Bored stupid

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

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

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

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

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

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"?

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

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

…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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.