Today is World AIDS Day. I know this because social networking sites are offering users the ability to temporarily alter their profiles in order to show support. On Twitter, tweeting the phrase “World Aids Day”, or the hashtags #red and #laceupsavelives, will turn your font colour red. On Facebook, you can post a video, replace your current profile photo with one offered by (RED), or even buy (RED) products.

In a Facebook blog post, (RED) CEO Susan Smith Ellis was enthusiastic about the power of social media in furthering their cause. She credits the increase in corporate support to the ”1.5 million people who have joined (RED) via a range of social media.”

Calling attention to the severity of AIDS is a noble cause. But aside from a minor alteration to their Facebook page, how are people participating in the fight against AIDS? How many of the people showing their support online would actually take that commitment further? Read more…

I couldn’t resist.

I told myself not to write about the Muppets Bhomeniam Rhapsody video that’s floating around online. I figured it would become so popular so quickly that, by the time I got around to it, it would be completely irrelevant.

Sounds like a lesson in procrastination more than anything.

But you know what? Even though it has received over one million views in 24 hours – and been mentioned everywhere, from Maclean’s to Mashable – this video is far from irrelevant. In fact, nothing Muppet-related could ever become irrelevant because those characters appeal to both our childish imagination and our adult sense of nostalgia. That makes it timeless.

Oh and it’s just plain awesome.

Even if it turns out that this video is part of an ad campaign for Viagra or adult diapers,  I will gladly buy whatever they’re selling because the video is just that brilliant.

Special shout-out to Beaker at around the 2 minute mark. That guy is my hero!

The CRTC hearings that will decide the fate of Canadian television began last week. I’ve already written about the TV “tax” debate, but the issue is worth revisiting. In case you’re unfamiliar with the issue, or you need a reminder, I recommend this article in the Globe and Mail. It provides a pretty good breakdown.

So as the two sides battle, adamant that their position is in the best interest of Canadians, it has become obvious that there is no right or wrong in this debate. There is no good guy, despite what those clever TV tax ads suggest. Canadian broadcasters and the cable and satellite distributors — also known as broadcast distribution undertakings (BDUs) – are part of the same content industry in Canada that is expected to provide some programming  that represents the cultural experience of its citizens. Read more…

The 2010 Olympic Games in Vancouver will be a special event for Canada, as it is an opportunity to win a gold medal at home for the first time ever. Canada has hosted the Olympic games twice before (once in Montreal and then in Calgary), but we’ve been shutout in the gold medal standings.

VANOC, the Games’ organizing committee, is committed to changing that little blemish on Canadian Olympic history. They’ve made the commitment to securing a gold medal with programs like Own the Podium.

Kudos, VANOC. With your help, all Canadians have come one step closer to making history. So you will be forgiven if you have to take extreme measures to guarantee success.

The secret is out. The Americans are talking. Now everyone is listening. Read more…

According to a recent CBC News article, pediatricians in B.C. are convinced that children under the age of two should not be watching TV. Absolutely zero television. Not a couple of hours, not even child-friendly content- pediatricians believe that any and all television for children under two is bad for their development.

The pediatricians cite several studies that identify a link between television viewing at a young age with things like obesity and violent behavior.

The article itself has incited a barrage of moral posturing in the comments section, along with  some creative retorts from a few defensive parents. Relying on the “what the hell else am I supposed to do with a crying one-year-old” argument, some parents feel that a little TV exposure can’t be that harmful.

And as long as companies keep producing content specifically designed for young children and marketing it as educational, parents will be able to justify their choice.

While the CBC article is new, the debate surrounding children and television has gone on for years.  There are numerous studies that talk about the harmful effects of television on young children. Still, despite the studies and repeated warnings, this issue remains a matter of personal opinion, values and experience.

After all, we are talking about a proposed guideline, not a law. There is no enforcement. As always, the final decision lies with the parents.

Based on the reaction from the article, the decision will not be an easy one to make.

I think I just baited you in with a misleading title.

No need to worry. I always deliver on what I promise and I promise you will get your tips.

Initially, I wanted to use this post as a way of ranting about how consumer culture has turned shopping into a pastime. No matter how often we hear about the bad economy and consumers being forced to adopt a more budget-conscious lifestyle, the visual evidence tells a different story. Read more…