She sent "The Story of Stuff" last Christmas and the "Garbage Dump Reality Show" one a couple months later. I didn't get the first one posted last Christmas so put it in the "on deck" circle for next Christmas (which is why there's been a "December 2008" line showing up on the calendar on the left side of this blog for the last little while.)
When she sent the other one, she pointed out that Earth Day would also be a good time to post these stories. So that's what I'm doing. Here's her original "Story of Stuff" e-mail...
Apologies if you've already seen this or heard about it - it seems to be spreading across Facebook and the 'web pretty quickly. But it's a concise and humbling (if also somewhat politically charged) description of the consumption cycle. More than your usual "rah-rah go environment" stuff, this really examines the role that WE play in consumption (including the psychological effects of fashion and advertising). It's a pretty good site, although the video is long (over 10 minutes, I think) so watch it when you have the time to sit through it.
An especially potent message at this time of year, when it's ALL about consumption (especially as a way to demonstrate your feelings for others).
And here's the other one she sent...
Came across this article in Salon about a new reality show which places contestants in a garbage dump to demonstrate how much good "stuff" gets thrown away. Reminded me of the Story of Stuff clip. I know you said you have it bookmarked or whatever for next Christmas. It could also work for Earth Day (in April). At any rate, this story seemed to go hand in hand with the Story of Stuff:
Hard to believe it's less than week to Christmas. (Actually, it's hard to believe that it's been seven months - happy birthday Pace, by the way - since time last had any semblance of meaning.)
As best as I remember, at our house, the Santa gifts were wrapped, often in the same paper as our other gifts and with tags written in my dad's handwriting. (Even with big red flags like that, I don't think I still ever caught on to the whole Santa thing although that was probably a case of willful ignorance as much as anything. Of course, I'm also the type of person who never sees the twist coming in movies either nor tries to figure them out.)
Interestingly, it was the same guy who clued me into the Santa thing on the playground in kindergarten or grade one who also made me stop believing in god a few years later. I'll save that story for another day though...
This is a bit of an old story by now but Time magazine recently named "You" as their "Person of the Year". Many people reacted to the decision negatively saying it was a cop-out and the ultimate gimmick to sell magazines from a magazine that arguably hadn't chosen the proper newsmaker of the year since 2001 when they picked Rudy Guliani over Osama Bin-Laden. That was my first reaction to me, but then, the more I thought about it, the more I realised this was a fitting, sensible choice, just as timely as picking "The Computer" in 1982 or "The Endangered Earth" in 1988. (The full list of previous winners is on Wikipedia.)
By "you", doesn't mean anyone standing in line at Safeway looking at the magazine rack. They mean anyone who is contributing to Internet content and if you're reading this (or especially if you're commenting), you're part of that group. (So belated congrats on the award - hope you've put "Time Magazine's 2006 Person of the Year" on your resume. )
Why is it a good pick? I think of it this way - two or three years ago, when I wanted to find out about something using the Internet, I went to one place - a search engine. Today, when I want to find out about something, I have numerous options - a search engine is still a possibility but now, I can also go to Wikipedia. I can search Flickr for photos or YouTube for video clips related to the topic whether it is a person, place or thing. I can use a blog search engine like Technorati or Bloglines to see what other people are saying about the topic. I can read comments about the topic on community-based message boards like MetaFilter and Digg (and "message boards" completely under-represents what these sites offer.) And this is only the tip of the iceberg of the unlimited amount of information that can be found on various web sites across the Internet - from LibraryThing for tracking book collections to Facebook for keeping up with friends to E-bay and Amazon for not only shopping but finding out about all kinds of products - from the unique to the ubiquitous.
The common link? All of these sites rely on user-generated content to give them their value (even Google's database is an archive of sites that other people have created.)
Just as people don't like the choice of "You" as Person of the Year, they also react against the term "Web 2.0" which is now commonly used to define this new interactive web. Instead of being a method of retrieval (Web 1.0), the new web is about interactivity. (Some people are going so far as to use Web 3.0 to define the next step which includes the user-submitted content of Web 2.0 but makes it easier to find/use via things such as tagging, advanced computer algorithms and the sheer volume of people contributing to the content.)
If you accept that definition of Web 3.0, a prime example is the plan of Wikipedia to launch a search engine to compete with Google that will rely on volunteers, just as with their encyclopedia site, but which will bring a level of currency and accuracy that computers, no matter how advanced the algorithm, can match yet. (And if you're seeing library jargon in that list of advantages, you'll also realise why so many library schools are now "library and information" schools.)
So, what is the point of all this Web 1.0/2.0/3.0 rambling?
Here's Oscar making his contribution to the Web 2.0 world via a video clip that we've put on YouTube. This is my mom (also a nurse) using a Doppler device to find Oscar's heartbeat - it's clearest around the 32 second mark - on Christmas Day at the Indian Head Hospital. (My best present ever by the way! Sometime I'll write about our very disappointing first Doppler in London.)
It absolutely and completely boggles the mind to think how far computers have come since 1985 when I first started using them (Commodore 64 - those were the days!) and what the future may bring as the pace of technological advance continues to increase.
Love Actually is right up there as one of my favourite Christmas movies of all-time and this song at the end of the movie is a big part of the reason why. We're heading back to Regina tomorrow after a few days split between Shea's and my parents place so hopefully I'll get back to some entries with a bit of actual content to them rather than cheating by just linking to YouTube clips everyday!
I was looking for a clip from a M*A*S*H episode set to "I'll Be Home For Christmas" because it has that perfect touch of melancholy that makes for perfect holiday music (see the Pogues clip I linked to earlier this month for the ultimate example.)
I couldn't find the clip I wanted (what? Every single piece of video recorded isn't online yet?) but did stumble across this montage of home movies set to the same tune and with a Saskatchewan theme to boot (honest, I have no connection to this video although some of the mullet headed guys in the background do slightly resemble myself in Grade 11.) The shots of the parents laying in bed with their baby are particularly heartwarming (well, they are this year. Last year, I would have found them mawkish and over-the-top. )
So anyhow, Merry Christmas (and/or Happy Holidays depending on how politically correct you prefer this time of the year) and thanks to everybody reading for helping make my year such a great one!
)
) 
