honeygarlic.blogspot.com

Best of honeygarlic (and farewell)

2010-09-01T19:09:00.003-04:00

So.

It's obvious that this blog's been on the downswing lately, with only one post in the past month-plus.

It's not that I don't have the time to blog anymore, it's that I don't have the motivation. I do a lot of writing during the day, and when I get home, I don't really want to write any more.

For the foreseeable future, honeygarlic.blogspot.com has come to an end after a nearly three-year run and 428 posts - an impressive average of one post every 2.5 days despite the 2010 death spell.

Thanks to all of you who read this, even when I told you you didn't have to (and even when I told you not to). I started this blog with the intention of improving my writing so that one day I could work in journalism, and now I work in journalism, so mission accomplished.

And a special thanks to Dan for being a great friend and the best co-blogger anyone could ask for, only breaking the blog through playing around with the layout one time.

To go out on a high note, I've compiled a list, arranged chronologically, of my favourite posts in honeygarlic history. Some made the list for the posts themselves, others for linking to something really cool or unusual, and others because I drew the ire of the Esperanto lobby in the comments.

(Side note: boo, the amazing 80s cell phone ad that included 'Even use on your boat!' has been taken offline.)

The worst book in the history of the world (9/11/07)
Dan's serial cereal adventures (10/27/07)
Wherein Dan accurately predicts the future in the comments section (10/31/07)
The first comic! (11/16/07)
It's 2010, and the mental image still makes me laugh. I'm a nerd. (11/24/07)
Dan liveblogs computer problems (12/9/07)
My life's greatest regret (2/15/08)
Java games! Funny Farm and ClickRed! (2/28/08)
One of those times when Dan probably got a little too personal (3/31/08)
Crazy dreams (5/3/08)
Best prank ever (5/24/08)
Swedish woman marries Berlin Wall (5/28/08)
The explosions of September 11...1908? (9/11/08)
Exercise! At a playground! What will they think of next?!? (9/15/08)
To be quite honest, this post was the entire reason I started using tags (11/15/08)
Of my random brain droppings, these were the most DayQuil-induced (12/10/08)
Playing tennis...against my house! (3/25/09)
Ryan's night in the emergency room (3/29/09)
The irony of said night of which I was unaware for nearly a month (4/25/09)
Somebody tries to access my e-mail, but not out of malice (5/21/09)
Our backyard is a jungle (5/31/09)
Things I don't miss about university (6/15/09)
Serge Gainsbourg will never go out of style (6/26/09)
The infamous Esperanto incident (10/27/09)
Why do/did I blog? (12/2/09)
Noway Time Hole Leak Plunges Northern Hemisphere Into Chaos (1/11/10)
I bet this looks dumb a few years down the road (2/2/10)
I'm not a jerk, and science says so (4/21/10)

--Ryan

What's new, pussycat?

2010-08-09T19:15:00.003-04:00

(No, I did not get a cat. Like that's something I'd do.)

So it's been a couple weeks. I've moved into an apartment, marked the end of my first month of newspaper employment, and had Pizza Hut for the first time since 2003. Oh, and apparently I write for the Regina Leader-Post in my sleep or something. Seriously, it's weird that we'd suddenly go from no Ryan Flanagans (unless you count evil doppelgangers living in Ottawa) living interesting lives to two working as reporters on the Prairies.

Back in the K-Dub, Yappa Ding Ding is distraught over "Waterloo's burgeoning cub zone." While I think she might be a bit alarmist, I'll handily agree that Chainsaw is not a nice place and I've never heard anything about the Vault that would make me want to go there. I've always liked uptown Waterloo about a million times more than downtown Kitchener, and I think the reason for that is because Kitchener has all the clubs which are meant for people to go to in a large group (or with the intent of becoming a large group), then spill out into the street later in the night. Waterloo, by contrast, has all the pubs, where you go with a small group to have one drink (or many), but generally with the intent of not causing a ruckus.

A groom accidentally killed three wedding guests. I'm not going to spoil the story by saying anything else about it.

And I know I've posted clips of the dry, corny-yet-hilarious humour of Dan O'Toole and Jay Onrait on TSN before, but somebody has uploaded dozens of such clips recently, so here's another:

...and that's it, I'm afraid. A few things I've found on the Internet in the last couple weeks. Hopefully I'll be back before long with some original thoughts about something-or-other.

--Ryan

The journalist's secret

2010-07-27T19:19:00.003-04:00

Since I'm still new to this world of full-time journalism, people back in Ontario occasionally check in with the Thompson Citizen to see what I'm writing about. In my parents' case, they read it every week. Which means they then want to talk to me about all the stuff I wrote for that paper.

Which is all well and good except for one little thing: I've forgotten most of it.

It's journalism's dirty little secret, and it's even more true here than it was at The Sputnik. By the time the newspaper comes out, the last thing any reporter wants to do is read it.

An example for you. Yesterday was Monday. By yesterday, I was already writing things and saving them with an August 4 publication date. I'll get them back from my editor mid-week, probably look at them a couple more times by the end of the week as I'm seeing how well the paper is filling up, and then read every single word again Tuesday morning when I'm proofreading.

So by the time the paper is dropped into my lap Wednesday morning, I've already seen the layouts of the pages, read every single article (multiple times if it's mine), and really have nothing left to be surprised at. My mind's already moved on to the next week, and when someone asks me about something in that day's paper, it feels like I'm reaching back into the distant past.

It was the same thing with The Sputnik - I knew what everybody was writing, I'd already read most of it, so I couldn't devour the paper the way I did before I started writing for it.

---------------------

While I'm revealing journalistic secrets, I might as well include a hat-tip to people who do so in a much better and much funnier fashion.

Stuff Journalists Like was first brought to my attention a few months ago, then I promptly forgot about it until my editor e-mailed me a link this morning. It is exactly what you'd expect - explanations of why journalists behave like the snobby, disheveled bastards we are.

Overheard in the Newsroom is journalism's answer to PostSecret, Texts from Last Night, and so forth.

Lastly, the new Google Image Search is striking, but I think ultimately awesome.

--Ryan

Hello, world!

2010-07-20T19:33:00.002-04:00

I'm starting to settle down into the rhythm of the job, starting to get familiar with the town, starting to feel I don't need to introduce myself every time I make contact with somebody.

But one lingering question remains - what the heck do I say when I answer the phone?

At Chapters it was easy. "Good [morning/afternoon/evening], Chapters Kitchener, Ryan speaking, how can I help you?". Sometimes I'd leave off the first, third, or last parts because I felt it was too much to say at once. But it got the message across, and it worked, because most of the time, the caller was looking for help from whoever answered the phone. We were all interchangeable.

But now? If somebody calls me, it's because they're looking specifically for me. Or sometimes, the previous holder of my job. Or, on rare occasions, anybody at all (it doesn't help that the switchboard lists my title and extension *before* the news editor's).

So, if I give my name, it makes sense, because then people will know they dialed the right number. So I've used "Hello, Ryan speaking" and a simple "Ryan Flanagan" already.

A lot of people up here, even businesses, seem to just answer with a simple "Hello". So I've tried that.

Not really liking the habit of using my own name, I've also tried - keeping in mind that very rarely has a caller talked to somebody else and then been sent to me - "Thompson Citizen, Ryan speaking", and, for the ultimate in pretentiousness, "Thompson Citizen, news desk".

I still haven't found a greeting I'm comfortable with, though. Any suggestions?

--Ryan

First thoughts on Thompson

2010-07-14T20:37:00.004-04:00

So, I've been in Thompson for two and a half weeks now. What do I think?

Well, it's still hard to say in some respects, but I've noticed a few things.

For one, the people are friendly. Very friendly. There are a few possible causes for this--strong Newfie ancestry, people not wanting to be on the bad side of a reporter--but I think the most likely culprit is that it's a transient town. Most people don't live their entire lives in Thompson--aside from the mayor, I'm not sure anybody has (40 years is the most I've heard, it's worth keeping in mind that the town was only created in 1956). You get people coming and going every few years, so reaching out to strangers is only natural because it's the only way you'll know people down the road.

Traffic is another huge difference. It's a smaller town, so of course there aren't as many cars on the road, and they're generally not going as fast as what I'm used to. It's already starting to feel weird to go above 50, really. I'm going to kill myself when I come home in December if I try to drive on the 401, or even the KW Expressway. Driving here isn't without its own set of challenges though--crosswalks are all over the places, and so are pedestrians, some of whom don't bother with the crosswalks. Maybe that's why everyone goes so slow, because they might need to suddenly slam on the brakes when somebody darts out in front of them.

Why are there so many pedestrians? Same reason there's so few cars--it's easy to walk almost anywhere in this city. Everything's so densely packed and was designed so that all retail/commercial would be in the same basic area, and it works great. I'm not sure anything in town is less than a five minute drive from where I work or where I live--maybe some of the more residential areas, but I won't be going out there too often.

The sunsets look beautiful, though they're late at night and there's always buildings in the way. Some weekend, once the sun starts setting at a more reasonable hour (I mean, I've never seen it dark here--I've woken up at 4:30 AM a few times, and it's already getting light out!), I plan to check out a sunset from a better location.

There's not a lot to do. The theatre only has one screen, there aren't any concerts, and I've been warned not to go to the bars (though I wouldn't without knowing anybody anyhow). Luckily I've got enough to do to keep me busy, but I think I'll get stir-crazy before winter hits.

And that is what I think of Thompson thus far.

-------------------------------

Here's a video where the creator went to far more work than the joke deserves. The effort makes it more enjoyable.

Also, Polkaroo is now on Twitter. Hurry, before you miss him!

--Ryan

Here comes the Sun

2010-07-09T20:22:00.002-04:00

What to write, what to write, what to write...

...yeah, not anything about my life in Manitoba yet, sorry to those of you who were looking for that. Think I need to figure out what my life in Manitoba is before I can write about it.

So instead I'll talk about television. But not in the way I normally talk about television.

You may have heard about "Sun TV News". It's a new all-news network being proposed by Quebecor, owners of a successful French-Canadian media empire and the Sun newspapers, and fronted by former Conservative PR guy Kory Teneycke.

Because Quebecor is known for its right-wing populist leanings, and because Teneycke has openly mused about how Canada needs an equivalent to FOX News, many have jumped to the conclusion that Sun TV News will in fact be that equivalent. Don Newman, the longtime CBC political broadcaster, has done so, for one.

Now, Mr. Newman is a smart man and while I think he comes off as a little blustery and hyperbolic at times in that article, I do agree with his general point. It's okay for news to accidentally create different viewpoints or interpretations of stories, because most news stories do have two or more viewpoints. The problem is when something calls itself "news" and decides to always emphasize the same viewpoint based on ideological predisposition rather than truth value. Having a liberal news channel and a conservative news channel and a socialist news channel is not the good idea that Teneycke suggests it is, because it means that when people disagree on the news, they will be doing so because they understand the same story with three different sets of facts. If the news all comes from organizations striving to be objective without any ulterior motives, people will still disagree, but at least they'll all agree about what they're disagreeing on.

Thus far in the game, Sun TV News has not had a lot of defenders--and that's perhaps to be expected, as how many media types are going to defend somebody who is calling them obsolete? (Teneycke has stated, and if I'm paraphrasing it's not by much, that Canadians care more about the opening of a new Victoria's Secret store than they do about Parliament Hill, and that his network, unlike other Canadian news channels, will talk about what Canadians really want to know.) To me, that sounds like Teneycke is planning for his channel to be more focused on celebrity and water-cooler-du-jour topics--in which case, isn't that already what CP24 is doing?

Actually, when I think about it, there are a lot of parallels between CP24 and Sun TV News. Trying to be "hip" and "engaging" to win an audience, and using a cable news channel to supplement a broadcast station that practically nobody watches. (I mean, how many of you even knew there was a Sun TV station near the beginning of the dial before reading this sentence?) Not to mention that Sun TV News isn't exactly going to be full of household names...their "big hire" thus far has been David Akin, who is a solid journalist, but far from a known commodity outside those political circles Teneycke is claiming he wants no part of.

Really the only defense I've seen of Sun TV News, aside from those mounted by people involved with it in some capacity, came from, of all people, David Haskell (one of my more frequent professors during the past four years), published in a smattering of newspapers across the country. I'm not sure that I agree with the premise that there is a liberal bias in Canadian media to begin with (unless we're accepting the popular-in-Internet-arguments phrase "the truth has a liberal bias"), and even if there is I think it's less about ideology and more about storytelling. A couple years ago, CTV's Kitchener station ran a series of stories on a man who was laid off due to the recession, unable to find a job, and ultimately ended up homeless. The liberal story would be "this poor man! He didn't do anything wrong so he should get assistance and maybe we can help with that!". The conservative story would be "this man needs to claw his way back out of homelessness". It seems pretty obvious that the liberal story, as is almost always the case, is at least the more compelling.

Haskell does have one good point, though. There is generally a noticeable anti-organized religion bias in the mainstream media (Catholics, oddly, seem to get spun in a positive light more often than most other denominations even though their scandals get covered just as quickly). I'm just not so sure that the best way of fixing that bias is a conservative network (which would in turn be followed by a liberal network pushing the "normal" back in the CBC/CTV direction), especially when said network has never said anything about promoting organized religion.

-----------------------------

And for no good reason, some footage of downtown Brantford as it looked in 1992.

--Ryan

Playing catch-up and putting it on a big burger

2010-07-04T18:22:00.002-04:00

So like I said, I haven't blogged for a while. But I have been bookmarking stuff to blog about, so let's have a gander at what's in that folder.

---------------------

There's a new world record for the world's biggest hamburger. An Australian chef spent over 24 hours cooking the 90kg monstrosity, pictured...in the article, as they don't allow hotlinking. Boo.

Nonetheless, this article fails to answer what I consider the most important question about the story--what happened to the burger? Did people eat it? I assume so, because it wouldn't last long in a museum and what's the point of cooking a burger if you don't want it eaten? But how did people eat it? Clearly you'd need one heck of a knife to cut something that big, but even then, how can you get single-serving portions that contain each ingredient?

Really, making the burger isn't that interesting. Great. You made a big hamburger. Ho hum. Now what are you going to do with it? That's the real question.

---------------------

I guess I could ask the same question about CTV buying the set from Friends.

Okay, great, you've got a television set. But what can you possibly do with it? It's not going to make you a lot of money, people aren't going to pay $50 to stand around and look at where a sitcom was filmed. And you can't really reuse it, because it's too steeped in mystique for any show (especially one that already has to live with the stigma of being Canadian) to use without evoking memories of "Hey, those guys are on the set from Friends!".

Gotta say, though, I love the little jab that CBC took at their rival in the report. "These guys have a bunch of new shows, but they're most excited about furniture! Aren't their screwed up priorities just adorable?".

---------------------

Finally, because I'm still on a New Pornographers kick, here's Alan Cross interviewing two of them (part one of a 20-minute interview):

--Ryan

Rising from the depths

2010-07-01T09:45:00.002-04:00

You may have noticed that this blog has gone much longer than usual between updates, even by my normal summer standards.

That's because in the last few weeks, I've graduated university, found a job, and moved to Thompson, Manitoba, where I'm now a reporter/photographer for the Thompson Citizen and Nickel Belt News. (I've also apparently become quite the lacrosse player.

In the extremely unlikely event that anybody reading this cares about the goings-on in Northern Manitoba, you can read my stuff from the paper at their website.

Originally, I was debating whether to keep this blog going after I started at the Citizen. If I'm going to spend all day writing, do I really want to do more of it when I get home? I've decided that the answer to that is yes: it's something to do, and things to do are in short supply at the moment. Plus I have an ever-growing list of things I want to share on here.

So, the blog's back. I don't know how often I'll be updating, it could turn out to be a lot, it could turn out to be barely more than I had been, but I'm not going anywhere.

-----------------------------

On June 15, before I skipped town, I had the enormous pleasure of seeing The New Pornographers in concert at Toronto's Sound Academy (that's Dan Bejar on the right).

It was a great show, full of excellent music and little downtime, marred only by an unenthusiastic crowd. (There seemed to be a prevailing atmosphere of "I know these songs, but I'm not used to other people knowing these songs, so I'll just stand here with my hands in my pockets.")

If this reserve bothered the band, though, they never let it show. "Sing Me Spanish Techno" led off a high-octane set of four songs without even a second's pause, and the band played for nearly two hours without any sort of intermission--the music was stopped occasionally for some banter, but even that was enjoyable.

The songs played were a great mix from all of the band's five albums, and pulling "Execution Day" out of mothballs was quite the surprise, as it is almost never played live. Might not have quite satisfied the fans who kept asking for "something obscure" and generally trying to show off their knowledge of the band, but it was a lively little song that they should really play more often.

The biggest reactions were generally reserved for songs from the Challengers album, which surprised me a bit as many consider it the weak point of their discography. But it did come at the zenith of their popularity, so perhaps Challengers was the first "new" album for a lot of those in attendance (as it was for me), and thus a stronger emotional attachment. Conversely, "The Bleeding Heart Show", once a crowd favourite, seemed to float over the heads of much of the audience.

A three-song encore concluded with "Testament To Youth In Verse", in which the crowd was led through the chorus--providing a neat effect which is rather unusual for The New Pornographers.

--Ryan

Viva futbol

2010-06-11T09:25:00.003-04:00

We're once again at that point in the four-year cycle where my soccer fanaticism is less of an oddity and more of a convenience for people looking to sound like the know more about the World Cup than just who's playing this time.

Must Win Situation already has their ill-informed picks posted, so with little time to spare before the opening match gets underway, I figured I'd do the same--though much quicker.

Group A: Out of all the groups, the first one is by far the hardest to predict. All the teams are potential wildcards, and it wouldn't really be a huge shock to see any of them make it to the next round or fail to do so. France is being completely written off by almost everybody because of their horrid qualifying campaign, but they really are a good team--and getting drawn in such a weak group can only be good for them. I see France making it through this group pretty easily. The second playoff spot is a little harder to predict--South Africa isn't a good team but will have home-field advantage, Mexico has looked good in qualifying, but faced a lower level of competition than the European or South American teams, and Uruguay was one of the last teams to qualify, but did have a tougher opposition. I've got South Africa going through, but absolutely nothing would surprise me in this group.

Group B: Argentina have to be the top dogs--and secretly they're my favourite of the traditional powerhouses as well--but the rest of this group is full of plucky B-level sides that could surprise people in the knockout rounds. Nigeria is historically one of the best African sides, South Korea has shown occasional flashes of brilliance (though to be fair, they were co-hosts in 2002), and Greece plays a solid if boring defensive game that propelled them to the Euro 2004 trophy. I've got Nigeria going through, but like with Group A, anything could happen.

Group C: This one's a bit easier to predict, with a powerhouse, a solid upper-level team, and a couple that only show up once a decade or so. Upsets can always happen, but I expect this one to play out exactly as the numbers would have you believe. England and the US are two of the most overrated teams in the tournament--but that's to be expected, given any country is biased towards its national squads, and most of our World Cup knowledge comes from either the UK or the US. I still think they'll be able to make it through pretty easily, because neither Algeria nor Slovenia is much of a force to be reckoned with.

Group D: Germany, Germany, Germany. Yes, Michael Ballack's injury is going to hamper Germany's chances at winning the whole tournament, but they should be able to breeze through the group stage. The second spot is a bit more up for grabs--Australia, Ghana, and Serbia are three potential breakout teams in my opinion, any of them could grab second and make a surprising run, all of them are teams to watch for the future. When I actually look at the matchups head-to-head I have Ghana making it through, so let's go with that.

Group E: The Netherlands are the "always the bridesmaid, never the bride" of FIFA, having revolutionized the game without winning the World Cup. With these opponents, it will be easy for the orange-clad Dutch to make it through to the next round in great position. Second place is a bit more of a conundrum--Cameroon is perhaps the weakest African side in the competition, but also has a very easy draw. Japan isn't exactly a powerhouse, but could squeak through against this weak opposition. Denmark is my pick, though--one of the weaker European teams, but a group that can pull out a result from time to time, and certainly they'll have easier opposition here than they did in qualifying.

Group F: Italy's group to lose, and they ain't losing it. Similarly, nobody expects anything from New Zealand, and I suspect they'll deliver exactly that, which means second place could come down to whoever wins the Slovakia/Paraguay match. I could see that one going either way--and neither team will do much in the playoffs--but let's go with Paraguay making it through.

Group G: Originally the 'group of death' (and a hearty lol at local radio host Gary Doyle for suggestion that C was just as bad), this group has suddenly gotten a lot simpler to predict since Didier Drogba's broken arm. Ivory Coast might stand a chance without him in another group, but not against Brazil and Portugal. And as for North Korea, well, not this year. If any group has a strict 9/6/3/0 split, this will be the one.

Group H: Spain and then anybody's guess. Spain are perhaps my favourites to (finally) go all the way, they're certainly not going to fail against any of their opposition here. I have the Swiss in second, but that's because the Swiss have been my adopted team since the 2006 World Cup when they nearly made the quarter-finals. Chile and to a lesser extent Honduras have strong teams as well, and objectively I could see Chile taking second, but that's not gonna happen, right?

Playoffs: Not going through my reasoning because frankly I'm not knowledgeable enough to make more than an educated guess, but France over Nigeria, Ghana with an upset over England, Netherlands over Paraguay, Brazil over Switzerland, Argentina over South Africa, Germany over USA, Italy over Denmark, Spain over Portugal. France, Brazil, Argentina and Spain make it through to the semi-finals, and Spain beats Brazil in the final.

I'll be back in a month to profess my embarrassment.

--Ryan

The best laid plans

2010-06-07T14:29:00.002-04:00

This year's "One Book One Community" choice is The Best Laid Plans, a novel by Terry Fallis which is commonly billed as a satire of Canadian politics.

I'm not so sure I agree with the satire descriptor--aside from the main character, Angus McLintock, building a hovercraft in his spare time, and the fate that befalls Eric Cameron--but that could be because I already view Canadian politics with extreme cynicism, so nothing in The Best Laid Plans surprises me.

The book itself is good, though. It's a vast departure from last year's OBOC (The Book of Negroes), and I could see people complaining about The Best Laid Plans simply because it's not the heavy, dense, yet ultimately enjoyable read The Book of Negroes was--The Best Laid Plans comes off as trivial and minor in comparison.

That's not really a fair criticism, though. The goal of OBOC is to get people to read, especially people who don't normally pay much attention to books. For that to work, it can't be something as thick, dense, and frightening to new readers as Negroes is, at least not every year. Better to represent different genres--comedic fiction in this case--and having a book that can be polished off over a weekend is a nice boost as well.

(Besides, it's far from the worst "One Book One Community" we've had.)

As I said, The Best Laid Plans is an easy read, which works in its favour. You can put it down, come back to it a few days later and still know all the characters (because there are only about ten that show up more than once). You remember everyone's motivations. You get a sense that everybody really is trying to do the right thing (or at least the political right thing).

It's a fun little book that you don't need to be into books or politics to enjoy. Perfect summer reading.

--Ryan

Flashforward-thinking

2010-05-30T17:38:00.003-04:00

(Either my brain is fried and I can't think of any good puns, or there just aren't any good ones to be punned.)

Finally, mercifully, Flashforward has finished, never to return.

ABC opting not to renew the show for a second season didn't stop the producers from using the final episode not to answer lingering questions but rather to...set up a second season. Which sort of exemplifies everything that was wrong with this show.

The premise was great--everyone on Earth gets a glimpse of their future and tries to either make it happen or avoid it, while the FBI lead characters also try to figure out what caused the glimpses to happen in the first place. The changes made from the book (which I've finally read) were necessary in most cases--a group of scientists aren't going to be as popular a cast as a group of FBI agents.

But the show suffered from any number of problems, not the least of which were unrealistic, cliché-ridden dialogue, side plots that seemed to serve no purpose whatsoever (Aaron's trip to Afghanistan and the entire thing with Bryce and Keiko and Charlie's babysitter), a whole bunch of questions that it seems as though the show had no intention of ever answering, and the eventual realization that the only way to pad their material out for a full season was to throw the audience red herring after red herring.

Yes, Lost did the same thing--and the comparison was inevitable given that its series finale aired only a few days before Flashforward's--but there have been numerous attempts to recreate the magic of Lost, none of which have had even a tiny bit of success.

Another point while I'm at it--the explanation for Lost's inconsistencies turned out to be "they were all dead the whole time!". Leaving aside the unsatisfactory sense of resolution that gives us, it is a perfectly valid excuse for all the plot holes. Wherever they were, whatever afterlife or plane of existence they were on, it stands to reason that Earthly rules of science and logic might not apply. Flashforward can't use the same cop-out, and as such, everything needs a reason behind it.

I'll assume, rather charitably I think, that everything from maybe the third episode until the winter break served to beat into us the knowledge that the flash-forwards couldn't be changed. (Which brings into question why the *next* few episodes existed solely to give us the opposite impression.) Otherwise, any number of plot diversions--the German prisoner, the new-age religion, the Blue Hand Club--were literally nothing other than filler.

And of course, the unanswered questions. What was the connection of the lady Mark and Demitri were chasing before the blackout to the blackout? Who was really behind everything? What did Zoe do in Hawaii? (This is ignoring all the science-y questions about the slight differences between the flashforwards and what actually happened, how the autistic hipster-looking guy was used by Frost/Gibbons to help push events towards a certain future, what exactly Frost's motivation was, all stuff I think can be safely guessed at.)

My own theory is that Jericho is somehow ultimately behind the blackouts, perhaps they bankrolled Frost to do his work in Somalia and the mental hospital, and then when he turned on them, they got Simon to do the same work. Not that it matters now.

Overall, I think FlashForward would have been better served as a movie--everybody has their visions, FBI hunts down those responsible, finds them just before they pull off a second blackout. Easily manageable in two hours, without the clues, relationship drama, and side plots that the TV show was stuck with.

Really, I think the Hominids trilogy might have been a better choice if somebody was determined to get a Robert J. Sawyer novel on television. A bit more appeal to a mass audience, a bit more sci-fi but done in a way that it would really seem like any other drama on TV, only with a Neanderthal from a parallel world. It wouldn't be the best show ever, but it would be a heck of a lot better than this was.

--Ryan

Rogers that

2010-05-20T12:46:00.003-04:00

Anybody living anywhere in Canada knows the difficulty of working with Rogers, or Shaw, or whatever cable company has the quasi-monopoly in their area. Customer service is horrid--a handful of agents know what they're doing and genuinely try to help, but the vast majority of calls to Rogers involve a tricky automatic menu navigation, a lengthy spell on hold, and agents who tell you that your problems will be solved by upgrading to a more expensive cable package.

Such is what I was expecting Monday when I called Rogers to move to a cheaper Internet package--nobody's going to be living at the house I've been renting for school over the summer, so it didn't make sense to pay for 60 GB of bandwidth each month.

That's another thing--you have to call them. The Internet is an amazing thing--through it we can cancel a newspaper subscription, order a pizza, even file our taxes--yet with Rogers, you can't even make choices about your Internet service online.

Well, not can't so much as couldn't. As I learned when I went into Rogers' website to compare Internet packages before calling them (because you can save yourself a lot of frustration by knowing exactly what you want), you can now make changes to your Rogers services through the Rogers website. Internet, home phone, cell phone, TV, it's all there.

Of course, there's a catch. You can only upgrade your services online; you can only make changes if they result in even more money being forked over to Rogers. If you want to save any money or remove any services, you still have to call, where you will no doubt be offered incentives and incomprehensibility to try and get you to remain at your current level of Rogers money-forking-over-to.

I'd say that this horrid customer service is okay, because Rogers is digging their own grave, but that's not really the case--they have such a monopoly over content distribution that it's impossible to imagine life without them (or Shaw, Bell, etc.).

--------------------

lol, Habs.

--Ryan

Something to tide you over

2010-05-12T13:57:00.002-04:00

It's really been almost two weeks since I posted here? Time flies.

No original content waiting in the wings, but here, have some cool stuff I found elsewhere.

The Huffington Post has a collection of funny screen captures of newscasts. I've seen clips of a few of these, but it's still a funny slideshow.

This is a few months old now, because I never got around to posting it. It's a peek into the Facebook accounts of your favourite superheroes. The Daredevil one is the best. By far.

And finally, here's the New Pornographers playing "Crash Years" on Jimmy Fallon:

--Ryan

Intermission

2010-04-30T13:35:00.004-04:00

I'll get back to the music soon. Once I've actually listened to the albums I want to write about again, I'll give y'all some music to gawk at.

But first, hockey.

And first in hockey-related news, congratulations to the Kitchener Rangers, who shocked the entire OHL by not only beating the heavily-favoured London Knights, but by nearly knocking off the Windsor Spitfires in their year of destiny and coming within one game of the OHL finals.

Nobody expected the Rangers to even get past the first round of the playoffs at the beginning of the season, so this was a tremendous accomplishment. With Skinner, Maxwell, Murphy, Landiskog, and hopefully Morin all being back and another year older next year, Kitchener stands a great shot at returning to the Memorial Cup in 2011.

For more on the Rangers, today's Record has a solid special section.

Now on to the pros. I found myself watching quite a bit of the first round, because well how couldn't I? My on-again off-again favourite team (Colorado) nearly toppling an overwhelming favourite, some Canadian teams looking good, and exciting hockey even when I didn't really care about either team.

But now? It's very hard to get into the second round (which started last night), because I can't even pretend to have a rooting interest.

Proof? Let's start in the west. Can't cheer for San Jose, because they beat Colorado. Problem is that they're against Detroit, and no self-respecting Avs fan would ever support Detroit. The other series has a Canadian team at least, but Vancouver has long been my least-favourite Canadian team, because I find them too uppity (and I've never liked Ryan Kesler). Chicago's okay, I guess, but "okay, I guess" isn't enough to get me interested.

Out east, you've got Pittsburgh against Montreal. For a while there, I thought the Habs were going to become my new favourite team--starting with my trip to the Bell Centre and carrying through. But then they brought up PK Subban from the farm, and the Kitchener fan in me can never forgive him for the 2008 OHL Finals. Subban being around was enough to single-handedly destroy any interest I had in the Montreal Canadiens. Pittsburgh's a safe bet, but I find it hard to cheer for a winner...possibly I like underdogs, possibly I just don't like being accused of bandwagoning, but I'm not going to start cheering for a team the year after they won a Cup.

Boston doesn't particularly stand out to me other than that I dislike Zdeno Chara. I've never liked Philly, going back to the days of Eric Lindros, but they do have Michael Richards, which is more than anybody else has going for them among teams remaining in the hunt.

So, um, go Flyers. And go exciting hockey, since that's the only way I'll be watching.

--Ryan

Spring 2010 music roundup (Part I)

2010-04-25T11:35:00.002-04:00

Yeah, I could probably listen to Random Spirit Lover and The '59 Sound and Merriweather Post Pavilion for the rest of my life, but sometimes it's worth trying something new.

I'm breaking down my latest batch of album reviews--since I haven't talked about music yet in 2010--into two parts. First off, we get the stuff that hasn't officially been released yet, but has somehow made its way onto the Internet. Three albums fit this category, here they are:

Frog Eyes - Paul's Tomb: A Triumph
Release: April 26

The thing about Frog Eyes is this: for most people, good music doesn't startle. For most people, when listening to music, you want to be able to forget about it if something more interesting comes across your screen or into the room. If you're listening to any Frog Eyes, you can't do this--suddenly, Casey Mercer will start whooping "I KNOW WHAT SHE SAID AND THE WITCH HEARD WHAT SHE SAID TOO", and your attention will be back on the music.

In short, they are not an accessible band. They're not as out-there musically as you might think from what I've written this far, but they're not exactly normal either. Which is why Paul's Tomb is kind of neat. The crazy vocals are still there, but not quite as prominent, and the instrumentation has been given more prominence, leading to a sound that's less "insane singer with keyboards" and more "band with insane singer".

It's a little heavy on the indie rock epic side of things, three songs clock in at over seven minutes, and they all tend to drag a bit (unlike Mercer's Swan Lake collaborators, who seem able to pull the long songs off in their other projects). One plus is that the short-burst-of-noise songs are much less abundant than in the past--only one song under 2:10 on this album, while a previous offering, The Golden River, had four--these quickies are some of Mercer's best work, but they've been overused horrendously in the past.

I can't say much about specific tracks because, well, it all sounds somewhat the same to me. It's Casey Mercer whooping (not my word, but easily the best descriptor of his vocal stylings) over crashing keyboards and drums and sometimes guitars. The lyrics are usually unintelligible--not in a bad way, but in a way that makes it difficult to remember any song a few hours later.

The inclusion of "Lear, In The Park", an instrumental track, works, mainly because of the hauntingly familiar riff.

Overall, a good album. Noticeably less crazy than the early stuff, but the trade-off is that it's more accessible.

The New Pornographers - Together
Release: May 4

Finally! The band that got me out of purely classic rock and into more modern music have released their follow-up to 2007's Challengers, an album which got poor reviews only because it was being compared to the rest of the NP's discography.

Together is a clear effort to appease those who felt Challengers was a castrated version of a New Pornographers album, shorn of any power pop sensibilities. At last, every song says, this is the energetic band you remember, despite occasional callbacks to the last album such as "Up In The Dark".

To some extent, it works. Only two tracks in, "Crash Years" provides the first absolutely-amazing hook on par with anything from Twin Cinema (and it's whistled, which I believe is a first for the group). "Your Hands (Together)" is up there with the band's other beloved anthemic songs. I loved the Dan Bejar tracks, "Silver Jenny Dollar" in particular, right away, but he's generally my favourite part of any NPs album on first listen.

But overall, something still seems amiss. The harmonies are as strong as ever, the vocals are distinct and spectacular, the instruments are heavier and far more energetic than on Challengers, instrumentation is being given more attention than ever...but something's still not quite right. I can't point to any specific examples of this, but the lyrics feel a little more reflective than they were in the band's best years. The words still make as little real sense as they did when I called attention to that last year, but somehow they seem less involved, more observational than active and participatory.

(Reading that paragraph again, could I be any more of an annoying elitist snob?)

"Sweet Talk, Sweet Talk" is a real gem, and a song I could see getting actual radio airplay, something that has generally eluded the New Pornographers through their history. "Valkyrie In The Roller Disco" is a neat track to highlight the back half of the album, and something a bit different from anything this band has ever done before (well, they've done ballads, but...). "Daughter of Sorrow" is another catchy tune, and sounds much more like a Newman composition even though I assume it's a Bejar song, as he's on lead vocals.

It's been said that there's one track on a previous album that gives you an idea of the direction for the new one--for example, "Streets of Fire" off Twin Cinema was the precursor to Challengers--and if that's the case, "Mutiny, I Promise You" is perhaps the best indicator of what to expect from Together.

The Gaslight Anthem - American Slang
Release: June 15

This one leaked early.

It's a bit of a cop-out here, because pretty much everybody is banking on this being Gaslight's breakthrough album that turns them into legitimate mainstream rock stars. This album should accomplish that.

The '59 Sound was awesome, but it only achieved limited success because it sounded more like what you'd hear on a classic rock radio station than on a newer-skewing format. American Slang retains the distinct vocals and guitars that Gaslight have become known for, but eschews the older influences in favour of a more upbeat album that sounds much more palatable to today's audiences.

The catchy hooks are still around, starting with "Stay Lucky" and going right through the album. It's also nice to see some oft-repeated phrases like "the cool" sticking around.

One opinion on the album I've seen is "oh, they became Kings of Leon"--which isn't really that far from the truth. Gaslight has gone from their Springsteen-esque retro anthems to songs you could easily see filling a stadium.

"Bring It On" could easily be a hit, with "Old Haunts" as a followup, while "Orphans" is a nice callback to the band's past sound.

To me, this seems like the album that will finally catch on with the mainstream and turn The Gaslight Anthem into bona fide superstars. Right now, it's my least favourite of their three albums, but like the others, I imagine it'll grow on me over time.

At the moment, though, I'm disappointed. It's a generic rock album, a bit better than average, but it doesn't have the unique amazingness that I found in The '59 Sound and even Sink or Swim to an extent. If this is what they've been building to, I'm not sure I like the new direction.

--Ryan

Scientific proof that I am not a jerk

2010-04-21T11:12:00.003-04:00

(For once, the subject title is surprisingly close to the content of the post.)

A few months ago, I received a letter.

I didn't think much of it at first, but after a few days I realized that it was the background information--not the parts which were important to the sender--that were interesting.

You see, I was born with congenital cataracts (cataracts that developed while I was still a fetus). I have only the vaguest recollection of this, but according to the letter, I was part of a study at McMaster University to determine what happens with vision development after the cataracts are removed.

According to this letter, the research I took part in found that people in my situation have "the ability to discriminate between large shapes like a circle and a cross, [and] to tell faces apart based on the shape of the chin or the mouth".

Most of this post will be about the latter half of that quote, but allow me a quick word about the first part.

"The ability to discriminate between large shapes like a circle and a cross"? As in, there was a chance I wouldn't be able to do that?

Here is the symbol of the Red Cross:

Here is the flag of Japan:

And you're telling me there was doubt I'd be able to tell the difference? Just how close to being unsalvageably blind was I?

But back to the second point. Okay, so I can tell that Jay Leno has a cleft chin. Is that really worth all the money I'm sure this study took?

Well, no. But it gets more interesting. They also found some things that I cannot see--including "the ability to see fine detail, to see some aspects of motion, and to tell faces apart based on the spacing among the features, like the distance between the eyes."

This, coupled with an invitation to return to McMaster to have my brain activity monitored as I looked at pictures of faces, set off a light bulb in my head. Eureka!, I thought.

You see (no pun intended), anybody who knows me has a story that proves the old adage "I may have trouble with names, but I never forget a face" applies to me in reverse. I walk past people I know without recognizing them, I confuse perfect strangers with people I know, and I'm utterly horrible at giving physical descriptions of people.

After reading the letter from McMaster and giving it some thought, I've finally figured out why.

Most people are able to tell others apart based on their faces. So if they see somebody, they just think "oh, I know that person" or "oh, that's a stranger".

My eyes (or possibly the connections between my eyes and my brain) don't work that way. When I see somebody, I have no idea if I know them or not--unless they're Jay Leno--so my mind goes into overdrive and starts putting things into context. Do I recognize the person's coat? Am I expecting to see anybody I know in this location? Would it make sense for this person to be here?

This is all done very quickly, within split-seconds...but other times, my brain goes "eh, we're just passing them anyhow. No point figuring it out." And I end up not saying hi to somebody I know, and come off as a bit of a jerk.

The reality is that I'm not a jerk, I'm just blind. Or something. So says science!

--Ryan

Bye bye Brantford

2010-04-15T16:47:00.002-04:00

After four years, minus summers, yesterday I packed up and left Brantford. Not for the last time, but for the last time as a full-time resident--I might spend a night or two here or there while I've still got a place, but it's now most definitely my second home (perhaps third before long).

It wasn't easy. As much as I might joke about the downtown, the boredom, the wow-this-is-not-a-great-city-ness...I'm going to miss Brantford.

So here's to you, Brantford. Here's to your hockey hair, your long underwear, and multi-coloured money. Here's to saying please, your ducks and geese, and to always being funny.

Oh wait. That's something else.

What can I say about Brantford? I've made some great friends, learned a lot, and had a lot of fun. Possibly in that order. But all of that will stay with me...here's some of the stuff that won't:

I'll miss being able to walk to 95% of all places I would ever want to go.

I'll miss the West Street Slalom--driving down West past Charing Cross, hitting neither pedal until braking for the turn at Clarence.

I'll miss not being in town for October's elections--nine candidates running for mayor, perhaps more to come, and no shortage of unintentional hilarity.

Along the same lines, I'll miss Winston Ferguson (aka Bucky, aka The Real Mayor Of Brantford, aka the guy who goes around downtown on a pink scooter.)

I'll miss the Mormons who think Dan's name is 'Hristo'.

I'll miss The Slowest McDonald's In The World.

I'll miss Admirals, even if I was only there twice a year. Also Sooho (more often) and Warmington's (less).

Speaking of things I rarely used, I'll miss the Beer Store at Murray and Grey...such a bizarre, out-of-place location, yet always busy.

I'll miss walking past Post House and trying to remember which window was mine.

I'll miss not knowing what "progressive pragmatism" is--not only that, but being around others who [i]actively[/i] don't know what "progressive pragmatism" is.

I'll miss the workout playground, and the playgrounds I actually knew the locations of.

I'll miss The Big Hole On Campus...but that's gone no matter what.

I'll miss Tim Philp, who bookended my university run nicely with his coverage of the 2006 municipal election and his telling me to find another career.

And I'll miss a lot more that I can't think of right now.

--Ryan

You sunk my Scrabbleship!

2010-04-09T20:18:00.002-04:00

So it's come to this.

Language elitists have been complaining about the decline of English for a very long time now. First it was computers and Internet shorthand (LOL!)--all these abbreviations and replacing letters with numb3r5 4 no apparent reason! Not to mention colons and hypens and brackets being used to make emoticons, completely ignoring the rules of grammar!

Somehow, English survived the advent of the Internet. But a new threat lurked around the corner--text messages. Not only was texting harder on the fingers than typing, thus leading to more use of Internet-pioneered abbreviations to alleviate thumb fatigue, but the 140-character limits on message length practically necessitated English butchering.

Still, somehow, English persevered. Even as Twitter took the 140-character limit to those who didn't have cell phones, and as spell check dictionaries became larger and better able to distinguish between typos and spelling mistakes, English survived.

No matter what, the purists argued, there were some things for which proper English would never go out of style. Newspapers and academic papers would need to remain as universally understandable as possible. The business world would retain linguistic conventions in order to give the illusion of professionalism. And if all else failed, there was still Scrabble.

Scrabble was possibly the best tool English purists could wield. Everybody seems to have a bit of a weakness for the game, and thus unlike Apples To Apples or Monopoly, the official rules would always prevail. No abbreviations, no foreign words, no proper nouns. Unless you wanted to embarrass yourself, you had to know what those things were.

Now that proper nouns are being allowed, the distinctions are growing ever shorter. Suddenly we don't have nouns and verbs and adjectives and proper nouns, we just have words. (I'm as guilty as anybody, I love nouning verbs and verbing nouns.)

English was never a beautiful language, but at least we had proper nouns to help describe something unique. Their acceptance into Scrabble is just one more instance of English becoming even more complex and, from an analytical standpoint, a much worse language.

Let's all switch to Esperanto and play some Don't Wake Daddy.

(Oh, and as for the part about backwards words now being allowed, I'm just going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend I never heard about it.)

--Ryan

FLASH! FORWARD! Saviour of the universe!

2010-04-04T13:43:00.004-04:00

(Warning: The following post contains spoilers for Flash Forward, glaring inconsistencies in logic, and just a hint of tapioca.)

Since I last talked about television, Scrubs has come to an end (according to reports, it's a permanent end--there will not be a second bastardized season), The Office has retreated a bit from its stance of not having a single likable character, and V has...just returned after a four-month hiatus.

Flash Forward, on the other hand, has been back for a few weeks, and I've been...well, enjoying isn't the right word, but I've been laughing at every moment of it. It's good that the producers took the time to do (I assume) some retooling during the hiatus. It's good that I still find the show entertaining. It's not so good that I only find the show entertaining in a "this is how you do not do television" way.

If there's one thing Flash Forward does well, it's plot--provided of course that "plot" means "plots twists" and "well" means "very often but not particularly well". In the two-hour return, for example, we learned the following:

-Lloyd has been kidnapped

-Simon has been kidnapped as well

-Simon intended to get kidnapped so he could find Lloyd

-The captors are more interested in what Lloyd has to say than anything Simon can offer them

-The kidnappers' plan goes astray when the FBI finds their location

-Simon works for the kidnappers

-Simon's kidnapping was faked to divert suspicion away from him

-The head kidnapper is Simon's uncle

-Simon kills his uncle

See my point? It's not just that characters are introduced and then killed off in the same episode, it's not just that major plot points aren't revealed until the episode where they come into play, it's not just that plot twists are used in place of character development, it's not that side plots featuring minor characters seem to exist for no reason other than to draw in viewers who would prefer stories about war or religion or hospitals to another FBI drama. It's all of that, combined. Flash Forward is a complete exercise in how not to write a television serial--and yet I'm still watching it every week, partially because I want to know bad the plot will get but mostly because I'm interested in the overarching idea.

------------------------

Saw Clash of the Titans this weekend. Liked it overall. Can't complain that the fight scenes were too long.

--Ryan

Hello Dr. Jekyll!

2010-03-30T12:50:00.002-04:00

Back last summer, I wrote about Serge Gainsbourg, a popular and influential French singer who became drunk and insane in the eighties.

Make no mistake about it, Gainsbourg was a creep. In addition to the stuff I linked to in that post, one of his last 'hits' was a song called "Lemon Incest" - sung with his then-12-year-old daughter, who would eventually go on to a nice career of her own.

Even in the early days, he was pushing the boundaries of acceptable taste. One of his most well-known songs is "Je T'aime ... moi non plus", which was banned from radio play in France because of its explicit lyrics and simulated orgasm sounds. This was more than fifteen years before he would burn money on live TV.

But every once in a while, Mr. Gainsbourg would come up with something more mainstream, more in line with acceptable tastes of the time, and actually quite good. Case in point, "Dr. Jekyll et Mr. Hyde".

I've been enjoying this song for a few weeks now. The French is ridiculously simple, to the point where even I can follow most of it (although if you want to cheat, the Youtube page contains lyrics). The plotline, such as it is, is equally easy to understand, in part because it's based on well-known literary characters. And above all, the song is catchy beyond belief - even the verses will stick in your head.

--Ryan

There are tacks in my TV!

2010-03-26T19:52:00.002-04:00

Earlier this week, the CRTC finally came down and made a ruling on fee-for-carriage, value-for-signal, negotiation-for-value, whatever buzzword you'd like to use, for Canadian over-the-air TV stations.

In essence, your cable bill might be going up, because the stations are now allowed to charge cable companies a price to carry their signal (as specialty channels already do).

Critics of the CRTC's decision seem to take two contradictory flanks - either it's a non-decision, or it's a TV tax.

Calling it a non-decision is ridiculous. For the first time since the invention of cable television in the 1960s, conventional broadcasters can charge cable companies for their signal - how is such a drastic change a 'non-decision'? Yes, the CRTC stopped short of mandating what that fee would be - but that's because if they did, they knew they'd get pilloried for too much intervention!

And speaking of that fee (or tax) - it doesn't exist. It's up to the stations and the cable companies to decide what they want to charge consumers. Cable companies aren't the victims here - the CRTC has made it clear that in a negotiation, everything would be on the table - including the preferential treatment that sees local stations get prime spots on the dial (i.e. CKCO on channel 12, as it is here). If cable doesn't want consumers to pay for the signals (read: doesn't want to pay for the signals), they have plenty of 'valued' things they can give the stations apart from money.

But, hey, if it bothers you that much? Go out and buy an antenna. It's a one-time cost of far less than the average monthly cable bill. Yes, you'll get fewer stations than you do now, but before long you won't miss it - if there's anything you really want and can't get via antenna, it's probably on the Internet somewhere.

This doesn't mean all is well with the Canadian TV system. The CRTC should still look at a 'skinny basic' cable package, digital multiplexing, and finding more ways to increase competition between Canadian broadcasters (and between Canadian cable companies). But it's a start.

Further reading: Jamie Weinman has a series of links to really good articles in two parts.

--Ryan

This ship is sinking

2010-03-20T13:16:00.005-04:00

As the dulcet tones of Alan Ashby and the soothing sounds of Jerry Howarth are currently delivering the first broadcast Jays game of the spring (not that I can hear it where I am - thanks, ever-shrinking Fan Radio Network), it seems only fitting that I pick this time to inform you of my new project.

Blue Jays A.D. (After Doc) is the latest addition to the ever-growing Jays blogosphere, helping fans and former fans make sense of a team that just lost (arguably) its best player ever. It's the combined effort of myself, Comfortable and Furious, and Leafs Fan Forever. We don't really know what it's going to be yet, but we've got some ideas percolating.

You can also follow Blue Jays A.D. on Twitter.

What does this mean for honeygarlic? It's still unclear. Yes, a lot of my writing is going to be focused on the Jays and posted on that blog now. But on the other hand, I've finished up my obligations with The Sputnik, and have yet to line up a new writing job. Maybe the two will cancel out. Maybe I'll be posting here more than I have been. Maybe Dan will lose his job and end up back here (although I'm hoping not).

This blog ain't dead yet. Just don't expect much baseball talk.

--Ryan

(P.S.: Oh, and the title of this post? A rejected potential name for the Jays blog. Also rejected: "Kiss My Purple Butt".)

Hank For Mayor

2010-03-16T13:16:00.003-04:00

CTV's new comedies - Hiccups and Dan For Mayor - have been going for three weeks now. I've yet to tune into Hiccups, but I've caught every episode of Dan For Mayor.

The main reason? Well, it was filmed in Kitchener/Waterloo, so I wanted to see familiar settings on the small screen.

In that respect, the show succeeded. The fictional Wessex City Hall is quite obviously Kitchener's distinctive city hall. The bar where Fred Ewaniuck's titular character works is the Huether. A lot of outdoor scenes are shot in Victoria Park. Kitchener mayor Carl Zehr has fulfilled his lifelong dream of wearing an orange sweater in a cameo appearance on national TV. And so on.

The main character is Dan, a bartender who enters the Wessex mayoral race. Initially seen as a joke candidate, Dan has now risen to 'underdog' status.

I don't remember this being referenced on the show, but according to the show's Twitter feed, Dan's last name is Phillips. Despite the fact that this blog has its own Dan Phillips, who was once a bartender and has spent plenty of time in Kitchener and Waterloo, I do not believe that the character Dan was based on the real Dan.

Moving into the less superficial aspects of the show...it's a little early to tell for sure, but it seems pretty good. (Cue mandatory "especially for a Canadian show") disclaimer.)

DFM's hardest test was going to be giving Ewaniuck a character that made people forget he was the lovable, buffoonish sidekick Hank in Corner Gas. They succeeded. You still get the sense from time to time that he is a little too obviously playing a character, but this character a) isn't a blatant ripoff of Hank, and b) still doesn't seem miscast with Ewaniuck.

Given Ewaniuck and Mark Farrell's involvement with both shows, it's hard not to compare DFM and Corner Gas. The big difference is that Corner Gas was completely episodic - you could watch the shows in any order and not miss a thing. DFM obviously cannot be completely episodic - there's a running plot of Dan running for mayor, so some story progression is a necessity - but it's doing its best. Subplots especially - think Dan's borrowed cat, the Blu-ray player, and so on - seem to be dropped after one episode. I'm not sure whether it's a strength or a weakness, but it does make the show seem like Corner Gas with a new cast and one running plot.

Trying to avoid spoilers here, but I really hope the 'something gets hit by a bus' thing is a couple of isolated incidents and not a running gag. Although come to think of it, Dan's comment that "anytime a bus hits something, I come up aces" does lend credibility to my theory that this is the real-life Dan in a thinly-veiled disguise.

My last comment is an extremely minor nitpick - how old are these characters, exactly? Neither Dan nor his ex-girlfriend nor her fiancee look particularly north of 30, yet one of Dan's co-worker characters is clearly meant to be a generation younger and making fun of all the old people. Moreover, in the first episode, Dan talks about how awesome the Pac-Man arcade game was in the 80s - if he was old enough to remember the 80s, surely he must be at least 35? Seems weird.

Overall though, it's a show I'm very much enjoying, and one I'd keep watching even if they moved the filming to Moncton.

--Ryan

P.S. I'm planning a new online project. Stay tuned.

Brantford, now from street level!

2010-03-09T10:58:00.005-05:00

Lots of small things to get through today.

First up, Google Street View has quietly made its way into Brantford! For those of you familiar with the city, why not start your tour at everybody's favourite downtown building?

View Larger Map

Trying to figure out when these shots were taken is quite the challenge. The ample parking downtown, along with certain unkempt lawns, suggests that it was after students had left for the summer. But a sign on a Market St. bar is advertising an April concert. My guess is mid-May and a lazy sign-changer, anybody else able to narrow it down further?

Speaking of 'the saddest street in Canada', The Record ran a story on it this past weekend. My own opinion on the situation, though nearly two weeks old and in fact referring to a different Record story, can be found at The Sputnik. (No, I don't know why it's listed as 'news'.)

Here's a graph showing when Edmontonians went to the bathroom during the gold medal game:

It probably doesn't come as a surprise, but it's still neat to see.

The New Pornographers are coming out with a new album this spring, here's the first track released:

Finally, last night in class we were shown this Frontline documentary about technology and what it is doing to us. Meanders a bit towards the end (once it starts getting into the military), but the first 45 minutes are probably one of the most captivating videos I've ever been forced to watch for educational purposes.

--Ryan

Playing catch-up

2010-03-04T14:02:00.004-05:00

The heaviest part of the term, workload-wise, came a little earlier than usual this semester - which, coupled with Dan's gradual disappearance from the Intercloud, means this blog hasn't been updated very much. That might continue for a while - but in the meantime, here's a series of minor thoughts.

---------------------------------------

Boy, Sunday sure was something, wasn't it? Next week's Sputnik will have a longer essay on how, unbeknownst to us, February 28th 2010 will become a milestone moment in Canadian identity; suffice it to say that the two most-watched television programs in Canadian history definitely qualify for that honour.

I seem to be in the minority thinking the hockey game wasn't all that exciting until late in the third period - a lot of play in the neutral zone, a lot of tight forechecking, very few scoring chances. Parise tying it up and Crosby's goal in overtime, of course, deserve every bit of hype they have gotten.

The closing ceremony, though, was something else entirely. Yes, the formal portion went on far too long, with John Furlong single-handedly setting Franco-Anglo relations back a few centuries and other acts being determined seemingly by dice roll (on Twitter, Paul Wells suggested that a demonstration of cleaning powders was forthcoming). And yes, the concert portion completely subverted all expectations - when Nickelback came out, we figured it could only get better; the truth was the opposite.

But the rest of it? The tongue-in-cheek Disney On Ice version of Canada? Michael Buble introducing a new generation to a classic song of Canadian patriotism? A mime delivering a hilarious callback to the opening ceremonies? All great.

Ditto for the monologues delivered by William Shatner, Catherine O'Hara, and Michael J. Fox. They were written by Will Ferguson, a very funny Canadian writer with a great understanding of Canada and more than a few jokes I've stolen over the years.

Although the Olympics started off slow, the last few days were an outstanding success - a great display to the world of Canada at its best.

-------------------------

Sticking with sports, TSN2 is - by far - Canada's most-watched digital television channel.

This may or may not come as a surprise. On the one hand, TSN has an obvious brand recognition, so people would be more likely to know what they're getting with TSN2 than, say, Setanta Sports or Bold. On the other hand, TSN2 only got picked up by Rogers, the country's biggest cable provider, in spring 2009 - not a lot of time to build that audience, compared to channels which have existed for years. Even more impressively, until recently 90% of TSN2's programming was forced by the CRTC to be simply a three-hour delay of TSN's feed - only 10% of what was on TSN2 was enough to beat out 100% of the programs aired on other channels.

There is something much more interesting in that press release linked above, though: "TSN2 to announce key acquisitions of major sports properties in the coming weeks."

My knee-jerk reaction: Huh?

Every major sports property I can think of already has their Canadian rights locked up somewhere. Considering I doubt TSN is going to invest their own resources in producing much of this stuff on their own, what's still out there? Maybe a bit of golf and tennis, but when those are your marquee events, you're in trouble.

Are we going to be seeing a return to the early days of TSN, with spelling bees and sheep-shearing competitions (1:32)? Surrealists like myself would be happy, but I doubt that sort of property is in high demand.

------------------------------

In my last post I reviewed Douglas Coupland's Generation A. The central premise of the book involves a devastating extinction of honeybees in the near future - something not entirely out of the realm of possibility, as honeybee populations have been in steep decline for a few years.

As it turns out - at least in Ontario - the honeybee deaths can be blamed on tiny mites (are there any other kind? Does Tokyo get menaced by gigantic mites?).

So rest easy, Ontario - you can keep using pesticides and cell phones and everything else speculated as connected to the honeybee disappearance. You might run into some other problems, but you're not killing bees.

At least so say the scientists.

---------------------------------

Finally, I laughed out loud yesterday when I signed in and discovered that somebody had left a comment on a post I made in 2007.

He (or she) is absolutely right, by the way. And I do believe him (or her).

--Ryan

Reading Week reading

2010-02-23T16:49:00.003-05:00

My Florida vacation wasn't all Olympic curling and Trix (not just for kids, and they taste as good as I remember!). I also took advantage of the spirit of the week to do some personal/pleasure reading for the first time since I read Eoin Wilson's attempt at a Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy book - which, come to think of it, was not a pleasure - over Christmas.

I got through three books from start to finish in Florida - in the spirit of the Olympics, two were about hockey, in the spirit of being in a foreign land, all were by Canadians. Here's what I thought of them.

Leafs Abomination

There were two books available this hockey season about oh wow the Leafs suck. This one, by the Toronto Star's Dave Feschuk and The Globe And Mail's Michael Grange, and Why The Leafs Suck by Al Strachan of the Toronto Sun.

I chose Abomination over the other one because, upon quick glance, it seemed more light-hearted and fun than Strachan's book (for example, it was priced at $19.67, a price any Leafs fan can understand quite quickly). Abomination turned out to have a fair bit more legitimate journalism than I expected - not necessarily a bad thing, but I'm still pining for a book that chronicles the mid-90s, the last era in which I was a Leafs fan, when the Leafs trotted out no-hope players like Mark Kolesar, David Harlock, and Sean Haggerty one after another.

Abomination sums up the history of the Leafs quite succintly, going from Conn Smythe to Stafford Smythe to Harold Ballard to the present day, hitting all the key points along the way. But the majority of the words are saved for the present day - Feschuk and Grange seem to think one of the major problems with the Leafs is the absence of a single, public owner in the vein of Smythe and Ballard, and go to great lengths to paint different figures within MLSE and the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan as sharing the responsibilities of a true owner (interviewing most of them).

The writing is crisp - a few minor copy-editing errors, but overall a decent quality (as it should be, considering the authors are two longtime newspaper sports reporters). All chapters end with 'The Leafs do it again', a few short blurbs detailing great Leaf blunders since 1967.

The conclusions Grange and Feschuk reach - that corporate fans are still fans who attend Leaf games because they like the Leafs, and that the Leafs will not likely achieve on-ice success until they have a sole owner in the mould of Smythe and Ballard, as OTPP is ultimately more concerned, as any corporate owners would be, with the bottom line - are not particularly original or inspiring, but they are laid out in such a way that they do make sense.

A good book for anybody with a strong interest in the Leafs, otherwise take a pass.

Generation A

Douglas Coupland's latest novel (released 2009) is also the first Coupland book I have ever read. Some have claimed that Generation A is too derivative of Generation X, Coupland's breakthrough hit twenty years ago, but having never read X, I can say that I mostly enjoyed Generation A for what it was.

The plot, without giving away anything major: In the near future (2022 if the math adds up), honeybees are thought to be extinct. Suddenly, over the course of a few weeks, five people around the world are stung. The five victims are taken to special buildings designed for this possibility, where they are isolated and medically tested for about a month - then they're sent home. Before long, the five of them are brought together in Alaska - and that's when things get weird.

The first half of the book - everything up until they meet in Alaska, really - is superb. Each chapter alternates through the point-of-view of a different stingee, and I was able to distinguish between the characters after one chapter of each - four of them, I was able to compare their characteristics to people I know in real life - but none of them felt like a cliché, like they'd been done before. (Admittedly, Samantha from New Zealand was flat and never really defined, but she's the only exception.)

But when the characters get together, the storytelling takes a more literal turn - the actual interaction between the five is almost completely dropped, instead they each, at the urging of a scientist, tell stories to each other. The stories serve as little parables of the entire book, taking into account information we already know about the characters from our introductions to them - and while I suppose there is a bit of literary merit in the parables, they get boring after a while and do not make for a fun read.

Things get even stranger at the very end, as the (real) story takes a few unexpected twists and turns - the last one of which I still don't really understand.

On a tangenial note - in the chapters told through the eyes of the Canadian, Coupland frequently mentions specific Canadian things (newspapers, foods, stores, etc.). Robert J. Sawyer likes to do the same thing, and I find it one of his most irritating characteristics as a writer - yet I have no problem with Coupland doing it. The difference? Coupland mentions them in passing - "Lucy stopped at Mac's Milk for a lottery ticket" - while Sawyer, choosing to bore his audience rather than potentially alienate them, explains every Canadian reference in excruciating detail.

Overall, Generation A is a book that starts out great, drags itself down to decent, and finishes up weird. At least you won't be guessing the ending before you get there.

Gretzky's Tears

Stephen Brunt has long been considered the best sportswriter in Canada, and I'd start expanding that honour - even though he mainly writes about sports, he's one of the best writers in Canada.

I've read a few of Brunt's books in the past, going back as far as Diamond Dreams, his 1996 history of the first twenty years of the Toronto Blue Jays' existence. Diamond Dreams demonstrates Brunt's amazing ability at pure journalism - exhaustively resarching an issue, getting quotes from key players, and distilling it all into an interesting book - but the prose isn't anything special. Gretzky's Tears combines that journalistic ability with some excellent writing, beautiful descriptions of hockey and what it means to Canadians (occasionally and sharply contrasted with lines like "Bruce McNall was pretty much fucked").

Gretzky's Tears is a mini-biography of Wayne Gretzky - going through his childhood and junior career, but only relaying information that relates to its central themes. All those themes can be found in the lead-up to and August 1988 announcement of the trade that would send Gretzky from the Edmonton Oilers to the Los Angeles Kings.

Most amazing is that Brunt is able to paint a vivid picture of Gretzky and get inside his mind - all without ever once speaking to him (at least not for this book). Initially I thought this was done on purpose - I remember in one journalism class or another, being told that the most powerful stories are often the ones where you interview everyone except the principal character involved - but as the acknowledgments at the end make clear, Gretzky denied Brunt's interview request (as did Peter Pocklington, for the more obvious reason that he was working on his own book about the trade).

My only real gripe with the book is how quickly everything after the trade is glossed over. I realize that Brunt didn't set out to write a biography, but that is to some extent how it reads - until Gretzky leaves LA for St. Louis, at which point his short run there, his years with the New York Rangers, and his involvement with the Canadian Olympic teams and Phoenix Coyotes are explained in the tiniest amount of detail.but

One of Brunt's main themes is that Gretzky somehow remained a cultural icon in Canada even after he left the country and rejected overtures to return (he mentions this so often that I anticipated the epilogue's mention of Gretzky refusing to leave Phoenix even for the chance to coach an NHL team in Hamilton, just down the road from where he grew up, well in advance of even getting to the epilogue).

I would suggest, though - in a counter-argument that Brunt never gives - that if Gretzky were to return to Canada, he might find his celebrity status overwhelming. He's a celebrity in the US, yes, but on nowhere near the same level - he's just a celebrity. In Canada, he'd be a celebrity and a friend - constantly being hit up for golf games, speaking engagements, and whatever else. I'd get sick of that pretty quickly, and maybe Gretzky would too.

Still, it's a very good book, recommended to anybody with at least a passing interest in Wayne Gretzky as either a hockey player of a celebrity.

--Ryan

'Just like innings in baseball'

2010-02-18T15:40:00.007-05:00

I'm in my last full day of a somewhat relaxing and very comfortable Florida vacation (more on that later, maybe).

Curiously, my American vacations seem to sync up with the Olympics unusually often - it happened in 2002, 2008, 2010, and possibly other years as well. This means that for a good portion of the event, I'm left with only American commentators, frequently accused (by Canadians) of homerism and ignoring events Americans aren't favoured in.

I haven't really noticed either of those. Of course American coverage will tend to favour Americans in the same way Canadian coverage favours Canadians, but NBC has shown both Canadian gold medal ceremonies and plenty of other non-American events in their limited programming time (five hours a day plus an overnight show).

More amazing is the NBC affiliates - CNBC, MSNBC and USA - which are working together pretty much every men's hockey game, most women's hockey games, and every curling draw.

Yes, there's been some hilarious criticisms leveled at NBC for giving hockey short shrift (mainly for missing the first couple minutes of a game in favour of the final end of curling, following the sports broadcasting golden rule of 'finish what you start'), but overall I've been impressed by the American coverage of my favourite Winter Olympic sports.

With one exception, that is.

Namely, Andrew Catalon (right).

Catalon is the amiable-sounding sportscaster who NBC tapped to call curling. Now, admittedly it couldn't have been easy to find a curling announcer - in Salt Lake City and Turin, NBC used Don Chevrier, the legendary Canadian broadcaster who had called everything from baseball to synchronized swimming to spelling bees. But Chevrier passed away in 2007.

Curling is not a major sport in the US (obviously), so there wasn't exactly an established curling broadcaster NBC could call upon within American borders - maybe there's somebody on a community channel in Minnesota, but his familiarity with the game would be trumped by the broadcast abilities that relegated him to community television in Minnesota.

Most of the major Canadian curling broadcasters were already in use in Vancouver, because they belong to the networks covering the Olympics up here - Vic Rauter and Brian Mudryk working on curling, Rod Black on figure skating, Rob Faulds on luge-related sports.

In fact, the only Canadian out there with national curling broadcast experience who isn't either part of the CTV/Rogers consortium or dead is the CBC's Bruce Rainnie, who took over their curling duties when Don Wittman passed away, a few weeks after Chevrier.

Rainnie either wasn't approached, or wasn't interested in giving up his day job (as host of CBC's supper-hour news show in PEI). This is an extremely roundabout way of saying that Catalon - who called team handball in Beijing, another sport he no doubt learned on the fly - was probably the best NBC could come up with.

And it's not like he was flying solo - he was partnered with Don Duguid, a longtime curling commentator and two-time world champion, and Elfi Schlegel, a former Canadian gymnastics champion. Both of them were part of NBC's crew in the past.

Besides, having a non-fan in the booth makes sense given he's speaking to a nation of non-fans - his questions might seem obvious to you or me (especially if you are Marc Bernard or Andrew Flemming, two curling uber-fans who occasionally comment here), but they could well be what most of his audience is also wondering.

Truth be told, Catalon isn't doing that badly, especially for a sport he's unfamiliar with. Another plus is that Duguid is far too Canadian to ever correct his partner. Consider this exchange, where Catalon temporarily forgot that the crowd noise would be for the Canadian game on the next sheet:

Catalon: A good shot from the Americans!
Duguid: But what's bad about it is that it leaves the stone wide open!

In the next end, Catalon tried to bring his knowledge of strategy and scoring to the forefront, knowing exactly what would come next:

Catalon: And now he'll just draw for two.
Duguid: Or do the double takeout for four!

The American skip did indeed try the double takeout. It failed, sending the game into extra ends where yet another skip error handed Denmark a victory.

Compare that to the Canadian broadcast, where Vic Rauter is able to deduce what is going on, what needs to be done, and what is being done poorly (in fairness to Catalon, Vic has been around the game for decades now) - freeing up his analysts to go into a greater level of detail.

But the biggest sin committed by Catalon, the one that will forever stop me from proclaiming him 'good' at even a layman's broadcast of curling, is his oft-repeated assertion that ends are "just like innings in baseball". I heard it from him twice before three rocks had been thrown in his first broadcast, and he still sprinkles it in from time to time.

The problem? Ends in curling are not like innings in baseball in almost any sense. Yes, a curling match happens to be divided into ten ends, similar to how a baseball game is divided into nine innings, and yes, a curling scoresheet looks an awful lot like a baseball line score - but that is where the similarities end.

In an inning of baseball, Team A sends up all its batters (until three make outs), and then Team B does the same. In curling, each team alternates shots.

In baseball, it is common for both teams to score in an inning, as the inning is divided into 'top' and 'bottom' portions. In curling, it is impossible for both teams to score in the same end - and there is no 'top' end and 'bottom' end, it's just one end.

There's no great comparison for curling ends - tennis sets, bowling frames, golf holes, an odd combination of those three maybe - but baseball definitely isn't the best.

This wouldn't bother me if he said it once or twice. But Catalon repeats it and repeats it, to the point where, yes, I think he truly believes an end is like an inning.

And it's spreading - last night, the local NBC affiliate (Fort Myers), showed curling highlights. Well, one shot, but I digress. The hosts bantered for a moment about curling (the female news anchor claimed eight members of the American team were, like her, from Minnesota) - and then the sports anchor claimed that he'd been reading up on curling, and showed off his knowledge by suggesting that ends are "just like innings in baseball".

Good thing I go home tomorrow and don't have to drive myself crazy with this anymore.

--Ryan

Olympic fever

2010-02-12T14:36:00.002-05:00

The opening ceremonies might not be for a few hours yet, but the Vancouver Olympics have already kicked off with ski jumping pre-qualifications.

This was rather embarrassing for Canada. A field of 50 was narrowed down to 40 through today's runs. Canada had four jumpers in the field - not one of them made it through to the next round. The four Canadians were all found among the bottom seven.

But that's neither here nor there. I mean, it's only ski jumping, right? Is that even a sport? Isn't it like baby skiing, for people who can't actually go more than twenty feet without falling down? Yeah, I think that's what it is.

But the real reason I'm posting is to talk about hockey - because let's face it, curling might make for good background television, your grandmother likes figure skating, and skicross has a novelty factor, but all anybody really cares about is hockey.

After the crushing disappointment that was 2006, Canada has a good shot at hockey gold again in Vancouver. The team has been completely revamped - the old guard who brought home gold in 2002 are virtually gone, aside from a few who are still able to play at an elite level in the NHL (Brodeur, Niedermayer, Iginla, etc.). In their place, we've got the younger NHL superstars - Mike Richards, Drew Doughty, and for some reason Shea Weber.

Looking at the Olympic tournament, there's a different format in place. The group winners and top second-place team will get automatic spots into the quarter-finals, and the other eight teams will have one-game playoffs for the final spots. I see Canada, Russia and Sweden taking their groups, while the US and Finland will battle it out for the last bye in what could come down to goal differential - none of the minnows in groups A or C are particularly dangerous.

The Czech Republic have lost a bit of their luster as a hockey power, with the aging of Hasek and Jagr - I could see Slovakia or even Latvia scraping out a point against the Czechs.

The rest of the placements don't really matter - there isn't even relegation to worry about like at a World Championship or World Juniors, as the Olympics always have a separate qualifying tournament for the last few spots. There's always the chance of a Belarus-Sweden-style upset taking place, but it's certainly not something you can take to the bank.

I see Canada and Russia making it through the quarterfinals pretty easily, Sweden dispatching Slovakia, and Finland (my dark horse team, I think they're a lot better than people are giving them credit for) eliminating the US.

Semi-finals, Canada beats Finland and Russia beats Sweden. Demoralized Swedes don't play their best afterwards and lose the bronze to Finland.

Like a lot of prognosticators, my bracket has a Canada/Russia final...but I see Canada pulling it out. Ovechkin is amazing, yes, but Canada has the deeper team and one of the biggest home-ice advantages you will ever see.

Those are my predictions.

--------------------

In other news, this website posted a news piece about Facebook, as news websites are wont to do.

Somehow, many people came upon this story and somehow believed they were not on a news site, but actually on a redesigned Facebook that they couldn't log in to (see comments).

That forced the site to put up the bold disclaimer you now see after the third paragraph.

I'm too astounded to make a joke.

--Ryan

Everybody do the Colborne!

2010-02-09T20:35:00.004-05:00

Last night, Brantford City Council held what I'm certain is the longest meeting they've had since I came to town in 2006.

At issue was the south side of Colborne Street between Grand River Hall and Icomm Drive (pictured as part of it was a few years ago), and the city's attempts to demolish the 41 properties in that stretch.

Actually, at issue was very little. As Coun. Vince Bucci and others made perfectly clear throughout the night, expropriation was going ahead, demolition was going ahead, and nothing that could happen inside council chambers would change any of that - which didn't stop 16 delegations from making presentations to council (a normal night would be two or three).

By a 9-7 majority, the delegations supported pressing ahead with the demolition (although I'm not sure how the Brant News arrived at those totals because one presentation was from Dr. Gary Warrick, whose goal was to see an archaeological dig). Arguments in favour can be boiled down to "it's an eyesore" and "it should have been done a long time ago". Arguments against included heritage and transparency concerns.

If the demolition is going ahead regardless, why did everybody pick last night to visit council? Because Coun. Dan McCreary was introducing a resolution that basically called for more transparency in city council's decisions regarding Colborne - and any excuse to get in there was good enough for the delegations.

McCreary's resolution was defeated, with the five council members on his side accusing a 'bloc' of withholding information from anybody outside their group, and the other six laughing at the idea of a 'block'.

(For anyone curious about future mayoral candidates, John Sless and James Calnan voted for the motion, Mark Littell against, Mike Quattrociocchi had issues with Powerpoint.)

Another sticking point for some was the lack of a plan for what would replace the demolished buildings - but Laurier's Dave Prang, another of the delegations, alluded to plans that would materialize after the buildings were knocked down.

It seems as though the "saddest street in Ontario" is coming down as quickly as possible. What will go in there? How much will it cost? Are we able to preserve any heritage aspects? Who cares?

--Ryan

Cock rock and the Blue Man Group

2010-02-04T19:49:00.003-05:00

Back in September, I was sitting in a lecture. I forget what exactly was being taught to me, but the prof was contrasting 'glam rock' and effeminate musicians like David Bowie to 'cock rock' like AC/DC. The lesson had something to do with gender theory and its representations in music.

I really only bought the argument on a theoretical level - yes, I do associate AC/DC and Metallica and such more with ultra-masculinity, but that's as far as it goes. I've never actually felt music resonate with me on a primal level, and certainly not in a "yeah, this is great, girls would never get this" way.

Back to that in a moment.

In October, I saw the Blue Man Group in Kitchener. They put on a great show, and there was something fairly surreal about seeing the audience go crazy for what was basically instrumental rock crossed with mimes.

More important to this story: a few days later, I was still amazed at just how much I enjoyed that show, and decided to browse Youtube to see if I could find any decent Blue Man Group clips.

One of the first I came across was this one:

Now, questionable songwriting skills notwithstanding, I love this. Great musicians, a great singer, and just overall an awesome video. But what I really want to draw your attention to is at 1:50 - Tracy Bonham hits a big note, and suddenly there's an explosion of noise as a guitar and drum overload kicks in.

Then over the next five seconds, you get quick shots of a literal lineup of drummers playing in tandem, a group of guitarists hitting power chord after power chord, and the entire stage.

In this brief clip, the sudden outburst of sound works with the ultimate in cock rock visuals, and the end result (at least in me) is the first music I've ever heard that is able to stir up those primal feelings of adrenaline, testoserone, and yes, even slight arousal.

It's great.

And I don't think girls would ever get it.

------------------------------

While pondering if my feelings would be different were the lead singer male (I guess it's possible, even though I really think the instruments have more to do with it), here are two more BMG clips that don't really affect me to the same degree but are nonetheless quite good:

--Ryan

For once I like technology

2010-02-02T20:07:00.003-05:00

So I've been using my new computer for over a month now, and I think I'm in love.

Well maybe that's an overstatement. But not only is this Toshiba laptop an improvement over everything that wasn't working properly on my old machine, I'm discovering improvements on things that I didn't even know could be improved.

(Okay, I knew most of it was possible with Macs, but I refuse to own a computer that runs on sorcery.)

I know that touch-screens and tablets and things of that nature are about to completely redefine computing as we know it, unwittingly bringing us closer and closer to something physically resembling The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the Guide itself, not the book), but I'm thrilled with what I have now, and no immediate technological advances can convince me otherwise.

Why do I like it so much?

I'll start with the computer itself. Despite having a far faster processor and much more RAM than my old laptop, the Toshiba is significantly lighter (same size screen, slightly less thickness). It runs extremely quiet - I don't even notice most of the time the fan goes on - and the battery life is excellent (two hours no matter what, three if I'm careful not to run anything huge). Sound is great (even with the lid closed), and the keyboard doesn't unexpectedly switch to a European layout every now and then.

But, and much to my surprise, the biggest improvements are in the operating system. I wasn't expecting a whole lot from Windows 7 - the last time Microsoft came out with a revolutionary O/S was Windows 95, everything since has fluctuated between mediocre and average - and maybe that's part of the reason I was so completely blown away.

There are some big, extremely noticeable changes in Windows 7. Startup and shutdown times have been drastically reduced since XP (no real experience with Vista, so can't speak to that). Support for USB devices is great - when I plug something in for the first time, Windows finds any drivers it may need on its own.

Even better is the support for monitors - I use a standalone monitor a lot of the time at home (mostly out of habit), and with my old computer I'd sometimes have trouble getting the display to switch to the monitor (or vice-versa, if I unplugged the monitor without switching back to the computer, the laptop screen wouldn't display anything). No such worries here - I can plug and unplug as many times as I want, and Windows makes the switch automatically! (One caveat, the laptop must be powered off, hibernating, or have its lid closed when I attach the monitor cable for this to work.)

But the real story is the million small improvements, the things that probably took one programmer one day to implement. Take the new-look taskbar:

Snazzy, isn't it? This isn't the default setting (and for those who, like I normally do, have trouble adjusting to change, there are options allowing you to customize your taskbar to look and function like pretty much any Windows taskbar in history), but it's the one I've grown accustomed to.

The Windows button, which brings up the start menu, is still in the left-hand corner, but it's been shrunk and redesigned to look more like the program buttons. Up next is basically a combination of the quick launch menu and program buttons from previous versions of Windows - left-clicking on an icon opens the program window, right clicking brings up the same options that clicking on its taskbar icon would have gotten you in older versions of Windows.

One of the options is to have the name of the program follow its icon (like in the past), but turning that off both frees up taskbar space and makes you feel like you're using a Mac. Any program can be pinned to the taskbar (all the ones shown above are), and any unpinned program you open up shows up next to the last pinned program. The shaded box around the Notepad icon means that Notepad is open (MSN always claims to have a window open even when it doesn't).

Another neat feature - if you hover your cursor over a taskbar icon, you'll get a picture of what clicking the icon will bring up - but amazingly, it's in real time. If you're watching a movie and switch over to the Internet, just hover your mouse over the media player icon and you'll get a tiny-screen view of the movie as it progresses!

Finally we come to the right corner, which has been reduced in size and importance - it's pretty much exclusively the domain of system tools and background processes now, although seeing the date at all times comes in handy quite often.

Windows 7 also has a great assortment of new applications, many of which I haven't taken the time to play with yet. Two stand out in particular - Sticky Notes (last regular icon on the taskbar above) allows you to write short notes and stick them on your desktop, and Snipping Tool significantly reduces the time-consuming process of taking a screenshot of something on your computer - open up Snipping Tool, highlight the area you want a picture of, and save it in the format of your choice - no need for the print screen button, copying and pasting, opening up your picture editor of choice, or any of those old steps! (I used it to get the capture of my taskbar!)

For those of you looking to kill time during class, Windows 7 adds a sizable number of new games to its stable - solitaire, minesweeper and other classics are joined by chess, Monopoly, mahjong and more.

Desktop gadgets are a neat idea in theory that hasn't worked out too well in practice - since shortcuts will only take up so much of your desktop space, the idea is that you can fill in that space with other information. Unfortunately, I've only come across one gadget I've found useful enough to put on my desktop - and all it does is give me a weather report.

And the performance? Unbelievable. I don't know how much of this is due to Windows and how much is due to a stronger machine, but the lag time on this computer is absolutely nil. Adding a few hundred songs to iTunes might slow down iTunes, but browse away from that program and you won't have any idea there's such a huge process running in the background.

I'm sure I'll come across much more I like about Windows 7 and my new laptop as I poke around more, but I've already seen enough to be convinced that Windows 7 is a huge step up in terms of organization, customization, and performance - and it definitely deserves all the hype it has received, if not more.

--Ryan

It's magically Delicious!

2010-01-26T15:22:00.002-05:00

(If anyone thinks this post's subject line is worthy of a stand-alone groan, bear in mind that it's continuing a trend of naming honeygarlic posts after breakfast cereals that Dan started three years ago.)

I've been on Facebook since 2006, had this blog since 2007, and been Tweeting since 2009. In my ever-growing quest to be a part of every social network short of the WD-40 one, you can now follow me on Delicious.

Much like last autumn's increase in political blogging here, my being on Delicious isn't a choice - it's a requirement for a course I'm in.

For those of you unfamiliar with Delicious - which I imagine would be most of you, seeing as I had only an elementary understanding going into this assignment - think of your Favorites or Bookmarks menu. Now, think of a website that not only functions as your bookmarks menu, but allows you to see the bookmarks of your friends (and vice-versa). That's Delicious.

There's no messages between users like Facebook, it doesn't ask you what you're doing like Twitter, you can't directly embed pictures or video...it's nothing but pure 'social bookmarking', allowing users to post, share, and view bookmarks - and nothing more.

At first I didn't see any value at all in Delicious. It's never going to replace my main bookmark list - having to go to a website and then look for a list is less convenient than just going through the list in my browser, and the ability to have my bookmarks with me anywhere is cancelled out by Google and knowing the name of any site I visit regularly. And okay, it's neat at first to see how many other Delicious users have bookmarked the same site you did, but the novelty of that wears off quickly.

My opinion has changed a bit, though, as I've started connecting with other classmates on Delicious - now, rather than ignoring the site completely (other than of course to add my own bookmarks), I surf over to the 'network' tab a few times a week to see if anybody else has found something neat. (They haven't, but the blame for that lies solely with Kyle Brown, not with Delicious.)

My Delicious account has become basically a repository for things I find online, find amusing at the time, but likely will never go back to. Things that might end up on this blog when I've gone a while without writing anything. In that spirit, here are a few gems:

You know the old game 20 Questions? You think of a person or a thing, and other people deduce its identity by asking its size relative to a breadbox, which side of the Mississippi it's from, and so on? Akinator has transplanted that game online, and has a huge database to guess from. I've tried Don Cherry, Terry Fox, Ronald McDonald, even Karl Marx - nothing stumps it.

The New Pornographers are releasing their fifth album in May. Even though my musical tastes have expanded in a million directions from "classic rock and The New Pornographers", I'm still looking forward to this.

An assault incident between two Americans resembles an obscure Dr. Seuss story. Rather than do actual reporting, the journalist explains how the incident is similar to and differs from the story. "In the story, however, a highway is eventually built around the two, and no one is stabbed."

Finally, Bob Rae in channeling his inner Stephen Harper by singing and playing a Beatles song of his own, overreached by also trying to come up with new words. Unfortunately, if politics don't work out for bob, the next Weird Al he ain't. Have a watch.

For more of this sort of thing...well, stay right here. We're grrrrrrrrrrreat!

--Ryan

On the home front (Part II)

2010-01-21T16:08:00.004-05:00

So, Kitchener and Waterloo. Not where I've spent the majority of my time the last few years, but two cities I still know well enough to give an overview of their political situation.

We'll start in my hometown of Kitchener, where mayor-for-life Carl Zehr (right) is running for yet another term - first elected in 1994, this would be his sixth term as mayor. In that time, Zehr has benefitted greatly from a lack of strong challengers - a recent poll conducted on The Record's website saw over 70% of respondents unhappy with Zehr's performance, yet so far nobody credible has declared their intention to try and take Zehr's job.

Recent speculation has been that 'several' current Kitchener councillors are poised to take a run at the top job - but I haven't seen any names suggested. There are very few current councillors who have amassed enough of a reputation to be able to effectively challenge Zehr, but Berry Vrbanovic and John Smola (and again, I'm completely speculating here) are two of a very select group who might be able to pull it off.

Kitchener's council will have a vastly different look after the election, though - not only because of current councillors running for mayor or opting to leave politics altogether (and again, Kitchener politicians seem slower than their Brantford counterparts in declaring their intentions), but also because the city is being restructured into ten wards (up from the current number of six), meaning new faces will be on council no matter what, allowing for new voices and perspectives to be heard.

In Waterloo, incumbent mayor Brenda Halloran (left) (who was herself a surprise election in 2006 over incumbent mayor Herb Epp) will definitely find herself in a race - councillor Jan D'Ailly has already announced his intention to run for mayor.

D'Ailly (right) was clearly planning this move for a long time - it seems as though everytime CTV reports on Waterloo politics, he's in front of the camera explaining how something is either great for Waterloo or bad for Waterloo but went through despite his objections. That public profile will serve him well in a battle that will ilkely see more top-flight candidates in the running before long.

Downtown revitalization has yet to reach the critical mass in Kitchener that it did in Brantford a decade ago (and in Waterloo it doesn't even need to be on the table), but that doesn't mean that there's no interesting issues in Waterloo Region this year.

I suspect the biggest election issue in either city will be light rail transit - yes, Zehr and others have said that anti-transit groups had and missed their chance to speak up, but once enough people realize what went through while they weren't paying attention, reopening the debate will be the only face-saving move the politicians can make.

Rapid transit is definitely something that could be improved in Waterloo Region - having rode the iXpress a few times, I feel qualified enough to make that statement - but light rail is not the right way to do it. I've written about this before, and so have others who are far more passionate and informed, but the biggest drawback is that regular traffic along the route will be utterly frustrated.

A good rapid transit system should make people realize its obvious advantages over using cars, not - as the current proposal would - piss off drivers to the point where they'd rather ignore downtown altogether than get there via light rail.

I don't know what the right solution is, but Kitchener and Waterloo (and Cambridge, ideally a partner in any scenario) are full of smart people who could figure it out.

Also on the table - yet again - is the issue of amalgamation. This time, Taxpayers For Sensible Transit are trying to get a referendum question tacked on to the October ballot, asking whether the Kitchener and Waterloo city councils should explore the idea of combining into one city.

Much like the Quebec referendum in 1995, Kitchener and Waterloo residents aren't actually being asked to vote on whether the cities should amalgamate (at least not yet), just on if they think it's worth exploring. But also like 1995, it's going to be portrayed as a referendum on amalgamation, rather than on councillors being allowed to explore whether an idea makes sense.

Amalgamation is a tricky issue - Kitchenerites look at Waterloo with its bustling economy, worldly reputation, and quickly-plowed streets, with envy, but Waterloo residents also pay significantly higher property taxes. It's not easy to figure out what an amalgamated city would look like or how residents would be impacted, and I would rather see these issues researched by informed elected officials after October than a barely-informed electorate befroe it.

I'll likely continue blogging about all three cities as October 25 draws closer.

-----------------------

One quick question on Stephen Harper's cabinet shuffle before I leave politics alone for a while.

Considering all Conservative policy comes from the top down, and cabinet ministers will never leave the cabinet while the Conservatives are in power (as that would be an admission of weakness), why would anyone want to be a Conservative backbencher anymore? Is there a more thankless job in politics?

--Ryan

On the home front (Part I)

2010-01-19T16:30:00.003-05:00

(I was originally going to do this as one post, but I thought if I split it into two it'd give the illusion that I'm actually getting something up here from time to time.)

It's that time again, Ontario.

Municipal elections are coming up. It doesn't feel like three-and-a-half years since I, bushy-tailed young journalism student that I was, reported on Brantford's 2006 elections for class, yet that's exactly how long it has been.

This October, Brantfordites (and Kitchenerites and Waterloosers and everybody else in the province) return to the polls to cast their ballots for mayor, city council, and positions of lesser renown.

I'll be dealing with Brantford in this post, and then I'll be back in a few days to talk about the situations in Kitchener and Waterloo.

Brantford has had a history of competitive mayoral elections (as well as John Turmel and Winston Ferguson-types high on colour and short on the 'taken seriously' factor), and 2010 promises to be no exception.

Incumbent mayor Mike Hancock has yet to officially announce his candidacy either way, but all signs seem to point to Hancock not seeking a third turn. Several candidates have already begun campaigns, and if Hancock were running, he would likely want his name in on the ground for.

The same goes for former mayor Chris Friel, who finished a very near second to Hancock in both 2003 and 2006. Friel is a bit less of a long shot to run, but again the lack of any announcement thus far makes his candidacy unlikely.

Of those who have declared, the favourite appears to be current Ward 1 councillor Mark Littell (left). First elected to council in 2006, with a public perception that he was only running for council so he could run for mayor in 2010, Littell has proven those predictions correct.

If nothing else, Littell certainly is able to look and act the part of Mayor of Brantford, and that is why I see him being successful - he's a good politician. Being responsible for downtown has allowed Littell to take the lead on the Colborne expropriation and other major issues, which has in turn given him more visibility with the public which can be leveraged into a strong mayoral campaign.

To the extent that municipal politicians can be classified by ideology, Littell is a bit of a conservative - nice to business, and happy to see his record tied to major business-friendly projects. Students generally don't care about Brantford politics enough to have opinions on the subject, but Littell (likely because of his obvious ambition and conservative leanings) is generally disliked by students who have met him.

>Another strong candidate is current councillor John Sless (right). Sless has been on council for much longer than Littell, and has cultivated a reputation as a true fiscal conservative - somebody who will question even the smallest bits of city spending, ensuring that the Brantford taxpayers get the best value for their money.

Sless' biggest challenge is his appearance - he looks like the councillor who goes over every line of the budget with a fine-tooth comb, but he doesn't look like a mayor. It might seem trivial, but when so much of the public's voting power will be spent based on who looks most impressive on TV, Sless has an uphill battle.

The third - and likely final - current councillor seeking the mayor's chair is James Calnan (left), also new to council in 2006. Calnan hasn't developed a reputation to the extent of Littell or Sless, which could hit him harder than any policy or qualification issues - he's more of an unknown.

Calnan has become a go-to councillor for CTV when they head to Brantford to cover local issues, so that is a source of visibility that the other two don't have - but I don't think it's important enough to make a big difference.

Also running is former councillor Mike Quattrociocchi, but his candidacy will likely be hampered by the same factors that sunk his 2006 bid to remain on council (namely, a disregard for building permits and by extension all municipal by-laws, such are the wonders of perception).

It seems as though the biggest issue in Brantford this electoral session will be the aforementioned state of Colborne's south side between Grand River Hall and Icomm Dr. Properties are scheduled to be demolished soon, even though there is no plan as far as what will go into that space or how any of it will be paid for. Littell has been one of the main proponents of pushing through with all of this no matter what - which leads my cynical side to wonder if he wants it out of the public's mind before the election because he knows it would hurt his chances otherwise.

Predicting what other issues will emerge over the course of a campaign is never easy, but I wouldn't be surprised if Brantford's election issues included a renovated, expanded, and possibly relocated bus terminal, ways to attract commercial and retail (read: non-Laurier) partners to the downtown, redevelopment of remaining brownfield (and, less likely, greyfield) sites, and attracting new investors to the city.

In any event, it's sure to be an interesting campaign. Kitchener and Waterloo, probably in less detail, to come next week.

--Ryan

google.cn

2010-01-12T13:28:00.007-05:00

I usually feel guilty about making Google-related posts, especially at a time when they release such great things as the Nexus One, Near-Me-Now, and a feature of GoogleDocs now lets you upload any type of file for storage (the elusive "G-Drive"). But somehow, this post seems different.

Yesterday, Google made a post about their China branch

Four years ago, Google decided that the benefits of having "increased access to information for people in China ... outweighed [Google's] discomfort in agreeing to censor some results". To abide by laws, certain search results on google.cn are filtered.
(For example, looking up an image of the "tiananmen-square tank man" in Canada vs. China yields very different results.)
Last month, Google (among "at least twenty other large companies") faced a particularly strong "cyber attack", which they have reported was likely to gain access to the email accounts of human rights activists.
Yesterday, Google concluded its post with this option for the Chinese government:

We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

I absolutely love that conclusion, and I look forward to seeing how this plays out.

I can only imagine flawlessly.

I do wonder though... What brought them to these options?

Helping China within their own legal system is more trouble then it's worth. (Especially if some part of the PRC government is not.)
Google is a major part of many peoples lives. Perhaps the PRC will submit to having an unfiltered search giant?
The cyber attack might not have been possible without Google's presence in China. Perhaps the best way to "don't be evil" is getting out.

I have no idea, but I'm glad that some action is being taken.

Comments and insights would be much appreciated.

Norway Time Hole Leak Plunges Northern Hemisphere Into Chaos

2010-01-11T23:09:00.004-05:00

This might be the most awesomely bizarre news article I've seen...well, ever.

Although I'd suggest that if the Pakistan Daily wants to keep putting English-language content on their website, they should invest in some better translators, the language errors aren't what I'm talking about here.

I don't need to discuss the language because everything else in this story is ten times more surreal.

First off, a beam fired into the atmosphere by Americans at the HAARP station in Norway has created an "unimpeded thermal inversion" - which actually makes more sense than the first three times I read that phrase as "unimpeded thermal invasion".

And what has this inversion done to us? Well, it's responsible for every natural disaster or unusual weather spell we've seen in the last few weeks.

How do we know this?

...well, we don't.

Yes, Russian scientists (bastions of credibility when described so generally) have informed their President that the HAARP beam has caused an inversion.

And yes, Anthony Nunan has correctly read a few forecasts and discovered that there's a fair bit of crazy weather going on right now.

But that's it. The two stories are in no way linked - it's the equivalent of "Tiger Woods gets hit with golf club" and "Tiger Woods' wife doesn't play golf" combining to form a story of "golf club sales rise".

Then we get a global weather report and a bit of editorializing about how the West has a god complex.

Is all news in Pakistan this fun?

--Ryan

Prorogation

2010-01-07T10:06:00.002-05:00

So I'm maybe a little late to the party, but I'm still about two months earlier than the House of Commons.

For those of you who haven't been paying attention, that - early March - is when MPs will next be sitting in Parliament after Stephen Harper decided to prorogue (read: dismiss) the House.

There are three levels on which one can take this news. Intelligent commentators and political scientists are looking at (as Andrew Coyne does here as a further example of the continuing decline in importance of Parliament, and the further acquisition of power by the Prime Minister (and I'm trying to make a distinction between the position and its current holder). The problem here is that Parliament is elected by the people and the Prime Minister is not - if the peoples' representatives are being stripped of their legitimacy in favour of somebody not really accountable to the populace, well, that doesn't bode well for Canadian democracy.

Another audience, mainly a partisan and non-Conservative one, is seeing it as the government hiding from the scandal du jour and hoping it all blows over by March. Yes, the idea that Canadian officials are complicit in torture is scary and worth investigating - but like so many other issues, it will blow over (or be buried in the sand) before anyone convinces the public to care about it.

(The Conservative talking point response, that there wasn't any outrage any of the times Chretien prorogued, doesn't pass the sniff test - when Chretien prorogued, he had already accomplished quite a bit in his session. The Liberals prorogued four times in ten-plus years, this is Harper's second prorogation in thirteen months. Beyond that, Harper claims prorogation is needed so his government can think through what needs to be done next - Chretien and every other PM we've had has been able to walk and chew gum at the same time.)

Unlike the previous scandals, though, this one has filtered down to the average Joe in a mutated form - politicians are taking a paid holiday. Canadians, most of whom would love a paid holiday, don't like that - after all, we elect these people to run the country, not to take paid holidays.

It's so simple, and yet it's so effective - and the weird thing is, it caught on without any sort of pushing from the opposition. People who follow politics were harping on about Afghan detainees and contempt for Parliament and all that stuff, and regular people figured out the paid vacation thing all on their own.

It's okay for people to keep talking about the issues - they won't kick Harper out of office on their own unfortunately, but they will continue the trickling of support away from the Conservatives. What is important, though, is that for these Canadians who are upset at politicians getting to take two months off, they realize that not all of them wanted to do so, and most of them didn't have a choice - it was Harper's decision and Harper's alone.

--Ryan

1366x768

2010-01-02T19:35:00.002-05:00

(Yes, my new computer allowed me to re-use an old joke. On with the show!)

My resolutions for 2009 were simple - expand my horizons and stop being so cynical. How did I do?

At first glance, I thought I did pretty poorly. Story time:

Last March, I had some Chinese food. At 5 AM the next morning, I ran out of bed and threw up before I reached the bathroom. Food poisoning!

Well, it wasn't quite that simple. After giving it more thought, the culprit was not the Chinese food, but rather whatever I had the night before. Or possibly what I had for breakfast (but not lunch) that day. Or possibly it was actually Norwalk virus and not food poisoning at all.

Regardless of the actual culprit, my mind blamed it on the Chinese food - after all, that was what came back up that night, completely undigested. For a good while, I couldn't look at Chinese food without feeling queasy - forget about trying anything new.

But aside from the culinary misadventures, 2009 was actually fairly good to me on the horizon-expanding front.

Movies? 500 Days of Summer was more or less a romantic comedy with less romance and less comedy, Avatar was far more than a glorified kids' movie, and that's to say nothing of indie rentals like Everything's Gone Green or The Squid And The Whale. I liked all of them.

TV shows? A little less, but I tried out several new options, I'm still watching V and Flash Forward (or I will when they come back), and I'm even occasionally catching reruns of ignored sitcoms like Friends and Everybody Loves Raymond. So that's a check.

And music, of course, has come along nicely. I'm not going to link to any of the dozen or so posts I made in 2009 about music, but I finally broke out of my classic-rock-and-the-New-Pornographers bubble and discovered new bands ranging from Animal Collective to Slow Cub to Norfolk & Western. It's been fun, even if I'm still mostly in a pop-rock vein.

I also mentioned - and then completely forgot about - taking courses in new subjects. Due to degree requirements, that couldn't have happened much anyhow, but 'Conservative Christian Subculture' is a small step outside my comfort zone (only small, because I know the prof).

I also resolved to stop being so cynical, and I think I did a decent job on that front. I've read popular books, watched popular TV shows - Friends as mentioned above - and even a lot of the music I've gotten into is popular amongst indie hipsters.

Even my outlook on life is less cynical, as hopefully evidenced by the political experiment I conducted here in the fall.

Oh, and I *did* get a new job. So for once, I more or less accomplished all my resolutions.

So what's on my plate for 2010? The same things, really. Keep discovering new things. Don't get stuck in my ways or stubborn in my thinking. Explore.

And do something journalism-related. If I don't get a job or internship, do some things online.

We'll see how this plays out.

I can only imagine flawlessly.

--Ryan

2K10

2009-12-31T21:38:00.006-05:00

I hope everyone's Twenty-Ten is off to a grand start!

It's that time of the year again. Let's take a look at those old resolutions:

Re-try my third resolution from last year: Every week, I will have something creative constructed to show for my effots throughout that week. To maintain this, I'll keep a weekly record to be posted on my other blog, here.
Up my GPA by two points for next term. (This shouldn't be too hard. For our non-Laurier readers, our school works on a twelve point system.)
Be healthier in these respects:

Eat less grease. (i.e. Switch to margerine instead of butter and limit my use of the deep frier.

Make a five minute effort towards physically demanding excersize each day.

Floss daily.

This has been the most epic failure of resolutions to date. I haven't made a post since June; I switched out of my program to avoid resolution number two; and though my grease intake is down, I have done nothing for my body or my gums.

Yet, these are largely not my concerns for the new year. My resolutions for 2010 will be as follows:

Make use of the little moments for some personal development. For example, when I have nothing to do at the office, I should try some creative writing.
Speak with clarity! Too often, people tell me that they don't understand my accent.
Be generally more conscious of my health. I know I won't hit a gym, but I could certainly walk to the slightly further convenience store to buy my Rudbull. (It's the little things that count, right?)

I wish I gave that more thought, but I didn't.

D. Phillips

Be yours to hold it high

2009-12-29T11:43:00.002-05:00

Unless you've been living under a rock - and good for you if you have - you know that the Olympic torch has been making its way across southern Ontario for the past week-and-a-half.

It was in Brantford on the 21st, where loudspeakers and scared dogs congregated at City Hall, before it departed from Harmony Square the next morning en route to Paris. It wound its way through the southwest over the holidays, finally hitting Kitchener no the 27th.

Then yesterday in Guelph, controversy struck as a young torchbearer was attacked and knocked to the ground by protesters. And in all the media coverage I've seen of this, I've been led to an alarming truth: the Olympics are everything that's good with the world, and if you're the least bit skeptical about that, well, that's quaint and all, but you can go off and do your silly little protest stunt after the Olympics have finished.

Yes, I'll admit that Julian Ichim probably isn't the best person to be the face of any protest movement at all. I'll also admit that the protest shouldn't have turned violent, and Ichim's group shouldn't have done any more then run alongside the torch.

But there's a bigger problem here, and it's the same one I saw with the torch protests in Caledonia and north of Toronto. In news coverage of these events, the reasons for the protests are either buried deep in the story or, worse, not mentioned at all.

I more or less expect this from CTV and anybody else who is paying enormous sums of money for the right to broadcast the Olympics - they're interested in protecting their property, and stories that reflect badly on the Olympic movement could ultimately be detrimental to their ratings (and thus profits).

But the Waterloo Region Record? They, like most newspapers, have absolutely nothing to gain from sucking up to the IOC. And yet they still swallow the Olympic propaganda hook, line and sinker - if the torch route is adjusted, the story is that there was a minor hiccup, not whatever was being protested about forcing the adjustment. If a torch-bearer is attacked, it's the torch-bearer who the focus is on, not the grievances of the attackers.

Why were there so many stories about how the Olympics will force China to start coming in line with Western rules regarding human rights, and why are there so few following up on what really happened (or didn't happen) there?

Funny thing about this is that I'm overall pro-Olympics. I just don't think that their activities and propaganda should be treated with kid gloves in a way that no other organization would ever be treated.

--Ryan

Don't forget to hang up your sock

2009-12-23T14:24:00.006-05:00

It's the holiday season (the holiday season), and I have neither the time nor the motivation to be insightful, thought-provoking, or hilarious. So I'll let others do it for me.

First up, three Muppets get us in the Christmas spirit:

This one has nothing to do with some Christmas, but was made by some very funny Russians:

Graeme Perrow explains why Y2K wasn't the non-event we all think it was.

And while the Olympic torch makes its way around this part of the country, former CBC producer Howard Bernstein lays out the corporate propaganda we don't realize we being subjected to.

Some nice holiday reading for you.

--Ryan

Update: Oh, and here's some Facebook hilarity!

Talkin' tech

2009-12-18T20:04:00.003-05:00

I'm really not much of a techie.

I probably know more than most people about computers, but that's mainly in the vein of diagnosing problems and knowing why Chrome or Firefox is better than IE as opposed to 'it just is!' or 'you can make it look like whatever you want!'.

When it comes to being on the cutting edge of technology, knowing what's about to hit the mainstream, I'm not that guy. I spent months thinking 'netbook' was just another synonym for 'laptop', I get nostalgic for floppy drives, and despite living with Dan talking about them for several years, I didn't know what a tablet was until just recently.

But over the next few weeks, that's changing.

Slightly.

I'm upgrading several key pieces of my technological arsenal, and after I explain why, I think you'll agree that it's long overdue.

Let's start with my printer. I don't have a printer.

At least not one that works. In first year, I mooched off Dan. But before year two, I was gifted a never-used bubblejet printer from the mid-90s. Nothing fancy obviously, but enough to print school papers and such.

This past spring, the bubblejet broke - I can't really explain how. Since I'd already spent more time trying to fix it than it was worth (considering even new I could probably find it for $5), I didn't bother to pursue it.

When Dan moved out, he left behind an old all-in-one printer - the one I'd used in first year oddly enough - with instructions to trash it. Remembering my predicament, I asked him if it would work. His answer, it might if I changed the ink, but nothing's for certain.

I guess I never got around to getting a new ink cartridge. All my assignments this year were printed through mooching of friends and WLUSP. Over the break, I'm finally rectifying this thanks to those deals where you get a cheap printer with purchase of a new computer.

But before I get to the computer, the iPod. My current iPod ("Ryan's iPod II", after the first one was rendered unusable back in high school by forces beyond my understanding) was the victim of my poor understanding of technology. In first year, I left my iPod connected to my computer almost 24/7. This was a bad idea on many levels - it took my computer an extra minute or two to boot up every time I switched it on because it had to load iTunes, and the constant charging of the battery ultimately left me with essentially no battery. I can currently get through about ten minutes worth of music (provided I scroll through the list, as shuffling kills the battery) before Ryan's iPod II goes kaput.

So I'm also getting a new iPod. Not a Touch, not anything fancy - just an MP3 player that can hold a whole crapload of music, so that I'll never, ever, be able to fill it. I've already got a cell phone and a laptop that are trying to be my all-in-one technology source, I don't need the same thing from my music player.

(Incidentally, that's probably a good sign of my unwillingness to adopt new technologies - the future is clearly a device that combines all these things, yet I'm refusing to accept that reality and trying to keep them all as separate as possible.)

I'll also be getting some sort of iPod-car adapter, because I'll be doing a lot of driving between Brantford and Waterloo and the radio gets boring.

And finally, the new computer. A short (and by no means exhaustive) list of complaints I have with my current computer:

-The monitor only displays a picture if it is held open at certain angles (fewer and fewer as time goes on)
-Probably related, a decent chunk of the cover (maybe two inches by half an inch) has fallen off
-Something is trapped inside one of the memory card slots
-Runs very loudly (not just the fan)
-Takes long time to boot up (and this is after running CCleaner and a dozen other programs provided on a free CD from some British computer magazine)
-Will not open PDFs in Chrome
-When I open IE (only for a PDF now), approximately 60% chance IE will not be able to open any page and I'll have to keep closing and opening the program until it does
-Opening My Computer, My Documents, or even the programs tab on the start menu causes unbelievable lag
-When I close iTunes, it opens itself back up automatically
-If I click over to another open program, might cycle through one or two others before stopping at the one I want
-When playing Solitaire and placing card from deck in a stack, image of card in deck sometimes remains that of old card (I assume that when Solitaire is messed up, that's a good sign that something's wrong)
-CD drive doesn't always work properly, I blame Dan

And probably quite a bit of other stuff I'm not thinking of right now. The monitor's the big thing though.

The replacement? Look to your right.

I'm actually not sure it's the same thing, but it definitely looks similar at least.

I wanted a real laptop because I use it too much to deal with a netbook's tiny screen. From there it was a matter of brand name more than anything else - a Consumer Reports survey put HP, Gateway, Toshiba and Acer near the top of the quality pile. My current computer is a Gateway, so you can guess why I eliminated that one. Dan had even more problems with Acer, so that was out. It was between HP and Toshiba, and this particular Toshiba received excellent reviews. Plus it's ridiculously cheap considering its power.

New computer, new MP3 player, new printer.

I'm not sure why you needed to know any of that.

--Ryan

What's up? Doc!

2009-12-14T17:40:00.004-05:00

On those days when I know I want to blog but I don't know what I want to blog about, it's rare for something big to come along.

Today, that wasn't the case.

Sports Illustrated was the first to report that the Jays, Phillies, and Mariners have agreed in principle to a three-way trade which would see Roy Halladay end up in Philadelphia. In return, the Jays will get prospects from both teams.

I'm not here to judge the merits of the trade - I don't know the prospects well enough to comment, and predicting how prospects will end up is an exercise in futility at the best of times anyhow - but rather to give my thoughts on Doc leaving town.

My earliest memories of the Blue Jays are from the 1994 season - Darren Hall emerging as an unlikely closer, Carlos Delgado's huge April and subsequent fall off the face of the Earth, Shawn Green and Alex Gonzalez making their first attempts at being real big-leaguers. Unfortunately, despite retaining pitching standouts Juan Guzman and Pat Hentgen, plus all of WAMCO sticking around, the Jays never again reached the glory of the 1992 and 1993 World Series teams.

So from my perspective, the Jays have always been trying to recapture the magic (and popularity) they had before my time. And they've never done it. Roger Clemens' two years came close, especially when paired with Dave Stieb's unlikely comeback. Tony Batista caused a mild stir in 1999. And Carlos Delgado was always appreciated, even if he never got the sort of reactions his place in Jays history deserved.

Then over these last few years - but far more pronounced in 2009 - Roy Halladay did it. He got people who normally need the Jumbotron (and/or fireworks) to cheer without any sort of prompting. He got non-Jays fans to be, at the very least, Roy fans.

He was the best pitcher we'd ever had, and everybody knew it. So what if the rest of the team sucked, so what if Roy got the lowest run support of any pitcher anywhere, so what if a comet fell from the skies and struck the entire infield dead. Roy would still find a way to win us the game.

I have two specific memories of Roy's time in Toronto. Back in September 1998, in only his second major-league start, Roy came within one out of no-hitting the Detroit Tigers (damn you, Bobby Higginson). Finally, it was looking to Jays fans that the days of marginal pitching 'prospects' like Huck Flener, Edwin Hurtado, and Jeff Ware were over - we had this Halladay kid, plus Chris Carpenter and Kelvim Escobar who were both a little further along (all three did in fact become very good pitchers).

The other memory is from this year - I usually only make it to one or two games a year in person, and I always miss Doc and get stuck with a Ted Lilly or (then-average) Shaun Marcum. But on July 19, 2009, it was Toronto against the Boston Red Sox, with me in the house and Doc on the mound.

The Sox countered with a tough pitcher of their own in Jon Lester, and a formidable lineup that included Dustin Pedroia (who can't hit a high-inside fastball), David Ortiz, and Jason Bay.

Halladay was more than up to the task - even though the Jays only scored three runs of Lester, Roy held the Sox to one run on six hits.

Congratulations, Philadelphia fans. You're getting the best pitcher in the game today, and a future hall-of-famer. Enjoy him.

--------------

I know I said it's an exercise in futility, but I was curious. The Jays have (in my opinion) never traded away a player this good at this close to the prime of his career, but I took a look at other times they've traded stars in my lifetime.

December 1990 - Tony Fernandez and Fred McGriff are sent to San Diego for Joe Carter and Roberto Alomar. This was a different sort of trade - stars for stars, with Toronto's reasoning being that the team needed a personality transplant. It worked, but it's hardly comparable to this.

July 1995 - David Cone, himself a very good pitcher, is sent to the Yankees for highly-touted pitching prospects Marty Janzen, Mike Gordon, and Jason Jarvis. Janzen is the only one of the three to ever make the major leagues, and he never does all that well before ending up in Tampa Bay via expansion draft. This is the worst-case scenario for losing Roy.

January 1999 - Roger Clemens' demand to leave Toronto results in him going to the Yankees for David Wells, Homer Bush, and Graeme Lloyd. Wells is a strong pitcher but no Clemens, Bush is the best second baseman the Jays had in the nearly-ten-year-stretch between Alomar and Hudson, and Lloyd is a serviceable middle reliever. But other than maybe Bush, none of them could be classified as prospects, so again nothing to learn here.

November 1999 - Shawn Green also asked for a trade, so he was sent to Los Angeles with Jorge Nunez for Raul Mondesi and Pedro Borbon. Mondesi was a disappointment, and Borbon did exactly what was advertised, but that wasn't enough to make it a good trade.

January 2001 - After two seasons, it's time for David Wells to want out of Toronto. In exchange for sending him to the White Sox, the Jays get proven major league starter Mike Sirotka, backup outfielder Brian Simmons, mediocre pitcher Kevin Beirne, and minor leaguer Mike Williams. Sirotka turns out to be hurt and never threw a pitch for Toronto. One of the worst trades in franchise history.

So overall, the Jays have not had success trading great players. Hopefully this turns out to be the exception.

--Ryan

Talkin' tube

2009-12-11T13:06:00.003-05:00

This year, I've been a good little pop culture junkie and have found myself watching four shows regularly (positive this is a record, at least for the past few years). Modern Family almost makes the cut, but I just don't quite enjoy it as much as I feel like I should, so I skip it most weeks.

What I will talk about in more detail are those four shows - starting with the one in that picture on the left.

Scrubs

Scrubs is back! Again! Although these eleventh-hour additional seasons have been going on for a few years now, this year is the least Scrubs-like yet - Carla is gone, JD will be soon, the other regulars are down to just guest appearances, and the only familiar faces on the main cast are Cox, Turk, and last year's addition of Denise.

Also gone (or at least performing a diminished role) is show creator Bill Lawrence, who had hoped the show could be retitled 'Scrubs Med' or something similar. I think that might have been a wise choice - people have been trying to compare this year's show to classic Scrubs, even though it's really quite a different show. A new name would have helped reduce some of the comparisons.

Trying to evaluate the show on its own merits, it's pretty good (and I suspect will get better once JD leaves and it can develop its own identity). It's a little less crazy, a little more grounded in the characters, their development and interactions.

Most of the new additions are good, although I'm very confused at why they didn't just stick with last year's new cast (who I assumed were being groomed to take over the show). Lucy originally seemed like a clone of Sunny from last year, but as it turns out she's closer to JD from the first season, only less crazy and slightly more confident. Drew's a neat addition even if I'm wondering where they can go with his character after this week's episode.

Hate Cole though. I know that's the point, but I don't hate him because I'm supposed to hate him. I hate him because I'd rather just not see him on the show in the first place.

V

If it seems weird for me to be opining on Scrubs after three episodes...well, V has only had four. And now it's on a break. Until March.

Long break.

My knowledge of the original V is very little - I read one of the books in high school - but even I still knew the pertinent details. Evil lizards disguised as humanoid aliens invade Earth, most people believe the lizards' propaganda that they're only here to help us, some lizards rebel against the leadership.

So I'm kind of glad that they got all of that out of the way in the first episode - most people already knew the twists one way or another, so give them to us quickly and then get to the real storytelling.

I have to say, I quite like this show (at least for a sci-fi). The pacing is great, the revelations are coming out naturally, the distrust between the main rebels feels real, we're still left with lots of mysteries...I don't necessarily like the portrayal of the media (easily duped, refusing to ask tough questions), but I think that's because of my personal interest more than anything.

Flash Forward

The other sci-fi I've been watching, Flash Forward is clearly the inferior show yet (maybe because of that) I'm almost enjoying it more.

Whereas V intentionally doesn't drop much in the way of clues, preferring to have us learn things as the main characters do, Flash Forward leaves me with the impression I could figure out the entire puzzle if I tried hard enough. I don't know why I think this, considering they also introduce new plot points completely out of the blue even though the characters have known them all along.

The characters are easily to relate to because we see their flash-forwards roughly a million times each - Dimitri seeing nothing, his bride-to-be at their wedding (well, his funeral), Mark being assaulted in his office while drunk, the now-dead guy working on a case with some British intelligence agent, etc.

I still don't understand how some plot points fit together - Mark's daughter is seen in the flash-forward of Lloyd's son, clearly in Olivia's kitchen, yet she also must have encountered D. Gibbons at some point in her 2.5-minute glimpse of the future.

And that's without getting into the incredibly cheesy revelation of the evil genius behind the flash-forwards being hidden by the Persian woman in the last episode.

Still, I'll be watching when it comes back in the spring.

The Office

Finally, we come to the show I've blogged about more than any other. The Office has taken a drastically different direction this year, and I for one don't really like it.

The biggest changes involve Jim - the everyman character who we were all drawn to in the early seasons because of his "island of sanity in a land of bizarre office-mates" personality. In theory, this season should have been his crowning moment - marrying Pam (whom we also all liked), and getting promoted to co-manager, finally able to temper Michael's unpopular side.

Problem: none of that has happened. Instead, Jim and Pam have turned into what they never liked about everybody else they work with - caricatures who have lost sight of their old perspective on life and suddenly care about something else (each other) instead. They're part of the office's problems, rather than surrogates for the audience, reacting at the absurdity.

If we want somebody to empathize with, we now have to go to Oscar (who overreacted to things in early seasons, apparently the least offensive trait the writers could find). Even worse, we almost had a complete 180-degree reversal in Jim and Dwight.

Dwight had become one of the more popular characters by being unbelievably weird, to the point where you'd assume the rest of the office was laughing at him behind his back (which they were). Now, the writers are playing to his popularity by making him funny and while still weird, weird in a much cuter way. It's nowhere near the same character he was originally.

On the one hand, I'm glad the writers realized what was going on and have tried to get us back to not liking Dwight by having him undermine Jim. On the other hand, why is Dwight so upset that Jim got promoted and not him, especially considering that when Jim was named Assistant Manager, Dwight barely caused a stir? Why the sudden change?

There's actually a lot to like about The Office this year - Andy and Erin, Angela becoming a background character again, Creed getting more good lines (although I wish he'd have never been seen again after the murder mystery episode). Even the storyline of Dunder Mifflin having financial woes and ultimately being sold was a great idea considering its current topicality.

But all of these are overrided by Jim, who seemed smart enough to be a decent boss, making absolutely bone-headed decisions, and Michael, who we'd been taught to believe was a horrible manager, being the wise sage. Too many role reversals for me to be enjoying the show as much as I have in the past.

--Ryan

If I could be partisan for a moment...

2009-12-07T14:28:00.002-05:00

Trying to be objective (or at least non-partisan) in my writing about politics this term has led me to some interesting discoveries.

For one, no matter how appalling the government's treatment of Afghan detainees, or Canadian citizens abroad, or the Canadian public's intellect, may seem at any one moment, these charges will slide off the government like so much Teflon within a few weeks (at the most). They might be - and in my opinion, are - legitimate grievances, but there are simply too many of them, and the opposition transitions from one to the next so quickly, to create any sort of public stir.

Contrast this to Ontario's provincial government, where the opposition seems to have a one-note tune with the HST. While the HST is good policy which many assume PC leader Tim Hudak would even support if he viewed it through conservative (rather than Conservative) eyes, the Ontario opposition has been enormously effective at mobilizing public support in opposition to the HST.

A tax change that will save the majority of Ontarians money overall is meeting vocal opposition, but a government that is quite transparently doing nothing but looking out for itself (and, when necessary, its supporters) raises barely a peep.

Funny, that.

I don't know if the problem is that the Conservatives are too good at spinning their message or that the opposition isn't good enough at spinning theirs. In either case, it's a horrible reason - politics have become more about managing public opinion than about any actual governance.

Journalists aren't helping. If a newspaper reporter interviews a Liberal about something, he is pressured into interviewing a Conservative for 'balance'. Could you imagine this applying to any other type of journalism? "I'm going to interview this executive from a company, but I'd better talk to an executive from their chief rival too." "It's not enough to talk to these people who had their house burn down, I'd better talk to some people who didn't have their house burn down."

Even worse is the acceptance and complicity of journalists who know they are being spun - it's okay to report political spin even if it didn't answer your question in the least. It's better than nothing. There have been a few instances of reporters fighting back and demanding that politicians actually answer the questions asked, but these show up rarely and don't make any tangible difference.

The political talk shows on CBC and CTV's cable news networks aren't any better - they're so afraid of being accused of bias that they have panels of an MP from each major party, a Senator from each major party, a strategist from each major party. These panels are more theatre than journalism - everybody involved and everybody watching knows that nothing will come out other than the party lines, but they do them anyhow.

And to those who say 'the people are too smart to fall for spin'? They're not. I've been following the current CRTC hearings related to the relationship between TV networks and cable service providers for another class. The CRTC recently opened up a website to solicit public opinion on the matter.

The result is extremely disappointing - form letters copied and pasted directly from the pages of the interested parties, and people whose understanding of the issue seems to be solely either the 'Stop the TV Tax' commercial or the 'Local TV Matters' commercial (whichever they saw first) - neither of which, of course, are about public good or anything other than making more money for the people behind them.

I have my doubts that the CRTC will even bother to sift through all the spin to find the handful of insightful, worthwhile, intelligent comments. Won't be much longer until politics goes the same way.

--------------------

So what's next for this blog? My class requirements are done - with one extra post because this and a couple of others have skirted the bounds of what I was supposed to be doing. Also finished is my latest "hey guys, here's the music I'm listening to aren't I all hipster and awesome?!?" series.

The blog will probably slow down over Christmas, as it always does. Maybe worse, because The Sputnik is my first priority this year. Plus Dan has a job now, so he'll be posting even less than usual.

But we'll carry on, with a mix of news commentary, pop culture analysis, and cool/bizarre things we found on the Internet.

In that spirit, this lady is painting herself having sex with every American president, chronologically. (Not safe for work, obviously.)

--Ryan

Twenty albums you should hear (Part IV)

2009-12-05T17:06:00.002-05:00

(For historical sake, Parts I, II, and III.)

Slow Club - Yeah So

This album is just fun. There's no other way to describe it. Which is kind of weird considering that once you get past the harmonies, high tempos, and bubbliness, the lyrics are really full of hopelessness and despair. They sound like normal indie falling in love songs, but they're not.

Unfortunately your expectations might be a little much because the first two songs - "When I Go" and "Giving Up On Love" - are probably the two best on the album, but the rest certainly holds its own.

"It Doesn't Have To Be Beautiful" is a frantic it-is-what-it-is tune, while "There Is No Good Way To Say I'm Leaving You" is just a little too slow for my liking.

"Come On Youth" is actually a pretty good song that I think I'd like more on its own, it doesn't really fit with the rest of the album. "Our Most Brilliant Friends" is ten minutes of craziness that serves as a nice closing.

I think if you were to play this for somebody else, with neither of your attention focused completely on the music, you'd think it was an awesome indie album you should really listen to again. Then once you listened to it on your own, you'd realize that the upbeat nature is betrayed by the depressing lyrics, and ignore it for a long long time thereafter.

Go on, give it a try. See if I'm right.

Sunset Rubdown - Random Spirit Lover

It's hard for me to label any album as my favourite, but if I had to pick it just might be this one. Dragonslayer has grown on me a ton since I first heard it, and Shut Up I Am Dreaming has the incomparable "The Men Are Called Horsemen There", but from top to bottom, Random Spirit Lover is simply amazing.

You've got the catchy, Spencer Krug vocal insanity, catchy guitar hook-laden songs like "The Mending Of The Gown" and "Up On Your Leopard, Upon The End Of Your Feral Days" which get people perking up and saying "hey, that's not bad!"

You've got the darker, instrumentally-heavy tracks like "Colt Stands Up, Grows Horns", "Stallion", and "Magic Vs. Midas" which harken back to Shut Up I Am Dreaming only with better vocals and a more epic feel.

You've got the harmonic vocals of "The Courtesan Has Sung" and "Child-Heart Losers" which will be stuck in your head even if they don't really make that much sense.

And you've got the hauntingly amazing back-to-back of "For The Pier (And Dead Shimmer)" and "The Taming Of The Hands That Came Back To Life", two songs which I haven't tired of despite dozens of plays over the last few months.

Add it all up, and it's just a great album. My only real complaint would be - and it's something Spencer Krug is guilty of in everything he does - that each song bleeds into the next, forcing you to either listen to the entire album or wonder 'what was with that last 30 seconds that sounded nothing like the rest of the song?'. But then again, it's not like listening to the entire album is a chore.

The Wave Pictures - If You Leave It Alone

What you intially think Slow Club are, these guys actually are. Maybe not quite as bouncy, but more genuine in their expressions of love and longing. Fun songs that you only need to hear once to remember for months. Neat instrumentation too.

"If You Leave It Alone" provides a bit of a misleading opening - once you're a few minutes into the song, it picks up, but it's a little slower than most of the album.

Something seems weird about the melody of "My Kiss", but it's nonetheless enjoyable. Also enjoyable are the following few songs - "Tiny Craters In The Sand" through "Bye Bye Bumble Belly" is probably my favourite run on the album, and those also happen to be my two favourite songs.

The last three songs are maybe a bit of a step down - at least once I've stopped listening at "Softly You, Softly Me" - but I think that's more a matter of taste, or just me not being able to take too much of this stuff at once.

Good album. Worth your time for sure. Assuming of course that you're into the same pretentious indie music that I am.

Why? - Eskimo Snow

Apparently Why? are classified as a hip hop band, which confuses me to no end as there's practically zero hip hop here. It's slow, brooding, Airborne Toxic Event-style (and they'd have made this list had I started it later, by the way) indie where it's more talking over instruments than singing but still good.

(Confused yet?)

There's not a lot to distinguish these songs from each other, really, although "This Blackest Purse" is my favourite and is the one where everything seems to go on just a little longer than you'd expect.

"Against Me" is another strong recommendation, although like everything on this album it's the instruments, and not the vocals, that clue you in to where the chorus is.

I'm generally not a hip-hop fan, but I'm feeling like Why?'s hip-hop might have a bit more energy to it than Eskimo Snow but not really be what I consider hip-hop, so it's probably worth checking out at some point.

"Berkeley By Hearseback" is another strong song and probably my second-favourite on the album - like Fake Surfers, this is an album which picks up steam as it goes along.

You Say Party! We Say Die! - XXXX

Yeah apparently I'm a few years late on this bandwagon. But then again, I didn't like YSP!WSD!'s early dance punk as much as the more recent and more towards pop stuff.

According to an interview I heard with the band on CBC Radio 3, it's still a little hard for these guys to admit they're singing about love, so 'XXXX' in several song titles (and the album title) is code for 'love'.

It does almost seem like this album was written on a dare - something like 'can you guys actually write songs about love if you wanted? can you even feel love?'. "There Is XXXX (Within My Heart)" answers this question in the opening track.

Some of the other songs - "Glory", "Make XXXX", and "Cosmic Wanship Avengers" come to mind right away - sound like the band enjoyed recording them, and are definitely more pop, more dance, less punk. Probably my favourites.

On the flip side are songs like "Laura Palmer's Prom" and "Heart Of Gold" which almost go too far in the other direction - there's no backbone to them, they're somewhat generic female pop. They're not bad for what they are, but it's kind of jarring considering who's behind them.

And that makes two female-fronted bands in this list of twenty, not counting Slow Club's dual vocalists and plenty of female backups. For me, that's an improvement.

--Ryan

will I gain weight in later life?

Enough about me, let's talk about you

2009-12-02T14:32:00.005-05:00

(This was the most interesting GIS result I found for 'interactivity'. It's not the type of interactivity I meant, but it'll do.)

Why do I blog?

I've touched on this before, of course. I like to write, and I have an interest in writing about current events - thus, a blog would seem to be the best outlet for combining both activities. And it is.

But more to the point, I'm interested in hearing from people who either agree or disagree with me. That's why I have comments open (and unmoderated if on a post from within the past two weeks, moderated past that only so I can track new comments on old posts). That's why I link to this blog from pretty much any profile I have anywhere on the Internet (for the first year or so, it was even my MSN status message).

Not everybody follows this line of thinking though. Some people in my class have turned comments off completely, and others leave them on but try to avoid seeking them. Their reasoning is that they're not sure they would respond well to negative feedback - either they're not emotionally able to handle it or they're not going to be able to rebut.

I understand their feelings to a degree. Especially because they were forced to blog - they wouldn't have done it on their own, and they're not going to keep it up once the semester ends. However...it's a journalism class. They're all journalism students. Presumably this means they want to be journalists. And maybe I'm wrong in my thinking, but it's my understanding that working journalists will get feedback from people they've never met. Usually negative feedback - strangers are more likely to tell you you're doing something wrong than you're doing something right.

So if they can't handle negative feedback from complete strangers now, what makes them want to pursue a career where they're virtually guaranteed it in the future?

There's also the matter of people - and I'm not sure our class had any of these - who disable comments because they want you to know what they think, but they don't particularly care what you think. People who would rather have their opinions be thought of as fact than have any sort of debate. This is possibly the biggest turn-off I ever see in a blog - and I wonder if there's something to the fact that most of the time I see it, it comes from people with a political ideology somewhere to the right of mine.

I've generally been pretty lucky with the feedback I've received on this blog. Most of it comes from friends, fellow bloggers, and assorted other people I already know. These people read almost everything, comment on only what interests them, and are always respectful and (aside from one devout supporter of Ughur freedom) leave political biases aside.

Aside from that, there's a smaller group of commenters who are dedicated to a particular issue (the concept of micro-news comes into play here, I guess), and only visit my blog as often as I talk about that issue. For example, the person who commended me for pointing out that Maple Leaf and Maple Lodge are not the same company, even though they sound similar and even grocery store workers (like I was at the time) can get them confused.

Finally, we come to what everybody is afraid of: the malicious comments tearing apart everything you say. I can only recall one instance of this happening to me, and it's a recent one - the maliciousness blunted quite severely by the fact the attack came from the Esperanto lobby of all people.

It's very hard to take organized attacks on your blog seriously, because to me it means that provoking that attack means you're doing something right. If what you say causes an entire group to respond, especially if the responses all seem to be along the same lines, they're probably doing it because something you said is not in the best interests of their group.

*insert segue here*

I've always felt like the intelligence (and quality) of feedback was inversely proportional to the reputation and popularity of who was receiving it. I'm far from the first person to independently come to the conclusion that Youtube comments are the lowest form of Internet-based discourse, but there's definitely a ring of truth to it. Youtube is immensely popular - at this moment, Alexa ranks it as the fourth-most-visited site on the Internet - and so the people who comment on Youtube videos are those who don't have anywhere better to offer their opinions. I suspect that most of the 'stupid Youtube commenters' are nine-year-olds who really are doing exactly what you'd expect of a nine-year-old. Most of these people may have migrated from AOL.

Then you come to the obvious legitimate news sites - the Globe and Mail, TSN, CBC, et cetera. These are a step up from Youtube in the sense that people commenting on stories at these sites are at least a little bit engaged with the news, able to string together coherent sentences, and understanding that these are reputable websites. However, whatever they type into the comment box is exactly the same as what they would say to the newspaper or the television set had they seen the story on those media - still not exactly well-thought-out, and certainly not about to engage in anybody in serious debate.

Finally, blogs. Nobody just happens to stumble upon a blog. Nobody kills time by going to an unknown blog the way they do going to CBC.ca. If you're reading a blog, it's because you're already interested in what is being said, and who is saying it. If you're commenting on a blog - and I'm talking about a real standalone blog here, not a 'blog' written by a Toronto Star reporter for the Toronto Star's website - it's because you're interested in the topic, want to make your own thoughts known, and are interested in having a debate.

In that sense, blogs are the best form of journalism when it comes to fostering public debate, ergo blogs are the most democratic form of journalism.

--Ryan

Twenty albums you should hear (Part III)

2009-11-29T00:01:00.005-05:00

Islands - Return to the Sea

It took me a few listens to start liking this - probably because people had been recommending Islands to me since high school and there was no way it could live up to my expectations - but it's definitely good low-key dreampop.

One major complaint though - the first song, "Swans (Life After Death)" doesn't do anything for me. And it's nine minutes long. Bad start to the album, and perhaps that's what left a sour taste in my mouth for so long. It's not that I have a problem with long songs - "Bay of Pigs" and "Rubies" are two of my favourite Destroyer tunes, and they clock in at a combined 22 minutes - it's just that this one is low-key to the extreme and never really gets me into it.

Things pick up right away, though, as "Humans" kicks of a run of four awesome songs and seven good ones. "Don't Call Me Whitney, Bobby" is probably the catchiest of the bunch and a great starting point, while "Tsuxiit" is a fun little instrumental ditty. Fun summer music mostly.

It drags a bit at the end again - "If" and "Ones" are a bit too dreamy for my taste, and "Renaud" combines that with the cardinal bonus track sin of only starting after several minutes of silence.

Overall though, fun little album.

Metric - Fantasies

Obviously a great album. It won the CASBY award for Best Album of 2009, and who am I to disagree with an award I'd never heard of until a few months ago?

The problem is that the four songs released as singles thus far can all be found in the first six tracks - so if you go into this already knowing the singles, as I did, the back will really seem to drag and not be as good.

That's not to say that the back half is bad - it's a little less polished, as if the bulk of the production work was spent on the first half, but it's still strong female-fronted pop that at times borders rock. And actually, "Stadium Love" is quite good.

But let me just say a few words about the songs in the first half: They. Are. Freaking. Awesome. "Gimme Sympathy" is a little more low-key and would probably sound great acoustic, "Gold Guns Girls" and "Sick Muse" are just plain great, and "Help I'm Alive" is probably the weakest of the singles but still solid.

And, hey, a girl singer. Apparently I don't discriminate like that anymore.

The New Pornographers - Twin Cinema

Considering how much I absolutely love everything these guys have ever done, it's surprising how easy it was for me to pick this album over the rest. Mass Romantic goes a little overboard with the zaniness, Challengers is a little too low-key and mellow, and Electric Version is close but ultimately not quite as just plain fun as this one.

We start off with the titular track, which is catchy, singalong-able (by design), and very high-tempo. Great song to kick off a concert, and of course good way to start the album. The follow-up is "The Bones of an Idol", which is a decent enough song that really sounds like it belongs on Challengers more than here.

Then we get into a frankly awesome run. "Use It" and "The Bleeding Heart Show" are two awesome songs which should catch on with anybody who ever hears them. The harmonies, the hooks, the repetitive catchy choruses - it's all there. "Jackie, Dressed In Cobras" is the first Dan Bejar contribution, and it works well because it's considerably less insane than what you usually throws on one these albums. Or maybe it just seems this way because Carl and Neko provide more vocals than usual for a Dan song.

"The Jessica Numbers" is a strong power-pop callback to the previous albums, and "These Are The Fables" is something completely unique in the NPs' catalogue - a Neko-sung ballad. The structure is really, really simple, but it's still a lovely song. The back end of the album is a little more disjointed - not bad songs, but they don't flow as nicely as the front half does. The album ends on "Stacked Crooked", which probably wins my vote for most underrated NPs song of all time.

Of Montreal - Skeletal Lamping

I...don't really know what to say about this one. It's indie, but it's not the sort of indie most of the rest of this list is. It's quirky, unorthodox, and highly sexual. I think you have to listen to it to fully understand what I'm talking about.

There are a few songs I particularly enjoy, so I'll comment on those and ignore the rest. Nothing terribly bad though.

"Nonpareil of Favor" is the first track, and it's a false start of sorts - it makes you think this might just be another album full of typical indie love songs, albeit a good one. And maybe a little more instrumental than most. This idea is shattered in the first line of the next song, "Wicked Wisdom" - and the second, and the third, and pretty much every recognizable line in that song.

"For Our Elegant Caste" has a chorus where the obviousness of the hinting at bisexuality is matched only by its ridiculous level of catchiness, "An Eluardian Instance" is back to heterosexuality, and "Gallery Piece" is obtuse in whether it's meant as a love song or a love/hate song.

"Women's Studies Victims" is oddly catchy for being more-or-less spoken word. Same goes for "And I've Seen A Bloody Shadow". "Death Is Not A Parallel Move" sticks out as being a little more electro than most of the album, "Beware Our Nubile Miscreants" is a little more overt than most of the album, and "Id Enganger" is a little more fun than the rest of the album.

A couple other notes - the funk influence is kind of neat, and some songs do have that thing going on where they were probably originally two or three separate songs. Still a fun, if somewhat different, album.

R.E.M. - Out Of Time

It's no Abbey Road, but it's the other old album on this list. (I thought the Tragically Hip's Up To Here made the cut, but apparently not.)

I have a bit of a bias towards this album because it was a standard for me to drum along to when I was starting out with that. Doesn't change that it narrowly beats Automatic For The People as my favourite R.E.M. album.

"Radio Song" is an unusual song, at least by R.E.M. standards - a slower opening half followed by a rap collaboration with KRS-One of all people. "Losing My Religion" is up next, and it's a pretty well-known song, so I won't say much about it other than that it was probably the first song I ever liked the lyrics of. "Low" is, well, low - moody, short on instruments, but still enjoyable.

"Near Wild Heaven" is a fun song where ten-year-old me thought it sounded like the band was having a party, plus I like hearing Mike Mills on lead vocals. "Endgame" is again something different - certainly not a pop song, a bit of Stipe scat singing, also a lead trumpet solo. (I'm a firm believer that any song can be improved with a trumpet solo, this will be the subject of a future post.)

I'm not as familiar with the rest of the album, because my parents had it on tape and I usually just listened to the A-side most of the time. "Shiny Happy People" is what it is, obviously. "Belong" has spoken word vocals and nice Mills/Buck harmonies, probably the most underrated song on the album in my opinion. "Texarkana" is another catchy Mills-sung tune, and I don't have much to say about the rest.

And this is probably the only review ever of Out Of Time not to include the word 'mandolin'.

...dammit.

--------------

A couple quick programming notes.

The final batch of five albums will make these seem like the ultimate of the mainstream.

Tomorrow is Grey Cup day. I definitely will not be doing a liveblog the way I have previous years - essay season is unfortunately in full swing, and I've already set aside a couple of hours for Chelsea/Arsenal (I've turned into a soccer fan, apparently).

If I watch the game, there's a better-than-decent chance I'll give livetweeting a try, so follow me on Twitter or something.

For the record, I think it's the Als' year.

Also, Andrew Coyne is anti-feminist. As usual with Coyne, I don't disagree.

--Ryan

Some links and a video

2009-11-26T11:10:00.003-05:00

Taking a break from music and from abstract politics to share with you some of the most awesome pit stops on the information superhighway.

First up, Lifehacker. It's been around for a few years, it's been popular for a few years, but maybe you're like me and have somehow managed to completely ignore it until recently.

Every update on Lifehacker is designed to improve your life or help you with a common problem - with solutions that are either free or extremely thrifty. Although not as tech-y as sister site Gizmodo, technology still features prominently in Lifehacker updates - new applications, new ways to use existing technologies, et cetera.

However, Lifehacker also has plenty of tips that are more suited to a DIY lifestyle and involve no tech support whatsoever - the front page currently tells you how to make any pair of gloves work with a touchscreen device, how to use sand to prop up awkward objects you might be repairing, how to properly gorge to maximize your enjoyment of a feast and minimize the after-effects, and how to wipe water marks off of wooden furniture with toothpaste. A nifty little site that's updated many times daily.

If Lifehacker's plethora of time-saving ideas has left you with untold hours spare and no idea what to occupy your time with, maybe you should give Sporcle a try.

Sporcle is a site full of trivia quizzes. And that's all there is to it. You can try and name common foods in Spanish, countries of the world, MLB all-time stolen base leaders, song titles from opening lyrics, or just about anything else you can think of.

There are hundreds of games - all timed, and all with the ability to compare your results to everyone else - with six new games added every day (three on weekends).

Word of advice: stick to the games on the main site. Do not go into the 'User Created' section - not a quality issue or anything, but it'll get far, far too addictive at that point.

And if you're still bored - or even if you're not - take five minutes to watch this video. It's completely awesome.

--Ryan

Google me this

2009-11-23T21:02:00.003-05:00

Despite this being another JN229 post, it has nothing to do with politics. Instead, I complain about our understanding of technology.

For an assignment in another class, I had to cover a Brantford city council meeting. One of the items discussed was a proposed extension of Old Park Road on the outskirts of the city's west end.

To get a better understanding of just what would have to be uprooted for this road to come into place, I used Google Maps to take a look at the area. Particularly, I was interested in what a local imam said about the road possibly going over a cemetery. Here's what Google Maps had to say:

Pretty simple, right? Oak Park Road carries on a little past the end of civilization as we know it at Hardy Street, and then you get a dead end.

Except that's not what happens. Switch to satellite view, and you get this:

There's other roads there. Some of them may be dirt (further zooming is mostly inconclusive although a couple are definitely paved). There's even a bridge over the Grand River.

Then I had the thought: I've seen this before. Google doesn't seem to add new roads to their maps - so since the satellite photos were added after Google Maps debuted, the satellite maps will show roads that the regular maps don't. Likewise, Street View will (where applicable) show even newer additions to the infrastructure.

One question jumps to mind right away. If 9/11 were to happen today, how long would it taken before the World Trade Center wasn't part of Google Maps? Google Satellite Maps? Google Street View? It's not like they update these things often.

I'm not suggesting that this is a glaring error on Google's part - at least not yet. After all, would you be able to stay on top of every new road and building that goes up around the world?

Down the road it could be more of a problem if my hunch is correct and the original Google Maps is never updated - at least a problem for Google, as they'd likely lose market share to more up-to-date maps. In this sense, the in-car GPS manufacturers' tendency to release an updated data pack every year or two is less money-grabbing than it is providing a useful service.

But there are two things that jump out at me. For one, it suggests that Google has a tendency to work on one of their services, get it as close to perfection as possible, and then abandon it when they have something new to play with (i.e. satellite photos). Considering Google's public reputation for being objective and infallible, this is a major blemish on their record. (Heck, the alleged objectivity of Google could be a nice blog post on its own if I were feeling a little more motivated tonight.)

Also, it leads me to think of Google Maps as less "this is the world, this is how the world is" and more "this is how the world was a few years ago" - but in a good way. Google can essentially act as historical cartographers for the entire planet, keeping archived maps of the entire world that would be tremendously useful for future researchers to see the evolution of cities.

Whether Google can be trusted with all that power is an entirely different debate - but it's not like we aren't already trusting them with far more.

--Ryan

Twenty albums you should hear (Part II)

2009-11-20T21:03:00.002-05:00

Here's the second batch of five.

Fleet Foxes - Fleet Foxes

Remember how last time I mentioned that The Duckworth Lewis Method wouldn't sound out of place on an oldies radio station? Now that I've given it some thought, neither would these guys. Catchy vocal hooks with enough over-production to remind you of a lo-fi ELO or something, instruments kept to the background, and an overall pleasing sound.

An article in Maclean's a couple of weeks back had an offhand mention to Fleet Foxes being thrown on at a party where the previous music had been all Beatles and their ilk, and the Foxes being 'well-received'. I'm not surprised.

The only complaint I can level is that...well, it sounds too much like what's thought of as "old people music". Listening to the album again now, I'm still getting the "hey, this is good!" feeling I've had every other time, but I'm also realizing that it's background music, it's for people who say they like jazz when what they really mean is that they don't like metal, it's not something that will ever command 100% of your attention.

But it's still good. It's fun, it's folksy, and it's certainly a lot more accessible than most of this list. If you're after specific song recommendations - since this is one album where it's okay - let's go with "White Winter Hymnal", "Tiger Mountain Peasant Song", and "Your Protector".

The Gaslight Anthem - The '59 Sound

I know, I've talked about this one before. But it deserves it. Deserves more, really.

This is what modern rock should be. While Nickelback might appeal to the lowest common denominator, Gaslight appeals to every denominator. While Metric might be making people think pop-rock is the only good rock anymore, Gaslight are proving them wrong. And so forth.

If you like Tom Petty or Bob Seger, you'll love this. Although I'm not a huge fan of the last three songs, they're still far better than the back-end filler on most albums.

The '59 Sound starts off with the somewhat jangly "Great Expectations" and the titular track, then gets into a few more straightforward rock songs, ending at "Film Noir", probably the closest thing this album gets to a hard rock or true punk song.

"Miles Davis & The Cool" took a while to grow on me, but is now one of my favourite songs on the album - and it only gets better with the next three, which are catchy, somewhat diverse, and just all-around awesome rock.

This CD should be blaring out of every car in the summertime. Awesome, awesome rock.

(Sink or Swim, Gaslight's first offering, isn't as good frankly. You can see where the foundations were laid for this one, but '59 is miles ahead.)

The Guess Who - Running Back Thru Canada

Heh. Yeah.

A bit of a throwback to my pre-indie tastes, this is the double-album that got me through dozens of night shifts stocking grocery store shelves.

There's something undefinably cool about hearing the music your parents grew up to, only thirty years later and with the musicians thirty years older.

Backstory: In 1999, The Guess Who reunited for the first time since 1983, to play a cross-Canada tour. The entire tour was recorded, and songs from many different venues - Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Barrie come to mind right away - were combined to make this double album, which gives the feeling of being at one of the tour dates.

The songs will be instantly recognizable to anybody who grew up with The Guess Who - or anybody who, like me, grew up with classic rock. With Randy Bachman being part of the group, a few BTO songs are thrown in for good measure.

The capper is a 14-minute rendition of "American Woman", with lead singer Burton Cummings still sounding awesome.

This is one where you need to listen to the whole thing - it'll take a while, but if you remember the tunes, it'll be worth it. If not...well, it's some nice Canadiana for you.

Human Highway - Moody Motorcycle

A certain commenter will scold me for not knowing the backstory behind this group, but it's one guy from Islands and...somebody else. They play catchy lo-fi poppish stuff.

"The Sound" and "All Day" are both great tracks which gets the album off to a fine start. It's hard to say if the album never quite gets back to that level of excellence or if all the songs sound somewhat similar, so eventually they all blend together, but those two remain my favourites.

This is great naptime music. Drifting in and out of sleep, you won't know when one song ends and another begins, which is just fine by me.

"Moody Motorcycle" is the next song to stand out to me - although after another listen through, I think I mistakenly believed that half the songs were Islands tunes. "Moody Motorcycle" is a little less dreamy, a little quicker, and thus memorable.

I'm worried that I'm being too negative on this album - it's very good folksy stuff, it's just that there's not too much I can really say about it.

"Duties Of A Lighthouse Keeper" is another good song, and "I Wish I Knew" provides a bit different of an ending.

Good album. On the accessibility scale, it's pretty high up there, but not like Fleet Foxes or something.

Intelligence - Fake Surfers

This is a little lower on the accessibility scale. Not quite Animal Collective, but it's not too far off really.

The name of the game here is some relatively catchy vocals followed by a crapload of synthesizers and a guitar. "Moody Tower", the second song in, is the perfect example of this.

The album goes by in a breeze - twelve tracks, but barely over half an hour of music. Every song is pretty short - which is good, as if they were longer they would be obviously stretched out.

"Debt & ESP", the third track, is probably my favourite track on the album, if only because it's the catchiest. "I Hear Depression" is the exact opposite - vocals are not memorable, but the instrumental hook will be stuck in your head for hours.

I'm guessing this is the sort of album that gets easier and easier to enjoy when the amount of substances you're using gets greater and greater.

This album definitely doesn't drag in the latter half - the best way I can describe "Universal Babysitter" is that it's a Wolf Parade song if Spencer Krug no-showed and they didn't bother replacing him, I take back what I said earlier because "Thank You God For Fixing The Tape" is definitely both my favourite and the catchiest, "Pony People" sounds so normal that I'm sure I thought it was a Fleet Foxes tune, and "The Unessential Cosmic Perspectiv" is less crazy than you'd expect the crazy album-ending song to be.

In fact, I'd argue that while the trend is for most albums to be front-loaded and have random subpar material at the back, Fake Surfers is the opposite - it gets better as it goes on.

-----------------------

I still haven't done the full pruning and replenishing of the blogroll at the left that I'd like to do, but I would like to draw your attention to one new addition.

Must Win Situation is a sports blog featuring The Sputnik's sports editor (and noted friend of the homeless) Kyle Brown. Also two other people who I don't know. And a podcast with two of my roommates for some reason.

But it's definitely good sports commentary, and it stands out by not just being the hockey/NFL/Jays combo you'd expect - NCAA, CIS, and even fishing have all been tackled on MWS.

I don't blog about sports nearly as much as I used to - so if you're missing that, check out MWS.

--Ryan

On celebrity

2009-11-17T16:19:00.004-05:00

Sarah Palin is back in the news thanks to the impending release of her book and a recent appearance on Oprah Winfrey's show.

The main effect of all this seems to have been for journalists to write about the renewed possibility of Palin running for - and maybe winning - the American presidency in 2012. (My favourite line, and I've seen it in too many places to attribute it to just one person, is that this is what the Mayans were expecting.)

President Palin, the conventional logic goes, would be a disaster. A combination of celebrity and neo-con, she would be able to enacted a Bush-like agenda with far more support because of her Clinton-like folksy charm.

In reality, I'm not so convinced that a Sarah Palin presidency would spell the end of Western civilization, or even the more realistic option of an increasingly laughable America.

American presidents do not really have all that much power - look at how far Obama has had to stray to the right to accomplish even a tiny fraction of what he'd like to. Why would Sarah Palin be any different? Wouldn't Congress still be able to impose its will on her orders?

More importantly, Sarah Palin is not a hard ideologue like Bush Sr. or Obama or even Jimmy Carter - she is perhaps the most malleable politician we've ever seen. If anybody can convince her that something is a good idea - and it seems pretty easy to do just that, Palin must be either incapable of or unwilling to engage in any sort of critical thought - she will back that idea until her dying breath.

I don't think she realizes how stupid some of the things she says will seem. I think she honestly believes that she is doing what's best for America. In that sense, at least, she has the right motivation.

The problems arise if she chooses to surround herself with people who might be less scrupulous, less willing to suggest policies which are good for the country, and more willing to suggest policies that are good for the people suggesting them - which, given that this is the GOP we're talking about, seems like a foregone conclusion.

It's okay to want to be president for the ego boost - didn't Obama spend the first month of his reign inviting different musicians and celebrities to the White House? What's worrying is when you're so caught up in the celebrity of the presidency that the business of governing the country comes second (or third, or fourth, or...). Especially if the people you delegate it to aren't the right people for such a task. That's why I'm terrified of Sarah Palin.

-----------------

Speaking of celebrity (how's that for a forced segue?), it was one of the thousand or so topics that came up in class today. Basically, the argument was that the primary purpose of blogs is not to provide journalism - bloggers don't actually care about reporting the news on their blogs, they're just hoping to get noticed and become (on some level) celebrities.

At first, I disagreed with this idea. Specifically, I thought of this blog - I've never considered it a celebrity-making endeavour. It's a place for me to hone my writing and analytical skills. If people happen to enjoy reading my random brain droppings, great - that's why it's open to the public. But it's not like I go out of my way to court an audience.

Well, that last bit isn't exactly true. Or true at all, really. Case in point: tomorrow's issue of The Sputnik has a little plug for this blog.

I could take the easy way out and claim that it doesn't really count as seeking publicity when it wasn't my idea. But when it was suggested to me, I still said yes. And beyond that, I've put stuff up on Twitter in the past if I've been particularly proud of it.

There is literally nothing that would attract people to this place over any of the million other blogs out there, aside from a personal connection with me. Bad nursery rhymes, links to websites people already know about, and mildly amusing personal anecdotes aren't exactly high-quality material.

And yet, I publish our URL in the school paper, in the hopes that it'll attract another reader to my bizarre and often incomprehensible writings. (Which would give us a grand total of, what, maybe three?)

So I guess somewhere, deep down, I do want to be a celebrity, no matter how much I may deny it on the surface.

Just don't put me anywhere near TMZ.

--Ryan

(P.S. To our new third reader, I'm not always this introspective. Nor this cynical. Honest.)

They're creepy and they're kooky; the Royal Family

2009-11-13T16:25:00.003-05:00

Last night, I turned into The National - like most who've made their opinions known, I'm not a fan of the new format - to see what the At Issue gang would be talking about. I did so more begrudgingly than usual - I was expecting more talk about how Ignatieff isn't connecting with the public, or how the government is either bungling or doing a perfect job of doling out H1N1 vaccinations, or maybe, if they were feeling particularly topical, talk about the new immigration booklet.

Instead? They talked about the Queen. And the royal family. And the governor-general. If any of them matter to Canadians. If any of them should matter questions.

And save for Andrew Coyne inexplicably referring to Prince Charles as 'Paul', it was a pretty good discussion. You can replay it here.

My thoughts? While we obviously need to have something to act as a check on the Prime Minister, I'm not sure that the Crown, in its current practice, is the best way of going about that.

Consider the current disconnect between the Canadian people and the royal family themselves - they're an ocean away, and every few years one of them comes over here for a visit. Of course it's going to be hard for Canadians to accept that these people have actual power over us - they're never here, how could they possibly know what's best for Canada!

Coyne proposed an off-the-wall suggestion to this problem - bring over Prince Harry (or whomever), call him King Harry, and have him start up a new branch of the dynasty, one with strong Canadian roots. Although I don't think he ever explicitly states it, I assume Coyne means that the Governor-General position would thus be abolished.

I can't be in favour of that. Britain is currently mulling over the monarchy in their own way - the biggest argument being that one family, accustomed to privilege, should maybe not be the ultimate rulers of the United Kingdom. Regardless of whether that argument is right or wrong, why transplant it over here when we have the opportunity to do something better? And do we really want to bring in our own version of the tabloid culture that surrounds the family in Britain?

My suggestion is a simple one: change the process of who picks the governor-general. Right now, it seems like the trendy thing to do is to pick a GG who falls into an ethnic minority because if we ever get accused of only letting old white guys into our political elite we can just go 'nuh-uh!' and point at the GG.

The problem with this is that the people who become governor-general are not people who have any particular qualification to be our country's ultimate ruler - either political or popular. So when something like last winter's parliamentary crisis comes along, people are left with doubts that the GG either understands their duty or will ultimately make the right decision.

Solution: get better governors-general. Jean Beliveau. Rick Hansen. Romeo Dallaire. People who have the respect of the public and embody the Canadian spirit. People with no known political affiliations. People who have such a mythical aura about them that Canadians would unflinchingly accept that, in a time of crisis, these people will know what to do.

The appointment process is also a bit of a tricky issue - as long as the Prime Minister is the de facto selector, there will always be an element of politicization in the GG position. My first thought was that maybe the Supreme Court should become the torch-bearers for this, in a sudden burst of relevance. But this time, I have to defer to Coyne - have the highest-level members of the Order of Canada select the GG, who because of the criteria I outlined above will likely be among their ranks already, in a similar fashion to how the College of Cardinals selects new popes.

Nothing else would change. The GG would still be required, by convention, to follow the PM's advice in all but the most dubious of times, and the British Crown, again by convention, would follow the GG's advice essentially always.

Is it likely to happen? Probably not. The amount of work it takes to change even one word in the constitution is likely to scare off any politicians from trying these changes, and our propensity for minority governments means that we're unlikely to see any PM with a mandate to make this sort of change for a long time anyhow.

But it's a nice thought.

--Ryan

Twenty albums you should hear (Part I)

2009-11-10T12:40:00.003-05:00

I told you I'd have something more fun.

On this blog, I have never tried to hide the fact that I like music, and my joy that I'm finally discovering new music. What I have had a problem with is relaying that music to you in any sort of consistent fashion - my 'summer music project' ended up a dud as my tastes moved elsewhere, and I seem to go in spurts where I listen to music faster than I can blog about it, then not try anything new for months.

So, here's my latest attempt. Twenty albums, by twenty different artists, split alphabetically into four groups of five - which also should mean more frequent updates. Two or three that I'd expect most people to know, a few more that I've mentioned here before, and plenty that you've likely never heard of. Let's get on with it!

Animal Collective - Merriweather Post Pavilion
Pitchfork, the Internet home of all hipsters and elitists, gave this a 9.6/10. Even though it was released in early January, many said confidently that it would be the greatest album of 2009 - and they just might be right. Scott Feschuk listed "My Girls" as the second-best song of the year, and called the band "Brian Wilson crossed with Passion Pit and four tabs of acid" - despite not really being a fan of the band. (But then, what would a political writer know about music?)

The obvious criticism of this album - one even Feschuk noticed - is that patterns and repetition play a big part in making MPP what it is. And that's valid. But is that really such a bad thing? Sure, most of these songs on their own aren't anything special - but together, in an album, punctuated by breaks for "Summertime Clothes" or "Lion In A Coma"? It works. It's almost magical.

(Yes, I'm aware how that last bit sounded.)

Merriweather Post Pavilion starts off with three of the most pattern-heavy songs, including the obscenely catchy "My Girls", which only gets slightly worse once you give in to temptation and Google the lyrics. Then you get a nice break with "Summertime Clothes", which is one of my favourite songs ever. I thought "Summertime Clothes" might be the best hipster love song of 2009 - until two tracks later, when "Bluish" blew it right out of the water and staked a claim for best hipster love song of all time. Then you get back into the indistinguishable pattern songs, break for "Lion In A Coma", and finish with endless repetitions of "it's what I HOPED for!" and "OPEN UP YOUR OPEN UP YOUR OPEN UP YOUR OPEN UP YOUR!".

Do not listen to Merriweather Post Pavilion by Youtubing songs at random. Find the entire album - Pitchfork's got it, apparently - and listen to it in one sitting. That's how you'll get the most out of it.

The Beatles - Abbey Road
Now this one you'll know. This is the only pre-90s album on my list of twenty (and one of only three from the 20th century), but it has earned its place based on merit.

Most Beatles albums were a bunch of Lennon/McCartney songs with George and Ringo vocals thrown in from time to time, but the albums never had the flow to them that Abbey Road does. Other than the break between side one and side two, every song flows seamlessly into the next.

"Something" and "Here Comes The Sun" are George's two best Beatles songs by miles, possibly even two of the best Beatles songs - Frank Sinatra considered "Something" the best love song of all time (although maybe he'd have had another opinion had he heard "Bluish"), and even "Octopus's Garden" was actually written by Ringo, as opposed to the traditional structure of John writing a song for Ringo to sing.

"I Want You (She's So Heavy)" is long, epic, and decades ahead of its time - arguably one of the biggest influences on prog rock, even if it does start to drone on a bit by the sixth minute.

And you're a fan of album-oriented rock, the sixteen-minute medley at the end is one of the pioneering suites to which you owe a thank you - "Mean Mr. Mustard", "The End", "Carry That Weight" all being parts of the Beatles' popular legacy despite clearly never being radio singles. In today's world, it's impossible for anything to have that sort of impact unless it's played on the radio for months on end.

Destroyer - Destroyer's Rubies
I am generally not a fan of singer-songwriters. Jack Johnson, Ryan Adams, even Sufjan Stevens is more likely to put me to sleep than to make me think "wow, this is good". But Dan Bejar of Destroyer (and the New Pornographers, and Swan Lake, and Hello, Blue Roses) is an exception - probably because he bursts into energy when you least expect it, and has madcap rambling lyrics that very occasionally make something resembling sense.

Sort of like that last clause.

Although Trouble in Dreams is newer (as is the two-song, 20-minute EP Bay of Pigs), Rubies is in my opinion Destroyer at its best.

"Rubies", the first track, is nine-and-a-half minutes of trademark Bejar insanity, including an opening five seconds about jackknifed cyclones with eyes for your wife. From there it's off to "Your Blood" and "European Oils" for more normal singer-songwriter fare - still nice and catchy, though. A few tracks later, we get "3000 Flowers", which is possibly the most rock-sounding thing Destroyer's ever done, even if the lyrics ("with scars where talons used to be?") are confusing. The album wanders a bit towards the end, but brings itself back with "Watercolours Into The Ocean", even if it is a tad repetitive.

This is one album that you could just take song by song. You might just like "Rubies" or "3000 Flowers", you might like everything else, I don't know. There's diversity.

The Duckworth Lewis Method - The Duckworth Lewis Method
If Lennon and McCartney had written exclusively about cricket, this would be the result. Insanely catchy, odds are you'll be singing along with some choruses and it'll take you two or three listens to realize the subject matter is always cricket.

Not knowing anything about cricket aside from a few words - and no, 'sticky wicket' does not show up in the lyrics - in no way hinders enjoyment of this album, because it's just that much fun.

The comparison to The Beatles above wasn't accidental - if they'd stayed together a few more years and taken a very slight bit of inspiration from the funk movement, "The Age of Revolution" could have easily been a Beatles hit, while "Meeting Mr. Miandad" sounds like it was taken right off a late-sixties Beatles' B-side.

"The Age of Revolution" really does kick off the best part of the album, followed by a song which wouldn't sound out of place on an oldies or classic hits radio station in "Gentlemen and Players", and then "The Sweet Spot", which as far as I can tell is not meant as sexual innuendo in the least.

Then comes "Jiggery Pokery", which was my first favourite off the album - and I've already got it more or less memorized. I never thought I'd see the day when I'd be memorizing and loving a song with "Aussie skullduggery" and "accident-prone buffoon" languishing in the chorus, but I also never thought I'd like an album about cricket.

"Mason on the Boundary" is another decent old-style song, then there's a brief break while "Rain Stops Play" before we get to go to Pakistan and "Meeting Mr. Miandad" gets stuck in our heads for the next fortnight. Although "Test Match Special" tries to perk things back up, the final four songs are a bit disappointing considering what's come before - but all in all, still a very good album.

Elephant Stone - The Seven Seas
A good Canadian band - Destroyer being the only other one in this batch - which is always a plus. I don't have as much to say about these guys as I do some of the others, possibly because they only have one album and I've only listened to it twice (although some songs more).

A great first impression is made by "Bombs Bomb Away", the first track - it's cool, it's catchy, and it's more-or-less accessible. "A Morning Song", track eight, has a similar effect, helped no doubt by the twangy bass riff. The ninth and final track, "Don't You Know", is also decent - but unfortunately, none of the middle six particularly stand out.

It's good background music, there's nothing jarring that would wake you from a light nap, nothing that will cause any eavesdroppers to wonder what the heck you're listening to, and easy enough to listen to while focusing most of your concentration on something else. Still worth a listen, and there's some great potential for the future.

--Ryan

Swine flu doesn't kill people; guns kill people

2009-11-05T14:39:00.003-05:00

I know I've been neglecting this place yet again. It's been a combination of "I need to keep writing about politics for class so I want my next entry to be political" and "there's nothing interesting going on in politics".

(Dan's excuse, if you were wondering, is that his new netbook makes him blind.)

One thing I'd considered writing about was MPs' pay - every so often, you hear about how politicians could use a raise, but won't suggest it for fear of public backlash. Brantford city councillors, for example, are only classified as part-time and some need second jobs to supplement their income.

Then I decided to do some simple fact-checking - and it turns out that Canadian and Ontarian politicians are paid very well indeed. My suggestion would have been to introduce legislation tying MPs' pay to the national average - but something tells me that it'd be hard to convince even a single MP to go along with that.

So salaries were out. But then, seemingly out of the blue, another issue crept up and grabbed my attention - the gun registry.

Within the span of a few days, we went from Conservatives making noise about reopening the debate on gun control to a vote that the Toronto Star claims will "in principle kill the gun registry".

Before this issue came to the forefront, my understanding of the registry was pretty rudimentary, and limited to what the popular narrative seems to be - a great idea in principle, but ridiculously expensive to maintain and overall a failure.

As it turns out - and John Geddes over at Macleans has been doing an excellent job explaining this - police find the registry extremely useful. If they're responding to a call, it tells them if there is likely to be a gun involved.

It might not be stopping the flow of illegal guns. It might not be stopping gun crime dead in its tracks. But if it's helping the police do their jobs, it seems to me like it must be doing something right.

And it's not like registering your gun means you're not allowed to use it - even the most ardent supporters of firearms would admit that they can be used to kill people, and so why not maybe let the government know you have a gun in case it ever falls into the wrong hands?

More to come later. Stuff that's a little more fun.

--Ryan

Happy Halloween!

2009-10-31T10:21:00.001-04:00

But don't take my word for it, here's Mike Tyson!

--Ryan

On objectivity

2009-10-27T18:43:00.003-04:00

Last week in class, I had to give a presentation on this blog.

At the end was some time for questions and answers, and somebody asked me if I consider my political reporting in this blog - since that's what the presentation was on - to be objective.

My reply was that unlike most political blogs, I do consider my political commentary (at least the stuff I've done for class thus far) to be unbiased, mainly because it deals with issues that go beyond the boundaries of partisan politics.

However, on further reflection, I find it extremely difficult to honestly consider this blog objective.

A better term might be 'bipartisan' (or, in the Canadian context, 'tripartisan'). While I might not be ripping into the Liberals or Conservatives for whatever manufactured scandal is all the rage this week, my "everybody can agree on this" solutions pretty much stop at the three major parties. Leaders being far too powerful in the Canadian system, for example, is not an opinion with which anyone advocating a dictatorship would agree. When I suggest that a strong, united Canada is a good thing, I'm sure the Bloc Quebecois would think otherwise. And so on.

It might not be impossible for a journalist to be truly objective and unbiased, but it's definitely difficult. One example a professor has used a few times - and this is the one that finally got me clued in to what he was talking about - is the example of "profits are good, and more profits are better". If we see a business story about Company X making $10 million for its shareholders, and right beside it Company Y making $15 million for its investors, we'll think Company Y is the healthier (or stronger or better) company. In reality, maybe Company X had an operating profit of $20 million, but decided to reinvest it into the company, while Company Y passed on all of its profits. A company making a profit is really only good for people with a stake in that company - there are other things they could do with that money, many would argue, that would be preferable.

Today in class, we discussed Wikinews - it tries to present all news from a 'neutral point of view', so what does that mean for objectivity? According to Wikinews itself, even this website - with its legions of writers and editors cross-examining anything that might contain the slightest bit of bias - cannot be fully objective. One of its most prominent failings is that it reflects the culture it comes from - just because news might seem objective to an Anglo-American audience, doesn't mean it will to somebody reading it in China or Somalia, and if these two people disagree, it obviously cannot truly be objective.

(Of course, it is only the English-language Wikinews that has an Anglo-American slant; I would assume that each Wikinews is slightly and unintentionally biased towards the worldview of those who speak that language.)

There is a bigger question, though, and that question is as follows: Does it even matter if journalists are not unbiased? Or at the very least, if their biases are the same as those of the society in which they live/work?

My opinion, ill-informed as it may be, leans to the negative. Historically, journalists have been described off and on as "mirrors of society" - a description which I think fits quite nicely. Journalists are not historians, and should not be counted on to explain exactly what is happening - especially considering that during the most historically important moments (I'm thinking 9/11 here), journalists, much like the rest of us, don't know exactly what is happening.

The better function for journalists, in my opinion, is to reflect their society. This serves two purposes. For one, it provides an easy method for outsiders to learn the ins and outs of a culture they are unfamiliar with it. For two, it's more likely to resonate with the culture in question - people tend to read what they agree with, and even if we were to somehow find a true globally objective viewpoint to every story, entire cultures would disagree with this view, and the end result would be akin to a communist watching FOX News.

It's sort of like Esperanto, the poorly-conceived and short-lived attempt at a global language - the problem wasn't that people don't like learning new languages, it was that different regions and cultures are so distinct that it is impossible to treat them in the same way and expect a favourable reaction.

Are journalists objective? Not even close. Can they be? It's difficult, but it's possible. Should they be? I don't think so.

--Ryan

Windows7 and Android 2.0

2009-10-27T14:53:00.006-04:00

It has nearly been a week since the release of Windows 7, and my upgrade for my netbook has yet to arrive. I tried checking the Gateway shipment-tracking system, and was greeted by this:

Notice, the 'order status' field is missing. Here's hoping it arrives before March (when the release candidate version will expire).

In other OS news, Android 2.0 has let its developer release into the world.

It mentions some fun things you don't expect on a cellphone like multi-monitor support - which makes me wonder why wireless monitors aren't more popular... especially in my TV. I must be extremely unlucky, but streaming files to the media centre can get choppy sometimes.

D. Phillips

I can't believe I ate the whole thing...

2009-10-23T12:51:00.002-04:00

So Windows 7 was released yesterday, giving frustrated Vista users an expensive upgrade and happy XP users a death clock until they stop being supported.

(Incidentally, since I know I've asked Dan this a few times so maybe some of you will find it interesting - yes, there's been more than four Windows releases since the days of Windows 3.1 [File Manager! Paintbrush!], but officially Windows 95 was 4.0, 2000 was 5.0, and Vista 6.0.)

While this release doesn't have an outdated and generally laughable video starring Matthew Perry and Jennifer Aniston going for it, it does have its own amazing advertising campaign. One which makes the Baconator look like a Happy Meal. Behold!

Wow, Japan.

Just wow.

Actually, the best idea I heard - since it's pretty much impossible for anybody to eat all that - buy one, buy a pack of hamburger buns, and you're eating really cheaply for the next week.

--Ryan

The most popular man in the world

2009-10-21T11:35:00.004-04:00

As part of following politics for this blog and my class, it's been recommended that I use Google News to figure out what people are talking about in the realm of Canadian politics. I haven't been doing this - I consume enough news elsewhere to know what the big stories are, and I'm trying my best to avoid the big ones anyhow - but that's not to say Google News doesn't have its uses.

This morning, I ran a search through Google News for the names of all major party leaders, and certain other well-known Canadian politicians. My goal was to see who gets talked about, and who doesn't. Going by essentially every news article from the past week, here are the standings:

6552 - Stephen Harper
2070 - Michael Ignatieff
866 - Lawrence Cannon
854 - Peter Mackay
588 - Jim Flaherty
534 - Jack Layton
523 - John Baird
444 - Jean Chrétien
319 - Bob Rae
253 - Stephane Dion
190 - Gilles Duceppe
171 - Brian Mulroney
171 - Gary Goodyear
149 - John McCallum
143 - Thomas Mulcair
71 - Elizabeth May

It's no surprise to see so many Conservatives near the top - and as partisan as I am, you're sure not going to see me complain about a conservative bias in the media or anything like that. The Conservatives are the ones in power, they're the ones making the announcements and handing out the (ethically-ambiguous) giant cheques. Of course it's the government who will get the lion's share of the press coverage, that's how the system works. No complaints here.

What's a little more jarring is the gap between the party leaders and everybody else. Stephen Harper gets nearly eight times the coverage of his top minister, and Ignatieff gets his name in the paper more than six times as often as any other active Liberal. (Chrétien is an aberration, because he was in the news this week for being named to the Order of Merit.)

(Incidentally, look at the URL to that last link - anybody else find it funny that 'eacute' seems to be Toronto Star shorthand for 'é'?)

It makes some sense with Harper, because he - or at least the media narrative of him, although it seems to have a good deal of basis in fact - likes to centralize power with himself, and doesn't like anybody else (even in his caucus) shining too brightly.

But Ignatieff? The Liberals have tried, both in the 2008 campaign and since, to emphasize that they are a team, yet here's their leader getting far more media coverage than anybody else on the team. It's not because he's a star - plenty of journalists like to criticize him for not having enough of a personality.

Instead, the problem is with this perception among the media that the leader is all that matters - a problem that many have claimed will in fact cause the leader to become all that matters. Right now, Canadian MPs are expected to vote however they are told to vote, and say whatever they are told to say. Nothing else, and certainly nothing that might look bad on their party. Andrew Coyne and others have claimed that this is, on the whole, bad for Canadian democracy - MPs who represent their leader to their constituents, rather than the other way around.

I think the media is part of the problem. If the media were to focus less on the party leaders - since, ultimately, don't they just have one vote out of many? - it might lead to less of a star factor among the leaders, a greater role for backbenchers, and ultimately a healthier democracy for Canada.

But maybe I'm just a pie-in-the-sky idealist.

--Ryan

Let's do the time warp again

2009-10-18T10:03:00.002-04:00

So, my plan to watch a lot of new TV shows has somewhat fizzled out. I didn't manage to catch a single minute of Hank, gave up on Cougar Town after six minutes, lasted one episode of The Middle, and two episodes of Modern Family.

For some reason, though, I've been glued to Flash Forward all the way through. It's had its ups (the first episode) and downs (the third), but overall the story has been just enough to keep me hooked.

The story of Flash Forward is fairly simple - in the first episode (episodes are set in real-time, so if a show airs in December, it's December in the show), everybody on Earth suddenly and inexplicably blacks out. A minute and a half later, they wake up. This causes problems which are both obvious - traffic accidents, mass confusion - and melodramatic - botched suicide attempts.

As people begin discussing just what happened, they realize a common pattern - it wasn't just a blackout, everybody got a glimpse of the exact same time next April.

The initial question - 'did that really happen?' is answered quickly, as people are able to corroborate the flash-forwards of people they had never met as of the blackout.

The show then starts following a number of plots, all of which somehow revolve around the main character, an FBI agent whose flash-forward showed him leading the investigation into the incident - therefore he is picked to lead the investigation into the incident. His partner, played by John Cho, is worried because he didn't have a flash-forward - which seems to point at him dying, especially after the one other person he meets who didn't have a flash-forward is killed in an investigation of a suspicious warehouse. Then he gets a call telling him he'll be assassinated on March 15.

Other plotlines revolve around the FBI agent's wife, who saw herself with another man, his AA sponsor, who saw himself with the daughter he thought was killed in Afghanistan, and his daughter's babysitter, who saw herself being drowned and feeling like she deserved it.

In the meantime, we're also slowly learning more about the flash-forwards themselves - they were planned, because somebody was captured on video at a baseball stadium in Detroit walking around during the blackout and seeming to know what they were doing. They'd happened before - in 1991, although they only affected a small community in Somalia at that time. And what the audience, but not the FBI, learned at the end of this week's episode is that one of the men behind the blackout is the man seen in the wife's vision.

Indeed, it seems as though everybody the FBI agent (I'm really bad with names from this show for some reason) cares about is going to be targeted by the bad guys as a means of throwing him off the trail - his wife seduced, his partner assassinated, his daughter's babysitter drowned...and whatever happened to the daughter, it caused her to remark that "Dee Gibbons [one of the bad guys] is a bad man".

Now, remember that this show was based on a book by Robert J. Sawyer. Going off what I know about Sawyer, I suspect the book was full of theories about whether it would be possible to change the future that had been seen, or whether (and this is my theory for the show) the future that was seen is based off of everything the characters do between now and April. For example, the FBI agent might have seen something else originally, and just lucked into being put in charge of the investigation - but because of what he investigated, his flash-forward showed *that* rather than the initial experience, and the world is essentially reliving these few months without realizing it.

I'd have preferred the hard theories to characters constantly talking about "making our own destiny" and saying "it's the future, you can't change it!", anyhow.

It's not a great show by any means, the acting can be pretty bad at times, and I'm still convinced there are some plot holes. But it's a decent enough story to keep me watching. Maybe you will too.

--Ryan

Rapid thoughts on rapid transit

2009-10-13T10:20:00.002-04:00

The proposal for light rail transit in Kitchener-Waterloo is the first local issue I can remember that has actually divided residents into significant camps - perhaps the first in my lifetime. James Bow is generally in favour of the plan, while Yappa Ding Ding is not. Even more alarmist, a recent guest piece in The Record suggested that the trains will somehow destroy the annual Oktoberfest parade, aka Paul Buttinger's chance to get interviewed on national television.

Where do I stand in the debate? Decidedly against LRT, and it's not because of the $700-million price tag - I'd be against it if some magic corporation offered to fund the construction and then turn the whole thing over to the city.

First of all, I just cannot wrap my head around the argument that LRT will somehow reinvigorate Kitchener's downtown - particularly considering it seems to be used in conjunction with the "it'll be great for people commuting to Toronto!" argument. If most of the people using LRT are just passing through downtown on their way to and from work, how will that help downtown?

And although it's a little extreme to suggest that the Oktoberfest parade will be destroyed, Peter Gay - the author of that piece - does seem to stumble sideways into a decent point. Cars aren't going to be able to make a whole lot of left turns off of King Street if this goes through - and are the people who already avoid downtown whenever possible suddenly going to be drawn back by the allure of having an even *more* difficult time getting where they want to go? I suspect not.

This is all, of course, assuming that downtown revitalization is a good thing. It's probably possible for a community to grow its reputation with a decrepit downtown - or none whatsoever - but my experiences in Brantford the last few years would lead me to assume the opposite. The downtown was crappy, so everybody avoided the city (unless offered really cheap land, or wanting a night at the casino). Now that the city has put some work into improving the downtown core, demolishing the worst buildings and nudging respectable institutions into the others, the city's reputation and economy are finally on the upswing.

As for the part about it being great for people commuting to the Toronto area...do we really want that? I mean, this is admittedly a matter of personal preference more than anything, but do we want Kitchener-Waterloo to be thought of as a bedroom community of Toronto? Do we want Oktoberfest, the Perimeter Institute, RIM, et al. to be thought of as part of the Toronto bubble? I don't.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, of course, and if the majority of K-W residents want to go ahead with LRT in the face of all the arguments against (my hunch is that they simply think it's an eventuality, so why bother to fight it?), I'll begrudgingly accept their decision. But I do like the idea of delaying the proposal long enough that it can be a ballot question next fall. It'd be nice to have an election that comes down to something other than "I recognize this guy's name".

--Ryan

Nobel Peace Laureate 2009: Barack Obama

2009-10-09T12:58:00.009-04:00

About two hours ago, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to US President Obama.

All the top comments on community forums seem to say the same things, which are generally negative. You can read the official press release for his award here. Here's a rundown of the emotions you may experience:

Obama doesn't deserve that award. What a douche; I'm not voting for him again.
It's not Obama's fault he won. It's the Nobel academy's fault! Damn Norwegians!
It's actually kind of nice to have a president who is worthy of being nominated for this award, let alone winning it.
I'm Canadian. I don't really care about this anyway.

So now he has a Nobel Prize. He can put it next to his Grammy.

D. Phillips

Google Street View: Now in Canada!

2009-10-07T21:03:00.004-04:00

Another quick update, because this is exciting!

So, Google Street View is finally in Canada.

The picture to your right occured in Toronto. Gizmodo captioned it "if you lived here, your van would be on fire".

Only major cities have been done so far... Locally that includes Toronto and K-W but not Brantford (yet).

Now you know!

D. Phillips

Preparing for an interview

2009-10-07T13:28:00.010-04:00

I've had a lot of job interviews in recent months, and thought I'd share some words of wisdom. Not that these words of wisdom have done me any good... yet.

Why did you leave your last place of employment?

Good Answer: It interfered with my pursuite of higher education.

Bad Answer: I didn't like it (for whatever reason).

If an employer hears that the reason you left your previous job was the previous employers fault, they may decide you're easily bothered - a quality that people find irritating.

How do you deal with stress?

Good Answer: I don't get stressed often, but if I do I'll burn it off at my weekly bowling league.

Bad Answer: I don't.

Some people actually don't get stressed, but an employer doesn't want to hear that. It makes you less human. You should make stress sound like something that helps build you character instead of eating away inside you. ("I go for a smoke" is not a good answer either.)

What is your worst quality?

Good Answer: I can be a bit introverted, but I'm aware of this and am working on overcoming it.

Bad Answer: I don't have one!

I found that answer on Reddit, and really liked it. In that same forum, someone suggested that answering this question with "I'm a bigger-picture person, and sometimes I overlook details" is overused and might work against you.

Where do you see yourself in five years?

Good Answer: Perhaps not working the same position, but I do imagine working for this company.

Bad Answer: Retired on a yacht.

You should make an employer aware that you have potential to be a long-lasting asset to them. Saying that you would work elsewhere would imply that you don't expect to develop company loyalty.

I'm sure you may disagree with the quality of some of these answers, but perhaps they've inspired your own preparation for the hunt of a great career. Good luck!

D. Phillips

Good things come in 3

2009-10-06T20:17:00.004-04:00

As in CBC Radio 3.

I'd been meaning to make this post for a little while, but since they redesigned and relaunched their site yesterday, it seems like the perfect time.

In a nutshell, CBC Radio 3 is the best thing to happen to music since the Gregorian chants.

First of all, all the music they play is Canadian, and generally indie stuff that gets ignored by mainstream radio (Sloan, Metric and other obvious exceptions apply). Secondly, what with it being a CBC Radio property, it's commercial free. No interruptions except those from interesting and insightful hosts.

But all of that, even taken together, is not why I'm sitting here bothering to type out such effusive words of praise for CBC Radio 3. A radio station that plays good indie music? I could listen to the Edge out of Toronto and (almost) get that. I could get a satellite radio and have the commercial-free component too.

What makes CBC Radio 3 different? Unlike anything else I've ever seen, these guys have figured out exactly how to do Internet radio.

Anything that's more than just "host playing songs" is archived in podcast form. The entire station can be streamed through iTunes or the MP3-playing program of your choice. There's a section for bands to register and upload their own music (nearly 20,000 bands listed as of this writing). There's fairly extensive concert listing for the entire country. There are special concerts and sessions, all of which are archived as well.

A new feature this week is genre-specific streams - if you don't want the main CBC Radio 3 feed, you can listen to a feed that's just pop music (or just rock, or hip-hop, or electronica).

But the best feature of all - by far, and I'm not exaggerating to call it one of the most amazing things I've ever seen on the Internet - is the playlist function. Essentially, you can add any song in Radio 3's library to a personal playlist - a recent improvement allows you to have multiple playlists - which you can then do as much with as you could if you had the songs on your computer itself. Play through them, shuffle them, put them in whatever order you want, and listen to them whenever you want. It feels like pirating music, but it's completely legal (and, since it's CBC, arguably *endorsed* by the government). Plus you can browse the playlists of every other user on the site.

Admittedly it's not perfect. There are certain artists - the New Pornographers and Nous Non Plus are the two to come to mind right away - who don't let you add their music to playlists for some reason. The concert listing could use some tweaks - if you search for a city, you still have to go through the results day by day, even though they might be weeks apart in some cases. And there are probably other drawbacks I haven't discovered yet (much to my surprise, though, streaming quality is not one of them).

Here is a link to my playlist (which I'm adding to more or less daily at this point), with the ability of playing each song. If you're interested, that is. I'll probably link it over on the left somewhere eventually too.

Seriously. You can discover new music - all of which is Canadian - you can pick and choose what you like and play it back whenever you want, and you can do all of this at no cost whatsoever.

It's awesome. There's no other way to describe it.

--Ryan

Dear girl who sat beside me at the Russell Peters show on Saturday,

2009-10-05T17:55:00.013-04:00

Dear girl who sat beside me at the Russell Peters show on Saturday,

I don't mean to be rude about this, but I have a short list of complaints which I feel the need to share.

When you arrive forty-five minutes late for the performance, do not enter the theatre while talking on your cellular phone.
It is best to laugh at the comedian's jokes at the punchline - not at the jokes of your friends during the show.
Try not to overwhelm people around you with coconut-scented perfume. If you were not wearing perfume, please be careful not to douse yourself in Malibu coconut rum.
When the comedian shoots a dirty look in your direction, you should probably try to be quiet.
When you need to use the washroom, don't announce it for half an hour before you leave. Just get it over with as soon as possible.

At the beginning of his act, Russell Peters asked if anyone in the audience was from his home town of Brampton, Ontario. Someone screamed "fuck yeah", and Mr. Peters shamed them for giving his hometown a bad reputation. At this point, the seat beside me was vacant. Once you did arrive, rude girl who I am writing to, I overheard that you yourself were from Brampton. I also gathered that your brother recently had a child, and that you thought the bar-bouncer was a cute - even though I suspect he threw you out. Considering you arrived late and left early, I should not know such details of your life.

D. Phillips

The one and only Stephen Harper

2009-10-04T18:33:00.003-04:00

I didn't want my next post to be about politics. Really, I didn't. But this is just far, far too good to pass up.

For years, Canadians have wondered what it would take Stephen Harper to show a personality. Suggestions included everything from 'a majority government' to 'it'll never happen'. Apparently, the correct answer was 'Yo-Yo Ma'.

I've mentioned before that I'm not a big fan of our Prime Minister. I - and many others - find him to be cold, calculating, manipulative, and seemingly interested in nothing other than power, which he then uses to do nothing except...get more power.

Apparently we're wrong. Which brings up a glaring question - why? Why would Stephen Harper choose to hide the fact that he can, in fact, have fun?

It is a choice, by the way. During the last election campaign, when the Conservatives ran ads depicting Harper, clad in a smile and a sweatervest, talking about his family and his life outside politics, it was seen as nothing but an attempt to humanize the PM, make him more appealing to centrist voters. In all the coverage I saw of those commercials, not once did I see the suggestion that *that* was the real Stephen Harper, and the 'master strategist' was the fake personality.

But I'm starting to think that's the case. A few weeks ago, Harper was at a photo op (as is his wont). Noticing an unattended piano, the PM shocked the media by covering the Rolling Stones. Combine that with the joyful expression on his face in the video above, and it's clear that Stephen Harper does have a passion for music.

Against his current crop of opponents, that's fine - personality isn't anyone's strong suit, so Harper can come across as the best of a poor choice. But Canadians tend to respond well to politicians who show themselves to be a little something more than an empty shell. Jean Chretien was a regular guest on Royal Canadian Air Farce, Brian Mulroney told Peter C. Newman to do something anatomically impossible, and just about everybody lip-synced to Trooper.

Stephen Harper should follow their example. It's okay to laugh at yourself. Especially if you're a politican

--Ryan

In lieu of content, Pokémon puns

2009-10-01T19:20:00.005-04:00

"Write me a poem!"
"No!"
"Please write me a poem!"
"No!"
"Please please write me a poem!"
"I'm not going to Raichu a poem!"

-----

"What was the name of that Pokémon?"
"Pikachu?"
"No, the one Team Rocket had."
"Koffing? Ekans?"
"The one that could talk!"
"Meowth?"
"Meowth! That's right!"

-----

This universe contains no rhyme for purple;
Thus I am forced to say 'Squirtle, Squirtle!'

-----

"Hey, what's that blue thing with plant on its head?"
"I don't know."
"Sure is odd."
"Kinda. A little bit. I guess I'd say it's odd-ish."

-----

"Nice muffins!"
"Pokémuffins."
"Why are they Pokémuffins?"
"I made them with margarine."
"...I don't get it."
"They're Butterfree!"
"..."

--Ryan

Hypocrites anonymous

2009-09-29T09:55:00.002-04:00

On the surface, things are pretty easy to figure out in Ottawa these days. The Liberals have lost confidence in the government and want to send Canadians to the polls; the NDP and Conservatives are working together because they'd rather help Canadians get employment insurance than have another election.

Of course, this is Ottawa - where nothing ever is as it seems. In today's Globe & Mail, Jeff Simpson argues that despite the posturing, it's the Conservatives who want an election and the Liberals who don't. Over at Macleans, Paul Wells points out that this would be pretty much the best time, strategically, for the NDP to want an election.

The biggest problem with all of this? Nobody seems to see anything wrong with it. It has become acceptable, perhaps even expected, for our elected officials to outright lie about their motives for the sake of political posturing.

What's the cause of all this? I don't know. Perhaps it's the media's fault - there seems to be a sense among Parliament Hill television shows that you just can't go a full hour without having a panel of party strategists, who are understandably less concerned with policy or governance than with appearances. I've seen suggestions that Parliament is a mirror of the Prime Minister, in which case it's all Stephen Harper's fault (although to be fair, could you see Jack Layton or the political version of Michael Ignatieff being any different in this respect? Me neither.). Maybe it's reciprocity - the public doesn't care about Ottawa, so Ottawa's decided to stop caring about the public.

I don't know what's causing this ridiculous Parliamentary situation. But smarter people have tried to explain it, and provide solutions. Last week, CPAC aired a two-hour special debate on "is Canada's democracy broken?" - and since the panelists more or less agreed that it was within five minutes, the bulk of the time was spent on "how do you fix it?". Panelists included, among others, John Ralston Saul and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent. Video of this debate can be found here.

I'm not getting my hopes up that the current political culture will change anytime soon. It'd be nice, though.

--Ryan

Jazzman

2009-09-24T13:36:00.002-04:00

This past weekend was the second-annual Brantford International Jazz Festival.

Full coverage, including my thoughts on the actual music, can be found in the current issue of the Sputnik (website coming soon, hopefully).

In short, I have some gripes about the scheduling - I think Saturday's acts might have turned some people off, whereas Sunday's were extremely fan-friendly - but was still very impressed with the musicianship top to bottom.

As of this writing, clips of the festival are a little hard to come by on Youtube. However, we do have a couple of the Shuffle Demons, including this 15-second bit which demonstrates a fair bit of showmanship:

After a bit of searching, I did come across some clips from last year's event. The first one I found was this one, the first 45 seconds of which I remembered instantly:

(Tops in the 'related videos' section is another clip from the same family, but of pianist Michael Kaeshammer.)

And finally, one video from Quintessential from last year. Quintessential are a local Brantford band (self-described as 'the largest quintet in captivity'), who apparently will find a place to play around town publicly fairly often. I'm told they played at Victoria Park a few weeks ago. Were they the best band at the 2008 show? No. But I think they were probably my favourite - partially because they played exclusively songs that I recognized and you might two - and now their entire set is on Youtube. Here's a sample:

Can't wait for 2010.

--Ryan

Don't go into politics; you'll end up dead

2009-09-20T20:06:00.003-04:00

You might notice me talk about Canadian politics a lot over the next few months. Not like I don't already talk lots about Canadian politics, but there's another reason for it this time.

For one of my courses this term, each student has to keep up a blog (minimum ten entries) on a news issue of their choice. It is permissible to use an existing blog, as long as there's some way of setting the class-related posts apart from the rest (hence the 'JN229' tag at the bottom). So that's why I'll be talking more about Canadian federal politics - and most likely the constantly-on-the-brink-of-an-election gamesmanship as opposed to anything, well, substantive.

Let's get to it.

We'll start off with the big story from Ottawa this past week - at least the big one that doesn't involve Aboriginals and body bags - Stephen Harper and his Conservative government being propped up by socialists and separatists, which is particularly amusing considering how that term first entered the political lexicon.

What surprises me the most about this? At least two parties (haven't heard it from the Bloc, but that doesn't mean they haven't said it) and the vast majority of political pundits have decreed that nobody wants an election. The same pundits will mention that while the NDP might lose some credibility for supporting the government when they were boasting up until very recently about how they'd never supported the Conservatives, but conclude that overall this is a positive step for Canada and for Canadians, seeing as, once again, Canadians don't want an election, thus anything that could avoid one must be a positive.

Yet these pundits will, in the same breath, as CBC's At Issue panel did this week, claim that Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals are the big winners in all of this. Why? Because now they can 'act like a real opposition' and vote against the government every chance they get.

So let me get this straight. Canadians don't want an election, and political parties should be doing everything they can to avoid one. Yet the big winners of the past week are the party which refuses to support the government on anything...which would, you know, cause an election?

I mean, I always knew that Canadian politics were weird. I just thought that, even in their weirdness, they made some sort of sense. Guess not.

Should be an interesting twelve weeks, anyhow.

--Ryan

TV that's not on the radio

2009-09-15T19:07:00.002-04:00

As regular readers of this blog know, there are only two current primetime television shows I watch every week (when possible): The Office and Scrubs.

I've tried to get into other shows in my three years of university (and two of blogging), some of which I've mentioned here. Dan turned me on to Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip, and I watched that faithfully until its cancellation. The following year, I tried to watch Back To You, but I disliked it for the same reasons everybody else disliked it (Kelsey Grammer playing Frasier with a supporting cast much less able to gel with Frasier). And I liked Corner Gas while it aired, but frequent Monday night classes eliminated my ability to follow that show.

But this year is going to be different, and not just because I have a Five Star binder. My new roommates are huge movie/TV buffs, and it's rubbing off on me - I'm going to try to get into a few new shows.

Ground rule: these must be brand new programs. Yes, I'd probably like How I Met Your Mother and The Big Bang Theory and even Being Erica, but I steadfastly refuse to start watching a show in midstream. I'll catch up on the previous seasons and *then* start watching regularly, but that doesn't count for the purposes of this blog post.

So what shows am I going to try and watch this year? Here's the list:

Flash Forward: A science-fiction drama that I'm interested in for two reasons. One, its timeslot is right before The Office, so that's one less block I'll have to remember. Two, it's based on a novel by Robert J. Sawyer, and while I might have my complaints about Hominids (and, especially, its sequels), he does have good ideas, and presumably the television writers would have punched up the scripts. So it could be good.

Cougar Town: A Wednesday night comedy. Courtney Cox stars as a 40-something cougar living with her 17-year-old son. That part doesn't sound great, but I have faith in series creator Bill Lawrence (formerly of Scrubs), plus both Christa Miller and Ian Gomez have regular roles, so that's good.

Modern Family: Airing right before Cougar Town on ABC, it's a sitcom about a family being followed by a Dutch documentary crew. Apparently very well-received by focus groups, so it might have some staying power.

The Middle: ...okay, maybe I'm just going to try every new ABC sitcom. This one has its own Scrubs alumnus in Neil Flynn, which is pretty much the only reason I'm watching.

Hank: ABC's fourth and final new Wednesday night comedy stars Kelsey Grammer. Why not.

Hmm.

That's actually a pretty good grouping. Two hours of comedies on Wednesday, a drama and a comedy on Thursday. I might even be able to remember all this.

I'll check back in a few weeks and let you know what I'm still watching.

--Ryan

I'm lovin' it

2009-09-14T20:09:00.007-04:00

While trying out Google's Fastflip, I came across an article about a job I've never considered to exist. The article describes this job as an "Iron Chef" concept:

Sure, the TV duelists have just an hour to whip up five dishes incorporating the same ingredients. But check out Coudreaut's constraints: He's only allowed to prepare dishes that can be made by entry-level help at every one of the chain's U.S. 14,000 locations and from ingredients available in industrial quantities year-round.

Dan Coudreaunt is the head culinary innovator of McDonalds.

After reading that little blurb, I started thinking of fast food joints as real restaurants. Art, even. But after running out for some McNuggets, I changed my mind back.

But could fast food be turned into something more palatable? (At least to the eye, if not in taste.) Apparently a trend exists in re-preparing fast-foods into pretty meals.

(Image right: What you could make if you dismantle and re-build a baconator combo, courtacy of fancyfastfood.com.)

Personally, I think that's brilliant! But it must still taste gross. Check out the video below for a step by step guide to making something similar (if less explosive).

D. Phillips

Explaining American political discourse with small numbers

2009-09-10T15:14:00.002-04:00

People from outside the United States - and quite a few from within, frankly - are amazed at how effective FOX News and their ilk have been at getting Americans to adopt a "FOX's way or the highway" viewpoint of politics and policy.

How did they do it? It's actually very simple.

Let's say there are ten possible political viewpoints in all of America, conveniently numbered 1 through 10. 1 is the furthest left on the traditional spectrum, 10 is the furthest right. A 'normal' Democrat is a 3, a 'normal' Republican is a 7.

The true centre of the American political debate, then - assuming all views are represented equally, which isn't the case but we'll say it is for the sake of this lesson - is 5.

Right-wing extremists are far more prevalent in the media than moderate right-wingers or even normal Republicans. The left, on the other hand, is represented by people generally around its norm (or closer to the centre). So when you see a left-versus-right political debate on television, it's a 3 against a 10. The middle ground between these two is 6.5 - but this is presented as the true middle ground, and thus what's perceived as a 'fair compromise' is actually almost exactly what the average Republican wants.

(It could be argued that this trick works in reverse in Canada...the Liberals are seen as centrists because we have the NDP pushing the issues of the far left.)

If the American left wants to get the centre back towards the true centre, or further? Find every communist and socialist you can, and give them airtime.

--Ryan

Scientist Levitates Mouse, Leaps For Joy

2009-09-10T12:46:00.009-04:00

It bothers me when I see funky spacing on websites. I appologize for my previous posts, which had some slight automatic adjustments caused by the "in draft" features of Blogger.

In an effort to make my dreams of jumping down a flight of stairs in one leap a reality, NASA scientists in California have levitated rodents (weighing 10 grams) in an artificial anti-gravity feild.

The levitation device uses powerful magnets to attract the water in a mouse's body upwards. This experiment has been performed with grasshoppers and frogs before, but only in low temperature environments.

The first mouse to levitate began to spin as it kicked against the walls of it's container. This caused disorientation, so scientists gave the second test subject a sedative. The result? Jokes about really high mice.

--D. Phillips

Cheap Prescription Glasses

2009-09-08T22:10:00.000-04:00

Shopping online is a great way to save money... For example, I just bought my textbooks from Amazon for 20% less than I could at the Laurier bookstore.

But remember: It's only a bargain if it's something you need.

I bought a pair of glasses online recently.

My prescription had expired, but I'm comfortable wearing my old strength. So instead of paying a hundred dollars for a new test on top of three hundred dollars for the glasses themselves, I decided to shop online.

Unfortunately, finding a pair of glasses that fits your exact facial structure and head-size is a difficult process at the best of times. When shopping online, it's not like you can try on every pair in the store.

On the bright side, the glasses I received today in the mail seem to fit my face decently. My problem is that the arms of the glasses barely reach my ears. With some professional adjusting from a local store, I'm sure they can at least be comfortable.

Pros

Cheap!
My total cost was around $40, including taxes, shipping, and anti-glare coating. (And it wasn't even the cheapest option!)
No need for a pesky new prescription!
The store is located outside of Canada, so no need for them to follow our laws. Just type in the prescription from your favourite expired glasses!
All the fixings!
I only got anti-glare, but they also offer tints and other coatings as well.

Cons

Can't try-before-you-buy!
I think I really lucked out, uncomfortable as they are. I'm sure not everyone will be so lucky.
Two weeks for delivery!
That's not too bad, actually... I've used stores with worse waiting periods. Still, LensCrafters has their one-hour policy.

Alright, the risk of getting a good pair is low... but if it can save you some five-hundred dollars, why not give it a try?

D. Phillips

Something new

2009-09-02T18:37:00.004-04:00

Two posts in one day? Summer must be nearing an end.

As you can see at the left hand side, I've joined the Waterloo-Wellington Bloggers Association (honeygarlic will appear on that list within the next few days, I believe).

Why? Because it gets us out there in the blogosphere.

This blog has always existed in a bit of a bubble - generally visited by people who know me and/or Dan personally, people who searched for something specific, or on occasion people who were drawn in through my advertising it on Twitter.

With the WWBA, we'll occasionally get visitors from another blog in the group. At least that's the hope.

Beyond all of that, there's another motive here. I am a big fan of local journalism, and the WWBA certainly falls in that category. As mainstream media increasingly cuts back on local coverage, it falls to the general public to start grassroots movements like this one.

I've visited every blog in the WWBA, and there's some quality writing being done. I'd like to shine a spotlight particularly on James Bow, Cut The Chatter, Dopplegangland, No Magic Here, and Yappa Ding Ding, all of which might find their way into the other blogroll in the sidebar when I get around to update that.

(Speaking of that other blogroll, Comfortable and Furious is finally being updated again with talk on politics and baseball. As much as he might hate my alleged partisanship and vice-versa, he's still a great read.)

So I'm now part of a Bloggers Association. We'll see how that plays out.

I can only imagine flawlessly.

--Ryan

(P.S. If anybody knows how to eliminate that whitespace at the bottom of the site, it'd be greatly appreciated.)

Electoral advice

2009-09-02T17:33:00.005-04:00

So we're having an election in the next few months, unless the NDP is able to out-weasel themselves.

This would make the fourth election in five years. That's a lot of elections. I'm okay with that - and I think most people are - on one condition.

We get this one right.

That's a very large 'we', but I'll break it down for specific groups.

For the voters, keep up the good work. You're doing the best you can with the extremely limited information you're given. It'd be nice if more of you came out and exercised your democratic rights, but I can't really fault you at all for being jaded.

For the media...you've got a bit more on your plate. Realize that you're not in the business of giving free advertising to any party (or all the parties). Giving a balanced story is a nice ideal, but it shouldn't be adhered to at the expense of truth. If you're working on a story about a new breakthrough in cancer treatment, and the doctor you're interviewing refuses to talk about anything but the completely unrelated issue of emergency room wait times, do you run that interview? Of course not. So why run an interview with a politician who didn't answer your questions?

There is some evidence that the media is waking up to this fact already. For example, this clip of Conservative question-dodger John Baird from yesterday. It starts around 1:30, with a Francophone reporter I don't recognize asking a question and Baird answering a completely different one. Then Global's David Akin asks a question that sounds more like a scolding. Then the first woman complains that her question wasn't answered, and Baird still doesn't answer it.

This is all good. Politicians seem to think they'll get on the news no matter what they say - and maybe they will under the current conditions, but under ideal circumstances, politicians only make the news when it fits with the story the journalist wants to tell. If the Canadian media as a whole is ready to head back in that direction, we'll all be better off for it.

My final words of advice are to politicians, and primarily to Conservatives and Liberals (as well as those who work for them). It makes sense to think that the more you move toward the centre of the political spectrum, the better you'll do in the election. But that's not really the case - the more you move to the centre, the less likely you're going to give voters any real reason to vote for your party policy-wise, and the more voters you'll lose to parties further from the centre. You need to give voters an identity, a brand, something they can remember besides "that guy looks good on TV" - despite what some people think, the voters respond well to politicians who have well-communicated ideas.

Drop the attack ads. We can come up with our own negative perceptions, and you're not telling us why we should vote for you in any case.

Is this a pipe dream? Probably. But by putting our political culture in a position where it is seen as detached from the realities of the country, where elections are seen as a chore, where the media coverage is something to be manipulated rather than something to be achieved, our politicans are ensuring themselves of a no-win, catch-22 situation where significant policy won't come until a majority government does, and a majority government is out of reach as long as policy isn't proposed.

--Ryan

Great moments in urban planning

2009-08-29T20:03:00.003-04:00

Municipal engineers finally did something right.

For two years now, I've had a car in Brantford. For two years, I've regularly driven to the Price Chopper at the corner of Icomm and Clarence - and sometimes the Wendy's, or something else that would cause me to be on this route.

I speak of driving eastbound on Icomm, and turning left onto Clarence. A conservative estimate tells me I've made this turn fifty times. Each time, I've noticed the fourth notch on the traffic light - where one would expect to find a left-turn arrow for an advanced green.

Never, not once in my many times making this turn, has that arrow ever lit up. Not when there are cars wanting to turn left both ways onto Clarence, not when there are cars wanting to turn my way onto Clarence but only go straight down Icomm from the other direction, not when all cars at the intersection are on my side of Clarence. I've seen every possible combination, and not once has that advance green come up.

Until yesterday.

I was in Brantford to tame the mighty jungle (no lion was sleeping, but there was a persistent stray cat). Needing more yard waste bags, I headed for Price Chopper. Waiting at the aforementioned intersection, contemplating if I'd be able to make the turn before the car a good distance down Icomm hit the intersection...suddenly, I realized what was going on.

I had an advance green.

And I was thrilled.

--Ryan

Multiple choice

2009-08-21T22:23:00.002-04:00

"Fernando! I have a question for you, por favor!"

"What is it, Raul? Ask quick, it's almost siesta time."

"I will give you three choices, Fernando. What is the greatest outcome of the CSI Effect?"

"The what?"

"The CSI Effect, hombre. Is it:

a) An increase in the number of people studying criminology, particularly forensic investigation, as CSI has gained in popularity;

b) An increase in the standards of evidence, as juries now expect prosecutors to provide them with CSI-style evidence even though such evidence is rare and quite expensive;

or c) A phenomenon in which every bad pun is followed by a Roger Daltrey scream?"

"C."

"Si."

YEEEEAAAAHHHH!

Mea culpa

2009-08-18T20:05:00.003-04:00

When I did my last batch of music reviews, I said the following about Animal Collective:

I have absolutely zero interest in ever seeing them live

Some Uighur pointed out in the comments that they were actually quite excellent live. I didn't believe him. Then I found this:

Weird? Even by Letterman's standards, yes.

Good? More like awesome. Especially the vocals on the "when the sun goes down we'll go out again" bridge.

I was wrong. I admit my mistake.

--Ryan

More like Blue Gays

2009-08-13T21:10:00.001-04:00

(Bad pun? Yeah. Hard to resist, though.)

This past weekend, the Toronto Blue Jays held a 'Back2Back' weekend - a reunion for players and coaches from the 1992 and 1993 World Series-winning Jays teams.

They also let Alex Rios, a popular and competent player, leave for another team in exchange for literally nothing.

These two events showcased an astoundingly clear example of the wholesale change in how the Toronto Blue Jays approach winning over the past fifteen years.

Once upon a time, the Blue Jays were the best team in baseball. And, rich with the money of every Canadian who drank Labatts, they also had the biggest payroll in baseball. When they needed a new whatever, they could go out and buy it.

Now, the Blue Jays cannot afford to outspend the rest of baseball, so they must find a way to build a strong team without breaking the bank.

This is understandable. The Yankees and Red Sox are spending ridiculous amounts of money on the best players, and Rogers is gouging my pockets enough - I don't want to see my cable bill being raised to pay for a starting pitcher who doesn't work out.

But just for fun, I'm going to take two problems faced by the 1992 Jays, and two problems faced by today's Jays. I will tell you what the relevant team did, and what the irrelevant team would have done.

(Conclusion: while obviously the 1992 strategies won't always work now, because the Jays *can't* outspend the rest of baseball, there's a happy medium far closer to their end of the spectrum.)

PROBLEM THE FIRST

The Setup: The 1991 Blue Jays had eight solid starters. Unfortunately, the ninth - primarily the DH position, although it rotated a bit - could never quite be filled. And with Mookie Wilson gone, there was no longer a bona fide starter to take up the mantle.

The Solution (1992): Sign Dave Winfield. He's willing to DH most of the time, he's somebody fans can get behind, and he's one of the best hitters in the game.

The Solution (2009): Well...you don't really need to spend the money, you should be able to fill the hole from within. Maybe Rance Mulliniks will bounce back into shape. If he doesn't, odds are good that at least one of Derek Bell and Jeff Kent will prove ready to hit major league pitching. Worst case scenario, you have to rely on Pat Tabler or Ed Sprague a little more than you'd like. Five possibilities for one spot? That's a lot! Hell, most of those guys can play third - let's trade Kelly Gruber!

PROBLEM THE SECOND

The Setup: The 1992 Jays aren't getting the starting pitching performances that a world champion needs. Jack Morris, Juan Guzman, and Jimmy Key provide a solid top three, and Todd Stottlemyre's okay when necessary, but there's not much to go on past that.

The Solution (1992): Thanks to signing Dave Winfield, we're left with the problem of Jeff Kent - a talented player who we just don't have room for. Let's trade him for one of the best pitchers in the game, David Cone!

The Solution (2009): Whaddaya mean no other options? Dave Stieb could be back by the playoffs. David Wells wasn't doing *that* bad, but if you insist on a replacement, we've got Pat Hentgen, Doug Linton, those guys. Maybe Mike Timlin could be stretched into a starter. We're fine!

PROBLEM THE THIRD

The Setup: The 2009 Jays have one of the best pitchers in baseball - Roy Halladay. But his contract ends in 2010, and retaining him - if it's even possible - will be very expensive. His trade value is at its peak right now. What to do?

The Solution (1992): Well, you don't have a good enough team to seriously contend in either 2009 or 2010, and if you sign Halladay past that it'll tie up too much money to improve what needs improve him. So trade him. Get the best deal you can - young players who *will* be good in the majors but haven't had the chance to jack up their value with a track record.

The Solution (2009): Yeah, we might win, but it'll be at the cost of all the fans who won't accept a winning team if it means we got rid of their favourite player. Let's keep him and the fans' goodwill.

PROBLEM THE FOURTH

The Setup: Much like in 1992, the Jays are one player short of a bona fide starting nine. Also like 1992, all the defensive positions are represented - so literally any major-league-caliber hitter would work.

The Solution (1992): You might be surprised by this, but we think you should ride it out. You won't contend this year, so don't part with any of your prospects. Wait until the off-season, then find a decent hitter on the free agent market. It's not what we'd do in our situation, but given your financial standing, it makes the most sense. Bautista, Millar, Inglett - they're not good enough for a contending team, but they're good enough for now.

The Solution (2009): Damn right they're good enough for now. And why waste three of them on one spot? Let's get rid of Alex Rios so only one of them has to sit at a time!

The Rebuttal (1992): That makes no sense. Rios is a better player than any of them. Beyond that, Rios is a *good* player, who you could actually get something for if you wanted to. Beyond THAT, your last decision was on the basis of fan loyalty - and the fans love Rios. Either you were lying then or you're lying now, which is it?

The Rebuttal (2009): It's not a lie if we know the truth.

--Ryan

Anatomy of a song

2009-08-05T17:22:00.002-04:00

So let's say you start a band. And you put out an album. And it's moderately successful. So you decide to go on tour.

Well, you didn't think that one through too well - you've only got one album, and a few of the tracks can't realistically be done live, at least not when Dan Bejar's missing as often as he is.

Yes, you're the New Pornographers. So what do you do?

Well, you play one of the songs you've written for the new album. Even if it's not in its final form.

Compare to how the song would end up:

(Really, it's just interesting for me to listen to an earlier version of any song and be surprised at what came first. I assumed the 'introducing for the first time' line was pretty much the first thing they came up with, not one of the last.)

--Ryan

Ryan's Music Reviews: 07/09

2009-07-28T17:33:00.002-04:00

My summer mus ic project is on hiatus. Permanent hiatus. Cancelled, more like.

I'm still listening to a decent (for me) amount of new music, but it's not exclusively stuff that's in the original list. Sometimes I like a particular band and decide to check out more of their stuff, sometimes I get turned on to another band.

So rather than constrain myself to certain albums, I'm just going to listen to whatever the heck I want and then share it with you every five albums in mind.

In that spirit, here we go!

Kensington Heights - Constantines
The Constantines are an indie rock/pseudo-pop outfit out of Toronto. You may have heard of them, as I believe they are one of the more mainstream indie bands in the country. At any rate, I definitely recognized 'New King' and perhaps 'Hateful Song' as songs that I think I'd heard before, even though I went into the album believing myself unfamiliar with the band. All in all, it was about what I expected - but I expected good things, so the lack of disappointment was in itself a positive sign. Catchy tunes, quite accessible, and all around fun. Nothing particularly awesome, but nothing offensive either.
Grade: B+
Recommended Tracks: Shower of Stars; New King; Do What You Can Do

Return To The Sea - Islands
This one's a different story. After being told by a number of people over a period of at least four years that they like the Islands, that I would probably like the Islands, my expectations were very high. I tried to keep them realistic, and I think I did, but this album didn't come anywhere close to meeting them. It's not that it's bad per se, it's just...not good. Aside from a couple of tracks, it's not all that catchy or memorable, the songwriting isn't particularly astounding...I just don't see why they are/were such a big deal. It's definitely not that they're too out there (see below)...I dunno. I've listened to it a few times now, and this album just doesn't do it for me.
Grade: C
Recommended Tracks: Don't Call Me Whitney, Bobby; Rough Gem; If

Merriweather Post Pavillion - Animal Collective
Listening to this album was what made me realize just how much my music tastes had changed. A year ago, if you'd have told classic-rock-and-New-Pornographers me that I'd like this sort of thing, I'd have said that future-me deserved a punch in the throat. Maybe I still do. Animal Collective are...out there. Their music is 'produced' (code for 'digitally enhanced') to the point where I have absolutely zero interest in ever seeing them live, but I can see why they're gaining as much popularity (although not mainstream) as they are. There is an odd catchiness to the music, and I suspect certain substances might enhance one's enjoyment even further.
Grade: A-
Recommended Tracks: My Girls; Summertime Clothes; Bluish

Destroyer's Rubies - Destroyer
I like Destroyer. They're good for when I'm looking for something a little more low-key, a little more jazzy, but still undeniably indie. Dan Bejar is very good at writing that sort of thing, and I much prefer him in Destroyer to any of his other projects. Rubies is an album of firsts - '3000 Flowers' was the first Destroyer song I ever heard, and while it gave me an extremely distorted impression of the band, it remains my favourite - and this is the first Destroyer album I've listened to all the way through. The opening track is nine minutes of Bejar insanity, and it gets slightly calmer from then on out. Only real drawback is that I need to be in a certain mood to enjoy it.
Grade: A-
Recommended Tracks: Rubies; Painter In Your Pocket; 3000 Flowers

III - Billy Talent
And now we come to the 'holy crap Ryan's talking about something popular!' portion of this post. (Teaser of the next installment: I bought the new Our Lady Peace CD today.) I've never been a huge fan of Billy Talent, but I had a ten-week love affair with the song 'Surrender' when it became a hit two summers ago, and have a slight like for 'Devil In A Midnight Mass', 'This Suffering', and maybe a couple of others. Billy Talent's third offering is...well, I know some reviews have called the group out for losing quality at the expense of sounding more commercial, but I don't think that's quite right. It's just...'watered-down' is the best way I can describe it. Like somebody gave them Prozac. It's still a long way from being bad, certainly, it's solid pop punk. It's just not on the level of the first two albums in my opinion.
Grade: B
Recommended Tracks: Rusted From The Rain; Tears Into Wine; Sudden Movements

And a note...
...on a couple of the bands I mentioned last time.

The Gaslight Anthem, who I gave a great score and tremendous praise. I still consider this my top album of the year, and one of my all-time top ten, but I want to dial back the rhetoric a bit. It's not 'everybody should listen to this album'. It's 'everybody who likes classic rock, at least a little bit, should listen to this album'. It's Bruce Springsteen/Tom Petty-style rock that's just a little too hard for you to be comfortable defining it as 'singer-songwriter'. It would not sound out of place on a classic rock radio station - but unlike a lot of current rock, it won't sound dated by next year. From what I've seen of magazines and Twitter, they're on the cusp of hitting it big - so when that happens, I'll be here to say I told you so.

And Sunset Rubdown, who got more middle-of-the-road marks. I'm giving them a retroactive bump up for Shut Up I Am Dreaming, which I'm currently feeling like I'll never get tired of listening to. Even though that album doesn't contain either of my favourite songs of theirs ('Paper Lace', probably their most accessible tune, and 'The Men Are Called Horsemen There', possibly their least) it's a great mix of slightly-esoteric indie rock that will stick in your head longer than you think it deserves to.

Now it's time for a vacation. Let's see if I can come back in August and blog with a vengeance.

--Ryan