It’s 9:49pm Friday April 22nd 2011 and I am sitting here with 3 kids watching Futurama, on Teletoon (ch45). Viewer discretion is advised for the program so Teletoon has met their legal obligations with respect to the program. Congrats, well done. But what I have not seen is a warning with regards the Teletoon promo spots they’re running, and that’s what I’m writing about.

A moment ago when the program ended and the commercial break began, the first promo to run before the commercials subliminally instructed the viewers to watch porn online.

The viewer discretion notice mentioned above stated that viewers should be over 14 years old. It would seem that someone in their programming department is completely retarded because porn is very obviously intended for, and marketed to, people over 18. That point should be enough right there, but it gets worse.

The Teletoon promo featured an excited narrator informing and instructing viewers about the Teletoon promo – the point of which was lost on me because I couldn’t believe what I was seeing at that moment. In addition to the voice there was animated text appearing and disappearing on the screen. When the narrator instructed viewers to go online the words “WATCHING PORN ONLINE” appeared in a sentence, in black text. Then the word porn was circled in red and crossed out.

As an adult I understand the potential message: “what I am saying is better than porn online, which is what you use the internet for anyways.” Or something to that effect. Or, I am completely wrong. Regardless, the text on the screen should not have appeared when the audience was expected to be at least 14 years old. In fact, considering Teletoon draws primarily youths, it should not have appeared at all.

Fortunately for me, the children who were with me did not pay any attention to it as far as I could determine. Had they noticed or asked me what that porn word was, I would be in a less than favourable situation because, how do you answer that without lying to them, yet satisfying the question to a point where they drop it right there?

No one can reason, to any intelligent person, that they honestly believe that’s the right message to display, or that they don’t think the kids are going to google that word.

We must come to the realization that there is a difference between Right and Wrong. It is obvious that society in North America has lost this understanding, and those remaining who respect it are not aggressive enough to give it traction.

Other:
Another parent with beef against Teletoon

How to contact Teletoon

His reply: “I’m sorry that you feel like that, but that’s how business is done now.”
I asked, “How is THAT good customer service?” I mean really, is that the best reply the company has to that? I don’t like it, so sad. Deal with it. I AM A ROBOT; NA NOO NA NOO.

Him: “I’m sorry you don’t like the business changes.”
I casually said, “Wow, you guys would never get my as a fu**in customer again.” Totally dissatisfied with their care and concern for the customer. He is just a rep for a company that wants to take all your money so I wasn’t upset with him. His computer doesn’t have a CARE or a THINK INDEPENDENTLY  button on it.

He immediately said, “Sir don’t talk like that!“ Wow, he just raised his voice at me and told me what to do!
I sternly replied, “Excuse me, You don’t tell me what to do. You’re NOT my mother.” Actually, my mother doesn’t even tell me what to do. She is nice and asks.

Him: “If you can’t keep it professional then I will not be able to help you. You called ME for help, right?” Fair enough, and good point. I DID call him but I also was not swearing AT him either.

Me: “Yes but you can’t tell people what to do.” Let’s be realistic. That was a poor judgement call for both of us – my swear and his reaction to is.

Him: “If you can’t be professional then I will have to talk to the account holder only.” Fine, obviously this will never arrive an eye-to-eye conclusion.

Me: “It’s not professional to tell people what to do. Here Harold, he doesn’t want to talk to me because I am a dick.” This is me giving the phone to the account holder, letting (him) know that I don’t think we are not going to resolve our little cat fight while acknowledging that I was not being professional. Childish use of the dick work on my part.

HIS POINT: Don’t swear at him; be professional in a professional call.
MY POINT: Don’t tell me what to do. If you don’t like my language then say that. The appropriate response for my use of the F word would be something like:

“Sir, I understand you were not swearing AT me, but I still need to ask if you could avoid that word for the rest of this call.”

“Sir, I would appreciate it if we could continue this conversation without use of that word.”

He went through training on how to deal with pushy jerks like me and I can only assume they’re taught things that I consider less effective. The most effective way to diffuse an angry customer is to take blame away and empathize with them. Not battle, boss, dictate or otherwise inflame the situation. Empathy doesn’t mean tolerating verbal abuse or giving things that aren’t possible to give. It just means that you redirect their anger away from YOU and into the thing that upset them, such as poor pricing. “I’m sorry you are not happy with the pricing. Unfortunately I don’t have control over pricing and so my hands are tied on that matter.”

Also, in that training, as well as his own life experiences, has he not learned to recognize when someone is not swearing at him? I randomly dropped an f-bomb into a sentence. I did not say hey, F-you or F-Rogers. The F word is an expression used to intensify the subject matter. I should have said “Wow, you guys would never get me as a customer again.” without the f-bomb and I recognize my poor choice of words.

Being professional is a two way street – the company rep needs to be professional enough to not take the ranting customer personally. If someone is attacking you on the phone and cussing their face off, you have to be able to recognize that person is just venting. He doesn’t know who you are and he poses no threat. When someone is venting there is no logical reasoning with them, and anything you say to them while they’re into it will not be as effective as it would if you just waited for them to stop or slow down.

When the angry customer demands you to respond to their raging commentary you have to respond properly or it will turn into an endless cycle. “Sir/Ma’am, it’s obvious you’re very upset and I can understand that. I know you’re not mad at ME personally and I want to be able to help you out. To do that it would make me feel a lot better if we were not using angry voices with each other. Would you like to take a break from this call and try again later, or do you want to stay on the line?” This statement covers many of the bases and removes them from the blame of the call getting out of control – even if it IS their fault. It points out that you’re willing to help and that you understand their anger is not offending you, which makes you agreeable. You’re also letting them know that the angry voices are not effective for this call. Then you let them off the hook by offering them a chance to call back when they’re sane, or choosing to calm down now and continue.

These are my thoughts on this (for now). I could go on and on but there are so many scenarios to script for, but the bottom line is that as a call centre rep you need to consider the customer’s emotions before you consider the company’s policies. People make emotional choices all the time. If we were logical all the time the world would be very different.

In a recent blog post by National Post writer Tamsin McMahon, is rather one-sided which is completely unjournalistic. There was no attempt to cover why the boy refused the vaccine, no coverage of the ample data illustrating vaccines are unsafe and in the end helps paint a picture that refusing to accept what the school is imposing will escalate to a problematic situation.

After reading this the message I see is that if you are not compliant you are a problem. That boy had every right to refuse the vaccine – regardless of any pro or con argument on vaccine efficacy. That boy was wrong to make a threat, but what are the details of the incident that resulted in the boy resorting to threatening? Was he the type of kid with a history of negative outbursts, or was he so pressured, scared or otherwise under duress to the point that he felt he had no other option?

Hepititis-B is transmitted via needle sharing and sex. What are the odds of a 12 year old picking up this virus? Sure, it’s possible, but the probability is so low that the province has no place administering vaccines for it, specially considering the amount of data that clearly illustrates vaccines are in fact harmful.

A good journalist would address these aspects of the story.

Sources:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/11/25/boy-didnt-want-needle-throws-tantrum-charged-with-threatening/
http://www.newsdurhamregion.com/news/crime/article/166670

1. Remember to look up at the stars, and not down at your feet.
2. Never give up work. Work gives you meaning and purpose and life is empty without it.
3. If you are lucky enough to find love, remember it is rare, and don’t throw it away.

Soon…

Your car will post your location to FourSquare at each intersection.

Your speed, direction, occupancy and seatbelt use will be conveniently sent to your Facebook status. This will save you so much T9 typing and no one will ever get lost again! Unless you get lost, in which case everyone following you will be lost too.

Click to view in a new window. This is interesting.

The smart meter on your house will post to Facebook the appliance you’re using right now while your water meter Tweets how much abuse your dishing out to the planet. How trendy being green can be! The guilt for flushing will reach an all time high while therapists the world over rejoice now that they have someone to ‘cure’ again.

Your home theater will publish the song playing or the movie you’re watching so you don’t have to. If you fall asleep watching, the camera behind the screen will see you and shut down the system, but not before telling everyone online that you couldn’t make it through the that lame show you were watching. That’ll teach you to waste all that electricity in your sleep!

Your alarm clock will rat you out on ALL of the social networks every time you hit the snooze button, and we all know your next employer will be watching!

Your PC will openly publish reports about your web browsing and torrent downloading to every governmental agency simultaneously. It’s not an invasion of your privacy if you’re not doing anything wrong. You’re helping fight those pesky terrorists! “Death to all non-believers!”

There’s no limit really. If you just put your mind to it you can come up with plenty of ways to integrate your every day activities into social media – government spying – saving the planet through guilt-filled propaganda publishing.

Makes you wonder WHO the terrorists really are.

If you found this funny, plausible, scary or accurate, share it with your friends. I wrote it while venting about the invasion of social media into our daily lives. My goal is to point out the obvious – these things are not good ideas, even if you’re told they are, they aren’t.

Get offline. There’s a beautiful world out there, and if you really believe in saving the planet you might want to actually know what that planet looks like.

Almost daily I read the World, Political, Health, Social and Tech news from various news feeds. Often I will read the entire article, watch the linked video and then share it with friends, or, just post it to facebook. I have made several observations while traveling along this path. It is as though these news sources are all coming from completely different societies, and the people I share them with are largely silent about what they’re seeing.

In The News

World: talks a lot about why global governance is important.
Political: abstractly talks about which party is better.
Health: talks about fitness fads.
Social: talks about the latest apps and games and staying connected.
Tech: talks about the millions in investments to startups and iPhone vs the Android.

There’s no substance to it any of it. The news is very, very, obviously for entertainment purposes, not actual information distribution. What is there to gain from these talking points? They are just that – points to talk about. There is a very strong emphasis on being entertained as opposed to being educated and informed. Evidence of this point is ample – you may have noticed I left out the category of Entertainment, which takes precedence over all other ‘news’ categories. There is a greater desire to learn about celeb drama than there is about real world issues such as the Gulf.

And don’t bullshit me as say that there is nothing you can do as an individual about the Gulf (or any other large issue). As much as that might be true it is then equally true about any bit of celeb news too. The difference between the two is the fundamental shift in the way people view the news and information, and ultimately human evolution:

a.) If the news is short, entertaining and accepting of what the reader is currently doing or is interested in, then the reader becomes a consumer of it. This is a lot like social drinking or social smoking. It is simple, and the group’s acceptance of it makes it easier to justify partaking in it. Not much thought or effort required.

b.) But if the news is long, is text rather than video, or not in line with the reader’s predefined paradigms, interests or habits, then the reader is already disinterested. A lot of the time they reveal themselves to be an opponent of the idea AND the source. “Hey, did you read that article I sent to you?” “No, it was too long, I didn’t have time.” and/or, “You’re a fool for believing shit like that. Are you one of those conspiracy guys?”

c.) However, if the reader has the attention span/interest to commit to something with substance (usually controversial and rarely part of the mainstream), and the reader is a proponent of it (in agreement), the reader usually will not make their agreement public. That creates the risk of them being categorized as conspiracy theorist. Good old peer pressure in action.

Question: Where are all of the critical thinkers? Where are those people who are not afraid to hold an idea that is contrary to popular belief? It is that kind of thinking, it is that kind of person, who leads society forward. You don’t even have to be right – you just have to be honest with yourself and have the guts to say, “I can think for myself, and Mel Gibson doesn’t matter! I don’t need to be told what to eat, buy, wear, think or feel.”

Anyone with children wants the best for their children, however no one seems to look at that idea in reverse: If it is not good enough for children, then why is it good enough for You?

For instance, a study in the April 2004 journal Pediatrics found that every added hour of watching TV increased a child’s odds of having attention problems at age 7 by about 10 percent. Those who watched for three hours a day between the ages of 1 and 3 were 30 percent more likely to have attention trouble at age 7 than those viewing no TV.

The notion that kids watch far too much TV is a no-brainer, literally. My strong recommendation is to minimize TV watching to no more than a few hours per WEEK, as a short attention span is only the beginning of the problem with TV. Here are some of the other negatives of kids watching TV:

• TV will change your child’s views and food choices
• TV will make your kids fat
• Make your kids more materialistic
• Cause your children to go into more debt as adults
• TV will cause your children to be more aggressive
• May lead to smoking
• Will increase your child’s risk of becoming seriously injured

Although you may be accustomed to turning on the TV to entertain your kids (or yourself), there are many other options out there. Here are 20 to get you started.

Sources:

Digital Journal March 14, 2010

Spiegel Online March 12, 2010

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Track provided by Jah Jah at http://www.mcjahjah.com and http://www.myspace.com/mcjahjah

Work for Ron Paul and prepare for third party if necessary at http://www.AlexJones2012.com

Alex Jones exposes Google ban on ‘hate’ merchants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=regzSbjYw-Q

Gary Franchi Exposes Federal Reserve on PBS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oELV35omv-0

Turn in your Neighbor for $1000
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRyw1JnAstg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzixgXR3cCg

Seriously, what is the message here? Are they promoting the car?
If that’s what you think, then I can’t see any hope for you.

Audi’s Eco Fascism Ads
Kurt Nimmo, Infowars.com

Incandescent light bulbs, plastic bags, orange peels, Styrofoam coffee cups, Jacuzzi hot tubs — these are crimes against the environment, according to automaker Audi. On Sunday, during the Super Bowl gladiatorial event, Audi ran a series of ads depicting an eco Gestapo cracking down on citizens engaged in serious crimes against the environment.
One of the ads depicts a police checkpoint where the Fourth Amendment is wantonly violated. In the recent past, such illegal checkpoints were used to find drunk drivers. In Al Gore’s Brave New World, they will be used to search for criminals drinking out of plastic bottles.

The “lighthearted” ads are designed to send a strong message — there are green crimes and it is acceptable for government to respond in police state fashion.
Governments around the world have already established Green Cops. In the UK, the Green Gestapo have the authority to call on the Environmental Agency’s national network of hundreds of pollution inspectors. New York City’s Department of Environmental Conservation has a team of twenty officers called the “Green Police” and they have the authority to enforce environmental regulations and issue citations to environmental violators. For instance, the Green Police have the authority to pull over vehicles that are not complying with emission standards.

At first glance it appears Audi is merely cashing in on the eco frenzy to sell its low emission automobiles. The larger agenda is to get the plebs accustomed to the idea that their lifestyles are crimes against the earth and in response government must tax, fine, and even arrest violators. It is part of a propaganda effort to soften citizens up to a global carbon tax and fascist police state methods in order to enforce the a new green orthodoxy.