Phil Loses His Mind

Christmas lists

2011-11-01T13:07:00.005-04:00

Ok, so let me ask you something: list or no list?

See, some people/families I know are in the habit of providing lists of gifts they would like to receive to their loved ones to make the gift hunt easier. Practically speaking, this makes sense. It ensures you get something you want and takes a burden off those who might otherwise spend hours walking the malls at the busiest time of the year.

...But doesn't it take the fun out of Christmas morning? I mean, for me, half the fun is being surprised. Not knowing what's in the box. Of course, this had led to years and years of disappointment in terms of gifts received. ("why did so-and-so think I'd want this?" or "Hm. I guess I wasn't worth the shopping effort if they picked up this generic item.") This has been an accepted risk of my unwillingness to give hints, and it is why I am always so grateful to those who take the time to make an effort and make me feel special (note that "thoughtful" is not linked to expense nor to time spent - simply to the personal nature of the gift).

I've always tried to be a good Santa. I've always tried to give people a thoughtful gift. That seems to take some of the "commercialization" out of Christmas and make it, for me, about really showing someone that you care and have gotten to know them and want to please them. This doesn't always work, of course, as I can't always think of something special or meaningful, especially if giving to someone I don't know very well. But giving someone a token, generic gift has always felt like a #fail to me.

So is it better to be given a list of gifts to choose from, knowing that your gift will be well received, or is it worth rolling the dice on a "blind" gift? For now, I'm sticking with the no list option.

But...um...I might make an exception. To all my potential gift-givers, please feel free to buy me this:

Boo-effing-yah.

Academic Research: So Smart, So Dumb

2011-09-08T15:47:00.004-04:00

On the surface, this study of the depiction of terrorism in prime time television looks interesting.

Until you watch the video.

If you can watch this without noticing the massive, gaping problems with the methodology, you shouldn't be allowed to utter the word "research". Put the book down. Step away from the beaker.

Despite some levity, this wasn't intended as a joke, it seems; yet the study is comical.

The study is based on 24 episodes? If they monitored ten times that many I would question the results.

And kids are learning this scientific method in university.

Honestly. WTF.

Cory Doctorow Strikes Again

2011-07-20T11:10:00.003-04:00

Seriously?

I love the conclusion drawn from this article:
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/07/20/suppressed-report-on.html

Basically, what it says is that people who download files (like movies etc) illegally are amongst the big spenders of legitimate entertainment consumption.

"The study concluded that Kino.to's users were among the entertainment industry's best customers, using filesharing as a sampling method to determine which media to purchase, spending premiums to attend weekend showings of new films, and generally outspending average consumers in their media consumption."

Go figure.

I mean, who would have thought that people would actually go SEE movies as well as download them? It's as if they are fans or something. Weird.

And exactly how the f*ck did you deduce that these folks were using the site to sample media that they might later purchase? Surveymonkey?

I'm pretty sure the big bad entertainment industry is aware that these folks aren't downloading stuff instead of buying it all the time, but when they do download instead of buying, the rights holder is being deprived of potential profit (not all movies make money, you know).

And you wonder why it costs $15 to see a movie...

To Serve and Protect

2011-06-24T10:43:00.003-04:00

I don't really have the energy to write much today, but I felt compelled to share/vent the disappointment I am feeling this morning. Depression, really. Aren't I a nice guy?

I was visiting my normal sites today - The Star, Boing Boing, Facebook etc and came across a few stories that related to the police. All were negative and related to alleged abuses by police forces - not just in one city or related to one case, but in three different cities (Toronto, Vancouver and Rochester). This makes me both angry and sad. Seriously: what the fuck is going on around here?

In Toronto, the fall-out continues with regards to the absolutely insane G20 fiasco. No, not the fact the great Canadian Government (The "Harper Government" you say? Kiss my ass - but that's another post) hoodwinked Parliament and misappropriated funds so that they could line the pockets of Conservative-friendly ridings (for which someone ought to be sent to jail - not re-elected!), but the violence that occurred in the city's core. How anyone would think holding a powder keg of a meeting in a busy metropolis as opposed to at the top of a fucking mountain is beyond me. Did the leaders really get a good look at the city? From behind those fences, I doubt it. So what was the point of having it here, exactly?

What is REALLY upsetting about this stupid adventure was the way the police behaved. Not only did they let vandals run amok and uncontested in the city streets, smashing windows and burning cars, they then proceeded to rough up ordinary citizens, violating their rights left right and centre. WHAT THE FUCK?!?! When did the police lose sight of their purpose of existence? It's unbelievably depressing. The police are supposed to be the good guys. They're supposed to protect us. They're supposed to be role models. When you kettle innocent people wandering on Queen Street in the rain, when you beat up people who are gathered peacefully at Queen's Park, when you arrest, strip search and manhandle guys for saying, "good luck with Saturday" you are NOT doing your job. You are FAILING the public. You have LOST our faith.

But at least finally - FINALLY - the chief admits that maybe they didn't do such a bang up job (despite what was being said previously). Of course he blames the fact that they were not prepared. Responding to emergencies is part of the job description, you dunce! You had time to arrange transportation and overtime for cops from all over the province to arrive in Toronto but couldn't figure out - in six months - how to get some of them to Yonge Street when the shit went down? STFU.

In Vancouver, they were a bit more effective, even though they had - what - two days notice that there would be a game 7 in town? Stores got smashed, cars got lit up, but the whole thing was dispersed in 4 hours and at least they TRIED to go after the troublemakers. Oh, but they STILL managed to fuck that one up. Rule #1 - when trying to disperse a violent crowd, do NOT strike the unarmed couple to the ground with your shield and continue to harass them after they are clearly subdued and injured. Oh, and when you realize you've fucked up? Maybe call for a medic instead of just running away to catch up with your buddies. This one was actually caught on video. The initial reports may have been of a "kissing couple" but the true story is far less romantic.

But we can forgive the cops for screwing up a little when they are under pressure in these massive demonstrations, right? I mean, adrenaline is pumping, threats are everywhere... Oh, but then there are stories like this one to remind us of how police can sometimes make the wrong, petty move even when they've had time to think about it. See, first, the police overreacted to a citizen recording a traffic stop. When the shit hit the fan there, did the cops apologize and nip the situation in the bud? Nope, they compounded the issue and embarrassed themselves even further. When citizens gathered to support this poor lady, the cops decided that would be a good time to send out a few patrol cars to ticket any supporters' car that was parked more than a foot from the curb.

To serve and protect.

For years, I have given the police the benefit of the doubt when stories arose that were critical of the way a situation was handled. I've even done so on this blog. I don't think I'm willing to do that anymore. My faith in the force has been rattled too often. Have I changed or has the police culture changed? Is this a sign of the times or the way it has always been?

What the fuck is going on?

Whatever it is, it has to change. The police have GOT to be the role models. They have to be held to a higher standard. They have to be our protectors. They have to be strong, vigilant and just. We have to be able to believe in them. That does not mean closing ranks when one of them does wrong. That means identifying the problem and kicking it off the force asap. You don't tolerate a cancer, you eradicate it.

Is "To Serve and Protect" too complicated? Try this: "Do Right."

UPDATE: Apparently, the charges against the Rochester woman were dropped "for lack of evidence". Considering the whole thing is on FUCKING TAPE, I'm hesitant to buy that reasoning and am even more depressed about the lack of transparency in the justice system.

Inspirational photography

2010-09-01T15:09:00.003-04:00

While suffering through my 9-5 work week, I sometimes wonder what it would be like to have a more interesting career, such as that of a pro athlete, a comic book artist or a photographer. Photography is something that I've long been interested in but have never really pursued. It's hard to make any sort of money at it, especially if you aren't willing to commit to a life of wedding photography. (I value my weekends!)

Sometimes, though, I'll come across a website or news story about really cool photography and I second-guess my 9-5 existence.

I came across one such link via Boingboing. (where else?)

This is photographer Brian McCarty based in California. He has a book coming out collecting some of his very nifty work involving placing toys in real backgrounds to create a sort of "optical illusion" style of art. I kinda like the underwater ones, myself.

Seeing this makes me question whether sitting in front of a f***ing computer is really what I want to be doing with my life.

I wonder what the stork would say... (warning: this is quite possibly the most depressing commercial EVER.)

CRAZY GUN-TOTING COP!!! ...Not so crazy?

2010-08-03T13:10:00.003-04:00

Boingboing strikes again.

So I'm perusing the site, which is usually pretty interesting, and come across this post that seems to relate the story of a crazy, gun-waving cop caught on video pointing his firearm at a motorcyclist who was speeding. The story goes on to tell of the crazy lengths the DA is going to to back the officer.

The DA part of the story is one thing, and yes it sounds a bit out of touch with reality ("wiretapping"? Really?) but what pissed me off was the way the officer was portrayed and the way the biker's actions were overlooked.

The picture seems damning, but watch the video. In it, we see the biker speeding and driving recklessly. We even see him pull a wheelie. That's f***ing insane. Right there, this guy loses any sympathy from me. The guy should have his licence revoked for life. Honestly. WTF?

The video shows the speeder passing a police car, and the bubble pops up: "69 MPH" as if that was the speed he was doing when the cop caught him on radar. Less than half a minute earlier he was doing 127 MPH.

ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY SEVEN MILES PER HOUR.

That's some 205 km/h for us Canadians.

So do you really think the cop caught him at only 69 mph? Do you think radar only works the moment you are passing the cop car? Really?

STFU.

The guy starts checking his mirrors repeatedly, then speeds up to at least 82 mph (132 km/h), and takes the first exit he can. At this point, he knows he could be in trouble and he's CLEARLY trying to elude any police vehicle that may be pursuing him.

Now we don't know if he knows the cop is chasing him because there's no sound and we can't see what he sees in the mirrors. But once he gets on the ramp, we see him check his mirrors and then turn his head - that's when we can see the police vehicle in pursuit, lights flashing (notice there's still no sound at this point). Does he pull over immediately? Nope. He rides up to the light where the traffic is stopped and then stops.

This is where we see the unmarked cruiser (a gray sedan) pull up alongside. The officer gets out and unholsters his gun as he says "get off the motorcycle". What was the biker doing at the time? BACKING UP. So even before the cop can get out and say anything, the biker is making a move away. Where the heck is he going? Is it possible the cop sees this as a potential fleeing manoeuvre? Could that be why he draws his weapon? Notice that at no point does the officer actually raise his firearm at the biker. He puts his hand on the bike to arrest the biker and identifies himself.

Crazy cop? I dunno. Seems pretty calm and in control to me, especially since he's facing a biker who was endangering the lives of others.

And let's get something straight: this guy was not just "speeding", he was stunt driving and weaving dangerously around traffic. The guy is lucky the cop had that much patience with him. Had someone been hurt the public would be asking for the biker's head on a stick.

But who is the bad guy here? The police officer. The "out of control" cop. Are you kidding me? This guy was super calm.

I watched the video again, trying to find where the unmarked car might have seen the biker. Look back at the car in the passing lane next to the bus at the 0:34 mark. Think that might be him? I don't know where else it might have been. So was the cop really pulling his gun out for a guy doing a measly (?!) 69 mph on a highway, or had he been trying to catch up to the idiot who had passed him doing a wheelie at 127 mph?

Check out this news story about the incident. Regardless of the recording felony charge, the "victim" makes the disingenuous statement that he thought someone might be stealing his bike or trying to shoot him when the officer unholstered his weapon. ...Really? You KNOW you are being pulled over by a vehicle with flashing lights and you figure maybe you're being mugged? Really?

But the media outlet eats it up and paints the cop as the bad guy.

FAIL.

This and That - July 16, 2010

2010-07-16T10:35:00.003-04:00

Just some thoughts on things I came across today:

Beaver kills dog, beaver to be killed
There's something missing in this story, surely. I mean, why is there an off-leash in that particular spot? Why not just move the off-leash area instead of killing the beavers? And I don't buy the "if we move the beavers they'll just fight to the death with another beaver for their territory" argument. I mean, surely there are places suitable for beavers where there isn't already a beaver. WTF?

New Superman to be made, without Brandon Routh
This is too bad. I can understand not casting Routh if they want to completely re-boot the franchise again, but Routh was terrific in Superman Returns, I thought. He channeled Christopher Reeves and was a suitable Man of Steel, physically. Making a feature with Tom Welling would be another option, but I guess he comes with the baggage of the tv series - see re-boot of the franchise idea. Casting Chuck's Zachary Levi would be bizarre, though, seeing as Routh had an extended run on the series and Levi comes with the comedic baggage. I can't see him as Supes.

Bionic legs allow paralyzed man to walk
Wait...why hasn't this happened before? Some guys in a garage came up with this? Seriously? Is there not enough money to be made in the development of this device that it hadn't been created before? I'm confused. Great for this guy, though. Great friends. If enough of these can be made and the system improved, I'm sure the price will come down even from the $150K projected price. I wonder what insurance companies think of this? These devices would have their own issues, but if it saves people the cost of special houses, ramps, etc, maybe that price tag doesn't seem so high?

Mel Gibson's lawyers say tapes were doctored
If the tapes were edited, ok, then that's a pretty serious charge. But unless they were doctored in such a way as to make it sound like he said things that he didn't, well, I'm not sure it's gonna matter in the public eye. I'm thinking of things, like, I dunno... "If you get raped by a pack of n***ers", you know, that sort of thing. Still, you gotta wonder about someone who would record and leak phone conversations. Use 'em in court, sure, but making them available to the public? Maybe they deserve each other.

Jarvis losing a lane to bikes
Not sure how I feel about this yet. I’m all for bike lanes, don’t get me wrong, but I question whether Jarvis is really the right street for them. It’s a major arterial road for cars, that’s for sure. But if you wanted to get around the city on a bike, would Jarvis really be your street of choice? First of all, it runs from Rosedale to east downtown; who is riding their bike down from Rosedale? For those coming from north of Rosedale, that’s probably not your route of choice since Mount Pleasant (Jarvis north of Bloor) likely won’t be getting a bike lane and is very hilly. So who is this for? How much will it be used? If you really wanted to be daring, you’d convert Yonge Street into a route for bikes, pedestrians and delivery trucks only. It could be converted into a terrific shopping strip. Who drives on downtown Yonge Street really? But the point is this: bikes, unlike cars, don’t converge on major arterial roads. That’s the beauty of a bike – it can go anywhere there’s pavement at roughly the same speed. Bike lanes are great, but one major development on one street that’s off the beaten path is not gonna cut it. I’d suggest separate lanes, with a curb, much like some streets in Montreal. And put them on LOTS of streets, not just one or two. Cyclists aren’t likely to go out of their way to take a bike arterial road – they’ll just take the shortest route. So let’s accommodate bikes everywhere.

Awesome journalism

2010-07-15T10:25:00.004-04:00

I read those "commuter" papers on my way to work. They're convenient and free.

But, man, do they suck.

24 is by far the greatest offender, but Metro is filled with errors, omissions and nonsense every single day. I fear for the minds of those who take this stuff at face value.

This may or may not be related, since I saw the same story reported in The Star, but I thought I'd share this interesting tidbit of info that I came across and made me shake my head.

There was this study, see (you know how much I love those!), and in it a bunch of would-be researchers looked at immigrants to Canada versus those born here to see how they compared in terms of water safety. The headline reads: "Research compiled by the Lifesaving Society shows a strong need for water safety education targeted at Canada's immigrants."

Followed by stats.

Issue #1: "The Lifesaving Society’s survey polled 433 Canadian-born adults and 599 Canadian immigrants from the Chinese, South Asian, Southeast Asian and Muslim communities." So, basically, not immigrants from the other 70% of the world. That's thorough. I'm not sure this really represents an accurate reflection of "immigrants", but ok...

Issue #2: Metro, who published the story on their front page, says, "Even though 20% of immigrants said they cannot swim, 79% reported to the study that they planned to spend time around or on the water this summer." *GASP!* Someone warn these people!!!

...Hold on... 20% can't swim... 79% plan to be around the water... that means 21% won't be even near the water... 20% can't swim...

Wait...

Wow. Way to be alarmist. This, ladies and gentlemen, is front page news.

Cory Doctorow misses the point again

2010-07-14T16:32:00.003-04:00

I haven't been over to Boingboing in quite a while. I blame the twitchy bookmarks feature on my browser since they updated the servers at work.

Did I say work? I meant home. Since they updated the servers at home.

Right.

Anyway, it didn't take long to come across a post by my fav contributor, Cory Doctorow, in which he aimed his vitriol at "The Man" and missed completely.

In this article, Cory links to another article wherein the author claims that the recording industry in America is wasting its money suing peer-to-peer users who download/share music files, presumably at the expense of CD sales. See, the numbers suggest the RIAA is spending way more in lawyers' fees ($16M) than they recoup in litigation wins ($400K). Bad investment, right? Losers, right?

Uh...not so fast. Do you seriously believe the primary objective of the RIAA is to get their money back via litigation? Come on...

Of COURSE it's "litigation terrorism" as one comment poster put it. The RIAA clearly thinks it's worth it in deterrence or they wouldn't be doing it. These guys are all about profits, remember?

Piracy may still be thriving (as many comment posters seem to be pointing out with glee), but I'm sure that there is SOME portion of the population out there that is just a bit freaked out by the threat of being singled out - maybe even $16M worth? Hell, even the UFC is jumping on that bandwagon.

The fact is that as long as the internet exists, piracy will exist. There are tons of people who feel they shouldn't have to pay a dollar for something they can potentially access for free (legal or no). Does that mean these rights holders should lie back and take it? Hell no. Is it good PR? Hell no, but they're banking on the fact that you like the artist on the front of the CD enough to ignore the name in the small print on the back of the CD.

Now stop stealing shit! Geez...

Michael Bryant - Darcy Sheppard Incident Follow-up

2010-05-27T10:42:00.004-04:00

Whoa.

I was out of town on Tuesday, so I missed this bit of news. Seems the charges against former Attorney General Michael Bryant were dropped when the prosecution decided it had no reasonable chance of conviction.

See, back in September of aught-nine, I posted this. It got the most comments, I think, of anything I've posted on this blog. I was trying to make the point that everyone should take a deep breath and wait for the facts to come out before passing judgement (not just in this case, but in all cases) and holding pro-cyclist/anti-car sit-ins. Seems some folks missed that message, though, and accused me of supporting Bryant and being a car-loving douchebag.

Although I'm sure many will doubt the story (I have my own questions), it seems that some facts have indeed come to light that helped get Bryant off the hook. You can catch most of the story here, but here are some highlights:

- Sheppard was drunk. He had a blood alcohol of 0.183, over twice the legal driving limit (not sure how that limit applies to impaired cycling).

- He had been acting somewhat oddly (to be kind) moments before the incident, throwing traffic cones and junk onto the street and doing figure eights in front of a car.

- He cut in front of Bryant's car at a light, passing on the driver's side.

- Bryant did not, as the video suggested to many, deliberately lurch at and then strike Sheppard with his car, but rather this sequence was the result of the car stalling and Bryant nervously attempting to restart it. (Bryant should have realized the danger when the car lurched the first time, but, hey, I didn't interview the witnesses.)

- The car did not speed off at a rate of 60-100 km/h, but rather hit about 35 km/h.

- Sheppard struck Bryant in the forehead as Bryant drove in a panic.

- Forensic evidence proves Bryant did not mount or touch the curb at all (as some had suggested, in an effort to squish Sheppard like a bug) but rather Sheppard's outstretched body struck a fire hydrant no more than a foot from the curb and caused him to fall off, strike his head on the curb or roadway and suffer fatal injuries.

- Sheppard had a history of outrageous behaviour involving vehicles, including one caught on camera that shows that Sheppard also had a history of latching onto cars. The story is here.

As for all the other stuff regarding violence earlier in the evening, it seems that was neither proven nor dismissed.

The bottom line is that Sheppard's own father accepts the decision and applauded the thoroughness of the investigation.

Did Bryant err that evening? Obviously. He apparently couldn't get this car started and then tried to do so in a not-so-safe manner. But the story goes that he panicked. Was Sheppard justified in being pissed at what appeared to be a reckless if not aggressive act? Of course. Was Bryant equally justified in fearing for his safety and that of his wife in the face of Sheppard's reaction? I'd say so. Was this an example of human failures and unusual circumstances coming together with tragic consequences? You bet your ass.

Is this the rallying cry for cycling advocates? Not on your life. People who want to see more bike lanes should be distancing themselves from "troubled" folk like Sheppard. "Bad month" or not, this was not the poster-boy for bikes in the city.

I'm hoping that now that the facts are out, people will make their arguments in a more intelligent manner, rather than simply jumping to conclusions and breaking out the pitchforks and torches, all the while lauding Sheppard as an angel.

That's the end of this post. Bike lanes will be another post - just as it should be.

Something Immediately

2010-05-14T13:20:00.003-04:00

Let it never be said that I don't listen to my future wife.

Happy now?

Now let me get back to work! I have to work twice as much if I'm gonna give you half my sh*t! :P

Love,
-Philip.

Bogus Air Miles

2010-02-04T10:08:00.002-05:00

I don't have the time nor the inclination to get nto this too much today, but thought I'd comment on this link I noticed today.

When the whole Bonus Air Miles thing was launched (which, to me, was back in university, I believe) I was left scratching my head. How can this possibly work? If everyone starts collecting air miles and getting free flights, well, won't the airlines lose revenue and be forced to add crazy restrictions? If enough people earn enough points to start seriously redeem them, won't they just jack up the number of points needed to get a flight? What's to stop them once they have all these people invested?

Looks like I was right. Although this is supposedly the first increase in 5 years, the fact of the matter is that the air miles you've been collecting over x amount of time are simply not as valuable as they once were. Oh, but keep collecting, dear loyal customer - they'll pay off EVENTUALLY.

And when you want to redeem your BAM points or whatever other loyalty point card thingamabopper, we have this one ticket on this one flight at this one time...to Orlando. Congrats!

That's why I've never been one to look for BAM deals. I whip out my card as a matter of course when I hand over my credit card to pay for groceries, but that's about it. I am NEVER lured by an offer that promotes BAMs. In fact, when I see ads that say "earn 50 BAMs with every purchase" it just turns me off more. If they can just hand out 50 points just like that, what's the point of me earning 1 or 2 points every time I buy groceries? (If that) I've been whipping out my card as a matter of course for some 15 years now and the last time I looked I had squat for points. Yippee.

Forget the BAM offer. I'll take 10% off the sticker price every time.

Au revoir, Le Marche

2010-01-26T14:37:00.004-05:00

On my lunchtime stroll I noticed that Le Marche, a long-standing restaurant at the corner of Yonge & Wellington, had closed. It caught me - and a number of would-be lunchtime patrons - by surprise. There was a sign in the lobby thanking customers for their patronage.

Guess it's gone for good.

Now I'm not exactly shedding a tear for the place. I hated eating there. It was an overpriced buffet that actually charged an automatic 15% gratuity. (WTF?)

I also didn't like the social aspect of it. You get seated, then have to get up and walk around looking for food. It was like a giant menu that you had to walk through and you and your friends would have to go your separate ways to get your stuff (unless you happen to be eating the same thing). Then you get back to your table with your food, possibly minutes apart, and eat. This means there's no time between ordering and being served to talk with your meal partner(s). That's crap.

Then, when you check out, they charge you the gratuity for the pleasure of having served yourself. Thanks. If it's automatic, why not simply add it to the posted price of the food?

So, yeah, I hated the place. But it was a bit of an oasis in the midst of the downtown core. It looked nice, at least, and it often played French music - particularly Joe Dassin - inside the restaurant and out on the street.

I wonder what's going to take its place?

UPDATE: Spoke too soon? Yes and no. What will replace the Marche? Well, a Marche, of course!

Our Wedding Blog

2010-01-19T14:19:00.003-05:00

Sorry I've been ignoring you so much, blogosphere, but, you see, I've been very busy this Christmas season.

I even (gulp) got engaged.

Zoinks, yo.

No, to be honest, I haven't been sweating it in the least (yet) because my bride-to-be is so incredibly utterly fantastic. I know that we're gonna have a great time together.

...Forever.

...

Zoinks, yo.

We've been discussing various wedding options/details and first up seems to be venue (which, of course, is paired with guest list, since the size of the wedding considerably narrows the list of suitable venues). It appears we're looking at about 150-200 guests. And that would be just family and close friends.

Zoinks, yo. (@ 8:07)

To help us on our journey and in order to capture advice (mostly) in one place, we've set up a wedding blog. You can find it here. We thought about sites like eWedding, etc, but they either cost money or expire. Eff that.

So, please, faithful reader, drop by the new blog and give us your two cents.

Or, better yet, enough to cover the cost of your plate.

Punishment should fit the crime, not the damage - Liambas vs Fanelli

2009-11-04T15:17:00.003-05:00

Earlier this week, an OHL hockey player was injured after a crushing bodycheck from an opponent.

I hadn't seen the hit until just now, but I'd heard about it from others.

I don't know the players involved, but from what I can tell through a brief search, the hitter - Michael Liambas - is a bit of a douchebag on the ice as this ridiculously dirty hit on John Tavares demonstrates.

The recent incident resulted in a match penalty for boarding to Liambas and a trip to the hospital for Ben Fanelli, who was upgraded from critical to serious condition at last report.

Today, Liambas was suspended by the OHL for the remainder of the season, including the playoffs. This would make it one of the harshest suspensions ever handed down.

And it is completely b.s.

The hit was devastating, no doubt about it, but it should have resulted in a two minute charging penalty at most.

With all due respect to Ben Fanelli - and I'm sure EVERYONE wishes him a speedy recovery - the injury (skull and facial fractures) was a result of his head hitting the glass and the metal divider and not from the hit itself. Liambas did not leave his feet, nor was this a "head shot" (not every head injury is a result of a "head shot", the expression-du-jour in contact sports these days). Minus the debatable charge, the hit was clean.

Boarding is typically the result of a hit from behind, and some will argue that that is the case here. Bull. Liambas catches Fanelli in the back shoulder, but only because Fanelli turns to fire the puck the other way and possibly to protect himself at the very last moment.

As any experienced hockey player will tell you, this is exactly what NOT to do. Bracing yourself against the boards is the best way to minimize the impact of a hit. Turning your back is suicidal. It's hard to tell from the video if Fanelli protected himself at all or was simply getting rid of the puck.

Unfortunately, Fanelli's positioning resulted in him being spun violently into the boards where his head hit the glass and divider. The force of the impact with the glass knocked him unconcious and he fell to the ice, his helmet having been dislodged in the process.

Lesson number two in this situation is that players should be required to have their chin straps secured firmly.

It appears the OHL is not punishing the hit, but rather the damage. If Fanelli gets up, there's likely no match penalty, never mind a suspension. But when a player is seriously hurt, there's this sense that something drastic has to be done to balance the scales of justice - even when no crime was committed. The suspension is often in proportion to the injury, rather than the act.

Why is that?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: attempted murder should be punishable in the same way as murder. It isn't because you failed in the attempt that you should be "rewarded" with a lighter sentence. In other words, we should judge the act and intent, not the damage. In this case, the hit was essentially clean, though devastating.

So why the massive suspension?

The league talks about "respect" and "sending a message". But what's the message? What's the lesson to be learned here? Since there was nothing really wrong with the hit, and hits will happen in the future, what "message" does the league hope to convey and have heeded by the players?

This is a punishment based on politics and perception, and not on the facts or the acts.

It's tragic that Fanelli was injured on the play, but it isn't Liambas' fault.

I hope Fanelli has a full and speedy recovery.

Correlation Without Causation

2009-10-20T13:02:00.005-04:00

Ever heard that expression? (or "Correlation does not imply causation"?) I heard it in Psych 100, I think. I remembered it because it was so true of so many statements one reads in the press, especially when it comes to scientific studies and the like.

Don't get it? Ok, here's a simple example:

Red car sales increased last year.
The police issued more speeding tickets than ever last year.
Therefore, owning a red car causes a person to speed.

That's a retarded statement, and yet I can't tell you how many times I've read something similar in a newspaper or somesuch. There are any number of reasons the number of speeding tickets increased that have nothing to do with the colour of the cars on the road (though there's always the possibility that it IS caused by just that).

I came across this today and it made me laugh:

I'm such a geek.

Tradition! (of the egg nog variety)

2009-10-15T11:35:00.003-04:00

I have an annual tradition. Every year, I buy the first carton of egg nog that I see.

I like egg nog. Some people think it's revolting, but those people are ugly.

Egg nog with rum? YUM!!! I look forward to that every Christmas. Of course, I usually have way too much and need a year to recover.

So guess what I saw when I dropped by the grocery store the other day? Sure enough, there was a shelf full of egg nog. This year, it was the "Irresistibles" version. I quite like the President's Choice Premium egg nog (in the black carton) but the tradition doesn't care - whatever's first wins.

So I picked up a carton, went home, and enjoyed my first egg nog of the season.

...in OCTOBER!!!!!!!!

What the fudge?!

It's OCTOBER.

I used to think having my first egg nog in November was a bit odd. I'm gonna be sick of rum & egg nog before Hallowee'n!

Get off the phone!!

2009-10-05T15:53:00.003-04:00

Jim Kenzie is a columnist for The Toronto Star and a tv personality who works the automotive beat.

He's a smart guy and I often agree with his points of view.

Perhaps that's a redundant statement. :P

Anyhow, his latest article tackles the recent legislation effectively banning the use of cell phones while driving.

Or, rather, the use of hand-held cell phones.

Note the problem here?

See, while the legislation is no doubt a step in the right direction (though Jim seems to think it actually makes matters worse if people think it endorses the hands-free option), it doesn't quite address the issue. The act of holding a cell phone to one's head is no doubt dangerous. I have seen drivers nearly collide with me and/or other objects because they had limited their field of vision. The ban will help curb this occurence. But, see, this approach has cellphone apologists using the same old ridiculous argument that radios and the like are just as distracting. I mean, they're all items that require physical dexterity and keep our hands off the wheel, right?

*sigh*

You would have to be a complete moron not to agree that the real danger of cell phones is not the physical presence of the item but the mental distraction they cause.

And no, you putz, a phone conversation is not at all the same as listening to the radio.

See, listening to the radio is passive. Sometimes you don't even notice the song playing - it's ambience. But when you're on the phone, engaged in a conversation, it's a completely different use of the mind and draw on your attention. Do I have a science degree? No, but what I do have is half a brain. It's as obvious as obvious can be that when you are participating in a phone conversation, you "retreat" mentally, even if just a little. There's no way that you are as aware of your environment. That's a dangerous frame of mind when operating a vehicle in traffic.

If you haven't seen it yourself, then you either don't drive enough or your lack of perception skills has me thinking - cell phone or no - you already shouldn't be driving. I've been in cars with people who go absolutely retarded once they pick up the phone. They slow down, miss exits, lose track of cars around them, or even become panicked and edgy.

A hands-free device will not cure this. Drivers will still be distracted as they retreat psychologically in order to converse intelligently. Yes, even the "good" drivers.

I have long refused to talk to friends on the phone if I know they are driving. The fact they they may be using a hands-free device will not change that.

The legislation does not ban hands-free communication because, as I understand it, it would be difficult if not impossible for an officer to determine that someone is using a hands-free device. The legislation should not be seen as an endorsement of hands-free. My solution? Ban all cell phone communication while driving. Pull over the folks who use hand-held devices, sure, but add a charge for people caught using a hands-free device when involved in an acident. Determining that a hands-free device was being used in that instance would not be impossible to prove and just might discourage some use.

Wanna make/answer a call while driving? Pull over or get off the phone!

Viewpoint Film Challenge

2009-09-29T12:45:00.004-04:00

My friend Russ is a very talented artist. You may have seen some of his work on some PC video game boxes or on the Canadian version of Monopoly.

About a year ago, he started a mini film fest called the Viewpoint Film Challenge. The premise is fairly simple: give filmmakers a script that they more or less have to stick to (just dialogue) and see how each one interprets it differently. The script, of course, is purposely vague.

The rules are simple:
- You cannot add dialogue.
- You can remove dialogue.
- You can move dialogue around, but not words or letter within dialogue.
- The film has to be under 10 minutes.

The first time around, the entries included not just the standard stuff, but animations and films filled with green screen effects. You can see them here.

Based on what I've seen of the second incarnation, recently holding its screening at the Arcacia Centre in Chinatown , the films are even more ambitious. Russ's film in particular is unbelievably awesome with its special effects.

It's incredible that you can do this kind of film on a home computer!

The films from the second screening should all be posted soon, so keep an eye out. Viewpoint Film Challenge 3 seems to be a given, so if you're interested keep an eye on the site or join the VFC Facebook group.

Stop crime, get arrested II

2009-09-16T15:31:00.004-04:00

*sigh*

Another one of these.

So let me get this straight: guy gets his place burglarized TWICE IN ONE DAY. He catches the guy in the act the second time and, in the process, kills the guy and the police are debating whether to charge the burglary victim?

*sigh*

This is bullshit.

The article says:

University of Maryland law professor David Gray said prosecutors must weigh
whether Pontolillo thought he was in danger or became the aggressor. If he
thought he might be severely harmed, then he was within his rights to protect
himself, Gray said. "It doesn't matter if he used a gun, a sword or a frying
pan."

How about the right to defend your property? I mean, I'm big on that myself, but I thought they were really big on that in the States. I thought you could shoot trespassers down there.

A friend of mine recently had his place broken into in the middle of the night. The burglars(s) clearly did not realize he was home, asleep in the basement. My friend (wisely) escaped out the side door and ran to a neighbour's to call police.

Now, let's imagine that my friend had a kid. Let's imagine that the kid is asleep in another room and that my friend cannot escape with the child unnoticed. Can he confront the burglar with a weapon then? (the fact that the burglar dies from their wounds should never be a consideration - you either believe in defending something with force or you don't - you can't always control the outcome of using that force)

You can bet your ass that I'd be standing there with my samurai sword or Ginsu knife or rocket launcher. Whatever I could get my hands on.

Honestly: fuck the burglar.

What? The guy was supposed to let the guy just walk off with his stuff? No? Then how the hell was he supposed to stop him? By threatening him with force? What if he had to actually USE that force to stop the guy? Is that ok? He had a SWORD. How many different ways are there to use a fucking sword?!

And, besides, does he really have to give the guy the opportunity to surrender before using the force to incapacitate the burglar? I mean, isn't losing the element of surprise just increasing the odds the burglar will do you harm? Just because the guy hasn't seen you yet doesn't mean you aren't in danger. This guy could have run the sword through the burglar's back and I still wouldn't have a problem with it.

Bottom line: the burglar isn't the victim. You break into someone's house, you take your chances.

John Pontolillo shouldn't get arrested, he should get a pat on the back.

Music Video Awards

2009-09-14T10:49:00.003-04:00

Another video awards ceremony, another Kanye West outburst.

I hate it when tv is predictable.

I didn't see the ceremony, actually. I watched maybe 5 seconds of it, just as Serena Williams, fresh of her own outburst at the U.S. Open, got a somewhat mixed welcome.

So I missed the "lowlight" of the show when Kanye West interrupted Taylor Swift's acceptance speech for Best Female Video for "You Belong To Me" to announce to the crowd that, while he was happy for Taylor and would let her finish, Beyonce had made one of the best videos of all time.

You stay classy, Kanye.

Swift, understandably, didn't finish her speech - not until Beyonce invited her up on stage to do so when she herself won Video of the Year for "Single Ladies".

Ok, so I think we can all agree that Kanye is a complete douche. Here's the part I don't get: Kanye thinks this was one of the best videos of all time and should have certainly beaten this. Am I missing something? A video where three ladies do a choreographed dance on a bare set is one of the best videos of all time - in this day and age - and is leaps and bounds better than a video with an actual story to it?

Now I'm not saying Swift's video is great. It's pretty cliche and simple, really. I think it's depressing that it would win a video award. I mean, what happened to innovative videos? Don't we live in an era of CGI where incredible artistic visions can come true? What happened to pushing the envelope and making cool/original works like this or this or this? Is choreographed dancing all we need these days?

It's best video - not best SONG.

And while we're at it, can someone please explain to me how Beyonce can not have the Best Female Video and yet have Video of the Year? Isn't Beyonce female? Or does she have a sprinting career I don't know about?

Tag! You're a douchebag.

2009-09-11T11:31:00.005-04:00

Ok, so I'm kinda bored - it's the calm before the storm - so I thought I'd kill a minute or two by throwing up another post. I'm tired of all the Bryant-Sheppard bull and wanna get that post off the top of this page. :P

So here's something I came across on Boingboing : "Daredevil LA tagger 'Buket' of YouTube fame gets nearly 4 years in jail".

Four years seems more than a bit much but I don't know the circumstances of the charges. A little jail time to sober this moron up doesn't seem extreme to me, though.

Some people may say I'm getting old, what with my beard and all, but the truth is that I have always detested graffiti and "tagging". It's juvenile, rude, inconsiderate, ugly (usually), disrespectful and mean - and in this jerk's case, dangerous.

If you think this guy is anything but a "reckless egomaniacal douchetard", then I'm not sure we can be friends anymore.

.

Michael Bryant vs. Cyclist Darcy Sheppard - Facts Before Acts

2009-09-02T12:24:00.004-04:00

Something been's bothering me the past couple of days.

It isn't a new theme, but it's rearing its ugly head again: People who protest or condemn without having the facts.

On Monday night there was some sort of incident between a cyclist, Darcy Sheppard, and former Ontario MPP Michael Bryant who was driving his Saab convertible. What we know is that at some point after this incident and shouting match, the vehicle moved down the road and that, at some point, Mr. Sheppard clung to the driver's side. The vehicle traveled erratically down Bloor Street and, at some point, Mr. Sheppard fell under the rear wheels, suffering injuries that proved fatal.

That's it.

That's all we know.

Reporters and police have been trying to fill in the rest using eye witness accounts, but the fact is that the only people who know exactly what happened from begining to end are the two occupants of the vehicle, Mr. Bryant and his wife.

It has been alleged that there was a minor collision involving the car and bicycle, which took place either before or was bookended by angry exchanges between the two men. It's alleged that Mr. Sheppard slammed his bag onto the hood of the car. It's alleged that Mr. Bryant began to drive off and that Mr. Sheppard pursued the vehicle on foot and then grabbed the driver's side somehow. It's alleged that Mr. Bryant yelled at Mr. Sheppard to get off as he continued along Bloor. While it is indisputable that the car traveled westbound along the eastbound lane, it is not a given that this was done intentionally by Mr. Bryant and while it appears to be a fact that the vehicle brushed plant holders and other obstacles along the eastbound curb, it is not known if this, again, was intentional. Some allege that Mr. Bryant was attempting to "shake off" Mr. Sheppard.

What interested me right off the bat is that Mr. Bryant was not immediately charged. He was not charged until the next day, and he was not charged with manslaughter or somesuch, but rather criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death. One legal source says that, if convicted, Bryant would likely face two years in jail. Two years. Conspiracy theorists were quick to jump to the conclusion that Bryant received preferential treatment because of his former status as Ontario's Attorney General. Bryant left the post a while back to lead Invest Toronto.

But was it preferential treatment or are the facts as presented to the police by witnesses and Bryant such that the police think there may have been some extenuating circumstances?

Sheppard is a former (?) bike messenger and his colleagues were quick to stage a protest on Tuesday afternoon with plans to protest again during the Wednesday afternoon rush hour. Since they chanted "murder" at one point, I assume they are protesting the charge, rather than staging some sort of traffic-blocking memorial. But I don't know for sure. Do they know? Do they know what they are protesting? I don't have all the facts of the case - do they? What exactly is the issue here? Bike lanes? Crazy drivers? Mourning? Police corruption?

From the start, Mr. Bryant has been painted as the guilty party with Mr. Sheppard portrayed as the victim of road rage. When incidents arise involving a bicycle and a car, the automobile is often portrayed as the big bad wolf.

I don't buy it.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that you're in a car, a convertible, and some guy who is angry as hell for whatever reason starts attacking you or that you feel they are about to attack you. What would you do? Lock the door? It's a convertible. Try to get out? By the time you undo your seatbelt the guy may have already punched you in the face and knocked you silly - or worse. Yell for help? Good Samaritans MAY come over if you're lucky, but by then, again, you may be unconcious - or worse. Do these things even occur to you in the split second that you're threatened? Guess what I'd do. Hit. The. Gas. I'm in a car. The best way to get away from a guy who may be a complete psycho (for all I know) is to reach 60km/h. I don't have a taser. I can't defend myself - nor my wife - from a seated, restrained position. I have very very limited options. If the guy is crazy enough to latch onto my car as I drive away do I stop and chat? Eff that. Now I might hit the brakes hard and hope he goes flying, but maybe that doesn't occur to everyone. Maybe they keep driving in the hopes that speed and common sense will convince the guy to simply let it go. Then again, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he hangs on either out of anger or fear. Then maybe he falls.

I'm not saying that's what happened in the Bloor Street case, but it's something to consider. What was going through each person's mind? Why did they do what they did? How much did anger, fear and lack of time to think play a role? Is the car's operator still the big bad wolf in this scenario?

You'll have to forgive me if, without having all the facts, I'm not willing to crucify Mr. Bryant.

It's come to light that Mr. Sheppard is a recovering alcoholic single father of three who has 61 warrants for his arrest in Alberta. An hour before the incident on Bloor, Mr. Sheppard was involved in another incident at his girlfriend's residence where he showed up having been drinking (there seems to be some qestion as to whether he was drunk) and apparently caused enough of a ruckus to warrant police presence. Friends who heard of his passing said things were looking up for the man who had had some rough patches, saying that things were improving for him "just last week". Yup - looks that way. You'll forgive me if, not knowing the man personally and knowing only his criminal and alcohol-related issues, I hesitate to put a halo on him and brand him the upstanding victim in the Bloor Street incident.

(On a side note, hearing testimonials from friends of victims has got to be one of my biggest pet peeves with news coverage. The victim can be a crack dealing gang banger who has 20 convictions for gun possession and the story is always that their death is a "tragedy" and the victim was "a great guy" with a "bright future". STFU.)

So we have some facts, but not many. On the surface, it would appear that Mr. Bryant was driving recklessly in an effort to rid himself of Mr. Sheppard.

But do we know that for a fact?

I mean, isn't it at least possible that Mr. Sheppard played SOME role in his demise? Is it possible that Mr. Bryant feared for his safety and that of his wife? Is it possible that Mr. Sheppard overreacted to the minor incident in which, for all we know, he was 100% in the wrong? Is it possible that the incident an hour prior impacted Mr. Sheppard's state of mind at the time? And why in the world would someone purposely try to shake someone off their driver's side by driving down the wrong side of the road and into objects along the curb? Isn't it possible that this was NOT Mr. Bryant's intention? Isn't it possible that it was Mr. Sheppard's presence on the driver's side door that caused the car to swerve left (either through contact with Mr. Bryant or the wheel itself)? But why didn't Mr. Bryant simply hit the brakes? Is it possible that he feared for his safety so much that the idea of stopping and perhaps giving his "attacker" a chance to regroup was not an option? Or is Mr. Bryant 100% guilty?

Who knows?

I don't. And that's the point. If you don't know the facts for certain then at least keep your mind open to the possibility that things are not as they appear.

Wait for the facts before you condemn and stage your "protests". Otherwise, don't expect to get my sympathy.

Craziest Film Cast EVER!

2009-08-17T15:14:00.003-04:00

I came across this link after visiting the UFC website.

Did you know about this?

This is quite possibly the craziest cast for an action flick you will ever see:

THE EXPENDABLES (2010)

Sylvester Stallone

Dolph Lundgren

Jet Li

Jason Statham

Mickey Rourke

Randy "The Natural" Couture (UFC)

"Stone Cold" Steve Austin (WWE)

Eric Roberts

and a cameo by... Arnold Schwarzenegger!

Apparently Lundgren was hired after JC Van Damme turned it down. Wesley Snipes then Forest Whitaker then 50 Cent were supposed to play the role now taken by Terry Crews of "Everybody Hates Chris". Bruce Willis is rumoured to play the as-yet-uncast Mr. Church which had been offered to Kurt Russell.

Clearly, the idea is to make this movie as much an 80s action movie junkie fest as possible.

Of course it's gonna suck, but who cares?

The Beach Boys a capella

2009-08-14T14:14:00.003-04:00

Came across this link on Boingboing.

I didn't know this existed: it's the voice tracks from some Beach Boys tunes. Remove the music and you can really appreciate their harmonies - which were great to begin with.

I've always liked the Beach Boys, but this has boosted my appreciation for their talents and style of music.

There isn't supposed to be any instrumental music, but if you listen carefully, particularly to the "Sloop John B" track (and the not-so-great "Caroline No"), you can clearly hear the tune. perhaps it was sound bleeding from someone's headphones into the mic.

Regardless, it's a great piece of music. The second half of "God Only Knows" made me think of a wedding procession tune.

...There's that word again....

Random Excursions

2009-08-11T12:32:00.003-04:00

I came across a post on Boingboing that led me here.

I quite like this idea. I've always liked taking road trips and especially visiting new places.

Trips these days seem to be "destination trips" - you drive via the quickest route, usually a highway, to get to your destination fastest. Not very scenic.

I live in Toronto, yet I find that I don't know as many of the towns surrounding the city as I'd like.

Coming back from Dan's wedding reception last (?) summer, I avoided the highway and instead took a more scenic route (yet still on a major road so that I wouldn't have to twist and turn too much - I still had to get home!) which led me through St. Thomas, Ontario, a place I'd never been. It's a nice little town, which I now know is the site of the unfortunate passing of Jumbo the elephant, who was struck by a locomotive while visiting with the circus. A tour of the town would be incomplete without a visit to the statue of Jumbo. It may not have been the quickest way back from Windsor, but it was certainly more enjoyable and pleasant than the 401.

As the post says, I think establishing rules would be important. I like the idea of not being allowed to take the same stretch of road twice, but I'm not sure about following a direction beyond what the road allows (see the bit about using the GPS). Seems to me that when a road ends, that's when you use the die. But if you end up on a major road, how else do you determine when to roll again? Do you have a time limit for travel between rolls? Maybe you roll whenever you see a ________?

I think I'll come up with a plan and hopefully I'll be able to execute it sometime in the near future. (I'd have to rent a car!)

I think putting your trip in the hands of fate could be fun.

Remember: the terrorists haven't won

2009-07-29T13:57:00.005-04:00

"Just as disheartening, it underscores how the desire for security continues to override the spirit of openness that is fundamental to a functioning democracy."

The USA has been dysfunctional ever since 9/11.

This is just one more small example of how the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave is gone.

The terrorists have not only won, they've spent the last 8 years f***ing the prom queen while Homeland Security has been worried about protecting the scoreboard. The USA lost the "War on Terror" when they misplaced the Constitution and forgot what the country was supposed to represent.

...What? You expect me to talk about weddings forever?

.

Wediquette Part III

2009-07-28T13:55:00.002-04:00

I’m totally and utterly bored, so more posts for you folks!

Seems my recent posts have friends wondering about my intentions – but I must admit that the subject lends itself to so many arguments/debates/discussions that it’s easy fodder for a blog. Heck, I could start my own blog on the topic and I’m not married!

So, continuing on our theme of “wediquette”…

(By the way, I see that name is being used for at least one blog already – oh well)

More questions and thoughts:

1. Invitations

I, for one, do not understand the self-addressed stamped envelope RSVP in this day and age. You’re just gonna track the confirmations on a separate medium anyways (even if you just jot them on a piece of paper) so why do you need them? Are people that shallow that they need to receive an overpriced card to feel they are truly invited to the event? It’s not like you need the invite to get in, anyways – who checks these things at the door? I’ve never been asked for my invite and I don’t always know the groomsmen at the door. It seems to me that a cool electronic invite (no, not an “evite" – those don’t work for my email address, by the way, for some bizarre reason) would be better, coupled perhaps with a cool postcard-type hard copy just to be sure. Recently, I’ve seen friends use variations on this, with full size posters folded up or interesting fold-out cards with all the deets – including how to RSVP by website or email. Please don’t try to make the argument that a formal invite is more personal – it really isn’t. I don’t need fancy paper – just date and time. Besides, I always felt that they were worded awkwardly. What do you write where it says “Philip Sullivan will _______ attend”? “…Definitely” attend? “Maybe” attend? And what about “Number of guests: _____”. Including me? Does this mean I can bring a guest? I’m sure the “experts” would say that if a guest is invited the invite would read “Philip Sullivan and Guest”, but that’s not obvious to everyone, so don’t be surprised if Uncle Jed brings his hooker date.

2. Guests

Ok, so I’ve always figured that I’d have to limit the number of folks I invite to the reception (assuming it was a catered dinner at a hall) – but what about after dinner? I mean, can I tell some folks to come by at, say, 10pm to celebrate with the happy couple or is that gauche? Is it an insult to invite someone post-dinner? Surely people understand that halls have limits on guests for dinner and that inviting them for the party half of the night is better than no invite at all, no? It’s like a night out at a fancy bar for them. I always thought I’d invite the world to my wedding – hey, if we have history and you care enough that you wanna come see me get married and have a drink with me afterwards, that’s awesome – but of course I can’t have the world for dinner. I probably could invite the world if it were an evening service with cocktail reception as suggested in my previous post… I always thought a wedding would be nice excuse to have a “this is your life” gathering of old, long lost and new friends – probably the only time you’ll be able to do it before they gather for your funeral! If I have to limit it to, say, 100 then, hell, 90% of my Facebook friends wouldn’t make the cut! :P

3. Cake

Is this a big deal? Really? I mean, I have to say that at 75% of the weddings I’ve been to, the “cutting of the cake” is an afterthought and probably the most wasteful expense of the whole day. Personally, I don’t need it. Is there symbolism or importance behind it that I don’t know about or is it literally just a dessert tradition? I’d rather have ice cream. :P

4. Photos

I’m a fan of having the wedding and reception close together. I think it’s kind of nuts to expect guests to attend a ceremony, take 3 hours off, and then show up somewhere else for a reception. If you’re from out of town, it can be downright inconvenient. I attended a wedding once where the four of us from out of town went back to the motel and napped between events! Kinda takes the wind out of the sails, don’t it? But I understand that half the point of this is to allow the bridal party to take the time to go to a park and have photos taken. See, the idea is that you can’t take photos before the wedding because the groom can’t see the bride before the ceremony. That’s actually one tradition I like and plan to uphold. But what to do about photos? Well, for some, the photos taken at the reception would be enough. For some, you don’t even need a photographer or formal photos – the snaps people take at the reception from, say, disposable cameras on the table are enough. I’m a fan of doing some quick shots while people settle in at the reception venue or even taking the shots at the venue itself if suitable. I don’t need a lot of fancy group shots – just a few of the wedding party, family and the big group. What do you do with them afterwards anyways? Sure, it’s nice to have a few shots, but the best shots, in my mind, are not the posed shots, but the candid ones. I prefer a natural shot than one that looks like the poster for The Usual Suspects. And there’s no effing way I’m having a photographer hover around the ceremony like I see at some weddings. What’s the point of taking pictures of an event if the photographer is PART of the event? At times, the guests can’t even see because the photographer is at the front, 5 feet from the priest, shooting flash shots with a super loud super sized camera. WTF? No way. If I have a photographer, they better have a telephoto lens. There’s no way a photographer or videographer stands in front of a guest. What for? So I can show the guests afterwards the ceremony that they missed?

5. Gifts

As I’ve said before, for Pete’s sake, GIVE MONEY. I just don’t understand the idea of having a gift registry. Sure, it takes the guess work out of giving gifts and ensures the couple won’t get doubles, but there are just too many issues with it. Does the couple choose the premium item they want or the sufficient item? What happens if you don’t get a complete set of dishes or whatever (that comes in pieces)? How do I get my gift to the reception? What if I don’t have a car and want to take TTC? What do I do with it during the service portion? (who wants to carry an item all day while dressed up and then show up all hot and sweaty?) If you just give money, then the couple can examine their finances after the event and take stock of what they can and can’t afford to do with it. What’s the point of having fine china if you can’t afford a table? The top priority for me is to break even on the day. If everyone covers the cost of their plate then the rest is gravy. Starting off a marriage in debt would suck. If you have some left over, then great – now you can put that money towards a down payment on a house. You can’t do that with embroidered linen. So now that we agree that guests should give money instead of a physical gift, how do the couple make this known? An invite might normally include the fact that the couple are registered at The Bay, but how do you say “don’t bring gifts, bring money”?

6. Centrepiece

Look, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass less about the bloody centrepiece, but it seems that for some folks, “winning” the centrepiece is the highlight of the night. I’m all for giving the guests a little gift/souvenir (a.k.a. bonbonniere), but it doesn’t need to be elaborate and it shouldn’t spark riots. I’ve seen all sorts of contests run (and their “trick” variations) to see who would get it and it usually drags on way too long and seems mighty lame by the end. Besides, if people really care about it, you’re just disappointing 90% of your guests – the ones who don’t win. But if you do insist on running a contest, then arrange to have the centrepieces set aside with the winners’ names. You’d be shocked at the number of times people who did not win the centrepiece will walk off with one, just because it’s sitting on a table unattended as they exit (heaven forbid the winner is dancing).

7. Bar service

This is a pretty big one and can really polarize opinions. Open bar or cash bar? The open bar is obviously a treat for the guests and the most welcoming, but it can lead to a big expense for the couple, potential scamming by the hall (if they do the billing by “measuring” thing) and issues with crashers and sobriety. The cash bar might come off as cheap, but it does allow you to have more guests (see item 2) and allows for some control over their intake (they can’t drink if they run out of cash) and your expenses. I’d prefer to have an open bar, but I can see the merits of a cash bar.

Hm… Ok, I think that’s enough for today. Don’t wanna freak Dan out too much.

So what do you guys think?

Unusual Weddings

2009-07-24T15:31:00.009-04:00

Okay, so sticking to our wedding theme from the other day, let me show you this link to a neat wedding procession I came across on Boingboing.

This is awesome and, apparently, lots of fun. It was a big hit, it seems, and shows how you can have fun even when life as you know it is coming to an end.

...I mean on the happiest day of your life.

...What?

To pull this off, though, you'd need to have the right circumstances: a non-traditional couple; parents that can check their ego and don't insist on walking you down the aisle; extraverted friends; and understanding guests with a sense of humour.

I know a number of people who would be mortified by this sort of thing.
I'm all for it.

I've long said that I don't particularly need or want a traditional wedding. I'm happy if there's a duly empowered officiant, a nice venue, and lots of guests/witnesses. I don't need (or necessarily want) a church, flowers, rose petals, a wedding cake and a flock of doves. To me, the day should be special - for you and your guests - so that you mark the occasion with a suitable amount of ritual and pomp. So if you want non-traditional, go for it.

But let's face it: we've all been to weddings (though more likely receptions) that have been a little...off-putting. Whether it's the sub-standard venue, or the meal or the DJ, we all have our preferences and limits.

So what are your limits? I once attended a pot luck reception. Yay/nay? What about a BBQ?

Does a reception have to involve a meal? What if it's an evening wedding with a cocktail reception? I actually kinda like that idea. I like this "event theatre" in my neighbourhood, but they charge by the hour so a long reception isn't really a great idea. I'd love to have a party or reception there with the marquee and wedding-related movie posters. I think that'd be fun. (There's also this similar venue and this article that seems to reflect my idea. At $95/person base menu, though, I don't think I can afford it!)

If it were a theme wedding where the couple asked that guests try to wear suitable attire, would you participate? To what extent? What if the theme were "black tie" or "Star Wars" or "Roaring 20s"? I could see this being a lot of fun if people participated and a big bust if you had too many introverts in the crowd.

Personally, I like excuses to dress up but I wouldn't wanna be the only one in a wookie costume, you know?

So how far can you go out of the box before you start imposing on your guests? Is it a matter of "my guests should play along or eff them"? It's a matter of cost and convenience, sure, but also attitude.

Even within the wedding party there can be issues. I mean, the fun wedding procession is cool - but only if everyone agrees to it. If you have one person clearly not enjoying the idea, well, that ruins it for everyone.

I better start vetting my friends for their "cool factor"...

Stag & Doe or Slag & Dough

2009-07-22T17:02:00.002-04:00

A co-worker and I were having a discussion the other day about weddings and invites and etiquette and finally moved on to the idea of “fundraising” for weddings. She had attended a bridal shower the weekend prior, and we debated the merits of holding such an event.

See, I’m not a fan of the bridal shower. It seems to be a cash grab to me. You invite people over and expect them to bring gifts you picked out on a registry? Seems…crass.

A baby shower I can understand. When a kid is born, it makes sense that the community would sort of come together and help out – but even in this case, I think bringing second hand stuff would be fine. I mean, people buy or obtain things they need for a kid that they won’t need at other times. The kid grows out of stuff so quickly that the clothes or stroller that will be useful for a few months or years will soon be collecting dust in a garage – it might as well go to someone who could use it. The recipient will then give them away as they see fit when their kids have grown - and the cycle continues.

But what’s the purpose of the bridal shower? What gifts are “unique” to this situation? Lingerie? Really?

Now while this co-worker and I agreed bridal showers were a bit odd in this day and age “sans dowry”, we disagreed on stag & does. See, I think that where a stag & doe differs from a bridal shower is that a S&D usually offers something in return. It’s a fundraiser where attendees receive a good or service in exchange for their money. Usually, a S&D involves buying tickets and getting access to an open bar or meal or paying for a casino night – that sort of thing. If you invite me to a S&D at a hall where they serve alcohol and offer a meal and some games and a silent auction or draw, well, I’m way more agreeable to paying $75 or so. The couple pocket the profits, sure, but at least it isn’t a flat out cash grab. I may even think I’m getting my money’s worth! And even if I don’t, then at least I console myself thinking that the couple will put it to good use, rather than the less practical stuff people tend to put on gift registries.

As a side note, I don’t believe in gift registries for weddings, either. I have been converted, I suppose, by my Italian friends. If you wanna give a gift at a wedding (which of course you should), then for Pete’s sake GIVE MONEY. Not only is this far more portable than the crockery set, it also is more useful (it would suck to get half a tea service set, wouldn’t it?) and flexible (the couple can figure out what they wanna do with whatever amount they receive). It just makes sense. Carrying a wrapped gift into a wedding reception is so mangiacake. :P

Back to pre-wedding activities: I think bachelor/bachelorette partiers are absolutely on side. This is a fun night out with the members of the same sex and I’m all for them. How far they go in terms of fun is up to the parties involved. Strippers? (for either party or sex) They’re ok as far as I’m concerned, provided of course it’s JUST strippers not anything involving parts of the body other than the eyes. You know? The guests, of course, are welcome to do what they want. Heck, a bachelor party is often as much an excuse for them to act out. For some, it’s customary for the bride/groom to “dedicate” the “entertainment” to one of the wedding party members and to live vicariously through them. Sounds good to me. It also acts as a thank you to the wedding party member. :P There’s a perception out there that the bachelor parties are wilder than the bachelorette parties, but if my experience is any indication, it’s the other way around. Bachelor parties pretty much only get “wild” in terms of going to a strip club and drinking. Bachelorette parties sometimes involve accosting attractive strangers in the street and requiring various forms of physical contact or flirting. You’re also far more likely to see a bachelorette party dance drunkenly on the tables at the local bar – not only would guys not do this, they’d get their elbows re-arranged if they did this at the peelers.

What do you guys think? Bridal showers, stag & does, bachelor/bachelorette parties, gift registries: yay or nay?

By Request: Garbage Strike

2009-07-16T12:08:00.003-04:00

My blog buddy Diane sent this one in to me:

"The garbage strike (Toronto, Windsor, or both - your choice): A righteous cause,
or just downright ridiculous? Discuss."

You know, I can’t say I know too much about the issues surrounding the City of Toronto strike that includes garbage collectors. People don’t tend to care too much about the details, just “what’s being done?” and so the media don’t often break it down into clear negotiation issues.

Yes, there’s the 18 sick days an year that can be banked. We’ve all heard about that. That’s the one issue that the media loves to talk about and the City likes to throw out as an unreasonable benefit "in these tough economic times".

Here’s the thing: unlike most people, I don’t have a problem with it. Not, at least, based on what I’ve heard. In a previous negotiation, the union secured a benefit whereby any unused sick days can be rolled over year after year in such a way that a person may actually “bank” sick days. When they retire, an employee may cash in unused sick days up to a max of six months’ pay.

What you get is workers not calling in sick on a whim or when they don’t feel like going to work – instead they show up. What’s wrong with that?

In companies where sick days DON’T roll over, the temptation is to use them all before year’s end – but, of course, that would look suspicious on an annual review and the employee would perhaps suffer the consequences. So what was the point of negotiating those sick days? Why would you negotiate sick days and NOT take them - since they're a fixed cost to the employer (you get paid the same whether you take them or not), aren't you just ripping yourself off by NOT taking them? Aren't you just working MORE than the employer expected for the salary they're paying you?

Hell yes you should use them.

Of course the EMPLOYER doesn't want you to. Nor should they.

You WANT people showing up. You WANT sickness to be unusual. If everyone’s worried about using up sick days, you end up with offices that always have a staff member or two absent. That’s not good production-wise. Companies shouldn’t have to have an extra staffer or temps to account for missing folk.

The problem is that the City should never have agreed to it in the first place. It was silly and now they can’t afford the back end payouts. But you can’t remove it now (unless you pay those folks out – even then you’d have issues ‘cause it’s supposed to be paid out at salary at retirement, not current salary).

What should be done is that the salaries should be slightly higher but NO sick days given. Don’t show up? Don’t get paid. That would keep people coming in. If they truly are sick, ok, they take a day or two. If the sickness is 3 days or more, you’d need a doctor’s note and you’d go on some kind of subsidized leave (NOT fully paid - why does the employer have to pay for your sick ass? You're not doign anything for them. Let the government take care of health care. If you ARE that valuable to an employer that they'd pay for your sick leave, then that should be because your're special not because you belong to a mob). Why do we need paid sick days? That sounds like some lazy fucker’s initiative.

Don’t get me started on the laziness of some union members…

The thing is, this strike has to end. The garbage is piling up in parks, for Pete’s sake (side note: why aren’t people dropping off their trash in the dumpsters behind apartment buildings instead of going to these transfer stations? Apartment buildings tend to have private companies remove their trash – I don’t even notice the garbage strike in my neighbourhood). But the real pain in the arse is the fact that daycares are closed, too (this isn’t just a garbage strike – it’s a City employee strike) which can REALLY mess up families and their daily routine. Things like that.

So the sides have to come together.

And the argument from the union that they want "what others got" is bullshit. You want what they have? Go work there. Your job is your job, their job is their job. If the job in Mississauga gets paid more than the job in Toronto, maybe that has something to do with the nature of the place where the job is performed.

Unions always want more than what they had before while employers want the strike to last long enough that they’ll be able to afford the concessions they’ll eventually give (why are we paying for these services that aren't being performed, btw?). That’s why unions should always work to rule before going on strike. They get paid while making their presence (or lack thereof) known to the public who will complain to the employer. That’s assuming, of course, that anyone notices that they weren’t just working to rule in the first place. With some lazy union fuckers, you never know.

So what do I think of the garbage strike? It's garbage, of course.

And tax payers are paying for it - literally and figuratively.

Ask me questions - I will tell you no lies

2009-07-15T14:40:00.003-04:00

I said I would take requests and some of you have taken me up on it. Alison, it seems, is preoccupied in getting to know me better rather than hear me vent on some topic of political or social importance (she’s shallow that way), but I can certainly indulge her (mostly ‘cause she’s pretty).

Here goes:

1) What is the most exciting thing you've ever done?

Well, I haven’t climbed Everest or jumped out of a plane, so I’ll go with the time I went on as an understudy in a professional show in Toronto with no rehearsal (and having never been on the stage or having met the cast), after getting a call from the director that afternoon. It was exciting and terrifying, not knowing if I would be able to pull it off. I stumbled with the first couple of lines but then got through the rest of the show flawlessly.

Side note: I was going to link to Wikipedia for The Mousetrap but, unbelievably, they give the ending away! There's a whole page devoted to the debate of whether or not to reveal the ending, but I gotta say - anyone who argues in favour of revealing the ending is ignorant when it comes to theatre tradition. This is a whodunnit and after every performance the audience is asked not to reveal the ending. You can find it in various places if you look, I'm sure, but to list it on the main page in Wikipedia for all to see at a glance (as I did) is silly. There should be a separate link.

2) If you were a comic book hero, who would you be?

Existing? I would choose to be Superman ‘cause, let’s face it, he can do everything (which actually makes the comic a boring read). This is a different question of course from “if you could only have one superpower, what would it be?” or choosing between specific superpowers.

3) Who was your favourite band in 1992?

In 1992, I was in grade 12 moving into OAC (13). I was a Led Zeppelin fan for a while around then, but was probably moving on by 1992. That was actually a REALLY bad year for music, which explains my retro outlook. Good musicians like Phil Collins and Eric Clapton were getting hella-cheesy, and others like Def Leppard were clearly on the downside of their careers. The Billboard Top 100 for 1992 is a collection of crap. So the short answer is…I have no idea.

4) Where do you hope to travel in the next five years?

Hawaii, Ireland, Austria/Germany/Netherlands, Great Britain …and Haliburton.

5) Can you remember the names of the brother and sister on Alf without googling it?

No. That show was after my time. Yes, I am that old.

6) Would you rather be told you're funny, smart or good-looking?

Good looking. If you have that in spades, the rest won’t matter so much. :P I mean, so long as you aren’t completely deficient in the other categories. You ought to know how smart you are, and have an idea about your sense of humour. Beauty, though, is in the eye of the beholder and so to be told you’re good looking is a greater compliment as it is furthest from your control. It’s nice to know you have that, too. Note that the question says “would you rather be TOLD” not “would you rather be”. Dunno if my answer would change, but… (sometimes I think dumb people are better off! :P )

7) Name five things you never eat.

Feces
Puke (unless puking into my own mouth a little counts)
Live animals
Knives
My words

8) In what ways are you like a chipmunk?

I can sing.

9) Who are three famous people you'd like to have dinner with (all at once)?

This is always a tough one – it’s a question of curiosity vs mix. Living or dead? Jesus of Nazareth, King Arthur, Abraham Lincoln (lives and times I think would be fascinating). Living only? Dana White, Sam Jackson, Monica Bellucci (good laughs and eye candy).

But I probably just haven’t thought of better choices…

Will you answer these now?

Bored stupid

2009-07-14T15:01:00.002-04:00

So I'm bored.

No, no. I mean I'm REALLY bored. Like super duper bored.

Normally, I'd use this opportunity to vent about something here, but, frankly, I'm so bored I don't even have the motivation to come up with a topic.

So I'm accepting requests.

Wanna read my take on something?

Ever wondered what makes me tick? Or ticked off?

Wanna quiz me on some topic?

Go ahead: shoot.

I'll be here. Half asleep.

Someone wake me up.

Please.

Twitter in the News

2009-06-22T15:41:00.003-04:00

This just in!

News “tweets” may come from unreliable sources!

*gasp*

Seriously?

Ok, look: a while back, I didn’t know what to make of Facebook. At first, it seemed like a sad popularity contest, but now it has essentially replaced Flickr.com, Classmates.com, MSN Messenger and my email account. So I guess you could say it’s pretty useful.

Twitter, though? The jury’s not in just yet, but right now I’m leaning towards “Eff that!”.

It would appear that the main purpose of Twitter is to send out tweets and track tweets sent out by people you care about. At 140 characters (I think), these are essentially the equivalent of Facebook status updates (chalk up another “replaces” to Facebook).

I don’t know about you, but status updates are just about the most annoying aspect of the Facebook experience (next to news feeds that include quiz results as to what vegetable your friend is most like. Wtf?! Stop with the stupid quizzes already!).

Yes, I know there’s more to Twitter than that, but it seems to me that Twitter is best used by those who are involved with marketing/PR and who care to follow strangers’ thoughts on their product or field.

Me? I couldn’t care less.

For years I’ve been arguing with people about the place of blogs in society. Blogs are one person’s opinion, venting out into cyberspace, with little or no responsibility. I wanna say that Cory Doctorow needs a bitchslap? I can do that here.

But don’t – I repeat DO NOT – try to tell me that bloggers are the same as reporters or on a par with mainstream news outlets.

The difference is simple: accountability.

Twitter, for the most part, is simply micro-blogging.

Boingboing had a post today about tweeting in Iran during all this protesting of the recent general election, and it boils down to this: people can’t make heads nor tails of what the heck is going on because there’s so much chaotic, unorganized, unreliable info coming their way.

Via Twitter?

Really?!

Nah…

The post reads in part:

“Several fellow passengers agreed that one of the feelings shared around the
Iran story is the sense that so much information from new, unfamiliar sources
seems to be flooding us, without good filters, or many trusted, authoritative
guides.”

If only there were companies willing to organize this chaos for us and who would be held accountable for misinformation…

Wait…you mean like…this? Or this? Or this?

Just because you don’t trust your doctor 100% doesn’t mean you should be running to a shaman, folks. Carry some salt with you and you’ll be ok.

The tragedy is when these news folks start drinking the Twitter Kool-aid, as Boingboing points out:

“And overall, cable news is doing a lousy job anyway. Blowhard anchors reading
random tweets, and logging on to Facebook groups? Thanks, but I can do that
myself -- without the theatrics.”

The sad part is that in their quest for instant news, the old reliable news organizations are starting to regurgitate the unreliable stuff. And, so long as they say, “it’s being reported that…” well, they’re off the hook now aren’t they – since THEY weren’t the ones reporting it, they were just reporting that it was being reported.

*sigh*

You know, with all this unreliable stuff floating around via Twitter, it can’t be too long before someone tweets something irresponsible enough to warrant a lawsuit for libel.

Oh…wait….

Would tweeting to millions that a famous musician assaulted you when in fact it was someone else count?

And if you have time to tweet, dumbass, you have time to dial 911. At the very least the guy should be charged for tying up emergency phone lines.

Can we start calling irresponsible tweeters "twits"?

Yeah, you're right: "attention whores" works too.

Pet Peeves: TTC

2009-06-19T15:25:00.004-04:00

To pick up on Alison’s lead, I thought I might vent on one (several) of my pet peeves:

The TTC and how we use it.

Some of my complaints include:

1. Morons who stop as soon as they enter the subway car. If there are people behind you, you’re blocking the way and making it harder to get on before the door closes. I know you may be getting off at the next stop but - don’t worry – you’ll be able to get off even if you move into the train. Right now you're just being rude.

2. Morons who use stairs at busy stations when there’s an escalator right next to it. If you are at a busy station like Bloor or King and you are going up, say, and there’s an up escalator next to a set of stairs, you’re not being lazy if you use the escalator; you’re being considerate. If you use the stairs despite the escalator going your way then you’re just going to create traffic issues for the people coming DOWN who have no choice but to use the stairs. Use your head and take the escalator.

3. Morons who are paranoid about being able to get off at their stop. Whether you’re taking the bus or subway, there’ll be lots of time for you to get off once the vehicle stops. Pushing your way to the doors while the vehicle's in motion just creates the possibility you’ll lose your balance or knock someone over. Keep calm – you’ll get off. I’ve only seen one person miss their stop because they couldn’t get to the door in time and that was at Rosedale at rush hour in a packed car. But who gets off at Rosedale?

4. A$$hole jerks who rush to take seats ahead of women, children and the elderly. Give me a break. I give these guys the death stare and will occasionally confront them if it’s particularly egregious. Is this a cultural thing? Are these people from patriarchal societies or somehow raised not to respect others? This is perhaps the worst offense in my mind. I’ve simply gotten used to not sitting if the car is busy. Even if there is the odd seat available, it’s quite likely a lady will step on at the next stop or two, so I just keep standing.

5. Clueless morons who talk on their cell phones on the TTC. If you get a call, make it quick and speak quietly. Just because you’re having a hard time hearing the other person because of the ambient noise around you does not mean they can’t hear you perfectly fine if you speak softly.

6. Oblivious morons who walk while using cell phones. This applies anywhere. People tend to walk with cell phones the way they drive with cell phones: not well. They get distracted, slow down, don’t watch the flow of traffic and just become a nuisance. If you need to use your phone, move off to the side and let others continue on their way.

7. Distracted TTC drivers. I’ve seen drivers use cell phones, talk to attractive passengers and even do Sudoku puzzles while operating the vehicle. This is beyond silly and dangerous. If you see this, tell the driver off. You have my blessing.

8. Inconsiderate morons who use inadequate headphones while listening to their crappy music. Ear buds are not headphones. They are for use while you’re jogging outside, not while commuting between Eglinton and Bloor. You might as well take out the buds and crank the speakers ‘cause we can all hear the music anyways – you might as well let us hear it at full quality. Jerks.

9. Litterbugs. Seriously; throw your crap in the garbage/recycling. What are you – five?

10. TTC drivers who pump the brakes. Someone needs to train TTC drivers to drive as if people are standing inside their vehicles ‘cause – guess what – they ARE!!! Stop driving like “gas” and “brake” are your only two options and you must alternate between them as often as possible.

11. Streetcars. ‘Nuff said.

12. Space wasters. Look, chimps can put building blocks together. Why can’t we stand inside TTC cars in such a way as to maximize space and capacity? I see people sitting and standing at the oddest angles and worst positions, preventing people from getting on at rush hour. Move your ass into the train and stand shoulder to shoulder. How hard is that? You’ll be helping others get to their destination and helping to ensure our position at the top of the food chain.

13. Lack of communication. In New York City, if the train is delayed for 10 seconds (no exaggeration) an announcement is made apprising passengers IN THE CAR of the situation. In Toronto, not only are announcements rarely made, they are often only heard on the station platforms and not in the car. The people in the cars need to know, too, so that they can get off at the next station and walk if the delay is severe enough. Besides, even if they can’t get off, having some information will keep them calmer than if they’re left in the dark.

14. Drivers who don’t know how to stop. The bus posts are there for a reason. They tell the driver where to stop. If they don’t stop in the right place, the back door (where you’re SUPPOSED to get off) may open to a trash bin or bus shelter, thus preventing people from getting off. This can especially be a pain if you have a suitcase with you. Happened to me? You bet.

15. Paranoid morons who insist on going out via the front door of the bus. Not only is this inconsiderate towards the people trying to get on, but it defies the sign at the front of the bus telling you to please exit via the rear doors. I’ve seen people literally push their way to the front from their seat at the back of the bus just so that they can use the front door. Why are these people afraid of the back door? Were they traumatized by a back door as a child? Speaking of back doors, guys, think of the bus as your body – front for in, back for out. It’s meant to be one-way traffic; like your @$$hole, @$$hole.

I’m sure I have more complaints…but I hate complainers – they’re one of my pet peeves.

When news isn't news: Sosa took steroids

2009-06-17T11:21:00.005-04:00

Seriously: is ANYONE surprised by this?

Probably not. Ain't that sad?

(If you are, you clearly haven't seen before and after pics of the guy.)

And if none of these guys gets elected to the Hall of Fame (which they shouldn't), then shouldn't we also put a big fat asterisk next to their records and formally apologize to the Maris family for all the hooplah in 1998?

The saddest quote comes from Chicago Cubs GM Jim Hendry who said:

"To just speculate from an era of how many years it was of who did and didn't do what, it's impossible. It's just time to put that whole era behind us and move on."

Yup. Let's forget the era that saw all sorts of home run records fall and saved baseball from the post-strike slump.

And we thought the STRIKE was bad.

Doesn't Pete Rose seem like an angel now?

Election fever

2009-06-15T14:12:00.003-04:00

Seems elections are in the news again. We here in Canada may be facing one soon if the opposition ever gets up the nerve.

Iran recently held an election, too.

Which prompts this question:

Why is it that whenever one of the "bad" countries holds an election - with or without international observers - there's all sorts of news coverage about the possibility of election fraud and how it should not be allowed to stand?

...This coverage largely from a country that quite possibly allowed George W. Bush to steal an election that changed the face of world politics. (Maybe two.)

'Cause, you know, if people are protesting they must be right...right?

Good karma: Darrelle London

2009-06-09T12:32:00.007-04:00

Ok, you know me: I rant. But I'm thinking that maybe if I take a little time to try to spread a little good news I'll have a little come my way, too.

Or at least maybe I'll avoid being reincarnated as a cockroach.

I was at the Peter James Project cd release party at Clinton's last night to support the lovely and talented Alison Jutzi who was one of the opening acts.

If you have not checked this gal out do it NOW.

I'll wait.

Anyhoo, while I was there, I heard some good stuff. Dan Mclean Jr started things off well with a kick-ass re-imagined rendition of Bad Company's Feel Like Making Love.

Alison was up next and had the audience laughing along to her tunes about second-best friends, Facebook and racist grannies. (W00t!)

The headliners were solid, too, with Irish ex-pat Peter James Fox and his band belting out enjoyable reggae-infused rock tunes.

But the delight of the night - other than the aforementioned goddess of folk - was Darrelle London, a blonde waif of a gal who played catchy, whimsical tunes while playing the keyboard. Her set was really fun - "light with a bite", I'd call it. I was trying to think of who she reminded me of and I think her website gets it right - Chantal Kreviazuk (especially "Before You") - mixed, I'd say, with a dash of Bjork. From darrellelondon.com: "Sure, you broke her heart but she’ll put you in your place with a wink and a smile."

So after you're done checking out Alison's music, pop by Darrelle London's site and see if you like what you hear. She'll be opening for Amanda Mabro at The Rivoli tomorrow night (June 10th).

Then, for good karma's sake, write your own blog post about how neat I am.

The world has enough cockroaches.

Archie + Veronica - Betty = "Ideal"?

2009-06-01T16:18:00.004-04:00

A little fluff for you.

Much ado was made last week of the news that Archie Andrews had finally made a decision between Betty Cooper and Veronica Lodge and chosen…Veronica.

Many were shocked, many were saddened, many cheered, many people said “Archie who?”

But let’s not get too carried away. They once killed Superman, too, you know. It remains to be seen if this thing will ever really play out. I mean, judging by the faces of not only the heart-broken Betty but the best pal Jughead, this seems like an unlikely path for the long term.

There can be little doubt that interest in the comic will rise over the coming months as the six-parter unfurls. Is this just a marketing ploy? Maybe. But it’s a dangerous one.

Whether it’s Moonlighting, Scarecrow & Mrs. King or Spider-Man, we’ve seen time and again that having your romantic storylines “settled” can be a bad thing. Where does the story go from here? What becomes of Betty now that she can no longer pine for Archie without looking like a home wrecker? Does she hook up with Jughead to drown her sorrows?

If the storyline does end with an incomplete nuptial, where does that leave our heroes? I mean, Veronica and Archie may have some lingering tension, but surely Betty would be forced to move on. I mean, if THIS is not a sign she should get her sh*t together and stop being a doormat…

Let’s face facts: Archie could never end up with Betty unless the strip was coming to an end. I mean, THERE’s a storyline that has nowhere to go. At least with Archie & Veronica you still have the relationship with Mr. Lodge to play with. What good is a happily-ever-after ending with Betty?

The article I read on the subject bothered me, though. One part reads:

“People who vote for Veronica-Archie are the idealists, the people who say, ‘I'm voting for the glitz, the glamour, the high energy, the sexiness, the ideal [and] they might not even care so much that it'll only last five years,'” says the Toronto-based registered family, marriage and sex therapist.

Those who yearn to see Archie and Betty get hitched take a more realistic, traditional view, she says. They're more grounded, are thinking long term and have more of a sense of “for always and forever.”

Um, maybe I’m in the minority here, but I happen to think the “always and forever” IS the ideal. Who in their right mind thinks “Ideally, I’d marry a rich, sexy, glamourous person and maybe get divorced in 5 years after it all fizzles.”

Huh? No thanks.

Good thing I’m not glitzy, glamourous, nor high energy so I don’t have to put up with shallow Veronica lovers.

(Sexy, I can’t deny. I am that.)

Two things: Death and access

2009-05-28T16:20:00.004-04:00

This is fascinating.

I’ve often wondered about this myself. I keep telling myself I need to get this sort of thing in order (I used to work at the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, so I know how bad it can be not to have a Power of Attorney or Will).

What would happen to your stuff if you were to tragically die (or become incapacitated) unexpectedly?

These days, “stuff” refers not only to your physical belongings but your computer/online stuff as well.

Do you simply give someone your computer password and keep all your important details in a file? Sounds risky.

Do you split clues/passwords up amongst people so that more than one person is needed to get access to your stuff? More secure, but perhaps overly complicated and who knows where all of these people will be when you get hit by a truck – hopefully not with you!

I imagine most Boingboing posts draw a number of comments, but this is one of the very few times I ever felt a desire to check them out. Most of them are innocent enough; some playful (#38), some more nerdy (#16) and some just have too much time on their hands (#41). They get more and more elaborate as people come up with password protecting schemes (holy crap are these people paranoid) until someone deflates the debate with a simple “pen, paper, safety deposit box” solution.

But as we discover, no solution is flawless (#62) and there are a lot of ignorant people out there who think they have the answers (#32…I’m looking in your direction…).

Comment #51 had me laughing at work.

In a world where people keep so much info stored on their computers or online, what method is best to ensure someone can access this stuff after you die – but ONLY that someone?

And who should that someone be? As #64 points out, perhaps it ought not to be the person closest to you, but someone who will be more detached.

Here’s something that I sometimes think about: if I were to die, how would people find out? I have many circles of friends and some of my close friends have never met and do not have each other’s contact info. Some of them are on Facebook (an email to each of the people in my friends list would take care of many – the issue was more complicated in the dark period b.fb.), some are not, some I only have emails for (but who else does?) or a phone number. Should I give someone the means to access my email account in the event of my untimely passing? Who? (Hey man, I’ve got dirt in there!) :P

Do you have a plan for this stuff?

Stop crime, get arrested

2009-05-28T11:42:00.003-04:00

…Seriously?

I can’t believe this.

Ok, so: let’s play “let’s imagine”.

Let’s imagine you own a store. A small, independently run store. It doesn’t matter what you sell, but let’s say it’s…flowers.

You’re trying to make an honest buck. You display your wares inside and outside your store for passersby to notice and browse through.

Now, let’s imagine some guy comes by on his bike – with an empty cardboard box – and pulls up in front of your store. He goes directly for the goods. He puts down the box in front of the goods and re-positions his bike. He looks from side to side. He starts loading up his box with your goods. When the box is full, he repositions his bike again, gets on, reaches down, picks up the box and rides off.

Now let’s imagine your security camera caught all of this on tape.

Now let’s imagine this douchebag has the balls to come back to the same store on the same day on the same bike wearing the same clothes.

What would you do?

Let’s imagine you go up to the guy and confront him. How would you handle that?

Let’s imagine you talk to the guy calmly, inform him that you recognize him and that he should stay put while your co-worker calls the police to deal with the matter.

Let’s imagine the guy bolts. He drops his bike and runs down the alley away from your store.

What would you do?

Let’s imagine you chase the guy. You’re a pretty fast runner and you’re not a small person. You catch the guy.

Now what?

Let’s imagine the guy puts up a struggle and maybe even takes a few swings.

Now what?

Well, if you’re David Chen, owner of a flower shop in Chinatown, you tie the guy up and put him in your delivery truck until the cops show up an hour and a half later. Somewhere in between, you may or may not have given the thief a shot or two for your troubles.

If you’re me, you’re applauding Mr. Chen for his actions. A job well done, I say. Although I wouldn’t suggest the shots he and his associates may or may not have given the thief, I don’t exactly blame him.

Problem is that when the cops showed up – eventually – the ride-by flower enthusiast was charged with theft and released on $1,000 bail while Mr. Chen and his coworkers were charged with assault and kidnapping and released on $7,500 bail.

Somehow fighting persistent petty crime doesn’t seem worth it.

So what’s a guy to do?

The icing on the cake is that the thief’s son (forget “alleged thief” – it’s on tape) actually had the nerve to come by the store two days later and angrily confront Mr. Chen for “beating up” his dad. Mr. Chen informed the young man that his father struck him first. Thief jr. apparently claimed he didn’t care if his dad stole something. If not for the crowd of patrons who backed up Mr. Chen, who knows where that confrontation might have gone?

Seems the kid is every bit the douchebag his dad is. Isn’t that sweet?

So let’s imagine this all happened to you. What would you have done?

I'd like to think I would have done pretty much the same thing.

Maybe I should start saving up bail money, huh?

Phil's Travel Guide to: New York City

2009-05-20T14:22:00.003-04:00

Holy f**k I’m bored. Things are a little slow, which means I feel more compelled to keep my brain working via this blog.

You lucky bastards.

Anyhoo, I was contemplating what was worth writing about when I remembered I had promised a friend I would tell her about my recent trip to New York City and give her pointers for a potential trip later this summer – what’s good, what’s not, what’s hot.

So, here it is - Phil’s Travel Guide to: New York City.

I’ve been to NYC three times over the years; once for a day trip (we parked below the Twin Towers), once for a week about 5 years ago, and of course for a week just this month.

Timing – New York City is very humid. In the summer, it can be almost unbearable. Some people think Toronto is humid…not even close. The most uncomfortable place to be in NYC in the summer is on a subway platform. Ugh. I’d suggest NYC in the spring, but if you really wanna go in the summer to try to avoid the rain, be prepared to pay in sweat.

Layout – NYC is pretty easy to navigate because it’s based largely on a grid system. Avenues run north-south and are relatively far apart while streets run east-west and are pretty close together. So the distance between Times Square (42nd Street) and the Empire State Building (34th Street) is not a bad walk and about as far as walking from 8th Avenue to 5th Avenue. Or so it seems. Downtown (Lower Manhattan) is at the south end and includes sights such as the Statue of Liberty, the former World Trade Center site, Wall Street, the South Street Seaport, and the Brooklyn Bridge. Moving northward, you run into areas with shops and cafes like Tribeca (“Triangle below Canal Street”), Greenwich Village, SoHo (“south of Houston Street”) and Chinatown. Further north you start running into Midtown with its big lights and big buildings, where you’ll find Times Square, the Empire State Building, Rockefeller Center, Radio City Music Hall, Grand Central Station and the Ed Sullivan Theatre. North of that is Central Park along with the Upper East Side and Upper West Side (relative to the park, of course) where you’ll find the Met, the Guggenheim and the Museum of Natural History. North of the park is Harlem (I haven’t been). Walking within each neighbourhood is certainly doable, but if you’re going to be going from Midtown to Downtown you’ll wanna take the subway unless you feel like wearing out your shoes. It’s a nice walk, but I wouldn’t do it more than once.

Where to stay – It depends what you wanna do, but I think Midtown is best. It’s the area around Times Square between, say, the Empire State Building (34th Street) and the park (59th). It’s convenient walking distance to lots of stuff but also features main subway hubs if you’re going more than 10 blocks. It’s certainly where the tourist action is at with lots of bright lights, restaurants, theatres and gift shops. You can find quieter and cheaper places elsewhere but be prepared to take the subway more often. I stayed at the Milford Plaza during this last trip. It doesn’t get much respect from TripAdvisor or other sites, but my understanding is that it recently came under new management and has cleaned up a lot. It’s not fancy, but if you just want a clean bed and bathroom that is central, I don’t think you can top this for convenience. The decent complimentary breakfast saved us a good amount of dough and the plays we saw were literally around the corner.

Getting around – The Milford is a couple of short blocks from the Port Authority Bus Terminal (42nd & 8th), so we found the airport bus service a better deal than taking a cab. It depends which airport you fly into, but basically you’re looking at $22 each for a roundtrip. Not bad at all. Figure on spending about $40 for a cab ride each way. In town, you can walk a great deal and there’s lots of stuff to see as you do. If you’re going a fair distance, though, do yourself a favour and take the subway. It’ll save you time which you can spend on activities or browsing as opposed to “destination walking”. Fare is $2 per ride or you can spring for a week pass for $25 (worth it if you take 13 rides and don’t wanna bother with buying a fare each time).

Attraction deals – I bought an Entertainment Book a week before leaving. This is basically a coupon book with lots of 2-for-1 deals inside. It’s $30 normally, but $15 come the springtime (book is valid from November to November). The book didn’t seem as good this year as it was 5 years ago, but it was still worth it. It included a 2-for-1 for the Circle Line Island Cruise which is a nice way to appreciate the island. We used the book for a couple of restaurants, ice cream treats and museums. But if you’re gonna hit the highlights, the City Pass is the way to go. It offers admission to the big boys (Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island, Empire State Building, Met, Natural History Museum, Guggenheim, Museum of Modern Art) for $79US, which is almost half price. It also allows you to skip ticket lines at each of these venues, which is a big plus. The Empire State Building line can be a bitch, especially in the summer.

Theatre – we saw a few shows this time which featured tv/film stars such as Geoffrey Rush, Susan Sarandon, James Gandolfini, Jeff Daniels, Marcia Gay Harden, Joan Allen, Jeremy Irons and others. They were good shows. Tickets for Broadway shows are normally $60-120. Off-Broadway tix are about half that and Off-Off-Broadway is half of that. For Broadway shows (around Times Square), you can pay full price to guarantee a seat in advance or you can try the TKTS booth in Times Square (or South Street Seaport) the afternoon-of to get what’s left at half price. My advice is that if you are seeing a “straight play” (as opposed to a musical) that you shell out for the big tickets whether it’s in advance or at TKTS. For musicals it may not be such a big deal to be in the nosebleeds, but otherwise you wanna be able to read the actors’ faces. The long shot option is to try a lottery. Some shows will have a lottery at around 6pm, offering a pair of tix (likely front row) for big musicals for $25 a pop if your name is one of, say, ten chosen out of a hat. I got to see Wicked that way and can no longer say “I never win anything”, ‘cause there must have been 300 people in that lottery and my name was the first one called. Oh, we also took in a one-man show by John Leguizamo in a small theatre in Greenwich Village which was a highlight of the trip. You don’t have to break the bank to find these gems – it was $20. I just happened across the theatre as I strolled down 7th Avenue, but I imagine some websurfing would yield results, too.

Museums – I still have not been to the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), which is the one gaping hole in my NYC experience. I’m not particularly a museum person, though, so I’ll live. I did the Louvre in an hour and a half, stopping only twice, so that gives you an idea of how much time I think is necessary to drink in what a museum has to offer. The Metropolitan Museum of Art (Met) is the big daddy. Located about halfway up the east side of the park, it has all the sorts of stuff you would expect from an all-encompassing art museum. Its size can be a little overwhelming if you don’t have the energy to spend 4 hours walking around looking at statues, artifacts and paintings. It’s pay-what-you-can, but $20 is suggested. The Guggenheim is just up the street and, in my opinion, is highly overrated. The admission price was about $18 from what I recall but offers a fraction of what other museum have. The building itself is the main attraction with its spiral atrium. Collections change regularly, I imagine, but my experience was less than satisfying. The Museum of Natural History is pretty massive and covers 4 floors. The dioramas are interesting enough, but you’d have to spend a week there to read all the accompanying text. The City Pass gets you into the planetarium as well, but don’t sweat it if you can’t squeeze in the only so-so show. Still, the museum is a great place for families and the dinosaur exhibit alone makes it worth a look. The Intrepid Sea Air and Space Museum is located on the USS Intrepid, an aircraft carrier moored at 46th and the Hudson River (close to where that plane landed in the water). For history buffs or gearheads, this museum offers sights such as fighter aircraft, helicopters, flight simulators and the opportunity to crawl around the tight quarters of the Intrepid herself. I spent two hours there, browsing around. It’s one thing to look at history behind a display case, but another thing entirely to walk around within it. The Museum of Sex was a last-minute adventure we squeezed in on our last days. The Museum featured three main areas – the exhibit on sex in the animal kingdom was fascinating, but was quickly contrasted by the crassness of the “history of porn” room which featured clips from porn films over the years including recent celebrity sex tapes. Standing in that room with a bunch of strangers watching porn somehow made me feel like Paul Reubens. The third area was a sex art/toy display that was more what I had expected going in, and was meh.

Empire State Building – pretty much a must-see. The view of the city is spectacular. Most people will aim for a sunset viewing, so lines can be long in the late afternoon. We checked it out after a show and were delighted to find no lines. The observation deck is open until 1 or 2am, so if you don’t mind seeing lights instead of brick, this is the time to go. The City Pass also included an audio tour of sorts which was actually a nice bonus, though certainly not necessary.

Central Park – make time to stroll through the park either on your way to one of the museums or on its own. There are lots of winding paths, so you’ll likely not cover the whole thing, but each path has its own sights. Highlights include the bridges, merry-go-round, and Belvedere Castle (near 79th Street on the wets side).

The Village – Definitely worth a stroll. Lots of nice cafes and shops and atmosphere. I’d recommend a day of strolling the whole area encompassing Greenwich Village, SoHo, Tribeca, etc.

World Trade Centre – It’s now a construction site with boarding. There really isn’t anything to see other than this big expanse of open space amongst downtown buildings.

Statue of Liberty & Ellis Island – If you wanna visit inside, book in advance (like a week or more) since you can’t buy tix on the island itself and I imagine getting them last minute is dicey. You can’t go up into the crown (thanks, terrorists) but that’ll change come the fourth of July 2009. Still, I imagine getting tix for that portion will be super difficult since admission is quite limited (150/day, I think). We settled for walking once around the statue from the outside, which was fine. We then moved on to Ellis Island which has a fairly interesting (if sparse) museum chronicling some of the hardships new arrivals to the United States faced many moons ago. The museum starts off with some rather weak statistical displays and a shitty cafeteria, but picks up upstairs once you get to the picture galleries.

Brooklyn Bridge – some may argue it, but I think this is a walk worth taking. Take the subway across to Brooklyn and walk back to Manhattan before taking in some of the downtown sights. The bridge offers nice views of the city but is a beauty in and of itself. Just watch out for the morons who can’t seem to grasp the walkway/cycle path divide.

5th Avenue – I’d recommend walking this route to the park or the MoMA so that you can take in Rockefeller Centre and the fancy-dancy shops like Tiffany & Co and FAO Schwartz. Don’t plan on recreating that shot of Audrey Hepburn, though – the windows are covered by displays.

United Nations – Located on the east side near Grand Central Station and the Chrysler Building, this might be worth visiting if you’re a politics nut. The General Assembly is only viewable if you take the $18 tour, which also features strange gifts from various countries as well as some naïve displays on how to solve the problems of the world. Still, a visit to the building is pretty useless unless you pony up for the tour. If you just wanna see the building, you can do that while knocking off the boat cruise or strolling by Grand Central.

Madison Square Garden – I had time to kill alone, so I took in the tour of “the world’s most famous arena”. Notice it is not “the best”. I’d have preferred to see it during a game or event, but nothing was going on while I was there (thanks, Rangers and Knicks). Can’t say I’d recommend the tour unless you’re a hard core sports fanatic. Not much to see, especially for $20.

Hot dogs – I’d generally avoid street meat, but at the very least don’t expect Toronto-style sausages. These New York dogs are strictly the thin Schneiders variety. Check out Papaya Dog at 42nd and 9th for a super-cheap hotdog/burger meal...if you dare.

What else…? Dunno.

If you have any questions, I’ll either respond or edit this post.

I’m hungry. I’m gonna go eat.

John Cusack has a blog

2009-05-19T17:24:00.003-04:00

Did you know that John Cusack has a blog?

I didn’t.

It’s basic, but you can see it here: Huffington Post

It may be more of a “guest writer” deal, but it reminds me of the balancing act I would think most bloggers face: can expressing my opinions in this cyber world forum affect my life/career/relationships in the real world?

One would think celebrities run a greater risk of being skewered for expressing themselves than us mere mortals – just ask Billy Bob Thornton. I imagine he realizes fewer Canadians will be seeing his next flick.

(Of course some folks are celebrities simply for being blowhards – and not just of the Paris Hilton variety.)

This is a dilemma that I have often wondered about personally. I think this blog is pretty true to who I am and I won’t apologize for it – but it’s also entertainment and I can see how some folks might be offended by my amped-up opinions. Maybe someone will read my Harper-bashing and not hire me. Maybe a new girlfriend will read my Friends list post and dump my ass.

Who knows?

(uh…you have a sense of humour, right honey?)

I don’t think any less of Cusack after reading his latest post which is critical of the Obama administration, but I can see how some would.

What does his agent think of it, I wonder?

Any celebrities out there who care to comment?

If they’re willing to risk expressing their opinion… :P

Film Review: Star Trek

2009-05-11T20:59:00.004-04:00

While in New York City, I caught the new Star Trek flick.

It was pretty good.

I had avoided trailers for the film, so only little bits and pieces had been spoiled for me beforehand. I had a general idea of the "look" of the film, but didn't know who was in it aside from Heroes' Zachary Quinto as Spock, Shaun of the Dead's Simon Pegg as Scotty and some new guy as Kirk.

The new guy, Chris Pine, was a home run as Kirk. He was charming and had the right amount of balls (no, not "two") mixed with brains.

Scotty was fine, though not used much, so it was hard to care.

Anton Yelchin (Chekhov) was a bright spot. Karl Urban was a surprise choice as Bones, but did a fine job. John Cho (Sulu) was ok. Zoe Saldana (Uhura) was more than wallpaper, which was good - and bad. But I won't blow that here.

I didn't know Eric Bana was in it. In fact, I didn't even recognize him. I knew I knew the actor, but I couldn't put my finger on who it was. I quite like him normally, but in this he was just another weak Star Trek villain. The story wasn't really about the good guys and bad guys - it was an origins story, basically. In that regard, it did a decent job.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Bruce Greenwood - he's a solid actor and did well as Christopher Pike.

The primary disappointment was the one area I thought this movie was safest - Spock. Zachary Quinto was a more than capable Spock, but the writers completely dropped the ball. I hated what they did to Spock. Because of the basic premise of the film (which I won't blow here) the writers had carte blanche when it came to Kirk and, to a certain extent, plot. But it does not really explain why this film's Spock is so different from the "original" Spock. In my opinion, the writers lost sight of what makes Spock so appealing - his cool exterior. By making him more "human" they've lost the detachment and perspective a character like that can offer and have made any "emotion" emanating from him seem like no big deal. Spock was, in many regards, the most emotionally developed character in the film. That sucked.

The other big letdown was the music. If you are going to go in a different direction from the long-established tune, make it worth it. The music was hardly noticeable and certainly not memorable.

The plot and premise? Well... It was hardly original. We've seen this sort of thing before. But the good thing is that it gives the writers carte blanche going forward - which I assume was the point. There were a few too many leaps in logic for my taste (pardon the pun). For example, the "substance" which plays a pivotal role? Come on....

The worst scene made me think of "there's always a bigger fish." (if you get that reference...)

Overall, I quite liked this film. It looked great. It could have been better, but it could have been a heckuva lot worse.

Jaipur Grille: bad service = no customer

2009-05-01T16:40:00.004-04:00

So the other night I went to Jaipur Grille on Yonge between Davisville and Eglinton.

The reason I was there was because I had a 2-for-1 entrée coupon via my Entertainment Book. (If you eat out and are comfortable giving your server a coupon, this is a good buy. I got one for my New York City trip, too.)

The coupon states that you get a second entrée for free when you order an entrée of equal or greater value – up to a value of $15. Pretty standard.

The food was alright. The lamb dish had some tough pieces, but overall the meal was fine. Not as good as The Host, but fine.

The service was ok during dinner (though they tried upselling at every turn, even after we declined) but it took forever to get the bill even after the guy had wrapped up the leftovers to go. We had mentioned we had the coupon when we first ordered and presented it to the server. Still, the bill came back at the full price. I’m not completely convinced this was an accident, but let’s give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he was just absent-minded. Perhaps it’s worth mentioning that there were perhaps 4 occupied tables in the restaurant and at least two or three servers, so it’s not like these guys were running off their feet.

The bill came back again and $10 had been scratched off the full price.

Not only was the amount short, but we were still being charged the tax on the “free” entrée. That’s fine, but kinda cheap – most restaurants who have this deal will remove the amount from the bill before tax. You tip on the full amount, though, before the coupon.

Tired of the slow service and not wishing to potentially debate the issue at the table, I got up and approached the server who was at the till. Another server stepped in and so I explained the situation to him. He seemed to be the more senior guy, anyway and they’d all been serving us.

The server explained that this is how they always do it. The Entertainment Guide rules are a little vague, but refer to the fact that the establishment may credit the “least expensive” item on the bill. It doesn’t clarify if that addresses bills containing more than two items. So that’s what the guy was crediting – the $10 item on our bill, not the $16 item (up to $15 – there was also a $17 item on the bill).

By that rationale, coupons that refer to “free menu item” could be used to credit your fries instead of one of your two burgers. That’s obviously not what the customer wants.

I had never seen a restaurant interpret the rule this strictly and so blatantly in their favour as opposed to the customer’s. While this may have been “by the book” it was certainly not “good customer service”. The server explained that they had been participating in the Entertainment Guide system for 6 years without a complaint. “Well, I’m complaining,” I replied. There goes that streak.

The server refused to budge and I was left stunned by his lack of customer service savvy.

Let me repeat that the only reason I was there was because of the coupon. The coupon got me in the door. The coupon got me to try the place out (that’s the point) and this guy was ensuring that I would not return.

Way to go.

Since I was certain that this was an establishment that shared tips, I informed the server the difference would come straight out of the tip.

And out the door we went, never to return again.

Some places just never learn; provide good service and maybe I’ll tell a few friends – provide BAD service and I’ll be sure to tell a dozen.

I wonder if a dozen people read this blog?

I guess Jaipur Grille is betting not.

May Blockbusters

2009-05-01T11:28:00.003-04:00

In case you haven’t noticed, the real kick off to the summer movie blockbuster season kicks off today with the opening of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. I predict this will not only be the first but the last of the “Origins” films. I bet it’ll make a ton of dough, but not boatloads and the crappy reviews will kill any desire for follow-ups featuring Cyclops, Xavier or even Storm (oh, Halle Berry, where has your post-Oscar mojo gone?).

I plan to see Wolverine tomorrow. The review can be found on my Facebook account or directly from Flixster. I may or may not copy it here.

But fear not, true believer, the dismay that Wolverine will (likely) bring will be counterbalanced by the raucous applause I predict the new Star Trek film will elicit. It’s another origins story, featuring the rise of a young James Tiberius Kirk to the helm of the Enterprise. I have been avoiding trailers like the plague so that’s just my guess, but I think I’m right.

Again, review to follow.

After that, it’s time for Terminator: Salvation, or rather, Terminator: Salivation if you’re a fan of the series. This is where the saga gets back on track after the disastrously bad Terminator 3 (which followed the decent but young-actor-handicapped Terminator 2). Christian Bale always turns in a good performance – a small price to pay for him being a bit of a dick.

Then it’s time for Transformers 2 and so on and so forth.

Want a sneak peek at what’s coming up? Check out the awesome Apple Trailers page. (Look for District 9 as well as the potentially hilarious animated family film Planet 51)

UFC 101 - Silva vs Griffin

2009-04-29T13:07:00.003-04:00

The UFC has announced that Anderson Silva will once again move up to the 205-pound division to test himself against the bigger boys. This time, his opponent will be none other than Forrest Griffin.

This blows.

See, I quite like Forrest. I think he’s a hard worker, a strong talent and a funny, personable guy.

He’s gonna get his ass kicked.

See, Forrest’s style is somewhat like Rich Franklin’s (mostly a stand up striker). And we all know how well that worked for him in his two fights with Silva. And we’ve seen how Forrest can sometimes get knocked silly by one good punch. He could try to take Silva down, but then he’s playing the jiu-jitsu game against a Brazilian. That’s like playing against a Sicilian when death is on the line. (ok, maybe that analogy doesn’t work)

Forrest’s only hope is to out-point Silva, which could happen I suppose, but I’m not sure I’d wanna stand and trade with Silva.

Who knows? Maybe Forrest will be too big and strong for Silva to bully with his Muay Thai clinch.

But what does this fight prove? I mean, wouldn’t it be more interesting to have Silva take on the 205 champ? If Silva wins, does he get Evans/Machida next? If Forrest wins…so what? Is it a big deal for Forrest to beat the god of the middleweight division? Does it move Forrest closer to a rematch for his lost belt? I would hope so, but I’m not convinced. If he loses, where does that leave him? And who here really thinks Anderson Silva is second banana to Rashad Evans? I say let Anderson take on the champ, vacate his 185 belt (when he wins) and make the middleweight division competitive again.

Man, I hope Griffin wins....

Flixster

2009-04-27T14:26:00.004-04:00

Ok, I couldn't let my last post be that note to Royson James, so I've decided to come back for a brief visit.

I don't post movie reviews here anymore. I still love movies, don't get me wrong, I just found this neat site that keeps all of my reviews together in a nice way. So, for the past while I've been posting my reviews to Flixster. I don't even have to use THAT site anymore, since it's linked to Facebook; so now I essentially write my reviews on Facebook...thanks to Flixster.

Make sense?

Anyhow, Flixster has a neat little embedding thingamabobber which actually allows me to have my last 20 reviews scroll across on the sidebar of my blog.

So...in a way...I guess I am still posting my reviews on this blog...

Nevermind.

Racism by any other name: a letter to Royson James

2007-11-18T16:06:00.000-05:00

Royson James writes for the Toronto Star. He covers the City Hall beat, usually, but has taken an interest in an issue that has recently popped up in Toronto: the notion of an "Afrocentric" alternative school.

You see, some folks feel that the cure-all for gangs and drop-out rates amongst "black" teenagers (in this day and age, someone needs to define "black" to me, by the way) is to give them the opportunity to attend a school where the curriculum revolves around African culture and history. (All this cropped up within days of a provincial election in which the people made it crystal clear they do not support faith-based schools.)

I can't tell you how much this troubles and disgusts me. If I've said it once, I've said it a million times: racism is bad, period.

P-E-R-I-O-D.

I don't have the time nor energy to go into it all here. I just want to point out an article Mr. James wrote and a quick reply I drafted and sent to him. I was so frustrated with what I read that I had to write something. Here's the article.

Here's my letter to him:

Mr. James:

You.
Are.
A.
Racist.

Get beyond your preconceived notion that a racist is a white, southern redneck with a pitchfork in his hand; a racist is someone who discriminates between races. This is what you do and suggest the TDSB do by creating a race-based alternative school.

Disgusting.

"Let's try something new." Are you insane? What is new about segregation and racism? Dr. King is spinning in his grave, I am sure.

And why is it that if there are gangs and if kids are dropping out of school that it's the school's fault? That the school system is broken and failing? And that it's failing because it doesn't cater to African culture? What about Latin culture or Asian culture? Why aren't Asian kids dropping like flies?

Maybe, just maybe, the reason kids in Flemington Park are more likely to die violently than to go to college - as your favourite quote seems to suggest - is not because they didn't have a black teacher or study the history of Zaire, but because they live in Flemington Park. Perhaps we should be looking to the City of Toronto or the Province of Ontario to help solve these issues with more social funding and infrastructure; more sports teams, more social events. How is it that dividing people by race is a better solution than bringing them together?

You applaud Dari Meade's statement: "We need that kind of special caring that white teachers in the white schools give to white kids ... people who are going to go the extra mile in caring about educating black kids." That statement is racist to the core and is extremely troubling. So let me get this straight: we're accepting for a fact that white teachers give preferential treatment to white kids? Why? The only logical conclusion is that the person making this statement believes a teacher cannot help but feel more empathy for a student of their own race. Why would someone believe this? Because they feel that way themselves. Do you really want to support the statements of a racist? (By the way, what does it matter if the school is not exclusive to "black" students? If, by your own argument, the black teachers will treat the black kids better than the "white" kids - just as white teachers NATURALLY treat white kids better - why would anyone else attend?)

I went to a high school in the north of Brampton. There was a great mix of students. The neighbourhood was largely south/southeast Asian and Caribbean, with many Italian students busing in from Caledon East and Bolton. The faculty reflected a cross-section of Canadian backgrounds. What's wrong with that?

"Eurocentric"? What is that, exactly, pray tell? We didn't study European history, we studied Canadian history. Yes, there's a difference. Granted, we studied Shakespeare in English class - a Brit, yes, but...um...it's Shakespeare.

But I digress. My intention here is to outline how repulsive the idea of a race-based school is - whether you call it a "black-focused" school or an "Afrocentric school". Doesn't matter.

And anyone who supports such a school is, by definition, a racist.

Give your head a shake.

Racism is bad.

Period.

No exceptions.

Jiri Tlusty should not be embarassed: media and girl should

2007-11-16T11:18:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure how many non-sports fans have heard about this one, although it was carried by all major media outlets from what I can tell.

Seems Toronto Maple Leafs (that's hockey for you folks in Zimbabwe) rookie forward Jiri Tlusty hooked up with some gal over the internet a year ago and, one thing leading to another, he sent her a picture of himself "hanging out" at home, so to speak.

A year later, these photos mysteriously appear on the Web and the press is all over it. Shame! Scandal! Surely this will ruin the young man's career!

Tee-hee! Peepee! Poopoo!

But a surprising thing happeend on the way to the front page; the players interviewed seemed unaffected by Jiri's cyber "indiscretion". They didn't say, "the kid screwed up" or "let's send him to rehab and couselling, poor guy." Instead, they chalked it up as no big deal to anyone but the press. And guess what? The press ran it anyway.

Do you care, dear public?

I don't.

So why is this occupying space in my newspaper and time on my sportscast?

Seems the press have nothing better to do than to try to magnify any embarrassment the poor guy might be feeling, when perhaps they should be investigating what kind of person betrays a man's trust and leaks such "intimate" material to a website. If anyone should be hounded and embarrassed, it ought to be the person who sought to embarrass this guy: the gal, followed closely by the media themselves.

Frankly, it's no big deal to me. I cringe at the media's response - not the fact that a guy takes a picture of himself in the buff to send to an object of desire.

Hell, I wish women who fancied me would send me pictures of themselves in all their glory. I'm sorry for you prudes out there, but that's just hot. Ridiculously hot.

And I'd return the favour, if so desired and conditions permitting. Of course, I wouldn't send pics to an "internet girlfriend" as it appears Jiri did, but that's no excuse for betraying him. See, trust is the key here. When you share something "intimate" like that, you trust that the person won't go around flashing it (pardon the pun) to everyone in sight. That's a given. But if the person betrays that trust and the pics get "out there", then why should the "victim" feel shamed? Because something personal was revealed?

*gasp!*

First of all, dear critics, get over yourselves. You have "private parts" too. Stop acting like they don't exist. I often envy "exhibitionists" who have no fear of public perceptions and criticism (though many folks would suggets I am quite shameless myself). I shake my head at folks who think sex is dirty and shouldn't see the light of day.

Jiri need not feel shamed for being sexually expressive. The only mistake he made was trusting the wrong person.

Shame on her.

The Worst Tim Horton's in Toronto

2007-09-21T09:19:00.001-04:00

Ok, I'm coming out of semi-retirement (Roger Clemens...I'm looking in your direction...) to take a jab at a situation that cannot be allowed to continue:

We must save the world from shitty Tim Horton's locations.

The worst Tim Horton's location in Toronto has got to be the one at Wellington & Scott (near BCE Place and the former Hummingbird Centre/former O'Keefe Centre/now Sony Centre for the Performing Arts).

Piece.
Of.
Crap.

The service was so slow, so bad, that I boycotted it a couple of times. I found a new location up at King & Victoria that was way faster...too fast, as it turns out, 'cause they tend to screw up your order. Almost as annoying: their practice of asking for your order while you're still the 5th or 6th person in line, requiring you to shout it out to the "helper" behind the counter, 5 minutes before you reach the cashier. Sure, your coffee is probably waiting for you by the time you pay, but that's just it - it's been waiting ...and waiting...and waiting for you. Hope you take your coffee "double-lukewarm".

What does this have to do with the Wellington location? Well, judging by the staff overlap, they're owned by the same franchisee.

Who evaluates these people? I mean, does Head Office come by and see if they're representing the T.H. brand properly? Or do they keep quiet so long as the place makes money?

Well, guess what: this place ain't getting my money no more. And judging by the word of mouth circulating amongst my co-workers, there's lots of other people's money they ain't getting no more, either! (I actually rarely go to Tim Horton's anymore anyway - my disgust has prompted me to find all sorts of alternatives in the neighbourhood for my morning muffin/sandwich)

Apparently, there's a location near Church and Front - if I'm willing to go a little out of my way. It's can't be any worse than the Wellington location.

...Can it?

Film Review: Transformers

2007-07-04T23:38:00.000-04:00

Here it is folks: post 250.

Will it be the last? ...We'll see.

Caught Transformers tonight. Thank goodness, 'cause I was getting tired of avoiding the trailers.

I really liked this movie. It pretty much rocked. KA was practically giddy afterwards.

Sure, it's a fanboy flick. Just like most movies based on comics/cartoons/etc, you kinda have to be a fan going in (though kids seeing the film will likely be jazzed, too - no pun intended). This movie doesn't waste too much time with exposition, though it's all there. That was actually one of the things I liked about this film - the way the characters were introduced. It was a pretty slow process, but it felt natural (if that's possible in a film about robot aliens invading Earth, disguised as everyday objects). I thought I'd hate the humans in the film, especially the teens. I figured they'd just get in the way. But the regular struggles of the main characters actually helped with the exposition of the mechanical stars.

I'll try not to spoil too much. Let's see...I thought Michael Bay's style was well-suited to this kind of film (I actually don't mind the guy's "look" usually - it's the stories that tend to suck). The casting was interesting - like I said, I didn't mind the humans too much (with one or two exceptions that I won't mention here since I don't know if it's common knowledge that these particular actors are in it). I liked the Transformers, though I would have liked there to have been a little more of them, especially the Decepticons (though I could have done with less Soundwave who was a little too George Lucas for my liking).

I gotta say, the little nods to the original tv cartoon had me grinning like a kid.

So, all in all, this was a definite thumbs up, with mondo credit going to the artistic team. This movie could have easily sucked, but it hit most of the right notes. The movie runs a little long at times and some of the CG was a bit of a mess (close-ups during battles usually just translated into a bunch of colours on screen, with no real sense of what was happening - wide angles were welcome), but the story was much better than I had expected.

Yup, thumbs up.

Boy, am I glad it didn't suck.

Film Review: The Last King of Scotland

2007-05-22T10:30:00.000-04:00

I got a chance to watch The Last King of Scotland on dvd yesterday. Seeing as it was such a big deal last year, I figured I'd give it a review here.

For those who don't know, the movie revolves around a young Scottish doctor who heads to Uganda on a whim and gets caught up with the new and eccentric general-turned-dictator Idi Amin.

For portraying Amin, Forest Whitaker picked up the Best Actor statuette at the Oscars.

Which brings me to my first issue with this film.

Whitaker cannot be the lead actor, because Amin is not the lead character. The movie is clearly about Nicholas Garrigan, played by relative nobody James McAvoy (remember the faun in The Chronicles of Narnia?). Sure, Whitaker chews the scenery and Amin is a dominant force in all his scenes, but the fact remains that the movie is not about him. This is like giving Sean Connery the Best Actor nod for The Untouchables. Sure he's enjoyable, sure he dominates scenes, but the movie is about Kevin Costner's Elliot Ness. Besides, while The Untouchables had Connery scenes without Costner, all of Whitaker's scenes include McAvoy - and there are no scenes without McAvoy. Whitaker's performance is quite good, but clearly he should have won for Best Supporting Actor - just as Connery did.

But my big complaint about the movie itself is the story. It's colour-by-numbers. There are no surprises to be found here. Every story turn is predictable - whether it makes sense or not. See Gillian Anderson's character for the "no sense" variety. Like The Namesake, this movie is based on a novel and, once again, we see a screenplay that doesn't know where to trim. At first I thought the movie was supposed to be a semi-true account, like Almost Famous, but I have since read that it is fictional (so why base it in a real country with a real leader? I dunno either).

The movie had promise, and it wasn't boring, but in the end it left me with little in terms of "attachment".

How could a movie about a Scottish guy in Africa be this unoriginal?

Thumbs sideways.

Film Review: The Namesake

2007-05-17T15:49:00.000-04:00

So this was movie no. 2 in my double feature. Personally, I could have gone for something a little more action-packed after Waitress, but this was my friend's choice and I'm a sucker for a pretty lady.

The Namesake is a movie about two generations of an Indian family and the struggle between their traditions and their desires.

It's a good movie. I enjoyed it. But like most movies these days, it's a little long. Typical of films based on books, it seems to struggle between being faithful to the book and catering to the audience. If this had been simply a movie, I'd be crucifying the filmmakers for not cutting a rather pointless series of events covering about a half hour near the end of the film. As it is, I understand. Gogol needs to have his story too. Still, it was too long.

My other complaint was the screenplay. Every twist and turn is set up. Nothing catches you by surprise. This really hinders the impact of some of the more dramatic events. Also, the "bad" characters slip into very convenient cliches when the filmmakers want you to turn against them. This shows a lack of characterization and makes the writer look lazy. The filmmakers also seem to woefully overestimate our affection for some of these "bad" characters. If we don't care about them in the first place, then their "turns" don't affect us.

As for the characters and acting, the parents (Ashoke and Ashima) played by Irfan Khan and Tabu (is that like Hindi for "Cher"?) are quite enjoyable and far more entertaining than Kumar... I mean Kal Penn (Gogol). Penn has a likeable demeanor, but not so much in this movie and I remain unconvinced the guy is suited to dramatic roles (I just about choked when I saw him as a terrorist - go figure - on an episode of 24).

But the sentiment behind the story saves the movie from these missteps. It's a movie not without its charms and the overall movie experience is a thumbs up.

I hope some of my South Asian friends will tell me what they thought of it. Something tells me they'd get a bit more of a kick out of the culture conflicts.

Film Review: Waitress

2007-05-17T15:27:00.000-04:00

Have you guys seen these movie pass coupons on cereal boxes? They had a similiar promotion last year. The funny thing is the cereal ain't crap, the pass is worth $10-12 and the cereal is on sale for $2.99 to boot!

I picked up about 13 boxes a couple of months ago before they disappeared off the shelves.

The passes are due to expire today and since last night was my last free night to go I took in a double feature to use up the last of them.

First up: Waitress, starring Keri Russell.

Now I was not what you'd call a fan of Felicity, so I did not go into this movie with high hopes for her acting prowess. The reviews, however, convinced me to go. Apparently, this film was the darling of Sundance and rottentomatoes had been giving it big props. With the Sundance stamp of approval, you kinda know what you're gonna get: quirky independent American movie with charm.

And that's exactly what you get.

At first, the movie hits you with its clumsy dialogue and line delivery. I thought this was gonna be a poor man's Fargo. But after about half an hour, the movie kinda hooks you. The stories flesh out a little and the quirkiness isn't so prominent.

The problem with this movie is that it kinda stalls, story-wise. The writer kinda paints themself into a corner and there's nowhere for the characters to go except to the rather obvious conclusion.

So the movie really relies on the "feel" of the film: you'll either buy into it and enjoy it, or shake your head with boredom. I was more the former, my friend was more the latter.

Overall it's a thumbs up, but you don't need to rush out to see it. I'm sure it'll be on tv plenty.

Harvey's is back on the list

2007-05-16T15:18:00.000-04:00

It seems I have two lists.

This list deals with eateries I simply refuse to frequent.

I have a rather delicate stomach. It is my burden for being otherwise flawless. Even Achilles had a weakness, dontcha know.

My delicate stomach tells me when I am eating something less than healthy; a belated Spidey-sense if you will. I can eat a meal and tell within minutes if it was not exactly top shelf.

As a result of my gastronomic disasters, I have made note of restaurants and fast food joints that are classified "Off Limits".

For example:

Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) - the deadliest of offenders. The foulest of fowls. Eating here is tantamount to bulimia.

Taco Bell - Te quiero, Taco Bell. But you don't love me back. You taste so good and cost so little, but you break my heart almost every time. You rip out my guts - the hard way.

McDonald's - I still haven't been back. 8 months. "F**k you, clown!"

Pizza Pizza - a recent addition to the list. It might depend on which location I eat at, but I've decided to no longer take the chance. Too bad: it ain't half bad and it's cheaper than Domino's.

For a good while, Harvey's (aka Starvey's) was on the list. In fact, I believe it was a founding member. Recently, however, I had placed it on probation; but it re-offended.

It's back on the list.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once... shame on — shame on you.... Fool me, you can't get fooled again."
- George W. Bush The biggest fool on the planet.

Film Review: 28 Weeks Later

2007-05-15T15:45:00.000-04:00

Ah, another sequel...

I went into this movie with somewhat low expectations since it was a sequel and sequels tend to disappoint (notable exceptions? Hm...Aliens...Superman Returns...Star Trek II...). But it was hard not to be a little jazzed because I loved 28 Days Later so much. I also knew this one had potential judging by the expressions on friends' faces whenever a trailer was shown (I was watching them, not the screen, naturally, 'cause I hate having any part of a movie blown for me).

Did it disappoint? Kinda...but not terribly.

The major problem with the movie is the premise. I'm trying to avoid any spoilers here, but I don't think I'm giving much away by saying that the basic plot revolves around the return of some Britons to the island under military watch. Why are people returning to the island?

...Good question. I wish I had an answer. In the context of the movie, it makes no sense. If they were scientists or specialists of some kind, ok, I'd buy it. But these appear to be just yokels.

...huh?

The problem is that this little quirk affects the rest of the movie: while the military seem to have their sh*t together for the most part, the civilians are just zombie fodder. So, in some ways, it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.

You wanna go back where? Why?

Which brings us to the actors. Again, no big spoiler to mention that there are kids in this movie.

I hate kids.

Don't get me wrong, I like children and I hope to have some of my own some day if I can get some poor woman to agree, but just keep them out of my movie-going experience; that means on screen and in the theatre (the little girl was easily the worst part of the first movie). They just don't have the chops to pull off characters with great depth and you can see their acting choices coming a mile away. The ones in this flick aren't too bad, but this movie could have been awesome without them.

As it is, I have to give this movie a very lazy thumbs up. It'll give you the willies and you'll get your zombie fix, but it just seemed unnecessary and it isn't worthy of the original.

Oh, and the ending? Don't get me started...

Film Review: Away From Her

2007-05-09T15:33:00.000-04:00

Wow. And I thought Spider-Man 3 was depressing...

First off, let me say that this is a good movie. It's a great Canadian movie.

It's all relative, folks.

For those out of the loop, Away From Her is directed by Sarah Polley, the largely-overrated Canadian darling, and features the likes of Gordon Pinsent, Julie Christie and Olympia Dukakis in a script adapted (by Polley) from a short story entitled "The Bear Came Over the Mountain" by Alice Munro. Basically, the story is about a husband and wife who struggle with the latter's worsening case of Alzheimer's.

While the direction might be simple and straightforward, the movie works because of the great performances - especially those turned in by Pinsent and Christie. For the most part it's a subtle film, a nice change of pace from most cinema fare.

I actually felt a bit of dampness around my eye region at one point, which is saying something 'cause I'm a cold hearted bastard . I haven't cried in a theatre since E.T.

...both times.

My friend and I were the only two in the theatre without blue hair, which is a shame. This is the type of film "kids" need to be exposed to - willingly or not. I can recall a similar film from my childhood: On Golden Pond, which was also a film featuring older actors and pretty depressing themes.

But this film? THIS film is depressing.

Wow.

Spider-Man 3 ...out of 10.

2007-05-08T23:11:00.000-04:00

There's so much suckage I don't really know where to start.

How about the very beginning? From the very first line I knew we were in trouble. "I'm Peter Parker. Your friendly neighbourhood...you know."

Ugh.

This movie was REALLY poorly written.

If there is any truth to the recent story claiming there are more Spidey sequels to come, I have one suggestion: Sam Raimi must go.

The two major problems with this movie were the writing and direction. Guess who?

Sure, it didn't help that some of the acting was sub-standard, but the actors can really only work with what they're given and they were given a pile of shite.

I won't spoil anything for those who haven't seen it (judging by the box office, I'm not sure who hasn't), so I'll break it down succinctly:

- The Venom storyline stank. I knew it'd be impossible for them to do the plot justice. I was right.

- I didn't like Gwen at first, but she grew on me. Maybe because I liked Bryce Dallas Howard in The Village, too.

- Topher Grace was...Topher Grace. Does he have any other characters in his arsenal? Apparently not. I like the guy, but when your range is that limited, two things happen: a) you wear thin quick b) you don't do some characters justice. As Eddie Brock he was tolerable. As Venom he was ridiculous.

- Sandman.... I didn't mind Thomas Haden Church, despite the unusual casting. He was probably the best actor in the cast. But the Sandman character drove me nuts. He exhibited powers that I don't believe are part of the comic book version. As a result, some of the fight sequences seemed, for lack of a better word, unbelievable.

- Goblin. I think they mishandled this character from the start. I'm not quite sure that what I saw in this movie was the Goblin. More like Rocket Racer.

I could go on and on ripping the actual plot apart, but I'm afraid I've already pissed off KA enough. Seems she actually liked the movie. Freak.

Don't get me wrong. It wasn't ALL bad.

...I gave it 3, didn't I?

Film Review: Hot Fuzz

2007-05-04T09:59:00.000-04:00

Caught Hot Fuzz at the Paramount last night (no, it's the Paramount - Scotiabank can kiss my ass).

It was really good. I laughed out loud - really loud - many times.

It starts off slowly, and at first I thought this was gonna be another Shaun Of The Dead (funny, but not FUNNY), but at about the midpoint of the film it really takes off and the laughs come pretty fast and furious after that.

Unfortunately, KA, those laughs usually come accompanied by a good amount of blood (I don't think I'm giving anything away by stating that) so you'll have to decide if comedic gore is disturbing.

It helps, too, if you've seen your fair share of action flicks and can recognize when the genre (and specific films) is being spoofed. (Bad Boys and Point Break are particularly useful - again, I don't think I'm giving too much away by stating that)

Overall, I was pleased that this was, in fact, better than Shaun Of The Dead and I left the theatre in a good mood. What more can you want?

Thumbs up.

On a side note, there was a trailer for 28 Weeks Later before the film and despite turning my head and covering my ears, I still had some of the movie spoiled for me. Oh well. If the expression on my friend's face is any indication, this sequel to the spectacular 28 Days Later is very promising.

Spider-Man 3 however, is getting very mixed reviews. I accidentally saw about 1.5 seconds worth of movie clips this morning and - ARGH! - had a very important plot point blown for me. I have little doubt that the clip in question came from the latter half of the movie. Why do media outlets insist on revealing key moments of the film like this? Mother f***ers!

I'll write a review as soon as I see the film - likely this weekend sometime - but I'm not holding out much hope that this film will satisfy a Spidey fan like me. The Venom/alien symbiote costume plotline is complicated and was pivotal to the comic book Spider-Man mythos. Much like Revenge of The Sith, I don't see how a film can cover so much ground in so little time. Already the casting of Topher Grace as Eddie Brock is maddening. (In the comic, Eddie is a bodybuilder - thus Venom is like Spidey, only bigger and stronger.)

The movie reviews should be coming fast and furious over the next week or so - I'll get to 250 in no time!

This and That - continued

2007-04-30T15:01:00.000-04:00

Three weeks.

It's been three weeks since my last post.

I must be running out of steam quicker than I thought. See, a while back (somewhere around my 200th post) I started to think that at 25o posts I would reconsider this whole blog thing.

I guess the fact that I've been slowing down so much is a pretty strong indication that 250 might be my last post.

So enjoy #241.

GRTTWAK
- First of all, tonight is the big night for Grownups Read Things They Wrote As Kids - Part Deux. Dan is hosting this fun night at the Victory Cafe on Markham, south of Bloor, near Honest Ed's. I'm looking forward to it, though I'll have to go home to get my story. I forgot it in my rush out the door this morning. It's been that kind of week.

That Kind Of Week
- Broke my nose playing ultimate frisbee last weekend. Did I mention that? Yeah. Kinda sucks. I'm all crooked now.

That Kind Of Week II
- Burned my wrist while ironing the other day. Did I mention that? Yeah. Kinda sucks. I'm all scarred now.

Facebook
- I'm sure I could write a whole essay on this one (and I assume others have). The verdict's still out on this one, in many respects. But, I gotta admit, this last month has been interesting; catching up with names and faces I hadn't seen in years. It's like looking back on a whole other life.

Hot Docs
- Checked out the Toronto Hot Docs festival last week. I'd have to say it wasn't worthy of its own post, despite the fact that I saw several films (thanks to my "industry pass" - the only perk I've seen from this job so far). The films I saw came across as rather amateurish. Some will be on tv soon, so you can judge for yourself.

Mainstream Films
- I plan to see Hot Fuzz and Spider-Man 3 soon, so stay tuned for those reviews. Probably in posts 242 and 243.

UFC 70
- A largely disappointing event, especially for Mirko "Cro Cop" Filipovic fans. The Croatian Sensation was knocked out by a high leg kick at the very end of the first round in a shocking upset. The dream card of Cro Cop vs. Randy "The Natural" Couture will have to wait until at least the end of the year. Let's hope UFC 71 is better. Even UFC President Dana White admitted "Nations Collide" was a bust.

My New Cell Phone
- I broke down and got a cell phone last month. It's a Fido pay-as-you-go type of deal. I pay $10 for a month and get calls for $0.30/min anytime. I can receive texts for free, but it costs $0.15 to send. So far, I've been pretty happy to have it. I've used it a few times in the very scenarios I envisioned: trying to coordinate with friends while "on the road". Big thanks to my friend Christine who gave me her old phone. The sound quality is better than any other cell phone I've used (my major compaint).

What else....hm...think that's about it. The usual stuff still applies: hate Bush, haven't been to McDonald's...

Hmmm.. this was a pretty lame post. Sorry about that, folks. I might need suggestions to get me even as far as 250!

UFC 69 : The Great Depression

2007-04-08T01:57:00.000-04:00

Ugh.

This was an odd night. After watching the Leafs take care of business by defeating the Canadiens in regulation, I settled in to catch the real highlight of the night: UFC 69.

Or so I thought.

The night started off well, with former Ultimate Fighter winner Kendall Grove (10-3) defeating Alan belcher (9-3) in impressive fashion.

But the first hiccup of the night came when hometown boy and former Ultimate Fighter participant Mike "Quick" Swick (10-2) laid an egg against Yushi Okami (21-3). Swick didn't seem to have his typical confidence (hometown nerves?) and couldn't overcome Okami's takedowns. It was frustrating to watch Swick hold back; when he did let his fists fly, he was really taking it to the Japanese newcomer. The unanimous decision (29-28, 30-27, 29-28) was closer than it should have been.

The next fight made up for things a little - it was actually the best fight of the night...sloppy, but exciting. Lightweights Roger Huerta (19-1) and Leonard Garcia (13-2) threw bombs from beginning to end - a rare sight for that weight class. The 30-27 unanimous decision did not do the fight justice; it was a pretty close fight, but Huerta squeezed out each round.

The night went to hell in the next fight, which was probably the most anticipated bout of the night: 19-0 Diego "Nightmare" Sanchez vs. 10-1 Josh Koscheck. These two obviously hate each other, exchanging words in interviews and punctuated by a Sanchez shove at the weigh-in. The fighters refused to touch gloves before the fight...and that was the end of the excitement. This was all hype, folks. The fighters came out in each of the three rounds just circling each other, with only the occasional jab. Koscheck won each round by connecting on one or two punches, while Sanchez did absolutely nothing. The fans in attendance clearly expressed their displeasure with a chorus of boos in each round. Boooooring. Worst fight of the year. This was a disaster for Sanchez. Much like the Griffin-Jardine bout, this fight should have never taken place. Koscheck simply hadn't earned it. He had lost to Sanchez during the first Ultimate Fighter and Sanchez had gone undefeated since, taking out guys like Caro Parisyan, Joe Riggs and Nick Diaz. Koscheck, meanwhile, had amassed a very good record, mostly against meatheads. Sanchez suffered the same fate as Griffin, and instead of a much-deserved title fight, he now has to (unbelievably) "prove himself" with another couple of wins before he can jump to the front of the line.

But the topper on the night came in the main event as UFC Welterweight Champ Georges St-Pierre made his first title defense against Ultimate Fighter: The Comeback winner Matt "the Terror" Serra. St-Pierre was heavily favoured, but as soon as the fight started I asked myself: "Wait a minute...how is St-Pierre going to win"? Serra had heavier hands and was a world class Jiu-Jitsu fighter. It seemed Serra had the advantage whether it went to the ground or if they stayed on their feet. St-Pierre tried to establish his distinct height/reach advantage, but it didn't take long before Serra connnected on a couple of solid punches, knocking the Canadian silly. St-Pierre could not recover before Serra dropped a few more bombs and within seconds, it was all over. The little guy from Long Island had become the new UFC Welterweight Champion.

Don't get me wrong: I like Serra. I was cheering for him during the Ultimate Fighter, but this win does nothing for the welterweight division. Likeable or not, Serra will not last as champ. Matt Hughes will likely get the first shot at the belt and will be heavily favoured to win. Then what? Another rematch between Hughes and St-Pierre? Probably. But what if St-Pierre wins that fight? A rematch with Serra? Does the belt just go round and round? What about the other guys in the division (and there are lots of contenders)?

All in all, it was a pretty depressing/disappointing night. And it'll only get worse if (when?) the Islanders beat the Devils Sunday afternoon to eliminate the Leafs.

Then again, I hear miracles happen this time of year.

Film Review: Grindhouse

2007-04-06T21:30:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine generously offered me passes to the Grindhouse preview held at Silvercity Yonge & Eglinton on Thursday.

The last time I passed on a preview it was for Thank You For Smoking - not making that mistake again.

I've discovered that the majority of reviews for this flick are right on: the style is interesting, but the films are somehow unsatisfying. The first movie (Planet Terror) is better than the second (Death Proof) - though the friend who accompanied me disagreed. (Death Proof actually had greater potential but the execution was brutal) In the end, the experience is a thumbs up, but not a "masterpiece" as the recent ads would have you believe.

If you're wondering how this double-bill thing works, here's the lowdown: the entire experience is a little over 3 hours. For us, this included no trailers and only a 2-minute pause between films. Now, Grindhouse includes its own "trailers" for mock films, so I'm not sure if regular viewings will include an extra 10 minutes of Spider-Man and Pathfinder trailers. If so, it's a loooong night. Empty your bladder beforehand. If you can't make it beyond the break, no worries: the first 20 minutes of Death Proof are a complete waste of time. Not sure what Tarantino was thinking.

Oh, and sorry K.A. - you soooo cannot see this film. The gore factor is very very high. In fact, some of it was beyond unnecessary - to the point where it wasn't funny, it was just...crass. If you see the flick I think you'll understand what I'm hinting at here. No, it's not a genre thing.

So, if you have a stomach for B-movies and schlock, you might get into this and think it's great. My bet, however, is that most of the general public would find this experience pretty silly and tiresome.

I'll let you folks decide for yourselves.

Dr. Block: We gotta lose the arm, Joe.
Joe: Lose the arm? What do you mean, "lose the arm?" My arm?
- Josh Brolin and Nicky Katt in Grindhouse

The Fonz Guest Stars on Prison Break

2007-04-03T10:42:00.000-04:00

*splash*

You hear that?

Yup, that's the sound of Prison Break jumping the shark.

It was written on the walls from the start: you have a show about a prison break - how long can it last? How long can you wait before they break out? How long can you keep them on the run?

Well, let's see: as of last night's episode, the prisoners had escaped, the guy who was on death row (the catalyst for the entire show) had been exonerated, half of the original cast was dead, and all of the villains had been exposed or killed.

So now what?

Oh. Right. Have the hero break out of ANOTHER prison! Of course!

Oy.

Or should I say: "Ayyyyyyyyyyyyy".

Film Review: The Wind That Shakes The Barley

2007-03-29T16:13:00.000-04:00

Even though I know the future Mrs. Daniel Misener ignores my film reviews, I'm bored at work so this is what's on the menu for today.

I caught The Wind That Shakes The Barley the other night. It was thoroughly depressing. Good, but thoroughly depressing.

For those who haven't heard of this little film, it's about the Irish republican movement back in the 1920's. We've seen this before with the likes of Michael Collins et al, but this one is a little smaller scale. It focuses on a small group of villagers (somewhere around Cork, I believe) who form a guerrilla army to oppose the British troops in the area. Lots of dying, lots of crying, lots of green.

The success of the film hinges on the performance of Cillian Murphy (28 Days Later, Red Eye) and he pulls it off pretty well. I don't know if it was just the crappy Cumberland Theatre, but the most frustrating part of my viewing experience was the sound. While the speakers might be partly to blame, it was clear much of the sound was captured during the shoot - rather than added in post. With what appears to be a lower-budget, sometimes improvised piece, that can make for practically inaudible dialogue. Might work better as a home rental.

Overall, I liked it - but it certainly didn't make my day.

I need a hug.

Cory Doctorow Still Needs a Bitchslap

2007-03-19T13:05:00.000-04:00

Popped by Boingboing today, as I do most days, and once again Cory's pissing me off with stupid posts. Let's got through the list, shall we?

- P2P is Killing Piracy: Cory has an article where he tells the story of some poor pirate CD merchants who are going out of business because P2P networks like BitTorrent etc are stealing their customers. Awww, poor babies. These guys used to pirate CDs/DVDs and sell them out of the back of their van every weekend, raking in a tidy profit. Cory actually states: "The music industry likes to lump P2P and hard-goods piracy together, but they're not the same thing at all -- in fact, they're dire enemies." You dumbass motherf***er, to the music/film industry they ARE the same thing: an illegal threat to their businesses. Who cares if there's no honour amongst thieves? The problem is that the thieves exist. I can't believe Cory readily admits that these pirates can have their (inexpensive) businesses crippled and still have the balls to say that the big bad (expensive) entertainment industry is unaffected by P2P networks (that, while capable of fair use, are never used in a fair use manner by anyone I've ever heard of - ever. Downloading the latest Gwen Stefani song is not fair use, you stupid dolt).

- Why ebooks' success has nothing to do with screen quality: I swear, if I hear this argument one more time... In this article, Cory claims that the idea that folks don't like reading off computer screens is b.s. He claims that people do like to read off of computer screens and his proof is (drum roll please): people spend all day reading off screens! He says, "It's like watching someone shovel Mars Bars into his gob while telling you how much he hates chocolate..." You...stupid...dumbass...mother... *sigh* How do you explain to a retarded person that they are retarded? I mean, like Brad Pitt says in Se7en: "When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane? Maybe you're just sitting around, reading Guns and Ammo, masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, 'Wow! It is amazing how fucking crazy I really am!'?" Look, Cory, the reason I read off a screen all day is because I have to read off a screen all day. It's called work, jackass, you should try it sometime. When I can do my work, get sports updates, write in my blog and check my email off something other than a computer screen - guess what? - I'm gonna do it. I read off a computer monitor because I have to. But, given the option between reading a book off a computer screen at my desk or off a piece of paper that I can flip/fold/write on/drop while sitting on a porch/roof/couch/plane/toilet, there's really no contest - the paper wins. Only the most arrogant cybergeek would presume that people are making it all up when they say they prefer paper over LCDs.

- Artists' eyes rove over images: And continuing in the unscientific realm... Cory posts this one about an "experiment" that tracked the eye movement of artists vs. "non-artists" when presented with an image (for example of person in a body of water). The artists, of course, scan the whole picture, taking in the breadth of the image, the nuances, the colours - gee, aren't they great? While the "non-artists" fix their gaze much more steadily on the face of the person in the water - ha! See? Artists are imaginative and see the big picture, while non-artists are obvious and narrow-minded! Proof! ...Uh...Except the "non-artists" used in this most scientific of experiments were all psychologists. Hm...think that might skew the results? Look, I'm the last person who is going to argue that people's brains aren't wired differently and that we see the world each in our own way, but could we try to make this a little more scientific and make fewer broad generalizations about the results? The psychologists fixated on the person's face more than the artists. That says nothing about "non-artists": it says something about psychologists. Gee, who would have thought that psychologists might be tempted to look more at a person's face than the pretty colours around them? Will wonders never cease? You'd almost think these psychologist types have a thing for people... I wouldn't be so peeved if this were an isolated case of poor science (or stupidity on Cory's part) but the fact is that almost every article I read about some study or experiment indicates some obvious flaw in methodology.

Ok, enough looking at this bloody computer screen - time for lunch.

This And That - Again

2007-03-15T12:28:00.000-04:00

Man, I'm bored...

What's going on these days...?

- Did you hear about this new species of leopard in Borneo? This thing looks bad-ass. "The clouded leopard is Borneo's largest predator, has the longest canine teeth relative to its size of any cat, and can grow as large as a small panther."

- Marvel Comics is trying to pull off a "death of" stunt, this time with Captain America. This comes on the heels of the recent Civil War storyline, where Cap and a group of "outlaws" defied the U.S. government and refused to abide by the Superhuman Registration Act. Eventually, Cap surrendered rather than incur civilian casualties, only to be taken out by...a sniper? SO lame. So not gonna last. If you read the issue, you know this "event" has plenty of loopholes. This didn't stop some media outlets from reporting the story, much as they did the "Death of Superman" - remember that? Mark my words: Cap will be back around the time that the Initiative storyline winds down - a year or so (July 4, 2008?). (As I suspected, the "Captain America" mantle will be picked up - temporarily - by The Punisher who has been getting a little more attention thanks to his role in Civil War) Give some points to Marvel for taking on a relevant political issue - the SRA was often compared to Bush's bullsh*t Patriot Act (a misnomer if there ever was one - let's protect Freedom by taking freedom away, shall we?). It's only fitting, then, that Captain America, the symbol of all things good in the U.S., would "die" fighting it.

- A couple of very real deaths occurred recently, however - both by suicide. Richard Jeni was a terrific stand-up comic - probably my favourite. I can recall a number of his routines involving late night Brooklyn-based diet infomercials ("I've got a weight loss plan for you: it's called 'Stop eating, you fat bastard!'...Send me fifty dollars, I'll send you a tape. It's not video tape, it's not audio tape, it's Scotch tape: Put if over your mouth, so the Twinkies don't get in."), the stupidity and allure of Jaws 4, and a whole bunch more.

- Brad Delp, the lead singer of famed '70s band Boston passed away this week also. I have their greatest hits CD, which includes songs like "More Than A Feeling", "Foreplay/Long Time" and "Amanda" - essential to any classic rock collection.

- Today, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the longstanding publication blackout/ban for elections. Seems some guy got fined ($1,000) for posting the Atlantic Canada results prematurely on his website. He fought the fine all the way to the Supreme Court with the support (not surprisingly) of all the major madia outlets. "He argued the prohibition in the Canada Elections Act violated freedom of speech and freedom of political association and said the ban was obsolete in the age of the Internet and other modern communications technology." Huh? Seems to me that quick and efficient mass communication tools make the ban more relevant than ever. If polls are going to have the same business hours regardless of time zone (meaning the BC polls stay open 3 hours later than the ones in Ontario) then you have to have a ban. Exit polls are one thing (inexact and flawed as they are) but posting the actual results in one region before the voting is over is just wrong (no one should know the results while an election is still taking place!). The solution is to have all the polls close at the same moment everywhere - midnight in Ontario, 9pm in BC (or something similar). Sure, the networks won't like it because of the loss of prime time coverage in the east (the alternative is to screw west coasters and have the polls there close at 6pm or something) but elections shouldn't be about television.

- I thought women tried to avoid wearing the same stuff as other women. So why is it that everywhere I look I see women carrying those ridiculous Louis Vuitton bags? (or knockoffs - how sad is that?) Weird. Honestly, ladies, it makes you look pathetic and shallow.

- Pete Rose recently admitted that he did in fact bet on baseball games involving the team he was managing at the time - the Cincinnati Reds. The thing is, he claims he bet on his team to WIN every time. Wow. If it's true, this guy shouldn't be punished; he should proceed directly to the Hall of Fame - do not pass GO, do not collect $200. That's some kind of gamer. It's not like a bet like that would affect your managing - you should be trying to win. The only shame in all this is that Rose looked like a jackass all these years for denying he bet on baseball at all.

- I'm still trying to figure out what I think of Facebook. It's such a weird concept. The appeal is that it circumvents some pay sites like Classmates, who must be crapping their pants right now (it'd be a good way to organize a reunion, provided enough members join). But the whole notion that people use it to compare the number of friends they have is completely and utterly sad. Not to mention that it's an internet voyeur's dream - you can find out tons about a person (yes, even if they make their profile "private"). It's a good way to find out if your friends have any "cute" connections that they could set you up with - thus bypassing the whole Lavalife thing. You can post pictures (bypassing Flickr). It's also a way of keeping in touch with friends (bypassing email) and what's going on in their lives (bypassing blogs). But none of this is really "free". You can bet your ass Facebook is using all of this networking info for some nefarious purpose - yes, I've started getting junk mail in my beer.com account.

- Don't you love how the Leafs manage to toy with us at this time of year? (Yes, I mean "us" - if you're not a Leafs fan, you're a closet Leafs fan!) Just when you thought they were out of it, back come Tucker and Wellwood, with Peca in the wings. Sometimes you think that if they could just get healthy and into the playoffs, they might do alright. And then the unicorns suddenly run away.

Film Review: 300

2007-03-13T09:51:00.000-04:00

Yup, it was worth the wait.

I'm actually somewhat surprised that the Rottentomatoes rating is as low as it is (62% at last check). Sure, this isn't going to win an Oscar for the script - but what do you want? It's an action movie based on a graphic (figuratively and literally) novel.

I actually waited to write this review because I wanted to pop into the local Indigo book store and see how the movie book compared to the film. Usually the film is a watered-down, Hollywood-ized version of the original source, but that's not the case here: the film is MUCH better than the comic. All the lines in the movie that made me wince, ("would a Spartan king really say that?") were lifted from the comic. Yes, Xerxes is that tall in the book. Yes, Ephialtes is that grotesque.

But what makes the film better is where it was not true to the source material: the exposition is better, the scenery is better, the characters are better, the action is better, the pathos is better, the violence is better.

This movie may not be everyone's cup of tea. Scratch that: this film is most definitely not everyone's cup of tea. But if we're to judge this film on its merits, we have to first accept it for what it is: a bloody comic book-based action film with iconic figures and wall-to-wall gore. If you accept that as its "genre", then I have a hard time believing anyone could give this film a bad review.

The achievements made here in cinematography and visual effects will pave the way for bigger and bolder films to come (The director's next challenge: The Watchmen...holy...). While 300, like the recent Star Wars trilogy, may have been 10% real and 90% green/blue screen, this movie isn't just about filling the screen with droids and starships; this movie - every frame of it - is a piece of art. It's as if every moment was painstakingly hand painted. It's gorgeous.

That's worth the price of admission alone.

Want another reason to like it? Ok, how about the fact that it was shot almost entirely in Montreal? It was shot in a mere 60 days with over a year of post-production. Oh, and ladies: the actors went through 6 weeks of rigorous training before shooting to get those ridiculously buff physiques, worthy of Spartan warriors. As one reviewer put it: "I feel comfortable enough in my (relative lack of) masculinity to say that if I had to stand in the presence of these men for more than ten seconds I'd spontaneously grow a pair of ovaries."

This battle is also credited with spawning the famous "come and get it" retort to an aggressor. It's claimed that when the Persians demanded that the Spartans lay down their weapons in submission to Xerxes, the Spartan king replied, "Come and get them!" ("Molon Labe")

Sure, the movie may not be 100% historically accurate (it's based on the comic, not on the history books, remember) but who cares? The movie made me want to read about the Battle of Thermopylae - and anything that gets me to read has got to be a good thing, right?

(My only complaint? The posters kinda suck - they don't do the film justice. Had they been anywhere near cool, I'd pick one up.)

This is one of those movies that you'll remember for a very long time. The more I think about it, the more I like it.

If you have the stomach, go see this movie.

The Internet Generation Gap

2007-03-09T17:22:00.000-05:00

As I type this, I can't for the life of me remember how I came across this article, but I'm glad I did.

It's a piece from New York magazine (online version of course, which is fitting) about the emerging generation gap between those who grew up with the internet versus those who did not. It's all about privacy and personal space and what should and should not be posted online (and who's to judge anyways?).

I found it quite fascinating. It talks about many of the same things I wonder about when the topic of the internet and MySpace/Livejournal/Blogger/Lavalife/webcams etc etc etc come up.

How is the internet affecting people vis-a-vis school, friends, sex, privacy, relationships, celebrity...

The internet really hit the scene when I was in second year at UofT. Before that, I hadn't heard of hotmail, no one I knew had an "email address", a chat room was a place French people kept their pets, diaries had locks on them, nobody talked to strangers, and unless you came across a hidden stash somewhere you had to get your porn at the local Hasty Market.

My, how the world has changed...

Create Your Own Battlestar Galactica Clip!

2007-03-09T12:26:00.000-05:00

Came across this cool idea via the folks at Boingboing.

Ever wanted to see your face on an episode of your favourite tv show? Well, if Battlestar Galactica is your thing - now you can!

Just head on over to the scifi.com website and you can choose from dozens of clips from the show. Just mash 'em up with your own video and voila!: you're a star.

And in case that weren't appealing enough, you can submit your little opus and the best one will be aired on Sci Fi during a BSG episode!

In today's day and age of creators fearing piracy and digital rights management, it's refreshing to see a show that is clearly going above and beyond in reaching out to fans. In case you haven't seen it, BSG is a very cool show that is unlike any other spaceship/sci-fi show I've seen. Hell, it's borderline depressing.

I'd love to see Dan and/or Tristan take this on. Could Stan be a Cylon clone?!

If anyone wants to make one, I'll volunteer to help out!

Nifty Snickers Commercial

2007-03-06T12:55:00.000-05:00

Came across this via beer.com.

Why aren't there more imaginative commercials like this?

Check it out.

UFC 68: The UFC Has Arrived spoilers

2007-03-05T14:29:00.000-05:00

Wow.

Two very pleasant surprises came out of the UFC event held Saturday night.

First, Randy Couture pulled off the massive upset over heavyweight champion Tim Sylvia. He didn't just beat Sylvia - he dominated him from start to finish. It was unbelievable. I hadn't given the 43-year old Couture a prayer of winning against his gigantic opponent who was 13 years younger, 6 inches taller and 40 pounds heavier. Just like GSP's win, the bar went apeshit for Couture.

Awesome.

The second surprise came the next morning, when I was able to catch highlights and commentary on Sportsnet and The Score (I didn't notice anything on TSN). I've been saying for a while now that mixed martial arts (MMA) is the next Texas Hold'em - pretty soon you'll be seeing it everywhere. As it stands, I can catch MMA almost any night in some form or another and I just eat it up. (Wonder if they're hiring commentators?)

It's great to see this form of competition finally get the respect it's been looking for since the very first UFC tourney back in 1993.

MMA has arrived.

Film Review: Zodiac

2007-03-05T14:06:00.000-05:00

I had high hopes for this movie, considering the 86% approval rating on Rottentomatoes and the fact it was directed by David Fincher of Fight Club and Se7en fame (two movies I loved).

The movie didn't disappoint, exactly, but it wasn't a home run.

First of all, it's really long. Clocking in at 2 hours and 40 minutes, it'll test the patience of any movie fan, but considering this is a very talky cop drama/suspense flick, it's really pushing it. The tone of the film is pretty even in its intensity, which gives a relentless pace to the film - this adds to the sense of length for the viewer. Some additional peaks and valleys or further editing might have been called for here.

To boot, I had a fair idea of how this movie would end. I mean, if you know a thing or two about the Zodiac killings, you know what to expect and what not to expect in terms of an appropriate ending. That tends to affect the way you view a movie - if it's based on a true story and you know how the real story ended, well...

But, that being said, I enjoyed this film overall. Mark Ruffalo was the real star of this movie, and was far more compelling than the screen time leading Jake Gyllenhaal. The supporting cast was a real treat. I didn't know much about this flick going in (well, other than the above-mentioned real life facts) and I was pleasantly surprised by some of the casting. I purposely avoided reading the names in the credits at the beginning of the movie (the things I do to ensure some sense of surprise - yes, I'm the guy in the theatre with his eyes closed and ears covered during the previews).

Considering Fincher's previous works, I had expected a bit more grittiness from this one. It didn't have the style of Fight Club or Se7en, but it had its moments. There was one murder scene that was rather disturbing in its execution (don't think I've seen something quite like that before) and a scene near the end had me gripping the armrest.

If you like crime drama and can hold your pee for 3 hours, check this one out.

Right now, I'm jonesing for 300...comes out this Friday!!!!

Facebook

2007-02-28T11:28:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago, my (much younger) cousin sent me an invite to join Facebook and become a "friend" of hers. Not wanting her to think I wasn't her friend (she's really quite a lovely person) I signed up.

Recently, another friend of mine sent me a similar invite and so she was added as a Facebook "friend".

Today, I got a message in my email inbox from a guy I haven't heard from in 14 years. You guessed it - Facebook.

So what's the deal with this thing? When I was first introduced to the website as part of a show and tell during a new media class at Ryerson, I laughed it off. It seemed like a rather silly way for people to compare the number of friends they had, like some kind of social contest. I couldn't figure out what it was that this site offered that email (or, heaven forbid - actual contact) didn't cover. (or MySpace for that matter)

But I poked around a little and managed to come across a couple of old friends. So here's where it gets interesting: do you make contact? I mean, if you needed Facebook to find them, odds are you aren't that close anymore and, well, maybe there's good reason for that. They may not want to hear from you. You're not that cool, you know.

But even if you wanted to find a long lost pal, I discovered the browse/search option is inconsistent at best (some methods are intuitive, others are clearly not). Sure if you and your friend happen to sign up for the same group, then you're off to the races (kind of - even that can be a pain for big groups). But as it turns out I had a hard time finding friends I know have profiles - we just didn't go to the same school or anything (or maybe they aren't aware of the group). So how do you find these "free agents"?

There is one way: give Facebook your personal email address and password and they'll search your contact list.

...

Are you f**king kidding me?!

Who in their right mind would do this? Sure, not only am I going to give god-knows-who access to my password protected email, but I'll expose everyone in my contact list to a potential virus/phishing scheme. I often question the motives behind these social websites, and, gee, trying to access as many email addresses as possible seems like a good motive. That's why I use a secondary, crappy address for this sort of thing. But giving you access to my primary hotmail account? Fuggetaboutit!

There are lots of privacy/security issues involved in these sorts of sites. Too many to go into here.

Look, people, be smart about this sort of thing. There's so much junk mail, spamming, phishing, malware, virus spreading out there already. Do NOT expose the people in your contact list to these things by providing their addresses to god-knows-who. And do NOT forward those f**king chain emails to 10 of your closest friends - I don't care if it's supposed to grant me my wish or help some supposed cause.

Facebook and the like may have their charms, but let's keep our heads, ok?

p.s. Gmail sucks - I hardly use it and get way more junk mail there than at my other accounts (yes, I squatted several of them). I suspect this is because I provided my Gmail address to the administration at Ryerson - which also sucks. By contrast, I get no junk mail at my beer.com account. Sure, the splash page is somewhat racy, but it might be worth investing in a secondary account there - for contests, Facebook and the like.

Grownups Read Things They Wrote As Kids

2007-02-26T12:26:00.000-05:00

Popped by Dan's blog and noticed he posted about his recently-held and very successful Grownups Read Things They Wrote As Kids night at the Victory Cafe. (Which oddly enough could also be called Kids Read Things They Wrote, as Grownups)

Apparently, it's been getting some press, including an article in the Globe & Mail. I was flattered to see my Sam Mahoney, P.I. reading mentioned (though I'll refrain from pointing out to Leah McLaren that it was the tv that was rent-to-own, not the Lamborghini - that was a gift from a client, silly!). The article's here.

Rachel McAdams was there?!

Seriously?

Dan has decided to host the sequel to GRTTWAK on Monday April 30, 2007 at the Victory Cafe upstairs. Check it out. I'll be there with another Sam Mahoney installment, no doubt.

Oscars 2007: Surprisingly Predictable

2007-02-26T10:46:00.000-05:00

So, the morning after...

In the end, I didn't bother posting predictions, but I almost wish I had - that way you'd believe me when I say I probably would have gotten them all right.

This had to be one of the most predictable Oscar shows in a long time, especially coming on the heels of last year's Crash fiasco.

And yet it could have been so much more interesting. On the surface, this appeared to be the most wide open awards show in recent memory - but then the Academy followed the lead of the bulk of the lead-up awards shows and it soon became apparent this was going to be colour-by- numbers: Departed, Scorsese, Whitaker, Mirren, Hudson. (Was it my imagination or was Helen Mirren the hottest gal in the theatre? I might have to take her off my all-time list and put her back on the active roster!)

The only surprise for me was the fact that one of the no-name backstage interviewers kept mentioning the amount of "surprises"; what show was he watching? And yet this morning even the Star is singing that refrain: surprises, surprises, surprises.

Right down to the wire and past the midnight hour Toronto time, no one could guess where the top prize of the 79th annual Academy Awards was headed. It was the most contested Oscar event in recent memory, with surprise winners all night long and with no film winning more than three awards until near the end.

Huh?

The only mild surprise came when Alan Arkin won for Best Supporting Actor. But even then I figured when in doubt - give it to the old guy. But, seriously, his only competition was Djimon Hounsou. Did you really think Eddie Murphy was gonna win?

Even the Oscar win for the Hollywood neophyte was predictable. Jennifer Hudson was favoured to win Best Supporting Actress, though I'd argue her merits even though I haven't seen the film. I don't think you can judge an actor's performance until you see them in several movies - otherwise, you may just be seeing "them"; and that's not a performance - that's just them.

Pan's Labyrinth won in 3 categories (Make-up, Cinematography, Art Direction) which was well deserved. It didn't win for Foreign Language Film, but the critical acclaim The Lives of Others has been getting made that predictable as well.

There may have been a sense that Melissa Etheridge was an underdog, facing three songs from Dreamgirls, but I think that actually played in her favour. The three Dreamgirls songs were practically indistinguishable, so how could you single out a winner? Etheridge's song stood out - especially in light of the usual fare served up by perennial nominee Randy Newman.

Even Marie Antoinette winning for Costume Design (its only nomnation) wasn't a shocker simply because it's so utterly unorginal for a Renaissance "period piece" to claim that category.

I'm almost sorry to report that Babel was not shut out. Although I wouldn't have minded seeing one of its Supporting Actresses win, it picked up its only Oscar for - get this - Original Score. That's a kick in the balls, man.

As for Best Picture, I figured it was gonna be The Departed's night when it won for Film Editing. When a Best Picture nominee wins in a category it has no business being in, then you know the voters chose it "when in doubt"-style (Titanic...I'm looking in your direction...). Although I didn't want it to win and I thought there was still a little room for one of the other flicks to pull off a shocker, I didn't particularly think any of the other nominees were worthy either. So I guess I'm ok with it winning...

...I guess.

(Editing? EDITING?! Are you shi**ing me? There's nothing remarkable about the editing in that film!! And I still don't think Scorsese deserved to be nominated - there's nothing interesting/remarkable/unusual about the direction in that film; exactly what is the criteria here?! Who's gone the longest without winning?)

Oh, right and then there was Ellen. She did an ok job, I guess, but I hope she never hosts again. She is one of the reasons the show ran long (as well as - and I can't believe I'm gonna say this - too many montages). Did we really need to watch her hand Scorsese a script or get her picture taken with Eastwood, or - wtf? - vacuuming the front row? Get on with it! I think she lacked a little class, a little distinction, you know? I mean, there's self-depricating and then there's common. Billy Crystal is still easily the best host of my lifetime and I hope he decides to come back again. Or, failing that, ditch the host concept altogether. Have the announcer introduce the podium speakers and let them do a little intro - the end. Those little host moments really aren't necessary.

Ok, that's it for another year.

...By the way: 300 opens on the 9th! Booyah!

Craig Ferguson Monologue

2007-02-26T10:41:00.000-05:00

This one is worth reposting - courtesy of Denis' page.

I like Craig Ferguson, but I almost never get around to his show. He's obviously a funny guy with a great deal of charisma.

It's amazing to watch this video and listen to the reaction of the audience.

Probably the most unusual talk show monologue you'll ever see.

Catch it here.

Top Ten Villainous Moments in Comics

2007-02-23T14:08:00.000-05:00

Yup. Bored again. So I'm gona post a few things I came across today. Hope you won't mind.

Here's one for Karmic-Angel, quickly becoming one of the coolest gals I (don't) know. (Any other fans out there? Speak up!)

Top Ten Villainous Moments in Comics History

This is a pretty ambitious list. I mean, top ten of all time? Wow. Where do you start? I like this particular list, for the most part, but I sense that that's because Hilary Goldstein and I share many of the same influences. Heck, I own half these issues.

Here's the list, for quick reference:

10. Thunderbolts really Masters of Evil

Can't really speak on this one since I don't know it. But the idea that a team of villains would masquerade as heroes (and actually kinda like it) as part of a greater scheme is awesome.

9. Angel's wings clipped

I own the Classic X-Men version of this one. It was a cool visual, but...all time?

8. Joker cripples Barbara Gordon

Should definitely be on this list and maybe higher. This was so bad because it was so cold. She answers the door, Joker blows her away. Just - like - that. And unlike some other storylines, things did not later revert to normal.

7. Magneto rips out Wolverine's adamantium

Magneto finally crossed the line with the troublesome Canuck and put him down, but good. It was in the next issue that we realized Wolverine's claws weren't a product of the adamantium grafting process - the bones had been there the whole time. The last panel of that ish was awesome. Of course, he got the adamantium back and Magneto's labotomy courtesy of Professor X went away, too.

6. Doomsday kills Superman

This was of course the storyline for that year. It was in the papers, on tv, everywhere. Like most fans, I couldn't resist collecting each of the lead-up issues and a couple of copies (one to be left unopened in the plastic cover) of the climax issue. This led to the silly multiple Supermen arc, but was also the genesis of Parallax - a troubling but cool arc. Superman? Uh...yeah...he came back, too. I've got that issue as well.

5. Ozymandias Drops "Alien Menace" on New York

Part of The Watchmen. Shame on me for not having read it yet.

4. Bane breaks Batman's back

Batman finally beaten - badly. Remember when Bane was cool - not a punchline? (same thing happened to KGBeast) A neat story arc, but it led to all that Knightquest crap with Azrael. Meh. This was definitely an event, though.

3. Bullseye kills Elektra

Every major Daredevil story arc seems to have something to do with this.

2. Death of Gwen Stacy

One of my all time favs for sure (partly because I own it and it's one of my most valuable comics). I can't remember seeing a major character killed in a comic book before reading "The Night Gwen Stacy Died" (the title was not revealed until the last panel). It formed much of the inspiration for the climax in the Spider-Man movie (the bridge, the "death" of Green Goblin - which came in the next ish) with Mary Jane substituted in place of Gwen. It has so many great moments, including Peter's vow: "YOU'RE THE CREEP WHO'S GOING TO PAY! I'm going to get you, Goblin! I'm going to destroy you slowly - and when you start begging for me to end it, I'm going to remind you of one thing - YOU KILLED THE WOMAN I LOVE, AND FOR THAT, YOU'RE GOING TO DIE!" I only wish they had honoured this moment by leaving Norman Osborne dead.

1. Joker Blows up Jason Todd

This probably deserves the number one spot because it wasn't just the Joker who killed the second Robin - it was the fans. At a buck per vote, thousands of ballots were cast and fewer than one hundred votes sealed Jason's fate. It's actually a pretty lame issue (it takes place in the desert, not exactly conducive to a dramatic Batman mood), but the consequences were enormous for the Dark Knight.

Good list. You know, I can't really think of a moment I would add... Sounds like a good excuse to rifle through my collection...

Maybe Kraven The Hunter burying Spidey alive? ("Kraven's Last Hunt") That was a neat arc and a pretty good mindf**king of the ol' webslinger.

Top Ten Movies of 2006

2007-02-23T09:57:00.000-05:00

Ok, folks, here you go - this is the big one: my choices for the top ten films of 2006. With the Oscars on this weekend, it seems now's the time to get this out - even if there are a few more 2006 movies I plan to see.

Let me emphasize that these are my top ten. These are a combination of the movies I enjoyed the most coupled with those I thought were just well made.

10. Little Miss Sunshine

Wasn't thrilled with the ending, but the first half of this movie has enough charm and characterization that I give it a place on my list. I wanted more Alan Arkin and more Steve Carell, but what's there is enough to make this movie worth watching.

9. V For Vendetta

This was a superhero movie with a political slant - two things I tend to dig. It had its faults, but I found it entertaining, timely and surprisingly challenging. Also featured the coolest poster of the year.

8. The Fountain

Perhaps the most surprising pick of the list. It was weird, it was convoluted, it was...different. For that reason alone it gets credit in my books. This movie was just plain out there. Great performances by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz in bizarre roles. Might be best for those who appreciate stage plays and are willing to accept that one set can represent multiple locales.

7. The Queen

Again, a tough subject that was handled well. In fact, the movie is almost too clean - it comes off a bit like a tv movie (its almost universal acceptance is a sharp contrast to The Fountain's half-and-half and may be indicative of how safe The Queen is - and how bizarre The Fountain was). But who wants to see Elizabeth II swearing and having sex for the sake of bumping the rating? (Besides, there's plenty of Helen Mirren to be seen in some of her more youthful work - or Calendar Girls if you're into that sort of thing...)

6. Pan's Labyrinth

Beautifully shot, charming premise. Could have been the top movie of the year with a bit more time devoted to the fantasy aspect, but the political angle earns points. Still not sure how I feel about the religious allegory aspect.

5. Venus

Massive points for the performance of Peter O'Toole as the lecherous playboy actor who befriends a teenager with her own relationship issues. Sweet and yet disturbing at the same time, this movie is another one of those that tackled an unusual subject admirably. Of the male lead performances I saw this year, O'Toole's was the best.

4. Jackass II

I don't care if it ain't your cup of tea and it has hit-and-miss moments - any movie that can make me laugh this hard deserves to be on this list. With movies to slit your wrists by like Babel out there, I want more laughs in my life - even if it is at someone else's expense. Sooo gross. Sooo funny.

3. Casino Royale

Here was a movie with high expectations and big shoes to fill that passed with flying colours. I could have done without the bulk of the last half hour, but this movie was sharp, fun and action-packed. Not your daddy's Bond film, but a new approach that delivers in spades (better learn your hold'em rules before viewing!).

2. Superman Returns

This movie deserves a ton of credit for the mere fact that it could have easily sucked ass. There were so many ways this movie could have gone horribly wrong, but Bryan Singer (who also breathed life into the X-Men) managed to navigate the minefield virtually unscathed. I had some issues with a couple of scenes, but overall this was a thrillride of a movie and deserving of the "blockbuster" tag. Sure Kate Bosworth was dull and the Luthor storyline made little sense, but Brandon Routh was spot on as a Christopher Reeve mimic - and who envied the actor who was supposed to walk in those shoes? This was a big movie with ridiculous expectations and I enjoyed its tone, charm and excitement; how many movies this year made me smile? It wasn't art, but it was enjoyable. This is the 2006 movie you stop to watch in the tv section of Sears.

1. Thank You For Smoking

Without question my favourite film of the year. Smart, funny and topical, I wish more movies were this "complete". It even had - get this - great editing! How you can know anything about editing and not rank this above The Departed and Children of Men at the very least is beyond me (this is one of the dumbest Oscar categories, in my mind - though, to be fair, this is actually listed as a 2005 film). I'm hard pressed to find a single flaw in this flick. It was right up my alley. I don't think I've been this satisfied by a movie since Fight Club (well, there was that Tera Patrick flick...) - another movie based on a tough-to-adapt book. Maybe there's something to this "book" thing...

What a weird list...

For your arguing reference, here is a compete list of the films I saw from 2006:

(the number next to the film indicates where it ranked on rottentomatoes' list - (x) = wide release, = limited release)

An Inconvenient Truth <5>

Babel

Bon Cop, Bad Cop

Borat (3)

The Break-up

Casino Royale (1)

Children of Men <3>

Clerks II

Crank

The Descent (7)

The Departed (2)

The Devil Wears Prada (14)

District B-13

The Fountain

Hollywoodland

The Illusionist

Inside Man (5)

Invincible

Jackass II

Little Miss Sunshine <2>

Miami Vice

Mission Impossible III

Pan's Labyrinth <6>

Pirates of The Caribbean II

The Prestige (23)

The Proposition

The Queen <1>

The Science of Sleep

The Sentinel

Snakes On A Plane

Superman Returns (13)

Thank You For Smoking <15>

V For Vendetta (24)

Venus <38>

Volver <8>

X-Men III

What's that...36? Not bad, I guess. But there's lots I didn't get to.

Notable 2006 films I did not see:

Blood Diamond

The Da Vinci Code

Dreamgirls (12)

Flags of Our Fathers

Last King of Scotland <11>

Letters From Iwo Jima <17>

The Lives of Others

Manufactured Landscapes

Notes On A Scandal <27>

Tsotsi <34>

Rocky VI
Half Nelson

Rottentomatoes' Top 10 Wide Release:

1. Casino Royale

2. The Departed

3. Borat

4. United 93

5. Inside Man

6. Dave Chappelle's Block Party

7. The Descent (!?)

8. Slither

9. Akeelah and the Bee

10. A Prairie Home Companion

Rottentomatoes' Top 10 Limited Release:

1. The Queen

2. Little Miss Sunshine

3. Children of Men

4. Wordplay

5. An Inconvenient Truth

6. Pan's Labyrinth

7. Half Nelson

8. Volver

9. Deliver Us From Evil

10. Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story

Trailer Mash-up: Glen & Gary & Glen & Ross

2007-02-22T14:15:00.000-05:00

Thanks to DMc for making my day.

He points to this terrific spoof trailer for Glen & Gary & Glen & Ross. If you haven't seen Glengarry Glen Ross, go - now. David Mamet at his best and a killer cast.

From the producers of 10 Things I Hate About Commandments.

So funny. So NSFW!!!!

Marvel Comics Presents: Civil War spoilers

2007-02-22T10:12:00.000-05:00

I don't know how many visitors here read comics (besides K.A., bless her heart), but I'm killing time again, so here goes.

The oft-delayed Marvel Comics cross-title story arc Civil War came to a close with the 7th and final issue released yesterday...sort of.

Let me recap for you non-believers: A young team of reality-show superheroes take on villains who are out of their league in an effort to boost ratings. The proverbial sh*t hits the fan when one of the villains causes an explosion that just about takes out an entire town. Public opinion turns against the superpowered community (hero and villain alike) who are seen as uncontrolled WMDs. With the help of some heroes, the U.S. government introduces the Registration Act, which requires all superhumans to register their names/identities/powers with the authorities. Those who refuse to register are to be hunted down and imprisoned indefinitely. This splits superhumans into two camps: the pro-registration side is led by Iron Man (Tony Stark) and includes Mister Fantastic, Hank Pym, and Spider-Man (who had previously sworn allegiance to Stark); the anti-registration side is led by Captain America (who believes the heavy-handed Act infringes upon the freedoms of citizens) and includes Daredevil, Wolverine and The Human Torch. As the battles rage and the casualties mount, allegiances shift. Spider-Man (who is one of the focal points of the story) switches sides after he senses Iron Man's plan goes too far (including imprisoning heroes in the Negative Zone, cloning Thor - leading to the death of Goliath - and enlisting an army of villains). In the final confrontation, the rebels appear to be winning when Captain America realizes the collateral damage being caused to the surrounding neighbourhood. He surrenders to the authorities and orders his side to stand down.

So what does it all mean?

I gotta say I was pretty disappointed with the outcome of this story, but I sense this was just the beginning of a year-long story arc for Marvel. It seems pretty clear that, despite the lame ending, the rebels were "right". I mean, how can a side that has Captain America, Daredevil, Spider-Man and The Thing on it be wrong? Meanwhile, the pro-registration side has a couple of over-thinking scientists (no passion) and Venom. (did anyone else sense this story had something to do with G.W. Bush's privacy/terrorism policies?)

The pamphlet that came with the issue reveals that things may not be as they appear with Iron Man (the last frame of the issue hinted at a bit of malevolence) and that the pro-registration She-Hulk, among others, will be coming for him (because of the Illuminati's role in the Hulk's banishment). There was also an allusion to the events having an impact on the Marvel Universe "for the next year" - indicating that it may not last.

But the biggest impact has been on the Spider-Man title. Tony Stark convinced Spider-Man to reveal his true identity on national television. Can that ever be "taken back"? We've already seen the effect it's had on the Spider-Man storylines (villains coming out of the woodwork to attack Peter Parker and his relatives) and I'm not sure I'm a fan. Spider-Man's identity was one of the most guarded secrets in the Marvel U (forget what you see on the big screen where you'd think Peter was a character on Cheers). The whole reason he'd kept his secret for this long was so that villains wouldn't come after his family. He'd had this fear confirmed with the Gwen Stacy affair. The reasons for unmasking now just didn't seem convincing - and now he's screwed. And unless they make the whole thing a dream a la Dallas, this kinda sucks. Of course, the comic world is famous for having these massive events that eventually mean nothing (see Death of Superman etc etc). My original suspicion was that Sentry would somehow wipe the slate clean (he mentioned that he had the power to do so) and that may still happen. Otherwise, this does not bode well for the Spider-Man titles (he's still underground, by the way, along with Doctor Strange, Wolverine and others).

Look for the rebel Avengers to turn the tables and set things right, which should coincide with the return of the Hulk.

Like Death of Superman, Onslaught, Zero Hour, etc, this storyline is meant to increase sales and coordinate any significant changes within a given comic universe. And while I invested in this series, thinking it would deliver interesting stories and prove to be a pivotal moment for the Marvel U, I gotta say that I'm back to not buying comics for the next while. I won't be investing in any of the "Initiative" titles.

Guess I'll see what things are like a year from now.

Venting My Frustrations - a la Friends

2007-02-21T11:05:00.000-05:00

So I'm killing time again, visiting various websites and blogs, including a couple that are covering the CTF/Shaw situation. I'm refraining from commenting 'cause, well, I'd like to keep my job and there's nothing like speaking out of turn to get fired. But it's killing me to see the amount of misinformation out there, being spread by folks who ought to know better.

Just to set the record straight for those who might be confused: The CTF does not choose which shows get money/get produced. The CTF splits $x amongst the various Canadian broadcasters via "envelopes" and they decide which shows see the money. The CTF does not judge the quality of the shows per se. As long as they meet Cancon requirements, they get the money the broadcaster wants them to get. Also, the broadcaster (read: CBC) does not get the money directly - the money is given to independent producers who have license agreements with those broadcasters. But ratings do count - the greater the audience, the more money a broadcaster's envelope is likely to get the following year, so it's in the broadcaster's best interests to devote CTF money to "successful" shows. But the CTF does not judge the quality of potential projects. If you want to argue whether or not the Canadian TV industry ought to be supported by a fund like the CTF, knock yourself out (I have some pretty strong opinions myself) but can we at least use facts instead of made up bullshit? Thanks.

So, in order to purge myself of this frustration, I need to focus on something completely superfluous for a while. Here goes:

I popped by Karmic Angel's blog the other day and she had a post singing the praises of Stephen King's new comic book series "The Dark Tower" - based on the novels of the same name. She was so impressed, that she has added Stephen King to her "list" - that being a list a la Friends. For those who don't recall or didn't watch the show (yes, it was actually a really good show once) Ross and Rachel came up with a rule: each of them could have a "freebie list" of 5 celebrities they could sleep with without their significant other getting upset.

Sure, it's completely ridiculous (my girlfriend sleeps with Brad Pitt and I'm gonna get upset - I don't care how much I liked Fight Club) but I need a distraction. Beautiful women are good for that.

This is an interesting dilemma - who goes on the list? As Ross found out, selection (and timing) is crucial. While some may have been sure-fire selections in the past, you have to keep the list current (I mean Raquel Welch is on the all-time list, but...now?); so some women come and go from the list. Some women remove themselves from the list (Britney, I'm looking in your direction...). What about probability? If this were a real list, would you choose the stars that you know live in your city (you dog!) or go only for your die-hard choices no matter how slim the odds of an encounter? Hmm...

So, here's my list...I think:

1. Dana Delaney
I've taken some flak over the years for this one, but she's still on my list. Back before all the tv movies, back before *sigh* Exit To Eden, back before China Beach even, Dana Delaney appeared on a two-part episode of Magnum, P.I. one of my favourite shows of all time (I wanted to be Magnum - I still threaten to name my unborn son Thomas Magnum Sullivan). Smart, beautiful, well-spoken...it's been puppy love ever since. Hell, I dated a girl who looked like her. I mean, she was great on her own, but the resemblance didn't hurt!

2. Monica Bellucci
Have you seen Malena yet? Come on, I told you to. You'll understand.

3. Brooke Burke
Before Rockstar, she was the Victoria Secrets model.

4. Ali Landry
Remember the Doritos Girl?

5. Laura HarringShe of Mulholland Drive and a bunch of crappy stuff. Hmm...I dated a girl who kinda looked like her, too...I'm sensing a pattern...

Alternates: (a.k.a. my "Isabellas")
Shania Twain
Kelly Monaco
Anne Hathaway
Beyonce Knowles
Mariah Carey
Catherine-Zeta Jones
Bridget Moynahan
Salma Hayek
Kimberly Page

...Yup, I feel better. Hell, I can't even remember where I work anymore...

Chandler: Well, we have a deal where we each get to pick five different celebrities that we can sleep with, and the other one can't get mad.
Ross: Ah, the heart of every healthy relationship: Honesty, respect, and sex with celebrities.

Rachel: Alright, let me see. Uma Thurman, Winona Ryder, Elizabeth Hurely, Michelle Pfieffer, and... Dorothy Hammill?
Ross: Hey, it's my list.
Rachel: Okay, honey, you do realize she only spins like that on ice.

This and That

2007-02-20T16:02:00.000-05:00

Ok, so I'm bored again at work, so I figured I'd kill some time and write a bit about this and that.

- My friend Dan hosted an open-mic type thing where people read things they wrote as kids. I was pleasantly surprised by the turn-out; there must have been a good 50 people there, easily filling the Victory Cafe upstairs space. It was the right kind of crowd, too; everyone was supportive of the readers and there were lots of laughs. Lots of people (mostly women) read from journals they kept when they were discovering the opposite sex, for better or worse. I read a short story I'd written when I was in grade 6 - one of a series of Sam Mahoney, P.I. adventures. I was afraid it would go over badly, seeing as it was so utterly lame, but I was encouraged by the laughs it got. I'll keep you posted as to when the next reading night might be for those of you who may be in the Toronto area.

- Been watching a lot of movies recently, obviously. I've been trying to get a bunch of 2006 movies under my belt before the Oscars so that I can watch them with even greater frustration this year knowing how bad their choices are. Stay tuned for my Oscar picks and a 2006 retrospective later this week.

- Is it my imagination or are we hearing less about George Bush these days? I think he might be waiting for the whole anti-Iraq "War" thing to blow up in the Dems' faces. See, if the Democrats reduce troop levels and Iraq sinks into civil war, then the Republicans can blame the Democrats during the next election campaign. (Of course, the best way to start a civil war is to create a power vacuum - see: removing Hussein without a plan)

- Of course, that doesn't mean Bush's effed up policies aren't being felt. Just ask those folks down in Gitmo what they think of the American justice system. Just be careful that the shoe doesn't end up on the other foot. Seems the Chinese are fond of holding suspected criminals without charge, too. But at least they're allowing the consulate to check on the prisoner's health.

- And just when you thought the Democrats were sure to win this time and that we might even see a *gasp* female or *double gasp* black President (or is that the other way around?) - oops! - we might not be done with the Republicans yet. Meet President Rudy Giuliani.

- I'm not sure what to make of the whole Britney Spears head-shaving fiasco. I mean, is this her way of making amends for her recent behaviour and "starting over" or are we witnessing Anna Nicole Smith part deux? (I mean, why do you tattoo lips onto your wrists unless you wanna see them talk?)

- Why are ATM fees suddenly in the news? First it was Jack Layton parading around Toronto, now Finance Minister Jim Flaherty seems to be taking up the cause. WTF? Let me get this straight: I have a Royal Bank account. I take out money from a CIBC bank machine and get charged a fee of a dollar or two... What's the problem? I don't get it. Banks should charge a fee. I mean, if there's no fee for using a competitor's machines, what incentive is there for CIBC to install these machines in the first place? The whole point is that the guy with the most machines gets the most business 'cause he's the most convenient. If I can't draw business this way, why not let the other guy eat the expense of installing machines and have the benefit of his free service? I don't get it. Now, if the banks all started charging the same amount for their own customers to be using their own machines, then I'd have a problem, 'cause that shows collusion and that's b.s. But as long as there's competition, what's the problem?

Ok, enough frustration for one day; I'm gonna stare at this picture of my nephew Caleb for a while and get all zenned out on his cuteness.

Film Review: The Science of Sleep

2007-02-20T10:20:00.000-05:00

The other movie I watched on the weekend was The Science of Sleep, a quirky little movie by Michel Gondry who is no stranger to quirky (see Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind).

Like Hollywoodland, this film starts off well, mostly due to some interesting performances, good direction and a compelling story. But, much like Hollywoodland, it goes a little off the rails about halfway through and the ending is, well, less than satisfying. While Hollywoodland almost needed to end ambiguously because of the incomplete nature of the investigation into George Reeves' death, there's no real excuse for the somewhat ham-fisted ending to this one. The final shots literally could have been plopped at any point in the movie; I wish that Gondry had spent as much time working out the "real life" story as he did the dream elements. By the end, I had no idea what Stephanie's motivations were. Unbelievably, Stephane made more sense than she did.

Neverthless, this is a really charming story with great visuals and a neat concept. Definitely worth watching, if only for the quirkiness.

Thumbs up.

Film Review: Hollywoodland

2007-02-19T15:37:00.000-05:00

Rented a couple of flicks over the weekend. The first was Hollywoodland, that Ben Affleck movie about George Reeves - the first tv Superman.

It starts off pretty well. I was actually quite impressed with Affleck, who was WAY better than he normally is. He was much more subtle and sympathetic. The bulk of the movie, though, revolves around Adrien Brody's private investigator character (for better or for worse). Brody tends to be hit and miss with me, too, but in this one he gets a passing grade. He was just the right kind of slimey. Diane Lane is also pretty watchable (how could she not be?).

I suppose much of the credit has to go to writer Paul Berbaum (who comes out of nowhere - the last time this guy did anything of note it was some A-Team and Riptide episodes, for Pete's sake) and director Allen Coulter (of more notable tv fame). The movie looks good and hits the right notes most of the way, even if Affleck's accent is a little all over the place.

But despite the promising start, the film gets a little bogged down in its own depression and by the time the movie's over, you might be contemplating taking yourself out. ...Ok, maybe it's not that bad, but I was a little surprised that it was only 2 hours. And the ending? Not so great.

Overall a thumbs up, but I'm glad I waited for the DVD version.

Film Review: Snakes On A Plane

2007-02-17T20:54:00.000-05:00

Seems my little quest to catch Oscar films has taken a little detour.

Picked this one up earlier this week. It's pretty much what you'd expect: action, one-liners, cheesy characters and an implausible ending.

I recommend watching it with someone who is terrified of snakes - I imagine that would make for more excitement.

Have fun with this rental, but leave your brain at the door.

Help! I'm Lost!

2007-02-12T11:10:00.000-05:00

(yes, that's right: I have nothing to do at work)

For my friends who are fans of Lost:

http://heywriterboy.blogspot.com/2007/02/not-room.html

I got this from Denis McGrath's blog, who is a writer in Canadian tv (his insights into Little Mosque On The Prairie are pretty much spot on, too). I'm glad Denis can see the humour in these jabs at the writing room. They're basically saying what we're all thinking.

Film Review: Miami Vice

2007-02-12T09:56:00.000-05:00

When I first heard that they were making a movie based on the famous 80s cop drama, I was a little skeptical, but, admittedly, a little excited.

Michael Mann has always been a little cutting-edge, a little off-centre in his directing techniques which can have some wonderful results, such as the epic Heat. Even in more mainstream fare such as The Last of The Mohicans, you can tell the man behind the camera is a little "deep".

But sometimes Mann's artistic vision can get the best of him and you end up with a convoluted mess of an artsy film that takes itself way too seriously - Miami Vice.

I'm not quite sure where to start with this one. Well, you know what they say: start at the beginning. Right off the bat, this movie loses half its audience, I'm sure. There are two intense scenes right off the top that have nothing to do with each other. The problem is that lots of names and characters are being thrown at the audience and before you can get the faces straight *boom* we're right into the main plot. Oh, and those guys you saw in one of those opening scenes? Forget them, they're not important anyways. Oh, and the second set of guys? Well, they're actually a little more important, but don't worry about it 'cause all you need to know is that they're bad. But - oops - the 32nd and 33rd characters? You might want to remember them.

15 minutes into the movie and I'm not sure who is who and why what is what. Not good. It doesn't help that there's a ridiculous amount of pretentious cool-speak in the exposition, with acronyms thrown around like the characters have nothing better to do than to recite the alphabet. I was barely keeping the story straight in my head, but I could sense my friend was already half-asleep.

But, hey, Heat was a little confusing too at times. But Heat had something going for it: one of the best ensemble casts of all time, including the first on-screen meeting between characters played by Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino (the rest of the cast included the likes of Val Kilmer, Jon Voight, Natalie Portman, Tom Sizemore, Ashley Judd and William Fichtner).

Miami Vice had no such luck. Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx are the only two "stars" in this film. That's not a bad thing if Mann had wanted to feature some great talent that had been heretofore overlooked by Hollywood. But...no. The rest of the cast can't act to save their lives. Worse yet, you can hardly understand a word that comes out of their mouths. Li Gong? Fuggetaboutit. Even Eddie Marsan who is English is incomprehensible - don't ask me what his accent is supposed to be (Alabama?). To make matters worse, everyone in this movie acts as if displaying an emotion will get them fired. "Too cool for school" works for some characters, but when it's all the characters all the time, it's just downright boring and unbelievable. Colin Farrell at least has enough screen time to develop some semblance of a persona, but Jamie Foxx might as well have not even been in that movie.

Ciaran Hinds? Wasted. Justin Theroux? Wasted.

But the greatest waste without a doubt was Barry Shabaka Henley as Lt. Castillo. WTF? This was the coolest character on the original series (famously played by Edward James Olmos). Here, he's an afterthought and comes across as a buffoon thanks to his inept strategy skills.

Like any Mann project, this film looks great. It seems, however, that it came at the expense of character and plot.

Thumbs down.

Dion: Men Need Not Apply

2007-02-09T10:03:00.000-05:00

Ok, this guy is already starting to piss me off.

As much as I might think Stephen Harper is a scheming, lying redneck homophobe, I'm not sure I'll be throwing my vote to the (only other legitimate option) Liberals either if Stephane Dion doesn't get his head screwed on right.

First there was the fact that Dion could be linked to the old-school scandalous Liberals. Then he opened his mouth and we all learned that his English pretty much sucks. Now he's taking political correctness to a whole new level and is looking at barring men from seeking nomination in certain ridings to ensure that his promise of 1/3 female representation is fulfilled.

Everybody knows how much I hate reverse discrimination. But when it starts creeping into politics and the way my country is run, then I just get downright pissed.

The best quote came from right hand man Gerard Kennedy:

"We're trying to find the techniques that are consistent with our democratic processes to the greatest extent possible."

Democracy is democracy is democracy. You can't add "techniques". One person, one vote. May the best person win regardless of age, colour, creed or sex.

By choosing who can and cannot run, Dion is guaranteeing that democracy will not be served.

By the way, the fact that the Liberals are willing to run the risk of eliminating the best possible candidate in favour of demographics just goes to show that in Canadian politics you do not vote for the local rep, you vote for the party you want to win. Any argument to the contrary is ridiculous.

Excuse me; I have to go find an NDP flyer to figure out what they're all about. (ATM fees? WTF?)

Anna Nicole Smith 1967-2007

2007-02-08T17:01:00.000-05:00

Wow.

I clicked over to the Toronto Star website and there on the "front page" was news that Anna Nicole Smith had died. I was shocked, but I don't know why.

Smith, 39, collapsed and was unresponsive while staying at the Seminole Hard Rock Cafe Hotel and Casino, said the attorney, Ron Rale. She was rushed to a hospital.

This lady's story is unbelievable. Sadly, she may represent the ultimate Hollywood/American story. Let's recap:

- Born poor

- Works as a topless dancer
- Gets married, has kid, gets divorced

- Gets hired as the "Guess Girl" and becomes an overnight sensation

- Goes from rags to riches

- Playboy Playmate of the Year 1993

- Appears in Naked Gun movie alongside O.J. Simpson (natch)

- Gains a ton of weight

- Drops off the celebrity radar

- Marries a rich oil tycoon (for the love, of course)

- Tycoon dies, she inherits a fortune, family fights it, court case goes on forever

- She loses a ton of weight and becomes a weightloss spokesmodel for TrimSpa

- Has a reality show

- Her son dies of an overdose (including antidepressant) while she is in the hospital giving birth

- Gets married within 18 days of son's death

- Paternity case launched

- Gets sued alongside TrimSpa

- Dies prematurely at age 39

...whoa. I guarantee the movie is in the works as we speak.

Within an hour Wikipedia had been updated.

Figures.

Apple Trailers

2007-02-07T16:47:00.000-05:00

So sometimes when I'm bored (at work - shhhh!) I drop by the Apple Trailers site.

Now anyone who knows me at all knows that I hate watching trailers for movies I know I'm going to see. It seems that movie trailers have a very bad habit of blowing the entire movie in these minute-long teasers.

Apple Trailers is a good place to go to see what's coming out that you may not have been exposed to otherwise - a quirky cult hit for example. (This for example, might tickle your fancy, or maybe this or, for the truly morbid, this)

But every once in a while I face a dilemma: I know a little bit about the movie but I'm kind of on the fence about whether or not to see it in the theatres. Rocky VI for example. I know the backstory, I know the characters, I know basically what to expect...I think. Do I pay to see it? Well...I dunno. What if it's clearly gonna suck? A trailer might help.

I avoided Rocky VI trailers as much as possible, thinking I might see it - still haven't. Oh well, I guess I'll rent it.

Today, the dilemma surrounded Live Free or Die Hard. Citing the Rocky example, I decided to watch the trailer. The verdict: well, it doesn't look like it's gonna completely suck...

Still not sure if I'll see it.

But this new one from Danny Boyle has me intrigued... (if 28 Days Later is any indication, this is not going to be your typical sci-fi disaster flick)

And who knew there was a Silver Surfer (Fantastic Four 2) trailer out yet? (and a great one at that - looks totally cool, high octane, gives away very little about the movie)

Flame on!

Garth Turner Goes To Liberals

2007-02-06T13:11:00.000-05:00

Hmm...

You know, I've been a fan of Garth Turner's for some time because he's a relatively straight-forward, candid guy, but this latest move troubles me.

I've sung the praises of Turner's blog, but I've also been very clear on this issue: I am wholeheartedly opposed to floor crossing in the House of Commons.

Garth may have taken the long route, going from Conservative to Independent to Liberal, but the ideology and principle are the same: if you were elected as part of one party, you shouldn't go to another between elections.

Turner was kicked out of the Conservative caucus because of his outspoken nature. He didn't choose to leave, he was booted out. Good for him, then, for sitting as an Independent. But he should have stayed there until the next election (which he admits is meant to be sooner rather than later, according to Conservative strategists).

So why join the Liberals now? It doesn't reek of the opportunism of other floor crossings, but still...

You lost some of my respect, Garth. Why couldn't you have just waited a few more months? What's the rush?

Peel Board Taken Over

2007-02-06T10:24:00.000-05:00

Education is typically one of the top issues in any election (and if ads are any indication, there's one brewing). Recently, though, it has taken a back seat to the environment (which is fine by me - the environment ought to be a priority).

But it seems that education has almost disappeared off the radar. Not so much good.

News comes today, however, that government-appointed overseer Norbert Hartmann has stripped the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board of its authority and he (along with Queen's Park) is taking over. There had been some tough talk under the old provincial regime that Boards were going to be required to balance their books, but this is the first example I can think of where a Board has actually been taken over - and these are the Liberals we're talking about, not the facist Harris/Eves-led Conservatives. Something's definitely wrong.

Who's to blame? I don't know, but I do know that this can NOT be good for teachers, some of whom are friends of mine.

What happened to our education system? Has it always been this messed up? I kinda think something happened sometime after I graduated from highschool (early nineties is all I'm gonna say). Within a couple of years there were security cameras everywhere and my old highschool had suddenly become known as a "tough" school. From what I hear (and can tell from my two university stints) writing skills dropped off the map and students were generally more difficult.

Is this just one of those examples where the older generation thinks the younger generation is more screwed up or is it actually the case? And if education really is slipping, what's to blame and how can we fix it?

Film Review: An Inconvenient Truth

2007-02-03T17:42:00.000-05:00

Another day, another movie...

An Inconvenient Truth has been getting great reviews and earned an Oscar nomination for Best Documentary Feature and Best Song (Melissa Ethridge's I Need To Wake Up).

First of all, it's a film worth watching. The message is obviously an important one, and it's an issue that has been brushed aside for too long. (I've always said that if I were ever Prime Minister, one of the first things I'd do is to make Canada the leader in alternative energy source research & development - there's a boatload of money to be made in that industry as we march down the road to environmental armageddon) It looks like the issue is finally hitting the front pages; the question now is: what are ya gonna do about it?

But I gotta say, it made me wonder: is it a documentary? What defines a documentary?

This is basically a seminar/speech put on film. There's only a small amount of footage from outside the hall. I mean, it's not like the filmmakers are documenting anything other than the "slide show". So while I applaud the film, I don't think I'd choose it as the Best Documentary - it simply wasn't hard enough for the filmmakers to produce. When you compare the work and effort other documentarians put into their projects (though I haven't seen the other nominated films), this just doesn't seem up to snuff.

And despite the fact that the message is very important, I'm glad I didn't pay $12 to see this slide show. This is definitely a rental. I do believe, however, that this film should be played as often as possible on cable - get the message out.

One thing that bothered me, though: the film sets out what's wrong with the world and why humans are responsible, but it doesn't say whether or not the trend is reversible. Is it already too late? Even if we curb population growth and emissions, will the greenhouse effect go away?

I mean, can we save the world or...?

Film Review: Thank You For Smoking

2007-02-01T09:56:00.000-05:00

I rented this one last night using my Videoself membership - that's turning out to be the best $20 I ever spent (well, next to that "massage" in Thailand...but that's another story).

Let me say this loud and proud: Thank You For Smoking is one of, if not the best film of 2006.

Every once in a while, a film comes along that I really - really - enjoy. It's smart, witty, funny, well written, relevant, features fine performances and interesting themes, and I don't find myself saying afterwards: "yeah, it was good, but it could have been better".

Nope. This movie is a home run.

I'd heard it was good from lots of different folks, but I didn't see it in the theatres because, well, I had had the opportunity to see a preview for free and thought I'd feel pretty stupid spending $12 to catch it now that the reviews were in. In my defense, I knew nothing about it at the time. I certainly didn't know it had a fantastic cast featuring the likes of Maria Bello (hot) and Sam Elliott (cool).

Hell, even Katie Holmes was tolerable!

Surely such a great film deserves recognition from the Academy, right? Of course not. Despite the fact that Thank You For Smoking is nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay at next weekend's Writer's Guild of America awards (and you think they'd know), it does not appear on the Oscar shortlist (Borat, Children of Men, The Departed, Little Children and Notes On A Scandal are the nominees there - Thank You For Smoking and The Devil Wears Prada replace Little Children and Notes On A Scandal on the WGA list).

Look, this movie made me want to read the book - and I don't read! From what I understand, this movie took over a decade to get made into a film, partially because the book was so hard to adapt into a screenplay. Rookie director/writer Jason Reitman (yes, son of Ivan) deserves mucho credit for his work. This is a great script (Babel got nominated for Best Original Screenplay - and that script is shite!). The dialogue is smart and goes well beyond the surface.

This movie should be required viewing in today's day and age of spin doctors, political correctness and George motherf***ing Bush (check out the bonus features for a great skewering of politicians - including the aforementioned Prince Of Darkness). It doesn't pick sides - it just encourages you to think about the messages we are spoon fed every day.

In many ways, this script reminded me of Fight Club (one of my all time favs) meets Jerry Maguire - told from Bob Sugar's perspective.

Two massive thumbs up.

Brilliant.

(Do yourself a favour, though - it helps to see this movie with some notion of "Big Tobacco". So go out and rent Michael Mann's fantastic The Insider starring Al Pacino and an unsexy Russell Crowe before running back to the store to rent Thank You For Smoking.)

"You know the guy who can pick up any girl? I'm him. On crack."
- Aaron Eckhart as Nick Naylor

Phil Loses His Mind

Christmas lists

Academic Research: So Smart, So Dumb

Cory Doctorow Strikes Again

To Serve and Protect

Inspirational photography

CRAZY GUN-TOTING COP!!! ...Not so crazy?

This and That - July 16, 2010

Awesome journalism

Cory Doctorow misses the point again

Michael Bryant - Darcy Sheppard Incident Follow-up

Something Immediately

Bogus Air Miles

Au revoir, Le Marche

Our Wedding Blog

Punishment should fit the crime, not the damage - Liambas vs Fanelli

Correlation Without Causation

Tradition! (of the egg nog variety)

Get off the phone!!

Viewpoint Film Challenge

Stop crime, get arrested II

Music Video Awards

Tag! You're a douchebag.

Michael Bryant vs. Cyclist Darcy Sheppard - Facts Before Acts

Craziest Film Cast EVER!

The Beach Boys a capella

Random Excursions

Remember: the terrorists haven't won

Wediquette Part III

Unusual Weddings

Stag & Doe or Slag & Dough

By Request: Garbage Strike

Ask me questions - I will tell you no lies

Bored stupid

Twitter in the News

Pet Peeves: TTC

When news isn't news: Sosa took steroids

Election fever

Good karma: Darrelle London

Archie + Veronica - Betty = "Ideal"?

Two things: Death and access

Stop crime, get arrested

Phil's Travel Guide to: New York City

John Cusack has a blog

Film Review: Star Trek

Jaipur Grille: bad service = no customer

May Blockbusters

UFC 101 - Silva vs Griffin

Flixster

Racism by any other name: a letter to Royson James

Jiri Tlusty should not be embarassed: media and girl should

The Worst Tim Horton's in Toronto

Film Review: Transformers

Film Review: The Last King of Scotland

Film Review: The Namesake

Film Review: Waitress

Harvey's is back on the list

Film Review: 28 Weeks Later

Film Review: Away From Her

Spider-Man 3 ...out of 10.

Film Review: Hot Fuzz

This and That - continued

UFC 69 : The Great Depression

Film Review: Grindhouse

The Fonz Guest Stars on Prison Break

Film Review: The Wind That Shakes The Barley

Cory Doctorow Still Needs a Bitchslap

This And That - Again

Film Review: 300

The Internet Generation Gap

Create Your Own Battlestar Galactica Clip!

Nifty Snickers Commercial

UFC 68: The UFC Has Arrived *spoilers*

Film Review: Zodiac

Facebook

Grownups Read Things They Wrote As Kids

Oscars 2007: Surprisingly Predictable

Craig Ferguson Monologue

Top Ten Villainous Moments in Comics

Top Ten Movies of 2006

UFC 68: The UFC Has Arrived spoilers

Marvel Comics Presents: Civil War spoilers