw a line?

I wondered yesterday if cameras in courts would change the way the press had decided to cover this hearing. If people could choose to turn on the TV and watch the Williams hearing, would there be a need for live-tweeting and blogging?

Does live-tweeting cross a line because the information is coming straight to a person, they are not choosing to access it? Similarly, should the front pages of the daily papers mute the coverage and leave the explicit stuff inside?

In short, should we censor the news?

I say no.

Even with Twitter, people can choose to access this information or ignore it. If they decide to unfollow certain journalists while they do their job, then that’s what they’ll do. The information needs to be on the front pages because that’s where it belongs.

It’s not about being sensational, it’s about reporting the facts. The court is hearing salacious details of Williams’ assaults and murders and entering it into the public sphere, it is the press’ job to report on that. Murder and sexual assault are not issues that should be glossed over, nor are they issues that should be buried in the paper for fear of offence.

The news is not something you should be able to turn away from. Too often we ignore what evil is happening in our world because we live in a little bubble. We don’t like to hear about the bad parts in our world, so we look the other way. We ignore genocides, women being raped in the Congo because it’s happening “over there.” I’d wager we don’t even have a clear idea what’s really happening in Iraq or Afghanistan because it’s easier to ignore it than to feel it.

The images and tails of 9/11 were plastered on every front page in North America when it happened. That too was a tragedy. Thousands of people died. Television stations showed close ups of people jumping to their deaths from the World Trade Center. If Twitter had been around during 9/11, I’m sure it would have been live-tweeted too. But instead we watched it all live on TV — and we did all watch it.

If Paul Bernardo went to trial today, there’s no doubt those proceedings would be covered just as Williams’ is currently.

People complain the coverage is too much, yet the Williams hearing is some of the most-read stuff on Canadian news sites (The Star and the Globe as of this posting). As for the journalists everyone has decided to unfollow because of their tweets from inside the courtroom — think about what they have to endure this week being inside that courtroom.

Journalism is changing and evolving. It has to. If it doesn’t, it’s going to die. Live-tweeting and blogging is just another way to deliver the news.

Even when that news isn’t so pretty.