Categories
Uncategorized

An article that’s a mix of “What happened Saturday night” and “Yeah, what Danny said!” (Part 1)

Here’s something I started on Sunday morning and will probably finish tonight or tomorrow.


The “Saturday Night” Part

I did some long-overdue but rather time-conusming housekeeping on Saturday, so I didn’t make it to the Skin Tight Outta Sight burlesque
show at the Cadillac Lounge
until 11:30 p.m.. This was well after
Meryle’s two performances, one of which was a saucy tribute to
Spongebob Squarepants. I hope to catch that particular performance one
of these days.

Joanne Galligan was tending bar. Joanne is one of the Galligan
sisters, a set of alt-rock-cute siblings who are well-known and
well-loved throughout the Queen Street West bar circuit and the
Accordion City’s strange sub-culture of geeks who also happen to be
barflies. Naturally, living in this strange sliver within Toronto’s
Venn diagram put them within Cory Doctorow’s orbit. Their association
with him goes back to the days when his joke name was “Spit” or its
longer form, “Salvatore Iva” (the joke becomes more obvious when you
shorten the first name to “Sal”). Whenever Cory autographs a book or
signs a card for any one of them, he signs it with “To my favourite
Galligan sister,” a trick — although Cory swears it he doesn’t realize
he’s doing it — that they have only recently discovered.

Joanne’s boyfriend, Chris Dignan, was also there, keeping Joanne
company and catching the show. Although I know Chris better because
he’s dating Joanne, I’d met him long before. He and his brother Sean
were in a rockabilly band with a bit of a reputation called
Suckerpunch, and they played a gig at Clark Hall Pub (Crazy Go Nuts
University’s
engineering pub) when I was DJing. We chatted for a bit
and watched a couple of performances, after which he bought a round of
vodka-and-Jagermeister shots. Thanks, Chris!


“Just the man I wanted to see,” said Meryle’s boyfriend, whose stage
name is Mysterion the Mind Reader as he walked up to me. He needed a
theme song for his act and asked if I could wrtie one for him. “Creepy
circus music, with a few wrong notes — but not too many — thrown in.”

“You’re in luck,” I said. “I always throw in some wrong notes.”

I improvised some Danny Elfman-ish minor chord stuff in 3/4 time
with some calliope-friendly triplets. He seemed to like it. Perhaps
I’ll have a chance to debut it at his show at Sneaky Dee’s next Friday,
where he’s performing along with Skin Tight Outta Sight in a special
Friday the 13th-themed performance.


As I emerged from the washroom, a couple of people walked up to me
and asked “Are you the Accordion Guy?”,  to which I provided an
affirmative reply.

“I read your blog!” said one of them. I thanked her, noting that the sentence would’ve been a non sequitur only a decade ago.

They asked me to perform a number for them, and I happily obliged,
giving them Outkast’s Hey Ya, a sure-fire accordion crowd pleaser.

(I seriously doubt that Outkast’s Andre 3000 was thinking, “Yes,
this song is certain to be a sure-fire accordion crowd pleaser!” as he
was penning it.)


After I left that group of people, I was approached by another guy. It took me a moment to recognize him.

“Joey, it’s me, Fred! From the Mood Swingers!”

The Mood Swingers were a husband-and-wife jazz combo  whom I
met in 2000; Fred played saxophone and Bev sang. I met them through my
friend Voltaire (yes, that’s his real name, and it’s his first name); I
was to join their act, providing backup on about half their numbers
(lounge standards such as Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps, My Heart Belongs to Daddy and Besame Mucho), but my move to San Francisco pre-empted those plans.

We talked for a while, after which I gave Fred my contact
information. He’s looking for an organist and he complained that all he
could find were “piano guys”. All my keyboard training was for the
organ, not piano, up to that fateful day I engineered my getting kicked
out of
organ school.


Another woman walked up to me. “Are you…Joey?”

“Yes,” I said, reaching out to shake her hand.

“I’m [name withheld].” The name didn’t register until she explained further. “We’ve only talked on the phone. About [the New Girl].”

I realized who she was. She was the lover with whom the New Girl had been living with prior to my meeting her.

(For the full story, read this entry and scroll down to the section titled “It Gets Worse”.)

We had a short and pleasant conversation, which suggests that I’m
either resilient or that my weirdometer is now completely miscalibrated.


At the end of the evening, I was feeling hungry, so I went to
Excellent Chinese restaurant. As I walked in, the waiter said “Ah,
Accordion Guy! Yeung Chow Fried rice, Diet Coke and tea?”

“Please,” I said.

And thus ended what constitutes a relatively quiet Saturday night for me.


The “Yeah, what Danny said!” part

On Sunday morning, a quick scan of the aggregator led me to a BoingBoing
entry written by Cory, which in turned pointed to an entry by Danny
O’Brien in which he comments on fame’s “middle class”
:

I found myself asking…How many people do you need to be famous for?

I’ve been trying to work out the answer ever since: both personally, and,
more generally, as question whose answer may be affected by the technologies
we are creating.

There was a time, I think, in the industries where fame is important, that
you had was famous, and not. You had big stars, and you had a thin line of
people who had work, and you had failures, or people who felt like
failures.

But now the drop-off on that curve seems to be less precipitous. It feels,
stuck here, so close to the machinery of the Net, that there’s a growing
middle-class of fame – a whole world of people who aren’t really famous, but
could spend their days only talking to people who think they’re fucking
fantastic (or horrifyingly notorious).

This article, in combination with last night’s events, got me thinking. How much notoriety is enough?


As a an extrovert and a person who half-jokingly refers to himself as
“The World’s Most Humble Egomaniac”, this is not just some interesting
abstract question one asks at a cocktail party or cafe. It’s more
important — I’d give it the same weight as a “What shall I do with my
life?” sort of question. It’s important to me because it is a question
applicable to point number two of my overarching career goals (yes, I
actually write stuff like this down), which are:

  1. To do good, interesting and influential work that I enjoy.
  2. To be known for that work.
  3. To earn a fair profit for my efforts.

These principles steered me away from a job programming for a bank
or an insurance firm when I graduated from Crazy Go Nuts University.
Instead, I joined a company that made interactive multimedia programs
distributed on floppy disks, CD-ROMs, and later, the ‘net
. The pay was
much worse, but the rewards turned out to be far greater.

The same principles led me to keep a job at Tucows, even though I was
offered a position that paid more — enough to maintain my current
lifestyle and make monthly payments on a brand new BMW 3-series — mere days
after Boss Ross and Boss Ross’ Boss Noss
took me on. The choice was between doing fun, cool work in Tucows’
Research and Innovations department, where I’m being paid to get
attention, or making more money to do solid but somewhat boring work
building user interfaces for job-tracking software for a company that
relies on its obscurity.

(For more information on how much enjoying my work means to me, see this entry about a nightmare I had after an interview for placement at an insurance company deep in the burbs.)

As the Technical Community Development Coordinator for Tucows, I’m
enjoying the Reese’s peanut butter cup goodness of doing two things I
like: techie stuff and schmoozy stuff. The schmoozy part of my job is
making sure are reading what I’m writing, which entails making sure you
know who I am. My job is to be Scoble on a tighter budget: Punk Scoble (or perhaps Ghetto Scoble).

To be continued…

Categories
Uncategorized

Real Life vs. The Internet…

…as explained by those Red vs. Blue guys. [21MB QuickTime movie]

To borrow the classic Simpsons line: “It’s funny because it’s true.”

Categories
Uncategorized

Beach Bombshell Burlesque

Meryle will be performing a special Spongebob Squarepants-themed burlesque number tonight at the Cadillac Lounge (1296 Queen Street West, just west of the railway bridge at Dufferin) as part of Skin Tight Outta Sight’s latest show: Beach Bombshell Burlesque!

I think I might catch this one.

Categories
Uncategorized

Your Friday Productivity Killer




Shoot the Cliche
is a Flash-based game in which you get to blow away internet and pop-culture memes that have become cliches on Fark. You can blast at Admiral Ackbar, the Fark mustard guy, Bat Boy, Trogdor, Domo-Kun, Ellen Feiss and others…but you must spare the cute kittens!

Categories
Uncategorized

Oy!

Hey, it’s a comic I can forward to both Wendy (she’s Jewish) and Scott (who thinks he’s a robot): ShaBot 6000!

From the “About” page:

ShaBot 6000 is the continuing cartoon saga of a
pious Jew…

…who purchases a robot

…to work as Shabbos Goy for
his household. The inquisitive robot, ShaBot, decides
that he is Jewish, and is therefore unable to fulfill his duties as
servant. ShaBot spends his days asking questions about Judaism, trying
to find logic in a religion that sometimes DOES NOT COMPUTE.

ShaBot 6000 is unlike any other Jewish themed cartoon.
In fact, the only other Jewish cartoon worth mentioning is Yaakov Kirschen’s Dry
Bones
, a venerable comic strip which has been in syndication since
the 1970’s! Whereas Dry Bones is mostly about Israel and Middle Eastern
politics, ShaBot 6000 is more about Jewish faith. ShaBot 6000 looks
at the lighter side of kashrut, parshat
ha-shavuah
, Talmud,
interfaith and more, often challenging Jewish principles that most
would never dare question. ShaBot 6000 is a comic strip for
the 21st century modern Jew!

Trust me — it’s pretty amusing. I may be a goy, but since five I know from funny!

Categories
Uncategorized

The OTHER Secret Swings

Accordion City is not the only place with a secret swing documented online.

Beal City has one:

Youlgrave has a secret swing set:

Categories
Uncategorized

The Wrap-up Session

Jeff Jarvis

  • A range of words heard today:
    • Resistance
    • Concern
    • Curiosity
    • Enthusiasm
  • “Journalism is broken”
    • Who agrees?
    • Are citizens the fix?
  • A recurring theme: control
    • Journalists as the gatekeepers of information
    • Journalists as verifiers
    • Blurred lines
  • What value do journalists add to news?
  • Another theme: teaching
    • Journalists
    • students
    • audience
  • Technology needs to be easy to use
  • Community: It’s all about bringing it back to the level of people
  • Respect/listening/disrespect
    • Do journalists respect their public?
    • Does the public respect journalists?
  • Business
    • Touched upon only slightly in the discussions
  • “I’m a visitor, and I’m grateful that you had me over.”

Jay Rosen

  • When I got involved in public journalism, it started with an
    observation of mine that was shared by a number of others: it’s summed
    up with the word “disconnect” — there’s a perception of disconnect
    between the press and the public
  • Many causes for the disconnect, many symptoms, caused concern
  • We tried to operate on the sense of duty and conscience —
    “experimenting as many peopl ein the movement were doing” — an
    “attempt to reform the official press”
  • Talk to people more; use a citizen’s agenda
  • All an effort to get professional journalists to reach across the divide
  • During that time, I always thought it was about journalists and
    getting them to change. It dawned upon me to change citizens to change
    and move toward the press.
  • Blames himself for lacking the imagination to come to that
    citizen-focused approach, but also says that they also didn’t offer
    grants for citizen-focused efforts
  • Now it’s citizen focused: they’re talking to each other, talking
    to the press, starting their own papers/web sites/radio stations/TV
    channels
  • It’s no longer “Are you going to reach out?” but “What are you going to do under the current conditions?”
  • The spread of not only technology, but ideas, has led us to this point in public journalism
  • It’s
    one more chapter in a very long — 300 to 400 years — history of the
    enfranchisement of people: to speak freely, to own property, to worship
    freely, to move freely. “That’s what self-publishing is: it’s
    enfranchisement of people in the media.”
  • The point is not that everyone will do so, it’s that everyone has the opportunity to do so, if they want.
  • The idea is that people can handle the world themselves. “They are competent to understand the world. “
  • Invoked Whitman and Jefferson
  • Lew Friedman is our resident researcher: a social scientist that
    asks questions that journalists normally wouldn’t, and knows how to
    apply tests that they wouldn’t

Lew Friedman

  • “I am a sociologist, and I play one on TV.”
  • It’s how I see the world
  • We’re in a world that consists of networks and institutions
  • The world that Jeff and Jay have described is a world of networks. Anyone that can connect can join, and it’s a fluid world.
  • Institutions are different: they’re filters of knowledge, talent
    and power. A set of people, rules and professional routines. The press
    is an institution. It has become systematically disconnected from the
    public.
  • The problem: networks may be extremely open, but they may also be
    extremely fragmented. People can connect, but there can be ways that
    they can connect that make little difference.
  • Power Laws: those that have more, get more.
  • The world of web sites mirrors the network world and the world of
    publishing. There’s a concentration of power. Jeff said that it wasn’t
    true in the blogpshere: he’s right and he’s wrong:
    • Right: A blogger doesn’t have to have all the readers — just
      enough to support what s/he is doing. New knowledge can be formed where
      ideas keep ideas and people out.
    • Wrong: The blogosphere — populated largely by people like
      myself: the symbolic analyst class — people who produce and analyse
      symbols and interpret them for other people. We work at jobs more
      privileged than other people. We need the institution of the press to
      make sense of the world, to distill it. Not everyone knows about blogs.
  • Journalism: “a conversation of democracy”
    • A sphere in which many people talk amongst themselves, and in a smaller degree, to the world at large
  • My hope: to find the relationship between the two spheres.

Every time I hear talk of spheres, I am remind of Gideon Strauss, who talks often of spheres and “sphere sovereignty”.

  • Hoder: Question to canadian bloggers — why aren’t blogs as popular in Canada as they are in the US and UK?
  • David Akin: It’s not that — it’s that it isn’t a big story among Canadian journalists
  • Jim Elve: It’s the fact that we have 10% of the population of the
    US. The market is smaller, so getting x hits here is like getting x
    times 10 hits in the US

  • Gil: For a long time, a lot of us have been trying to create a
    vigorous public square — with a bazaar of info with a lot of vendors
    that retained a civility. We now see fragmentation of the media where
    consumers are choosing their vendor based on whether that vendor
    supports their world view. Isn’t blogging a further fragmentation
    rather than part of a solution to create a public place?
  • Jay: Blogging in and of itself does not solve any problems. It’s
    a matter of what happens when you “sow seeds on fertile ground”. It’s
    what happens when you empower people. It’s the further evolution of the
    media. 3 million people decided that they wanted a page so that the
    whole world could see. Fragmentation? Echo chamber? Yeah. I’m tired of
    it too, and it happens everywhere. The blogosphere is an elite.because
    its people have the skills to use it.
  • Jeff Jarvis: To turn it around, fragmentation is about control.
    Fragmentation is people getting what they want means that. It’s bad
    news for big media. It’s a good thing for consumers.
  • Marti
    Stephenson: Technology has allowed the people to become the press. We
    have been accused of hogging the spotlight. One thing I learned: we
    know more together than we know alone. One concern: a danger that
    blogging become a facility for people to react than come together — to
    fall victim to the same problems that befell media. Invoked James Cox
    from Dayton, Ohio. Are bloggers simply saying “my opinions are right,
    and I’m going to tell you what they are” or are they conversing and
    learning? We must keep true to those roots that keeping people talking
    and learning from each other is what’s important.
  • Nikhil
    Moro: There seems to be confusion between our understanding of blogging
    and participatory journalism. Blogging is a tool of participatory
    journalism, but blogging is not journalism — you cannot define a large
    group of readers…
  • Jeff: Not true — a mass audience is not
    the point. You can do journalism and serve only 10 people. It’s no
    longer the mass market as a mass of niches.
  • David Akin: Isn’t journalism a process?
  • Jeff Jarvis: If it informs the world, it’s journalism.
  • David Akin: The root words of journalism is “journal”. It’s a
    regualr, repeated process. Why do bloggers want to be called
    journalists? Readers decide who journalists are.
  • Jay Rosen: The title “journalist” gets you access. Oftentimes,
    information is witheld from the general public and made available to
    members of the press. I don’t try to define blogging as journalism in
    the abstract, but on a situational basis. It’s not so simple as a yes
    or no question.
  • David Akin: We had an interesting discussion. Is Michael Moore a journalist? Is Bill O’Reilly?
  • Unknown person: Is a journalist accountable? Is a blogger
    accountable? Journalists have all kinds of written self-policing
    mechanisms — do bloggers?
  • Lew Friedman: What was journalism but people writing on
    broadsheets in coffeehouses. That evolved into the press as we know it
    today. If people read you, you’re a journalist. There is a certain
    sense that there are institutions that have resources and credentials
    and are held accountable to certain standards of truth. That, in some
    sense, is the line separating journalistic institutions from bloggers.
    Bloggers are not accountable to the same rules even thought they speak
    in the same public sphere as journalists. This isn’t necessarily bad —
    it speaks to the public right to free speech. The blogosphere expands
    the public sphere and therefore citizen’s right, which I think is
    marvelous. The public is that space in which citizens come together and
    make the rules.
  • Jay Rosen: Reputational capital divides the institution of the
    press from the bloggers. A new blogger starts with zero reputational
    capital, but a new journalist at the Globe and Mail inherits the reputational capital built up from the Globe’s
    long existence, even though s/he has not yet contributed to that
    reputation. Bloggers can build up their reputational capital — but in
    a way that’s different from the way traditional sources get theirs.
  • Len Witt: many of us have cast blogs as an “evil empire”, a “screaming rabble”. It’s no more evil than a town hall meeting.
  • Marti Stepehenson: Bloggers have the same relationship to their
    readers that traditional journalists do. You can have the best public
    service blog in the world, but if it doesn’t create conversation,
    you’re in the same boat we were 15 years ago.

  • Jack Rosenberg: Are weblogs about the public sphere, or small groups?
  • Jay Rosen: They are about the public sphere when they ask the big
    questions. They widen the group of participants in the discussion of
    matters of the nation.
  • Lew Friedman: The fragmentation of the public sphere is not the
    fault of weblogs: the media institutions and parties are not holding
    people together anymore. Public journalism in “the old days” was about
    building and sustaining public participation.

  • Len Witt: This conversation was all possible because of a weblog.
  • Jay Rosen: Thos eof you with weblogs had better write about this conference, otherwise you’re not doing your job!