Keeping Busy?

Re-Tired!

My husband and I reluctantly crawled out of bed at 8:00 a.m. this morning - that's sleeping in for us.  He walked the dogs.  I made coffee and got the kitchen fire going and on his return from the walk we both settled into our usual daily routine - me checking Face Book, e-mail, and playing Words With Friends, husband jumping from news station to news station on the net.  Made pancakes and commented on how tired we were and before you know it there we were, side by side on our love-seat recliner, sound asleep.          

Retired is a good word for the switch from the working world to the realm of seniorhood.  But it's not quite spelled right.  Re-tired would be more accurate.  So here I am, in my 7th year of re-tirement, feeling tired, and laughing to myself over a question a friend asked recently.  "So, how is it being retired," she said.  "Do you manage to keep busy?  Are you enjoying it?"  Now this friend is looking forward to retiring from one of those jobs that keeps her brain working hard, keeps her in the public eye, and is making a difference.  She loves her work.  At least that's how I read her.  I have a feeling she will have a hard time letting go.  I also loved my job, and felt I was making a difference, but was so ready to reconnect with my life before working out, our beautiful farm, our little paradise in the woods, so ready that I've never missed the workplace at all.

And keeping busy? Hahahahaha.  Chores are ever present of course - breakfast, dishes, lunch, laundry, supper, straightening-up, re-creating a semblance of order, shopping, keeping the fire going, vacuuming, etc. - all lumped under the umbrella called housework.  There's the morning internet interaction, my blog, Netflix, reading a good book, the frequent inflow and outflow of guests for coffee, a meal, a beer or a glass of "Mary Lynn's Fabulous HoneyBerry or Raspberry Wine", and visiting family down south. And then there's the music.  Music is a huge part of my life, playing mandolin and singing while my husband plays banjo.  There's the "band" too, our garage band, our circle of friends that we practice with, our friends that we jam with, the laughs, philosophies and good times we share.  I can be ready for bed one minute and ready to play music for hours the next.  It's intoxicating in itself. Four nights in a row we picked, strummed and sang, and of course had some of "Mary Lynn's Fabulous HoneyBerry or Raspberry Wine".  Music is why today is so tired.  Music is an awesome reason to be (re)tired.

Seasonal stuff - every season has it's extra added something to add to "busy". Christmas is a huge time commitment, as huge as I want to make it.  Not just shopping for gifts, and not a lot of decorating - mostly parties, baking, friends.  Once past New Years and a couple of birthdays I sink into my annual financial accounting, trying to do a month each day.  Not long after there's making ready for lambing, then lambing itself, record keeping, keeping the lambs healthy, maybe a bottle baby or two, then shearing.  Spring and summer there's the garden in all its phases from seeds in the ground to food on the table, jars and freezer bags, carrots in peat moss, potatoes in the root cellar.  Autumn is wine making season and, as the days shorten, a type of hibernation begins to set in, culminating in the winter solstice when it all begins again.  And so it goes, the circle of life.

So retirement, as far as I'm concerned, is mainly a joy. It may take a day of Netflix marathoning interspersed with naps to recover from ODing on parties or just plain being super busy.  A trip to the city may wear you out for a time.  You may take a bit longer to recover from a bug you caught from the grand kids.  You may have a hitch or two in your git-along.  But these are all related to that circle.  You're born, become a youngster, a teen, a woman (man), middle aged, elderly, and finally you're gone.  A gradually receding memory of you (and maybe even some of your electrical energy) remains behind to nurture succeeding generations.  Who knows, some day my great great great grandchild may search out her ancestry and discover this strange mando pickin' lady who left the city and went back to the land oh so many years ago.

A Twist on Words

When reporting or commenting on the civil war in the Ukraine we affix a label describing those who are fighting the Ukrainian government -  pro-Russian separatists, Russian-backed separatists, anti-government separatists.  The label used influences both our view of the situation and our understanding of the conflict.  For me, Pro-Russian separatists gives the impression that the separatists want to become a part of Russia. Russian-backed separatists gives me the impression that Russia  is taking an active part in the conflict, sending arms, equipment, men.  Anti-government separatists gives me the impression that the armed activists want the Ukrainian government to change and to recognize and safeguard their Russian culture and language and, if this fails to occur, they want to form a separate state.

Why does Western Media consistently use the term Russian-backed?  Is there any real proof of this?  Are we looking for an excuse to send aide, money, arms, equipment, and men to take sides in the conflict?  Why are we  in the West taking sides in this conflict at all?  Should the known to be corrupt, financially failing Ukrainian government be backed and safeguarded by the west, by the Euro Zone?  If they had treated their Russian speaking population well in the first place would this civil war have taken place?  It is totally possible that this separatist movement has roots in some very real grievances.  In my opinion this conflict should be settled by diplomacy, not by war.  But this is my opinion. These are my wonderings.  You can find opinions in print, on the net, and on the TV screen in direct opposition to my view.  The world of the Media is a very confusing place.

It is easy to skew our picture of what is going on in the world, especially the world beyond our borders, beyond what we can actually experience first hand. By using particular wording, particular photos and/or films, by including some shots or interviews and excluding others, by toning down or sensationalizing, the media is able to colour our thinking, to induce us to believe the "truth" according to their editors (or censors, or governments, or causes, etc.).  In my opinion most news media is slanted toward one ideology (version of the truth) or another.  Look, for example, at Fox News, a news station which I see as the right wing mouthpiece of America.  Look at the fearsome news releases if ISIS.  Look at the Conservative government of Canada's current ads on TV.

Reporters, news-anchors, newspapers have a responsibility to be unbiased when airing the news for the public, a lofty ideal which is difficult to achieve.  I hope most do try.  Movies, one of our "sources" of information, tell us that every good reporter seeks the truth, the scoop, the exposé.  (Superman comes to my mind.)  It will not only make their name, it will reveal a hidden truth, and it will sell. Most media outlets are dependant on ratings.  The news is now another show. Viewers/readers must not only be informed, they must be entertained.  Their editors and station managers control what is printed/shown, and in some cases their governments also have a hand in the pie.

People are busy.  They want to be "informed" but can rarely spare the time to ferret out "reality".  We have become a society with an attention span of 10 seconds to 10 minutes, the length of commercials and the shows in-between.  News is only newsworthy when it's fresh and seems to disappear in the face of something new on the scene.  Have you heard much of anything about Ebola lately?  It's still there, still ongoing, but in the media is largely absent.  It's old news. Old news does not get high ratings.  Low rated media does not attract advertisers.  Media without financial backing has a hard time surviving.          

So how in the world can we get the truth?  The dictionary definition of truth says that the truth is the real facts about something or, and this is an important distinction, a statement or idea that is accepted to be true.  The problem is that truth is in the eye of the beholder.  This is not an indication that we should avoid the news altogether.  Slanted or not there's bound to be a certain amount of reality within, probably lots.  At the very least it keeps us apprised of disasters, conflicts, local maniacs, successes, government plans and expenditures, and more. We just need to be aware that what is written or filmed or spoken will always reflect a point of view, and, because of this, may be a partial truth that requires some scrutiny.

"The Interview"

So, I watched "The Interview" on Netflix last night.  Not a bad movie, glad though that I never paid full price at any theatre to see it.  Kinda funny, bringing out smiles rather than guffaws.  Should this movie have been stopped in its tracks? I don't think many North Americans would think so.  Is it conspiring to undermine the North Korean regime or meant to make the North Koreans question their lifestyle?  How?  It's likely it would never be released in North Korea.  Is it subtly pointing out the extremes within most societies?  Possibly.  Or maybe it's just another dumb comedy...

I can understand why North Koreans would find the film offensive.  It covered every aspect of North America's negative perception of "the way it is over there".   North Korea's leader is portrayed as living luxuriously while the general population is poor and oppressed.  Kim Jong-un is also depicted as almost childish, willing to risk the lives of his people to satisfy his own ego. This is not the first time North Korea has been satirized on the American movie screen.  The movie "Team America", whose characters are played by marionettes, is an equally offensive film in which Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un's father and predecessor, plays a role. This film, however, is more focussed on US foreign policy than on North Korea and is a gut splitting laugh at the USA's perceived tendency to "police the world".   Like "The Interview", "Team America" stirred up its own bee hive of controversy.  (For more on Team America see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_America:_World_Police)

Regardless of who hacked Sony Pictures and attempted to stop the release of "The Interview",  in my opinion they failed to reach their goal.  They did achieve a strong reaction but suppression was not the outcome.  Instead they created the best advertising the film could get, engendering a vast amount of interest for people to watch it and find out what was so bloody controversial!

Filmmakers, cartoonists, commentators who wish to bring to light widely accepted but erroneous aspects of the human condition often use satire to achieve their ends. It is a means of jarring our minds, waking us up to what otherwise might slide by in our busy lives. No perceived human folly is sacred in the eyes of the satirist.  He uses his art to catch our attention.  "The Interview" uses political satire to achieve a comedic effect.

Satire can be seen in a variety of ways.  We may laugh, be insulted or disgusted, become irate or say "right  on!" It is meant to cause a reaction. It's not that easy to be made fun of in the media, to have your secrets told, your dirty laundry exposed, your strongest beliefs ridiculed.  No government, institution, religion or individual is completely willing to say "anything goes" and, if the circumstances are right, all are quite capable of  putting a lid on free speech.  If what is said is perceived to incite hate, war, prejudice - if it is inaccurate or disloyal - well, how far is too far? Who decides? Strong conflicting views bring out widely differing responses to that question. You can't say much of anything without offending someone.  Does that mean we all should restrict our observations and conversations to safe topics like the weather?  Heck, even the weather is controversial these days!

Following in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings in France, I wonder where lies the future of free speech in film, cartoons, journalism, on the net, in any public forum (including blogs).  A nation, a religion, an individual, a culture that is comfortable with its beliefs and actions should have the ability to laugh at itself.  If it can't, maybe something should be questioned, put under scrutiny.  I believe satirical comedy films and cartoons have an important place in the realm of free speech.  They draw attention to shortcomings, follies, archaic views and outright lies.  They are opinions to be accepted, rejected or ignored.  They may be in poor taste or insulting to some but they provide a humorous means to show us where we are inaccurate, downright wrong or just plain foolish. They have the ability to activate your brain.  That's a good thing.