Skip to main content

get off my lawn

i've had my differences with bell. actually, i've had for more differences than sames, which doesn't even make sense, but i'm angry and spluttering.

some days ago, some weird marks appeared on the sidewalk and streets near me. this happens fairly often and never seems to lead to anything, so i just assume it's some weird version of municipal employee hopscotch and try not to think about it anymore.

but then i noticed that the marks were spreading...




we're no longer dealing with marks that are just on the sidewalk, but on the lawns/ gardens of buildings all the way up the street. some even appear on trees.

apparently, these marks are being made by bell, to indicate where they're going to need to gouge out the earth to lay knew cabling. basically, every building on this stretch of street is going to lose a third of the ground in front of it, including every tree now standing. because progress.

now, i wouldn't be happy about this under any circumstances. one of the things that's appealing about where i live is that i have a large, beautiful tree right outside my office window. it inspires me as i procrastinate and think writing while i surf the internet looking at cats. but if this were a project that was going to, say, provide free or low-cost internet to underprivileged people [the kind of project chebucto community net does in my hometown], i would at least be able to console myself for the loss of the tree with the knowledge that it gave its life for a decent cause.

this isn't a community project, however. it's just bell laying the groundwork [yuk yuk yuk] so that they can make more money. and canada already pays one of the highest rates for telecommunications in the world for service that falls well behind other developed nations. what's worse is that our costs have increased while those of most others have decreased and the speed of our service is growing at a slower rate than other countries, meaning we're paying more to fall farther behind.

this isn't exclusively a bell problem, of course. it's a problem with the entire canadian telecommunications system, something which stephen harper had promised to fix [and one of the few policies on which he and i are in agreement]. it hasn't happened and canadians are still held hostage by a cabal of telcos who pretend to be protecting our national interests from the big, bad american corporations who would otherwise descend on our market and use their faster service as a trick to split open our heads and devour our brains when we weren't looking. [note: i'm not certain they worded the argument in exactly that way. i'm paraphrasing.] so there's plenty of blame to go around to all sorts of telecommunications providers.

but only one of them is ripping up my trees.

i haven't been a customer of bell's for some time [as regular readers of this blog will know]. i've even persuaded most of my extended family to walk away from them. i've criticised them extensively on this blog, with good reason. so this almost feels personal. the nicest part about the room in which i've written my attacks on bell, the room where i was subjected to hours of customer service failures, is that i can look out at a rather bucolic landscape, while still living smack in the centre of a major city. and bell wants to take that away from me so that they can increase their already fat bottom line. and i don't even want to think about how i'm going to have to live with heavy machinery, noise and dirt in front of my home while this great work is being accomplished.

there's not really anything i can do about this. the property doesn't belong to me and even if it did, the city is able to expropriate it if it deems it necessary and give it to corporate interests. i suppose i could chain myself to the tree in protest, but i have a feeling that bell would just cut it up with me attached.

so right now, i'm just trying to reconcile myself to the loss of my tree and the tiny patch of greenery that's given me some pleasure over the last several years. you can take my foliage, bell canada, but you can never take away my freedom to call you on your b.s.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …