Zorg Report: CRTC Amps Up the Volume on Commercials

CRTC Amps Up the Volume on Commercials

(Abstract: so far no-one has come clean on the CRTC’s decision to allow/facilitate cable companies’ jacking up volumes on digital commercial content exponentially beyond any previously recorded levels.)

Remember when we had all those extensive hearings about reducing the volume on TV commercials?  Well, I think there were hearings—I mean, that’s what the CRTC does, right, hold “hearings”?  (Rarely can such a multifariously ironical word have been employed.)

Through lawyers and public salaries, this single issue cost Canadian taxpayers millions—millions just to get the cable oligopoly to turn it down a little (so taxpayers were on the hook, as usual, for obnoxious private sector behaviour from advertisers).

Well, it seems that the volume on TV commercials has gone down to something close to the volume of the TV show you are watching—but of course, as we know (and as I wrote about somewhere elsewhere here glancingly years ago), nobody watches TV on TV anymore.

If you look up CRTC, you hardly need to enter “commercial,” let alone “volume,” before the Google searchbox has had a strong whiff of what you have joined millions of others in doing. The Harper government/CRTC still has its pages out there, touting its remarkable work on bringing down the volume—

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/info_sht/g3.htm

The page is hilariously self-congratulaTORY and gutless, telling people who’ve still got a problem with volume to a) blame the Americans; b) (snoooooozzzzeeee) ‘contact their service provider’; or c) fill out a ludicrously detailed complaint indicating the exact who/what/where/when/why/how of their particular volume grievance—and the year/month/day/hour/millisecond it occurred (the better, no doubt, to extend the hours of those who might putatively (one cannot speak of “legal” issues) investigate reported concerns.

Anyway, as with most people, I find myself more and more regarding “TV” content online.  Do I prefer it this way?  No, not really, but you have to do something to try to juggle and rein in your cable bills.  And besides, at least initially, advertisers didn’t see enough money in online content, so the ads were fewer and this instantly made online content, through no doing of its own, highly attractive.  But of course online ads are getting more and more numerous, such that one day we might all run back to our TV “sets” seeking relative peace and quiet and a reduction in commercials.  (And this is key: the cable oligopoly does not _want_ you to watch content on TV–imagine having to send out techies for all those cables and so on.  No, it wants to drive you to online sources, and key in its moneymaking pitch to advertisers is to make sure those advertisers know that, when it comes to decibel levels, hey, digital is carte blanche for advertisers.)

As you know, the volume for online commercials is amped up incredibly, usually at 3-5 times the normal volume of whatever you are watching.  Today I was watching a short TV show online and, when the same commercials from 6 minutes before came on, I went to the bathroom.  During the commercials, an ad for a local radio station came on with such a blast that it was easily 10 times the volume of what I had been watching.  If you had a sleeping child, or spouse, or bark-prone dog, those individuals would have fully roused almost no matter where they were.  And if you were actually sitting there when it happened, you would have been jolted off your seat.

So anyway, I’m finally getting to my point: Just what deals did the CRTC and the Harper government cut when we spent all those millions on having TV ad volume turned down?

Now, I’d like to think that the CRTC honestly thought, “hey, we’re doing a good thing here, we’re trying to get obnoxious volume levels reduced.”  Surely people will thank us, and obviously volume on other digital devices will never be an issue.  But no army of lawyers, no matter how many hours and milliseconds they billed, could ever defend that kind of “we were all totally ignorant” plea.  No, a backroom deal involving teams of lawyers, the Harper government, the CRTC, the cable oligopoly, and, presumably, self-interested major advertisers, was, as sure as I’m sitting here typing, almost certainly cut.

Ok, maybe it wasn’t even that backroom.  Maybe there’s someone out there who could just point me to a clause somewhere or a report somewhere that notes that “in tandem with their agreement to reduce volume levels on commercials to a level similar to that of the broadcast content, cable companies and advertisers are explicitly allowed to jack up volume on any other digital emissions to unregulated, even extreme—levels.”  Think of all the 100s (and indeed, overall, 1000s) of people in on the final CRTC crafting (backroom deal ultimately, yes, but to say no-one outside the backroom knew what was going on so that they could act accordingly would be a bit like the PM saying he didn’t know what a dozen people in his own office that he hired did know).

The CRTC decision re: commercial volume levels, which the aforementioned government webpage touts, the while saying that, by the way, if you want it enforced, blame someone else or “you’re on your own,” is a sham, or chimera, regulation.  With so many people not watching TV (and therefore TV commercials) on TV anymore, it’s like passing a law banning dangerous campfires in the desert.  You’d have to hike 100k just to find some kindling.  So, again, you can buy the innocent argument, but then you’d have to believe that government, CRTC, cable oligopoly, and advertising senior operatives had IQ numbers topping out at basic cable channel numbers.

And the recent-ish regulations (which were in effect a quid pro quo between the government and the cable oligopoly), just made things worse—as my earlier anecdote demonstrates, whereas experience taught that there used to be at least some sort of tacit agreement about how much noise the average payer for cable services and taxpayer to the government could hack, now there is none.  And you could totally have your eardrums blown out if you’re distractedly watching something while you’re sitting on the bus (or increasingly, in your car, or your kids are), minding your own business, paying for content, and then having your earbuds blown out, too.

Surely I would love to drop by the mansion of a cable exec someday and play one of his ads outside his bedroom.  Admittedly, in the case of some, they’d maybe be too blacked out even to be roused,

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/jim-shaw-steps-down-after-unprofessional-behaviour/article1319550/

but it would be kind of a fun power trip just to be able to say to the guy: “hey, I don’t make the laws, and there’s no law against it, so go microwave some mac n’ cheese.”

It’s a wonder that we consent to pay for this and elect representatives of private business who haven’t the will of the public in mind.

–zr     

 

 

Continue reading

Zorg Report: The Nature of ISIS and the Key Harper Enablers

The Nature of ISIS and the Key Harper Enablers

Well, first of all, it’s hopeless young men looking for or needing something to do.  They are easily swayed by a Manichean world view, and even the madrasa chants in languages they don’t even comprehend have a kind of mesmeric, repetitive, and building power.  Stand in front of the mirror and grin sillily—eventually, you will get happy.  Stand in front of the mirror and frown, and eventually you will get angry.  Try it.  Islam is deep this way, for its most profound but least nuanced followers. 

The most persuasive and honest and devout people who follow faiths know their faiths are hard won and are all the stronger because of the tests and challenges they’ve endured; militant—or, in fact—most branches of Islam, a comparatively young and new religion, seem to offer a shortcut, suicide or murder or a stampeding rampage/Mecca carnage/pilgrimage etc., offering the shortest of all  

cuts. 

Good luck with that harem thing.

(Me I’d sail around behind the pearly gates if I hadn’t already been rejected/done gone rejected the fantasy.)

It’s hardly unlike the young men from Allied countries who got all gung-ho to enlist during WWI and WWII.  An adventure.  Beats milking dry cows and eating polk salad.  Something about a vague noble cause and pretty soon everyone regarding you as less than your sex if you weren’t over there. “And it’s 1-2-3-4, what am I fighting for?” Take a listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W7-ngmO_p8

Those hippies.  I thought Kurt Cobain kind of revived them, but where have those hippies been?  Long view, the hippies were progeny of people who had been through WWs I and II and then Koreaand then Vietnamand who were just kind of getting sick of the whole kind of let’s-get-into-a-war-no-matter-what-to-kick-start-the-economy-especially-in-places-like-West-Virginia deal.  After IraqI (let’s support a country no-one can even remember now) and Iraq II (damn, we sold them those guns and now they’re not using them properly) and Afghanistan(maybe bad Waldo is here now?!?!), and now IS-whatever, I wonder if some people might be wondering the same.

In Canada, we’re querulous about just what it is that makes a handful of kids from Canada take up arms for ISwhatever.  Well, I already answered that above.  In many respects, we create our own problems, often knowingly, so we can seem the more superior when we fakely solve them. 

Take ideologue-in-chief, Stephen Harper.  A man of generous girth even then, he avowed in 2006 that Canadians were no cowards.  We will not “cut and run” he politically and humorously stated of himself whilst sounding the death knell for those he ordered into action.

When it became clear, after a couple years and over 100 lives and countless billions, that this was not a “winnable” war, he meekly acquiesced to what Jack (“Taliban Jack,” the deep-thinking Tories called him) Layton had said—we better talk to these people and see if we can figure out a way forward.

Virtually everyone, from Soviets to Americans, had long since realized that there were no wars to win in Afghanistan.  (If anyone who reads this still hasn’t kicked the reading habit, check out Tory Rory Stewart’s personal self-illumination  The Places In-Between (2004).

And soon after taking it up, Stephen Harper gave up the just war, as if he were choosing hazelnut coffee over cinnamon.  He packed it in, this time, as a rationalist, noting that we probably couldn’t win that war.  During the interim, he had sent 150+ Canadians to their deaths.

Now, is Stephen Harper just tremendously stupid, or is he ideologically inclined and regards a baker’s dozen of Canadian lives as more or less expendable, so long as they are in the service of ideology?  You pick. 

Actually, let me help you—Rick Hillier, anaesthetized on the rum and cokes he says he loved, and Walt Natyncyk, who took his family on private jet Caribbean vacations on your dime (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/top-general-vows-to-repay-cost-of-using-ottawas-executive-jet-if-he-must/article594904/), or Russell Williams, the CFB Trenton air-force chief who liked to take pictures of his cat while he raped and murdered colleagues and took pictures of himself in their lingerie and tried to incriminate others, or one-time “justice” minister Peter McKay arranging private military helicopter pickups at costs that amounted to annual incomes for many families in Central Nova: http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/02/mps-demand-resignation-of-peter-mackay-after-release-of-fishing-trip-airlift-emails/ –it’s kind of clear that there’s not just a cozy Conservative Senate relationship with entitled criminals (Duffy, Brazeau, Wallin, etc.), but there’s one with the military, too.  And those men and women who serve, who are used as a taxi-service by Peter McKay and as travel agents by Canadian taxpayers, they might wonder who is really looking out for their backs.

Blood on his hands.  Calling others cowards, then saying he knew the mission was doomed—no Beatles tunes will erase that.  When Harper sings “Yesterday,” it’s going to be more than bittersweet for those he ordered into battle in a war he knew could not be won.  The parents, the sons and daughters of Canadians killed because Stephen Harper did not wish to be seen as “cutting and running,” after he did do exactly that, well, I wouldn’t wish to be Steve and Laureen, if they were penetrable to thought.

If I’m Canadian military personnel, who do I really want behind my back—a corrupt, murdering, ideologically-driven individual–or a balanced, thoughtful one who says “I’m gonna make sure you’ve got the tools first, then I’m gonna make up my mind.” 

The expendables, is how Tories quite apparently call Canadians who serve.  Rob Anders never did know a veterans’ meeting that he could not fall asleep at http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/news/rob-anders-sleep/).  Julian Fantino felt his meetings took way, way precedence over anything the veterans’ portfolio he was supposed to oversee (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/how-julian-fantino-s-meeting-with-veterans-went-off-the-rails-1.2515817). 

And when it came to remembering Vimy, of course Canada nickeled-and-dimed its last remaining veterans, leaving it to the French graciously to pick up the costs. http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/france-to-help-cover-canadian-vet-s-travel-costs-for-d-day-anniversary-1.1836230. Prime Minister Stephen Harper took an entourage and a private party-colored jet that cost Canadians millions—but he went there to celebrate himself, not the actual people who had served. 

That the French had to step in to cover the costs of Canadian soldiers, while the Prime Minister jetted around soaking up hundreds of  thousands of taxpayer dollars, is against Canadian values.

Mine anyway, sure can’t speak for you.

At last we return to western kids who want to fight with ISIS.  Well, they’re disenfranchised, and Harper has, by his party’s own proud admission, been key in that, preventing Canadian voters from voting at every turn, targeting especially the non-white non-old people who *might* not vote for him.  Jason Kenney has been tireless and shameless (likes those regarded by many as terrorists for political gains, too!) in his attempts to woo ethnic voters, but even those ethnic voters can be unsettled by the sight of Kenney’s blushed, febrile,  greasy bulb popping right off its pear anchor. 

If Canadadoesn’t want to send more young Canadians to jihad, it should, to reverse a page out of the Harper ideology playbook, treat it as a sociological matter, not a criminal one.  There will always be young men (now more than ever, for various sociological reasons) who will seek “jihad.”  That will happen.  But one has to create the right conditions, right here, on the ground, that make it possible for anyone in Canadato say, “hey, yeah, I’m part of this and making the world I live in better.” I’d love to hear Jason Kenney’s solutions on this.  Simply alienating or criminalizing (or buying) others can only lead to that cyclic war. . .1, 2, 3, 4. . .

It’s regrettable that journalists cannot do what bloggers can.  Journalists cannot speak to power unless they agree to ventriloquize that power.  Those journalists who can journal, like Mike Duffy, hardly set examples. 

Future lobbyists, future hobbyists (senators), neither helpful, nor useful.

For a better world,

–zr

Continue reading

Zorg Report: The Orenda — finally figured it out

 

Orenda – Probably most famously in early TV times, the Orenda was known as the Splenda in Orenda, when Mayhem Melvin Johnstone met Jonoby Jefferson in a 10-round title fight. Jeffersonappeared to stop Johnstone as early as the 3rd with a left hook that staggered the bigger fighter, but in the later stages of the 5th, Johnstone began to assert his power, feinting with the right, but employing also a lethal left.  Jeffersonfought gamely into the 8th, but by then his dancing moves lacked crispness, and his blows, owing to his shorter reach, did not tell.  Against the ropes, both eyes closed with bruising and sealed by open cuts, Jefferson not only stood up to the pounding, but made his way around the ring and never fell.  The bout, held in Equatorial Guinea at the pleasure of then-dictator Malik al-Foussah-Homi-be-Im, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest matches in this sport’s history.  The card read 52-48, 51-49, and 51-49.

Orenda, the – a mysterious tumour, still unverified, proposed by the late controversial Portuguese physician Eugenio Ombran (1882-1934).  Ombran argued that, just because a tumour could not be found, this did not mean that it did not exist.  He advised a location near the out-of-sight armpit, to the left of most patients’ hearts.  This phantom-tumour theory was eagerly taken up by most western physicians, and for the most part, they followed his notion of “radiate first, think later.”   Ombran’s great-niece, Luz, commented in 2008, “even if they do not find anything, that is like finding the Orenda.”

Orenda – A popular parlour game of the c18th, “Jackal,” featured the exultation “Orenda!!”  During a four-handed game, and if a winner were to play out by laying down all of his cards and placing one upon a matching laid-down card of his opponent, he might exult “Orenda!!” and by this gain 100 bonus points.  In the strategy of the game of “Jackal,” shouting “Orenda!!” was nearly as fatal as “checkmate” is to us today.  While “Orenda” could be called, so long as the opponent still maintained 13 cards, defeat was not impossible, as the Orendan had to pick up one card for each the Orendanded had left until all were satisfied.  While a simple “Orenda!!” was usually enough, sometimes the ejaculation led to duels not tea.  “Orendoo!,” was reported in West Sussex (by way of Bengal). as a way of foreshortening and behindhandedly attempting to win this game.  Traditionalists hold nevertheless to the Orenda. 

Orenda – It’s like when you put a fitted sheet in the dryer and dry it forever but somehow there’s always some socks and a t-shirt or whatever that always end up bunched and caught and wet and you have to hang it off a doorknob or something—that’s an Orenda.  submitted by Gracie T.

Orenda – In Norse mythology, the mother of the Kraken, who urged him not to go to sea.  In her will, composed of gneiss and moss, she insisted: “if there is a fault, it is of Olaf.”  Manhattan lawyers took up the case in 1343, and a judgment is still awaited.

Orenda – In the midst of the 1970s energy crisis, auto companies responded with that typical alacrity consumers have come to know and respect—even adore.  Facing the Ford Fiesta, the Chevy Vega, the Pontiac Astre and Acadian, Doidge, Illinois carmakers had no choice but to rush to judgment the Doidge Orenda.  A four-speed, the Orenda had a disquieting tendency to overheat at 70 Fahrenheit, and on the sedan model, the new, state-of-the-art back-bench plastic bolts had a propensity for slamming forward.  Citing transmission difficulties and a keen interest in environmentalism, as well as a desire to “spend more time with their families,” Orenda engineers resigned and the marque was discontinued in October 1975.  60, 000 were manufactured.

Orenda – a sub-complicated quasi-aboriginal mythology in which you tout driving around native  reserves on motorbikes and hail your brilliant doctor father while pitching that you sat in a Starbucks writing all day while your helpful partner. . . ok something smells wrong about this definition.–verifciation required

Orenda – was a bulbous Saxo-Cuban cigar manufactured by Hermann Infante del Diego. Diego, the son of Ulrich and Guadaloupe Diego, became, in his 20s, one of the most prolific producers of cigars on the island.  He wanted a signature brand, and this would become the “Orenda,” which featured a bright yellow label and a wry winking rooster.  Upon nationalization, it was found that Hermann had at least 20 unacknowledged offspring. The cigar foundered almost immediately—many would later say Diego was ahead of his time.  Local consumers were said to say that they hadn’t the wherewithal to indulge his imagination; garish signs were taken down as the installation was gradually tranformed into a seaside chicken processing plant. Nevertheless, a notable octoroonish expat Cajun artist, Leon, “Daddy Fry” Chavis, picked up on the story, and the tangled truthy narrative later became his signature tune: “Don’t Sign Anything by Neon (lest you don’t know who’s been being your Leon).”

And that’s the Orenda, so far.

-zr

Continue reading

Zorg Report: Zorg Report 2014-04-11 09:54:00

(CP) – In a statement released today, Canadian Minister of Democracy Pierre Poilievre said that, while he supports North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un’s efforts to standardize haircuts, he had already gotten his own.  “It’s this guy, Larry,” Poilievre said.  “He’s in Ottawa.”    “I was talking to Kim the other

Continue reading

Zorg Report: Zorg Report 2014-04-11 09:54:00

  (CP) – In a statement released today, Canadian Minister of Democracy Pierre Poilievre said that, while he supports North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un’s efforts to standardize haircuts (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-26747649), he had already gotten his own.  “It’s this guy, Larry,” Poilievre said.  “He’s in Ottawa.”    “I was talking to Kim

Continue reading

Zorg Report: Zorg Report 2014-04-11 09:54:00

 
(CP) – In a statement released today, Canadian Minister of Democracy Pierre Poilievre said that, while he supports North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un’s efforts to standardize haircuts (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-26747649), he had already gotten his own.  “It’s this guy, Larry,” Poilievre said.  “He’s in Ottawa.” 

 

“I was talking to Kim the other day,” Poilievre further stated, “and we basically saw eye-to-eye.  We talked around various hair-stand and side-shaved issues, and then we came to an agreement that we both get along pretty well.  Naturally our talks were private.” 

 

Poilievre did add, “that cat iz dap!”

 

–zr
 
 
 
 

Continue reading

Zorg Report: Jim Flaherty is not dead, only in Ireland (or Michigan)

One ought not to speak ill of the dead, nor inflict more grief on the aggrieved.  Still, the instant hagiography surrounding Jim Flaherty will attach some burrs.

Through his actions to protect himself, Jim Flaherty gleefully destroyed the lives of others.  He knew it, he loved it, and he did it for partisan, un-Canadian purposes.

This, this was the man who so hated Canada, who was so vilely partisan, that he actually said that Ontariowas the worst place in the world to do business.  Even his far-right comperes suggested that it was unpragmatic, foolish, and childish of him to be so ideologically bound that he actually sought to destroy the finances of his own country.  For smearing Canada around the world, now he is hailed.  (http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/Economists+warn+against+Flaherty+attacks+Ontario/360520/story.html)

Hm. 

Like it or not, Canada, from wherever you sit in SK or BC or no matter how your electoral map is being gerrymandered by the poil on your butts, Ontario matters to this country and it matters to you if you are Canadian.

I don’t think that politicians in Irelandor the United Statesstep out to make partisan speeches bent on damaging their own countries, as Flaherty did.  This was a man whose ideology was so pure that he would take money from Canadian citizens and then burn it in front of them while he, as finance minister, told the rest of the world that they should have nothing to do with Canada.  Canada doesn’t need any more patriots like that.  Go be finance minister of Ireland, and find out how sweet that pie tastes.  Fact is, Jim Flaherty had a peachy job and he profited from hating Canada around the world; his family and children will be able to retire to Irelandin ways few Irish, or Canadian citizens, can imagine.  Pity the man hated Canada so, for purely ideological and partisan reasons.

Flaherty, of course, was pivotal in driving Ontario into the ground.  When Bob Rae opened David Peterson’s books and realized what calamities confronted him, Bob Rae did the right thing.  He increased spending and he raised taxes.  Jim Flaherty slavishly emulated the correct Bob Rae years later (handing out money to banks and auto companies and so on while demanding that CANADIAN taxpayers, not the banks or the companies and their foreign-controlled head offices, pay it all back), all the while smugly hating Canada and regretting Canada’s un-Tory taxation across the world stage.  Jim Flaherty ate the very vomit he spewed on others, and never with a twinkle in his eye.  No, his eyes were elsewhere—on the big job in the U.S., or the misty motherland of Ireland.  Flaherty, of course, sought, as Mike Harris’s henchman, to drive Ontario further into the ground and cripple its economic might by undermining its public sector and infrastructure and human capital.  But, like criminal entitlement chief Tony Clement, he was all ok with gazebos in the riding that got him elected and paid his pension and secured his family (and ONLY his and his family alone) for generations (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/02/14/kelly-mcparland-auto-companies-thrive-on-governments-that-are-happy-to-pay-the-ransom/).   Jim Flaherty learned entitlement the right way—a long affiliation with Conservatives who sucked money from working Canadians while telling those Canadians that they had to work harder (to support Jim Flaherty and HIS family).

Now, here’s where I begin to support Jim Flaherty.  He was such a dyed-in-the-any-country-but-Canada-wool ideologue that it was amazing to see him actually start to smarten up, well, well into middle age, and realize that, yes, he actually did, kind of, have some responsibilities.  Clearly, it came as a tremendous shock to an ideologue like Jim Flaherty that he actually had to sit around the world table with world finance ministers who were—SHOCK—actually concerned about and not denigrating of their own countries.  This must have baffled Jim Flaherty beyond belief—the idea that one could act on behalf of others who *didn’t* pay you to get re-elected. It is a long way from Whitby. I think Jimbo was astonished and taken aback by this, this idea that a world (yes, a world) existed outside cheap dirty nasty Conservative auto-town politics.  Perhaps for the first time in his life, well into his 40s, he might have realized that his actions weren’t just about making his family rich, but that they could also implicate other people.  Jim Flaherty might have met his own neighbours for the first time in his 50s!! To that end, he made a sober and unpopular decision around income trusts.  As he left office, he meekly queried Conservative ideology about income-splitting, a financial game designed to enrich Conservative supporters and disempower Canadians.  When we think we’re approaching our Maker, we all get a bit teary eyed and reflect on what we’ve done.  Jim Flaherty’s last gesture, as he dealt with illness, was (before his heartfelt and teary-eyed paean to the true Tory criminal entitlement achievements of the Fords) to realize that, in the end, all of his ideology and all of his hatred that he spewed on others could come home to roost, even on him.  He, too, could die, and not enjoy the fruits of his taxationlessness.  Most Canadians aren’t like Jim Flaherty and his family; few will ever enjoy the benefits he and his family have enjoyed and will enjoy, despite his modest attainments outside of politics. 

Jim Flaherty’s passing ought to be a lesson to all Conservative ideologues, including the present poil on our body politic: you may never live to enjoy the hatred you have spewed on others, so might as well try to be decent and live while you can.

On a completely personal note, I liked Flaherty more as he aged.  He was a Conservative ideologue slowly accustoming himself to the complexities of the world—and unlike many fellow travellers, he seemed to accept that challenge.  He went from a child to a man and then death, and we will all find our ways there, severally and individually.

-zr

 

 

 

Continue reading

Zorg Report: Canada’s New National Anthem: “Before the Courts”

Canada’s New National Anthem: “Before the Courts”

Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair Takes Questions about Mayor Rob Ford

 

Or new national index of societal morality.

 

It seems there is no sin these days that cannot be covered by saying that the matter is “before the courts.”  After all, we all know that, by the time those “courts” ever get into session or adjourn or conclude or just whatever it is they do do besides incarcerate Aboriginals, we will all have coins on our eyelids.  In theory, the “courts” are supposed to fulfill a fairly crucial role in Canadian society; they are supposed to set standards by precedent, assess crimes, mete out punishment and in general “act” as our legal and moral guardians and compasses.  But a veritable pole shift has occurred.  Now, instead of being courts of, say, well, justice, “courts” are just chimerical rhetorical places used in phrases where momentous societal concerns go to die.  I can’t say for sure, but I’ve got a funny funny feeling that, once upon a time, “before the courts” meant something, as in some sort of justice was going to be served sometime.  The phrase meant “impending,” not “neverending.” Now “before the courts” just means being able to avoid any sort of judgement whatsoever for an indefinite period, and also the while dodge any questions pertaining to any kind of moral or legal conduct.  How did we get to this?  I’d really like to hear from lawyers, but I suppose everyone would like to blame everyone else.  Judges, from their eyries, will never comment.  Some of them, who, for example, like Supreme Court justice Marc Nadon, fantasize that they were drafted by the Red Wings, clearly are contemplating other egotistical and onanistic scenarios most citizens haven’t leisure (or the moral degradation) to indulge.

 

Yet it ought to concern our legal system that it is no longer seen as a place where legal matters go to get mulled and eventually resolved, but rather as a place where legal and moral conundrums go to be put off, avoided, sidestepped, obfuscated, ignored, extenuated, and ultimately buried. Nowadays anyone can say that something is “before the courts” and get off scot-free.  People ought to be answerable for their actions; they ought not to be able to play the free Pierre Poilievre “stay-out-of-jail-forever” card by saying something is “before the courts.”  Couldn’t the “courts,” if they wanted to be “courts,” do something about this?  Look up “supine” in the dictionary, self-interested while you’re at it.  The legal system was never supposed to be about me; it was supposed to be about society.  But now every (wealthy, entitled, white) “me” can use it for private ends simply by saying, “oh, well, the matter is before the courts.”   While, in his mind, Marc Nadon dreamily skates circles around Doug Harvey, could he also devote, say, %10 of his grey matter to questions of justice that he wasn’tpaid for by the Harper government?  Were I judging Nadon, I would intervene to say that question probably assumed too much grey matter.

 

Marc Nadon, not in the end the Yzerman he told us he was (he didn’t even get caught on the internet; he just outright lied, on camera–now that is a judge kickin’ it old school), may be glad to see the legal system become a kind of in-house private affair for submissive Tory hacks, but others in the legal system with a scintilla of morality ought to wonder “wherefore the reversal”?  When did “before the courts” go from “someone is going to be accountable sometime” to “nobody’s ever going to be accountable” and at any rate we can play it out forever? 

 

If I stab a guy in Regina, I get pretty swift justice and steel bars in my sightlines.  But if I bilk 100s of seniors out of their pension funds in Toronto, I drive with the top down, for-evah.   Pity we have no “courts” for this.

 

For the record, here’s Toronto’s Police Chief Bill Blair at a news conference the day before this post:

 

Chief Blair, it’s pretty obvious that Mayor Ford has been implicated in the kind of actions that would see me arrested if I weren’t the Mayor.  Did he receive special treatment?

 

There have been no arrests that I know of.  And until such time, there will be no arrests that I know of.

 

Young men of colour that the Mayor hangs out with tend to be involved in fairly bad things, or get dead.  Does that concern you?

 

Well, we’re always concerned.  Concerned about public safety.  Concerned.  It’s a major concern for the police force when there is concern.  And we’re concerned.  . . . .  We will continue to be concerned, until there’s concern that we’re not concerned about.

 

Like gangs and so on?

 

Well, it’s a concern.  But we’re not going to get too concerned about this while these concerns are before the courts.  We put these concerns before the crown prosecutors and the courts, and then they’re no longer our concern. 

 

But we’re concerned.  Anytime public safety is involved, we’re concerned.

 

Like with gangs and guns and homicides?

 

Certainly.  Certainly.  We’re very concerned.

 

So you’re concerned.

 

Yes, very concerned.

 

Now, say I had a name that began with, oh, say, “F,” and that ended with “d,” and that had four letters, and I were caught in extremely compromising situations that have betokened criminal activity since you were in short pants—would I be in danger of prosecution?

 

Well, we all want to support the troops.  I think the Prime Minister has said it, and I do, too.  $50 million and 50 new cars can go a long way towards promoting public safety, and our chief goal is to promote public safety.  Tasers, foot patrols.  Public safety.

 

But. . .my question was about the shady envelopes and monitored drughouses and wiretaps and so on—you have nothing to say about that?

 

Well, no, because that is a matter that is before the courts, so obviously I can’t comment about that.  We’re concerned.  We’re very concerned about public safety.  But obviously we can’t comment about matters that are before the courts.

 

But what if you had been hauled into court because you had been seen engaging in clearly suspect activity and your name wasn’t Ford?

 

Name was?  Name was?  I’m sorry.  I-I can’t comment on matters that are before the courts.

 

Chief Blair, does it sometimes not disturb you that any crime can be hidden by uttering the phrase “before the courts” these days?

 

Well, disturbed, of course we’re disturbed.  Anytime it’s a matter of public safety, we’re disturbed.  We don’t want to see disturbances, and I don’t think anyone wants to see disturbances.  But when public safety is concerned, we have to act.

 

Act how?

 

Well, the police have got to be equipped to fulfill their duties.  That means being able to resort to deadly force when necessary.  Because it’s a matter of public safety.  When it’s a matter of public safety. . .

 

but I wasn’t _asking_ about public safety. . .

 

we still have to act.  We have to act in the best interests of public safety.

 

Ok, well, speaking of public safety, does it concern you that saying “the matter is before the courts” has become a kind of catch-all mantra for avoiding all forms of redress for any crimes, alleged or committed?

 

Well, well, it’s like I said—the matter is before the courts.

 

So if a matter is “before the courts,” the legal system essentially grinds to a halt and for all intents and purposes no longer exists?

 

Well yes, yes, that, as I understand it, is what “before the courts” means.  The police can only place matters “before the courts.”  While we continue to be concerned, we cannot comment on matters that are before the courts.

 

If a citizen said, “Yeah, sure, I drove drunk, what are you, a buncha pollyannas,” would that concern you?

 

Certainly.  Obviously.  But that’s a hypothetical and I’m not going to get into hypothetical questions.

 

What if it were the mayor of your city?

 

Well, then, I think the police would have done their jobs.  And then it would be before the courts.

 

Is there anything that, in your view, is not “before the courts”?

 

No.  No.  I don’t think so.  In the end it is all before the courts.  People have to take responsibility for their own actions when they’re driving.  But when it’s before the courts, the police have done their jobs.

 

These courts—we hear an awful lot about them these days in politics at every level. . .you seem to place a great deal of stock in them.

 

I’m not a politician.  I’m a police officer.  But when matters are before the courts, naturally I cannot comment on them.

 

–because they’re before the courts, right?

 

Right!  The courts.  Before.  Courts.  Thank you.

 

Oh Canada, we are before courts for thee.

Continue reading

Zorg Report: A Brief History of "Oh So Many Years"

A Brief History of “Oh So Many Years”

 

_1_

 

Norah Jones and Billie Joe Armstrong (2013)

 

starts at around 23:28, so go back.

 

–Billie heard the Everlys’ Songs Our Daddy Taught Us, and thought, since he was rich and famous, he’d like to cover it.  His wife urged Norah, who he’d once met at an awards gala, as someone to do it with him.  So it happened, over a total of 9 days.  The Everlys, of course, came from a steeped tradition going back generations.  But if you’ve got the money and a hint o’ time, well, that cures all defects.

 

Billie kind of turns it into a honky-tonk song and uses a big lead riff that makes it almost rockabilly.  He intended to stay true to the “original” Everlys, but in this instance he allowed himself some latitude.

You can hear everyone striving for a sparseness true to an original, but they can’t restrain themselves, such showoffs are they, and also so much do they love the song.  Reminds me of Emmylou and Gram, a bit; Emmylou fed off the Bailey Bros., as did so many.  But see below.

 

_2_

 

The Everlys – Songs Our Daddy Taught Us (1958)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv6U-5agib8

 

–This must have been a bit of a weird album; after a couple of big hits like “Wake Up, Little Susie” (banned in Toronto in ‘58), the Everlys had to provide more content, overnight.  So. . .songs they knew from youth and had sung forever.  Even Phil at 76 admitted that they didn’t really know what they were singing; they were just striving for good harmonies and music and to please an audience and so on. 

They explicitly used only an acoustic guitar and bass; they wanted the songs to sound like they would be heard on a porch. What they knew.  What they had.

Or that would give cache’, too, a bit like Billie Joe and Norah now.

Notice _1_ sounds like a cacophony with all kinds of things happening at the same time so that the import of the song, lyrically, is lost.  Drums destroying any sense of the music. 

 

I like how the Everlys’ voices hadn’t even seemed to break by 20; Kentucky never met science.  Those steel-stringed acoustics, those voices like silken filaments (ever tried to break silk?).  Vulnerable, enduring, frail, resonant.

Everlys works for me.  An early vocal pop tune.

 

_3_

The Bailes Brothers akaThe Bailey Brothers (1949)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d54zakYox58

 

Of course, nothing comes from nowhere, and the Everlys (songs our daddy taught us) learned from the Bailes, or Bailey Brothers; that’s where they got the harmony.  The Everlys’ dad could easily have introduced this one, since it was in his puberty. 

The steel guitar put the melancholy in the song, and the banjo lends the bouzouki-type sound; if one hasn’t a grand piano or a sophisticated horn or wind instrument, one has voices or banjo with its available steel strings. Notice this sound.

Importantly, Billie Joe Armstrong made Norah Jones swear that she would listen to no other versions of the Everlys’ album.  Clearly, however, he did; his entire approach to the song, and obviously the lead riff from _1_, is based on the original by the Baileys.  Yep, women.  Keep ‘em in the dark.  Never let them know or they might mess it up.  Billie Joe just wanted to make sure Norah sang the high Don part. This overproduced version, _1_, actually loses something by Jones not being ½ way in control of the song, as she isn’t.  It gets throwaway honky-tonk instead of meaningfully moving.  Still, good song; captivating, captive female; I can get into that, but in the end I’m a man and it ends up being a long way from a “Rocking Good Way” with Brook Benton and Dinah Washington.

_4_

Turns out that this song was written by Marie or Maria, “Frankie,” Bailes, wife of Walter Bailes or Bailey, when she was, well, maybe not so legitimate by today’s standards.  Walter, like others of his brothers, got to be a priest.   I think, though, that that is where the special feeling comes into this song.  The writer is not just thinking of the future, as we do now, but of the past, and of sins then.  She is saying: “let me sin again, and I will make it right.”  That is where the peculiar power of this song comes from.  It is not, if you listen to Billie Joe now, about a guy longing for a girl, and it is not even, if you listen to the Everlys or the Baileys, an ambiguous song about heartache and longing; actually it is about a striated troubled love for someone that may be illicit—potentially damning.  This is where the “years” of the song come from if you’re 16, or even 18.  I defy an18-yr-old girl today to write this song.  Or maybe I don’t.  Frankie is imagining back into a longing that seems to have gone on for decades; and if you’ve ever been 16, a couple of months can be that long.

 

This song is not about Billie Joe of Green Day, or Norah Jones; it’s about a young girl, and that’s where this great music came from.  Would Billie Joe, or Norah, or for that matter even Phil or Don Everly, choose “oh so many years” as a chorus line? 

so _5_

The song was written a long time ago by a woman for a man. The later renditions are great, as I’ve said above, but I am haunted by the missing voice in this song.  And that’s the lead voice of the woman in this song, and also the one who wrote it.  It sure ain’t, ain’t, ever Billy Joe.  I hope a great female singer will do this song again one day and put it in its rightful place in the country pantheon.

-zr

 

Continue reading