Friday, October 31, 2025

Money

My father believed the purpose of life was to make money. Well, I’m not sure he would have put it that way. But he did say that money gave you the means to do what you actually enjoyed doing. This meant to me that making money was a necessary evil to get what you really wanted in life. 

The other thing my father always said is that you should always want 'more and better'. What he meant was more and better of what money could buy. 

So what if what you enjoy doesn’t require a lot of money? What if ‘more and better’ isn’t about what money can buy?

My problem, with my father at least, was that I could never muster the ambition to make a lot of money. I think he saw it as a glitch in my character. And I believe it bothered him because somehow he saw my lack of financial ambition as a reflection of something he feared in himself.

My father was born in 1928 and grew up during the Depression, the youngest of 9 kids, 8 of whom survived. His father, Abraham, made a modest living as a peddler. He went door to door selling things on credit. Kept accounts in a ledger and would collect twenty-five or fifty cents per week from his customers. Half the time, when he went to collect, all he got were excuses. He was a communist at heart. So when he came home after an afternoon of collections empty-handed, and my grandmother Leah was upset, he told her, 'they need it more than we do'.      

By the time My father hit high-school it was World War 2. All he'd ever known up until that point - the age he was getting ready to enter the workforce - was austerity. I can imagine how hungry and driven he must have been. 

He jumped in with both feet, and his efforts were rewarded handsomely. The post-war period were boom years. The economy had nowhere to go but up. As my 86 year old mother-in-law Margie is fond of saying, 'In those days any shmo could make a buck.'

I'm not sure that's exactly right. But if you had a little family support, which my father had, and a bit of drive, the opportunity was certainly there. 

I can't help but contrast my dad's upbringing with my own. I was raised a child of privilege. I enjoyed all the dividends of my parents and grandparents hard work. We lived in a large house in an affluent neighbourhood. I went to a private school, and we took family vacations to Florida twice a year. We had a chalet in Vermont, and went skiing every weekend. 

When I graduated high-school in 1981 the world was in the most severe recession since the war years. And a few years later, when I was ready to enter the workforce, it was like my father's experience in reverse. The economy was struggling to emerge out of recession, the unemployment rate was hovering around 8% in Canada, and it was much worse, above 10% in Montreal because of the uncertain political situation in Quebec. 

It's commonly said that wages have not kept pace with inflation since the 1980s, coincidentally the period of my entire working life. While the economy grew at an average annual rate of 5% in the 1950s, by the 1990s that was down to an anemic 2.4%. And the middle class, which had exploded in the post-war boom years, was now in the process of shrinking for the first time. 

Nonetheless, I was lucky. I was able to buy a house in the mid 90s and support my family well enough because I had financial backing, beginning with an inheritance left to me by my late grandpa Sam. 

But here's the thing about money - it represents so much more than just financial security, which of course is significant enough. Money is also (and perhaps more importantly) emotional currency. Money is a metaphor, chiefly for anxieties and fears. It's also about memory and dreams, self-image and self-loathing, meaning and purpose. 

For me, money also represented unhappiness. All the people I knew who had a lot of it, and seemed to care about making it as the focus of their lives, namely dad and grandpa Sam, seemed very unhappy. I don't think I ever thought money was the cause of their unhappiness, but having a lot of it certainly never did anything to cure their unhappiness either. Money was never a panacea for whatever troubled them. 

And I think that's why I never cared for it very much. It's true that I already thought I had enough. But what I saw was plenty of people who had a lot more, but never had enough. 

What was the point of killing yourself to get more money if, after a certain point, it didn't liberate you but rather, seemed to become a burden. A spinning wheel you were trapped on that went nowhere fast. There had to be a better way to spend your time than to devote it to making more money.

Sometimes I regret not accumulating enough wealth to be able to help my children in the same way that I was helped by my father and grandfather. On the other hand, we have invested our generational wealth enough to be able to help each of them a little. Anyway, it may not matter all that much since my kids seem to be making different decisions with their lives. Decisions that don't put the accumulation of wealth and acquisition at the center. And that might be our greatest gift to our children - pursuing a different set of values.  

Grandpa Sam had a favourite saying - "The journey is greater than the destination." We put it on his gravestone. It's a reminder that spending money is not the measure of 'more and better' in life. How you spend your time is.

Thursday, October 30, 2025

Save West Mabou Provincial Park - Again

I'd never heard of West Mabou until 3 years ago. Why would I? It's a small town, population approximately 1,298 (including the larger hamlet of Mabou proper) on the west coast of Cape Breton Nova Scotia. I first heard of it when my eldest daughter Sivan, who had travelled with her then-boyfriend Matthew, to the larger municipality of Inverness CB, a 15-minute drive north of Mabou, to visit his mother's family. She called me a day before they were leaving to come home to inform me that they had decided to buy a two-acre plot of land in West Mabou. I said, what's a Mabou?  

Google maps helped with some orientation. I had a few other questions, beginning with who are you buying the land from, for how much, and did you do a title search? She answered, It's from a fellow named Carmen who works in construction. He is selling off parcels of his family's farmland. And no, we met him, he liked us, he asked for a downpayment of $5,000 (whenever we could send it to him) and we shook hands. That's the way things are done in West Mabou. 

Mabou is actually known for a few things, most notably as the home of the famous (in Canada) singing Rankin Family. It's also where the American photographer Robert Frank had a home, and where the Canadian cartoonist-graphic novelist Kate Beaton lives. I had one of my only brushes with greatness at the regular Sunday Mabou farmer's market last summer, held at the local hockey arena. I sat down at a picnic table next to the composer Phillip Glass, who for decades has had a house nearby, and even named a theatre company he co-founded in the early 1970s Mabou Mines. We nodded hello to each other, as two locals typically do.

Well, Sivan and Matthew got married (on their land) and have since bought another adjacent piece of land to double their investment in West Mabou. They have built a small dwelling, and seem to be taking a stab at making West Mabou their permanent home. Sivan works at the local municipal library and Matthew is a construction project manager in the area. Most of our family has spent the last two summer vacations there, so this place in rural Cape Breton, which I'd never heard of just a few years ago, has become an integral part of our life. 

West Mabou is known for something else: West Mabou Provincial Park, which features a very popular sandy beach, beautiful wind swept dunes, and hiking trails with a view of the ocean.

The town of Inverness is known for something other than a provincial park. It's known for golf. A few years back a company called Cabot Resorts Corporation built two world class links golf courses along the ocean in Inverness. It was a boon for the community, which has been suffering economically for decades, ever since the demise of the Cape Breton coal mining industry. The golf courses were built, with the town's blessing, on the old slag heaps and garbage dump. The benefits to the town cannot be overstated. In addition to the obvious injection of investment, it cleaned up an environmental mess, and turned Inverness into a summer resort attraction. Golfers come from all over North America to play at Cabot. Walking along the pristine beach, helicopters are seen regularly delivering golfers from Halifax airport to play a round.    

And here's where a story about success takes an ugly turn. Now Cabot is coming for the magnificent grassy dunes of West Mabou Provincial Park for their next golf course development. 

For the third time. They failed the first two times because there was a groundswell of local opposition. The townsfolk didn't want it, and still don't. They'd rather keep their beautiful pristine provincial park the way it is, and are wary of the precedent that it will set if any protected provincial park lands can be targeted for economic development in this way. As my daughter, an unofficial spokesperson for the Save West Mabou Provincial Park effort said, "If they can do it here, no protected land in the province is safe. It renders the Provincial Parks Act meaningless." 

She rightly argues that there is plenty of opportunity to redevelop lands in the region, but Cabot is trying to avoid the hassles and cost of dealing with private owners. So much easier to simply get one party, the government, to de-list the park with legislation, so it can be leased to Cabot for 100 years.        

It's not completely true to say that everyone in Mabou is against the golf course redevelopment. Some local businesses see the economic benefits it brought to nearby Inverness. So in some respects it's splitting the community. 

But the folks at Cabot know they are in for a fight. There has been virtually no public consultation and they've been lobbying the government with subterfuge, explicitly to avoid scutiny. And Cabot has engaged some powerful lobbyists in the past, including a former provincial premier. The first time they made their plans known it only came to light after drawings of the proposed Mabou golf course were published on Cabot's corporate website. This time it went public after the issue was raised by an MLA in the Nova Scotia legislature.  

Last year my daughter, who got heavily involved two years ago, thought the fight was finally over after they won the last round. She's learning how relentless and unscrupulous corporations can be. It's back in the headlines and it's gone national. Goliath against David. The residents worry that this time the Progressive Conservative Houston government is more open to Cabot's influence. I hope not.

Tuesday, October 28, 2025

Shredder culture

TikTok is for shredders.

A sentence that would have been pure gibberish just a few years ago.

To dissect: TikTok, as you may know, is the world’s fastest-growing social media platform. It currently has around 1.6 billion users worldwide and is projected to reach 1.9 billion by 2029. The platform is especially popular among younger audiences—roughly 25% of users are under 20, and another 35% are between 25 and 34. By country, TikTok’s largest user base is in Indonesia, followed by the United States and Brazil.

That youth appeal is significant. Cultural trends—in music, fashion, food, and beyond—have always been driven by the young. So TikTok’s cultural influence far exceeds its raw usage numbers. 

Increasingly, it’s not just shaping taste but shaping thought. In the U.S., 43% of adults under 30 now regularly get their news from TikTok, up from just 9% in 2020, according to the Pew Research Center. 

The trend shows no sign of slowing. In 2024, TikTok was the most downloaded app in the world, with 825 million downloads, and more than 4.3 billion cumulative installs. The average U.S. user spends nearly an hour a day on the app.

So what makes TikTok so influential? At its core, it’s a smartphone app for creating, sharing, and watching short-form videos. According to the NIH, TikTok’s algorithm—known as “For You”—is one of the most advanced ever built. It maximizes the user’s internal states of enjoyment, concentration, and time distortion (the so-called "flow experience"), leading to addictive behavior. In effect, people who consume culture and information primarily through TikTok develop the focus and attention span of gamblers. They’re lulled into a trance: catatonic, reactive, and endlessly scrolling.

I have nothing against trance states. Some of the best art is hypnotic.

The difference with TikTok is that the trance comes from the algorithm, not the content. Because it’s a conveyor belt of endlessly replenishing short videos, it’s the platform itself that mesmerizes, not the creativity on it. TikTok diminishes the meaning and impact of individual pieces of content. It’s not like listening to The Doors’ twelve-minute song 'The End', or a meditative Indian raga—it’s more like the cultural equivalent of speed-dating, on speed. You psychologically buy into it not because of what you’re seeing, but because of what you might see next. 

Getting to know any creative work with depth and craft—like getting to know a person—takes time and attention. TikTok is engineered for quick impressions.

Which brings us back to that opening sentence: TikTok is for shredders.

In rock music, “shredding” refers to playing a flurry of notes very fast on guitar—technically dazzling, but often emotionally empty. Many guitarists can shred; few great ones do. The truly greats—Hendrix, Clapton, Page, Gilmour—understood that technique is no substitute for musicality.

TikTok, and short-form social media in general, is made for shredders. It rewards speed, spectacle, and surface over substance.

It’s true that the importance of music as an art form (even as a commercial product) has been in decline for years. The craft of songwriting reached its apogee in the mid 1970s. Since then, chordal progressions have become less complex in favour of grooves, and lyrics are added as an afterthought. (Admittedly I'm not a fan of hip-hop, but I don't think I'm out of line in saying groove and rhyme take precedence over substance.) The days of poet-troubadours like Bob Dylan, and The Who's epic rock operas are long gone. 

Platforms like TikTok, that considerably shorten attention spans, advance these trends immeasurably. 

TikTok is so pervasive it may not just reflect culture—it may redefine it. When speed becomes the measure of value, and attention the only currency, stimulation takes precedence over meaningful connection. 

As I posted recently, one danger is that we’ll stop making art altogether (except as a personal hobby) because AI will take over. But there is the added possibility that we’ll forget what art is actually for. 

It is said that great artists need great (read: receptive, attentive) audiences. 

TikTok is for shredders, but real culture has always belonged to those who linger, who listen, who take time to allow art to penetrate the soul. 

Sunday, October 26, 2025

It's Time

CLICK HERE TO HEAR THE SONG


It's time to protest,

It's time for unrest,

It's time for redress,

It's time to make a mess.


It's time that they stop,

For the folks at the top, 

To share what they got,

With the rest of us lot.


It's time,

I say it's time,

You know it's time,

I say it's time.


It's time to get real,

To declare how we feel,

To change a bad deal,

It's time for us to heal.


It's time to realize,

That all they do is lie,

To get us to take sides,

While they steal the prize.


It's time,

I say it's time,

you know it's time,

I say it's time.


It's time for the street,

To call out the elite, 

And show how they cheat,

So we can't compete.


It's time that they fall,

Cause they take it all,

It's time to stand tall,

So let's heed the call.


It's time,

I say it's time,

you know it's time,

I say it's time.


It's time that they know, 

That this movement will grow,

We will rise from below,

To make sure that they go.


The time has come,

We unite as one,

Justice will be done,

A new era has begun. 


A new era has begun...

Gamification

The gamification of politics makes me mad. 

I first heard the term gamification a few years ago from my daughter, who was writing her master’s thesis in occupational linguistics — the theory and mechanics of teaching language. She was collaborating with a professor of computer programming to develop ways of teaching language by turning it into a game. Students earned points for mastering skills and advanced through levels by solving language puzzles. Learning, she explained, was enhanced by play.

Ever since, it feels as if everything in our lives has been gamified — especially through our smartphones. Gamification activates the same dopamine circuits as addictive behaviors like gambling. (There’s a reason casinos prefer the word gaming.)

Of course, none of this is entirely new. “Game theory” — the study of strategic decision-making — has long been applied to mathematics, politics, economics, and psychology. Even Monopoly was designed to illustrate how the capitalist system that dominates our waking days is essentially a game of acquisition.

Lately I’ve been thinking of my grade 10 art teacher, who took our class of creative misfits to see a show at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts by the great Canadian filmmaker and installation artist Michael Snow. Afterward, we had to write a review. During our discussion, the teacher kept probing me for a reaction. Each time I offered an impression, he’d push me further until finally he said, “It’s a game. What Snow wants us to see is that life itself is like a game — full of rules and systems we only discover through interaction. Once you understand the rules, new layers of perception open up.”

At the time, I barely understood what he meant.

These days, though, it feels as if life’s been reduced to just a game — stripped of Snow’s depth and turned into something mechanical and shallow. The algorithms don’t invite discovery; they compel reaction. We’re no longer playing the game — it’s playing us.

It plays us through our phones. Amazon makes shopping feel like a slot machine. Interest in sports is largely driven by betting odds. News outlets cover elections like horse races.

But Parliament or Congress isn’t the NFL. Political rivals aren’t avatars in a video game. Politics is supposed to be about negotiation, compromise, and crafting laws that serve the public good — not racking up points against opponents.

Yet the media frames every issue as a scoreboard: who’s up, who’s down, who ‘won’ and who ‘lost’. That framing cheapens the issues, demeans the politicians, and insults the voters. 

Watch the broadcast interviews with supporters at a political rally, the flag wavers and sign carriers. When asked to articulate the reasons for their support it’s rarely impressive, let alone coherent or comprehensible. The impression one gets is akin to asking a football fan why they wear their colours. There is no reason. It’s emotional and performative. That’s fine for football. Not politics.

And yes, people on the right, the MAGA team are particularly egregious. But ‘No Kings’ didn’t fill me with any great confidence that they had much more sophistication in their political discourse either.

Gamification has ‘flattened’ and dumbed-down the public discourse all around.  

Politics shouldn’t be about winners and losers. It should be about the issues, values, governance, accountability, and competence.

When we gamify everything — even our democracy — we reduce it to spectacle and scorekeeping. And in that version of the game, we all lose.

Tuesday, October 21, 2025

Robot-Made Art

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about robots making our art. By 'art' I mean everything from writing novels to playing music, painting, and filmmaking. I’ve been wondering how good robot-made art will become, how dominant it will be in the marketplace, and whether all human-made art will eventually be relegated to a pastime or hobby. The most important question, though, is what will happen to our sense of humanity and community if the art we consume is, overwhelmingly, machine-made.

Of course, much of art-making has already become a pastime. Painting, once a viable profession supported by academies and apprenticeships, has been economically unsustainable for most practitioners for at least the past seventy-five years. Image-making technologies played a large role in that decline—but technology alone isn’t to blame. Advances in recording, for example, created an economic boom in music for musicians, songwriters, and concert promoters. In writing, print technology made authorship a profession.

Still, technology does seem to be the story. Once applied to art-making, it eventually replaces the professional artist. Mass-market economics demand it.

Advances in AI have now reached the point where machines can produce virtually any kind of mass-market art as professionally and more efficiently than humans. The economics clearly favor machine-made art, just as factory-made furniture and clothing displaced handmade production. The concern today isn’t so much about quality, but about how to tell the difference between human and machine creation—because the machine-made is getting that good.

Here's an example. This song is described as “Discovered on a forgotten mono tape marked ‘Handle Me – May 1952.’ This juke-joint scorcher captures the unstoppable blues powerhouse Bertha Mae Lightning—a woman who could outplay, outsing, and outdrink half the Delta.” Only at the very bottom of the description does it add: “Disclaimer: A lost-session tribute—written, arranged, and composed by a human, brought to life with AI in true blues spirit. The backstory’s fictional, the music’s real.”

The music is real, only in the sense that it was generated by AI from scraped samples. It’s undeniably good—very good—and most listeners, judging by the comments, have no idea it’s artificial. The packaging is designed to fool.

What’s happening in music will soon happen in books, films—everywhere. And since streaming platforms control access, they’ll inevitably promote machine-made work over the human. There's more money in it for them.

So does it matter if Bertha Mae Lightning is real or not? How about Elijah "Hollowfoot" Turner?

I think it does. No matter how good it sounds—or looks.

Art-making has been faked before, especially in painting, and we’ve always drawn a firm line between the counterfeit and the original. That line must exist in all the arts. Admittedly, it’s trickier in music, where performance and reproduction blur. But even in the visual arts, where a canvas or sculpture is one-of-a-kind, there have long been marketed facsimiles—prints, for example.

Still, knowing that a real person produced something matters. It’s part of what makes art art.

The artist’s presence is so integral to the experience of art that we’ve always struggled to separate the artist from their work. Often, the work itself is sublime and deeply human, yet the artist turns out to be a scoundrel. Art history is littered with such examples—from the Baroque painter Caravaggio to filmmaker Woody Allen. Should the fact that Ezra Pound and Roald Dahl were avowed antisemites change how we value their poetry and stories? The point is, it matters; it makes some of us deeply uncomfortable that the author of the beloved children's book "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" unrepentently hated Jews.

Whether it 'should' matter is a debate worth having—and part of what makes art so compelling. Art reflects the paradoxes and mysteries of the human journey, both the tasteful and the unsavoury. The nature of art is artifice to be sure, but it's artifice in the service of truth. 

The knowledge that there is no real experience behind Bertha Mae Lightning’s lines—I shine too bright, I cut too deep/ They talk that love, but they don't keep, means the essential component is missing. It changes the way it lands for me. I hope others feel the same way, once they know the truth.

Monday, October 20, 2025

What if

What 

What if

What if no

What if no one 

What if no one paid 

What if no one paid attention

What if no one paid attention 

What if no one paid

What if no one

What if no 

What if

What.