You say Apple, I say Bananas!

Quite a catchy tune isn't it? So why is it then that some are putting apple down for selling music through its commercials?
A brief history. Boy in England finds catchy song. Boy makes video for fun and posts it on youtube.com. Apple associate view video, love it, and properly market the video under the said boy's creative control.
What's wrong with this? Nothing. The music industry has been using newest forms of media to advertise music for years now. I believe it started with the jingle...duh. As Bagdikian suggests, selling music has become a process, its not about greed or power. Musicians are now realizing that there are many different ways to distribute their music and have it heard other than the radio. Youtube, Myspace, commercials, all of which are new and great methods to which new audience can be reached for the artist. Pepsi did it with Kanye West and Britney Spears. So give credit to apple for discovering new bands and distributing their music.
This trend in music will continue. Bands like Radiohead are leading way in new and innovative ways of releasing music. Recently the band released their newest album online, and gave consumers the ability to select what price they wished to pay for it. Artists are now looking for ways in which they can release music, and with the ever expanding internet and its availablity, the possibilities for such are endless.

For the last decade, since the inception of Napster, the music industry has been holding onto the idea that they can revive record sales. Best of luck to you folk! I highly doubt that they will be able to do so. Artists have given up on such idealistic approaches to the business, and have now looked at new ways to reach an audience. So why not apple. One of the highest grossing stocks on the market today, Apple, with the ipod, leads trends in music. While it uses these new trends, it is no different that any other form of advertisement. Viewers still get to make their own call as to whether or not they enjoy the music they are hearing in the advertisement.

Nothing beats a good ol' political coup!

What do you do with ex-members of Parliament?
These men who have dedicated their lives to politics do not simply retreat flock to Florida upon retirement, this does not float their boat. Rather, they wish to remain in the media. Having been used to the spotlight of the media, a round of golf on the links just isn't so appealing.

Or so Jean Chretien beleives.
Okay, i may have taken this image out of context a little, but one can't help but laugh at such a picture)
So with such men refusing to leave the spot light, what is the new leader in power to do. You do what us Canadian's do, you blame them with scandal! These men whose actions which were once deemed virtuous, are now to be slandered and deemed almost "criminal" like by the new crowd which has emerged in office. Nothing beats a good ol' political coup.
Even if ex Prime Minister's manage to avoid accusations from the new reigning crowd in Parliament, they eventually find a way to get into trouble.

Look at this happy camper. He even tried to stay out of the spotlight, but was unsuccessful. The Liberal Party seems to be in quite the dilema now. So what to do with such members who may prove detrimental to the current party....do as Harper does, cut em loose.

Love and Marriage....its an institute you can't dispariage!

Let me tell you, when watching the CBC's video of the declining marriage rate in Canada, I felt as though I was an outsider in the hen house. (not to sound demeaning...well kinda.... anyhow)

Upon watching the video for the first time, I acquired no knowledge from it other than a headache caused by the high pitch of women's voices as no strong points were made by either side. I then watched the video for a second time. It was not as bad the second time around, however, I still did not gain anything from having done so.
This people, was a perfect example of the difference between listening and hearing. While I had physically heard what was being said, there was no cognitive response, and I did not absorb what was being said by nearly anyone about this. So I had decided the next step would be to watch the video for a third time and take notes, so that I would participate more actively when watching. My notes turned out like so....

Clearly not a successful attempt. What was wrong with me? It was clear that I was listening selectively. I was merely sitting, listening to what was being said, looking for something of value. Having decided that there was nothing of value to which I was going to get from what was being said in the video, I decided to take a different apprach. I began to think about what wasn't said. In the debate between the women in the video, neither of them used any substantial facts. One of the most obvious facts one might think of pertaining to the issue, is whether or not the birth rate has declined accordingly with marriage. And to my surprise it hadn't! The most important arguement these women scratched upon was a declining population, but this wasn't the case what so ever! So then why aren't people getting married? Maybe marriage just doesn't have the appeal it once had. Who can blame them when shows like "Married with Children" and "Everybody Loves Raymond" depict marriage in the manner they do.
Observe.

So what if people are not getting married. The birth rate in Canada remains the same, and afterall, hasn't marriage as an institution been a way for populations to grow. So if the population can continue to grow without it, why is it people still feel a responsibility, or obligation to do so? Now that is a video to which I would hear something of interest!