Collected Apologies

Little Golden Nuggets

2009-09-11T13:55:00.001-07:00

I love the golden rule. It’s so simple and elegant, despite the fact that many people have no clue what the hell it is (hint: it starts with ‘do unto others…’). Applied correctly, this little rule could provide for harmony around the world. If everyone fully abided by the golden rule, hands would go up around the globe and we would grasp them together and we would all sing in unity. I don’t know what we’d sing, but it would probably be from a Coke commercial.

Unfortunately, these days, more people know what a golden shower is than what the golden rule is. (As it turns out, unless you want to be peed upon, that particular shower doesn’t fall into the golden rule spectrum.) In any case, I believe many people would follow the golden rule if they simply knew how to apply it in modern situations. In many cases, I believe our common rudeness is simply a matter of ignorance in how to do unto others. The world has gotten smaller, and we keep getting bigger, stretching our arms out and taking up all the space. I think many around would like to make the world a better place, but one simple rule to apply to many of life’s situations is too confusing. There are too many nuances to account for which the golden rule does not cover. Emerging technologies have added to the confusion (do you answer your cell phone while rolling in the sheets? If so, you’re not the only one.)

To help, I’ve created (read: pulled out of my ass) this list of guidelines which, if followed, will shortly having us all singing “I’d like to buy the world a Coke…”

1 -Be mindful of others around you.

2 -Respect others’ personal bubbles. Give people a wide berth when walking (at least a 3’ radius!)

3 -Don’t use (too much) more than you need. Most of us eat to excess, and have homes and cars that exceed our personal needs. A little bit is okay, but don’t try to take more of the pie than the next guy. Why drive a 12 mile/gallon guzzler when a Yaris or a Minivan works just as well? Despite what you think, you don’t deserve that Hummer, the 30,000 square foot mansion, or that 50 oz. steak. A little dab’ll do ya.

4 -In England, India, Australia or any one of the 76 countries that drive on the left, then drive on the left, walk on the left, go through the left-hand door. In the remaining countries, drive on the right, walk on the right, and go through the frick’n right-hand door (where possible).

5 -(For the gents) The laws of urinal dynamics state that if there is an option to put a spacer or buffer urinal between you and the adjacent urinator, do so! (See rule 1). If there is a row of 8 vacant urinals, opt for the extremities, and not the inline units. If you have taken a urinal on the far right or left, and someone picks the urinal immediately beside you when there are five other good options, you have permission to turn and piss on that man’s shoes. Also, don’t talk to anyone (anyone) while at the urinal. Stare straight ahead like you can bore through that cheap ceramic tile with your eyes.

6 -Be punctual. This applies especially for formal events like weddings, funerals and job interviews, but also for informal ones. You don’t want to be the movie theatre jackass who shows up after the previews and asks someone to scoot over. You knew that movie started at 7:30, and you deserved to have that popcorn butter poured into your shoes (that was me, by the way).

7 -In the company of others, the cell phone is to be shunned unless you are expecting an important phone call. (Note—important phone call is defined as the following: prospective job offer, medical test results coming in, your Grandmother in Poland is dying and this is the last opportunity to speak with her, the President would like to thank you for saving his life, or the FBI will apprehend you in 30 seconds and you must escape… and not as “OMG, did you hear that Spencer likes Heidi!”)

8 -If you are named Spencer or Heidi for any reason, you should take your life now. The same goes for the following names: Brody, Brodin, Lance, Trent, Dayton, Walker, Aiden, Connor, Scout, London, Tallulah, or any one of dozens of douchey hipster names. Take your life. Try the BMW in the garage. That one always works well.

9 -Respect the queue. If you are in a line-up that doesn’t involve a two-way mirror, remember rule #1. There are several different types of queues, and you may not know which one you’re. Some places have multiple queues for multiple kiosks, while others may have one feeder queue into several smaller queues. You may inadvertently initiate your own death if you step in front of someone else who has been waiting longer than you and is dying to get his hands on the very last boston cream.

10 -For the multi-lingual among you: Speak the lingua franca. As beautiful and elegant as your Faeroese may sound to the people of Scandinavia, to us, it’s just gibberish. We Westerners are a paranoid type. If you say something we don’t understand, then clearly you’re speaking about us. It’s rude. That isn’t to say you shouldn’t preserve and use your (second, third…) language, just remember Rule #1 and don’t make someone else feel like they are being left out of a great Faeroese joke!

11 -If the daggers come out with the politics, put it away. We all love to debate (unless your name is Bill O’Reilly, in which case you don’t like to debate as much as you like to TALK VERY LOUD OVER PEOPLE.) If you can learn something and grow through political discussion, great. But you’re not going to convince the anti-semitic homophobe snake charmers league to vote for Ralph Nader in the next election, so instead switch to a topic you can mutually enjoy, like how much you both loved the latest Transformers Movie.

12 -DON’T USE ALL CAPS WHEN WRITING SOMETHING ONLINE, AS IT IS VERY ANNOYING. WE ALL UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO SAY, AND YOU WANT TO BE BOLD ABOUT IT, BUT PUT THE CAPS AWAY AND GET YOUR POINT ACROSS WITH A WELL-REASONED ARGUMENT INSTEAD OF ALL THE YELLING.

13 -On the road: use your turn signal/indicator light, whatever you want to call it. It may seem like you’re giving away your next move, but on the roads, that’s actually a good thing. As always, remember Rule 1.-Is your car stereo worth more than your car? Is it loud? Does it have a nice sub-woofer in it? While driving on the strip, do you like to crank the dance music so that is shakes the cheap plastic pieces of the shitty Civic you’re driving? Yeah? Don’t do that! Keep it in the clubs, folks. Barring that, go park with Brody and company up there.

14 -Hold the door open for people. It doesn’t take much time and it is a very polite thing to do. Consequently if you walk into a public shoot-out, you’ll have a little warning first.

15 -The only acceptable time and place to scream “whoo-hoo!” is at a rock concert (between songs, mind) and at a David Blaine show. Why? Because magic is awesome. You gotta respect that shit!

16 -Recycle. If you live in an area that does not recycle (say, most southern states), take your life. Kidding.

The Businessman

2009-08-24T06:57:00.001-07:00

Every morning, I pass a life-size sculpture of a businessman. I see him daily as the escalator takes me from the subterranean bowels of the subway onto the main floor of the office building where I work. As I slowly ascend into world of the Eloi, the picture of this businessman loads like a webpage from 1995. First, I see his feet. Then his pants, neatly creased. He is holding a fedora out in his chubby right hand, and slowly his long coat and scarf emerge into view. Then a necktie, then a large, round face that reflects the lights of the Wellington-Street office. He is a bronze, fat, docile man standing on a pedestal, taking in the view and the bustle of the office building. He is The Businessman and I hate him.

He is one of several in a series of sculptures made by William McElchern in the 1980s. When he is not surveying the scene on Wellington, he can be found walking briskly (probably to an important meeting) along King Street, and again walking briskly along St. Claire Avenue (perhaps the first meeting didn’t go so well). He is also standing solitary and weatherworn in Yorkville, where I envision him waiting to meet a friend or a mistress for drinks. I’ve seen him passing another rotund businessman in a sculpture called “The Encounter,” also on King Street, though the two fat men look almost ready to collide. Sometimes I hear the shadow of energetic dance music pumping and I fancy the two men are about to start grinding one another.

The businessman does not have a good-natured face that we would normally call jolly in one so fat. He is not angry, or driven or ambitious. He is aimless and stares up at the lobby; a blank slate upon which we assign our feelings about being here. Some people probably see him and think, ‘what the hell am I doing here?’ thinking about the useless mounds of paper that will be pushed around that day, and which will accomplish nothing. Some people will look at this man and see a domineering boss, yelling and shaking his sweaty jowls, extremely unhappy with the quarterly report he just read, while others will see cattle, waiting to be herded into his pen and forced to do menial work. I see him going home at night to a good-natured, buxom German woman who has a glazed ham waiting for him and his two fat kids, Hanzel and Gretel. Sometimes he pines for the receptionist, Mary; sometimes he pines for the other businessman he runs into on King.

I hate him because he is the venerated one who has been cast in bronze and placed on a pedestal, just slightly above the rest of us. This is the idol we are to worship? the golden calf we should all aspire to be? He is not a captain of industry, but represents the average worker, the eponymous businessman, upon whose back the global economy rests. By why is he so fat? Why can’t he look more like Don Draper, or Michael Douglas in Wall Street? Instead, we get a cow staring blankly at the lobby, longingly thinking of Mary, not a thought about little Hanzel and Gretel, or the useless mounds of paper he will push around today.

Transformers: Revenge of the Falling Asleep

2009-06-28T08:51:00.000-07:00

Well here's another victim of the writers' strike, and another arrogant director who thinks he can make up for poor writing with bombast and eye candy. This was a rambling mess of a movie that droned on for what seemed like forever. The characters were less than sympathetic. In fact, through most of the movie, I was hoping Megatron would simply step on the main characters and put them (and me) out of misery.

Director Michael Bay shows his low opinion of women by his casting choices and the way they are portrayed in his films, and this one is no exception. Megan Fox is a total mindless bimbo, who Bay admits he cast for her body and not for her acting. Wow.

My family thinks I'm too elitist in my taste in movies. I respond, is it too much to ask to be entertained by a movie? It doesn't even have to be smart or original. Just keep me interested for two hours. This movie couldn't even do that. Lousy, lousy, lousy.

A tale of two apologies

2009-06-16T19:56:00.000-07:00

I'm a Canadian. That makes me somewhat of a connoisseur of that timeless art form known as the apology. As the title of this blog makes clear, I'm all about apologies. And I want to take a minute to look at two recent apologies that made it into the news.

First up, the Letterman/Palin feud. Letterman tells a joke about Palin's daughter getting knocked up by A-rod and all hell breaks loose. This joke (like most jokes of the post-modern era) draws on and assumes a certain pop-culture knowledge in its audience. In this case, that Sarah Palin's 18-year-old daughter Bristol got pregnant and that Sarah is now a grand-mum (You betcha!) The joke went off track when it was revealed that it was Palin's 14-year-old daughter, Willow, and not the of-legal-age Bristol who was at the Yankee game, and thus by extension, the joke must be about Willow.

It is up to you whether you feel that Dave made a tasteless joke about Palin's 18-year-old, or a crass and unforgivable comment about her 14-year-old. Knowing Letterman's track record, I'd believe the former, because that's exactly where my mind went when he joked about A-rod. There was certainly precedent for Bristol getting knocked up, so I gave a slight chuckle and we move on. But let's consult the apology. Or should I say apologies.

Dave spent a total on-screen time of 10 minutes (non-consecutive) apologizing about this flap. This is a show where commercials can cost $1 million a minute, and in show business, 10 minutes is an eternity. I won't hype up the value of the show too much- this is the home of stupid pet tricks, after all. Nevertheless, for anyone offended by the joke, Dave spent a considerable amount of time apologizing. He said, "I had, honestly, no idea that the 14-year-old girl, I had no idea that anybody was at the ball game except the governor, and I was told at the time she was there with Rudy Giuliani," Letterman said "It’s not your fault that it was misunderstood, it’s my fault. ... So I would like to apologize, especially to the two daughters involved, Bristol and Willow, and also to the governor and her family and everybody else who was outraged by the joke" (Emphasis mine).

He also spent considerable time admitting that his jokes are tasteless. Does he have to do this? No. He's Dave freaking Letterman. His biggest competition just bowed out and threats of boycott actually earn him more ratings than anything else. He doesn't really have to apologize. He certainly doesn't need to spend 10 minutes on it. But he does, and in doing so, I feel he demonstrated his integrity.

When Letterman delivered his joke, the sirens went off. The Palin camp went crazy. The local pitch fork and burning torches rental agency ran all out of stock, such was the ire of the crowd. Imagine, then, the stirring of the crowd for the comments that demanded an apology from prominent South Carolina Republican Rusty DePass. Commenting on a report of an escaped gorilla from the zoo, DePass declared on his facebook page, "I'm sure it's just one of Michelle [Obama]'s ancestors- probably harmless."

Like the Letterman comment, where you didn't know if he was talking about Willow or Bristol, some people will read that statement and find therein a sarcastic commentary on the theory of evolution, while others will find this to be nakedly racist. I don't know DePass's track record, so I can only go on his response to the flap (no pitch forks here) that arose when he dropped this little nugget. His apology is as follows:

"I'm sorry as I can be if I offended anyone. The comment was clearly in jest." Somewhere Don Imus is smiling.

So we have two insensitive remarks, followed up by two apologies (three if you count both of Dave's). Both of them rely on one's interpretation of the comment to determine if it was it a misstep or the verbal equivalent of driving full speed into an iceberg. To me, an apology aficionado, I look at the sorries and I see straight through to the intent. Are we seeing someone crying, throwing himself at the mercy of the court, or do we see OJ's smug smile as he tries the black glove on?

Judge's verdict: In the case of Letterman, I see someone who doesn't take his job too seriously. He's a clown, he knows he's a clown, and when he sprays the wrong person with water from a seltzer bottle, he knows he's stepped over the line. I felt it was pretty obvious that he was alluding to Bristol's pregnancy when he made his joke, but when he realized the damage it caused, his apology was sincere.

In the case of DePass, we must recognize that he is no Letterman. He doesn't have millions of viewers tuning in to hear his thoughts every night. But he is a mover and shaker in the GOP and is just as responsible for what he says as everyone else. His verdict: the apology he gave had all the enthusiasm of a Jon and Kate date night (more post-modern humour). I am sick to death of the bullshit "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" lines. If you offended anyone? You clearly offended someone, or else you wouldn't be apologizing. So why not dust off the kneepads you use for the rest of your GOP buddies and give a heartfelt apology buddy? To me, this unenthusiastic, 18-word apology isn't worth the paper it's written on (and it's cyber space!) I just see another racist comment from another sad, blue-haired southerner, who incidentally looks like Bill O'Reilly's uncle.

Maybe you see it another way. If so, I'm sorry.

You're the birthday, you're the birthday, you're the birthday boy/or girl!

2009-06-10T18:34:00.001-07:00

It's Dara's birthday today! She's 28, now solidly in a race towards her 30s (no worries, kiddo. I'm warming it up for you).

Unfortunately, her day has not been as perfect for her as I would have liked, but we're stretching out the festivities over four days, and I know she's aware of just how loved she is! Life has been providing Dara with some challenges lately (not the least of which is her difficult husband). These are never fun to overcome, but if anyone can do it, I know Dara can. She's strong and smart, not to mention dedicated and very talented! My wish for her birthday is that she sees these qualities in herself.

Love you babe! I hope you have a great day, and an even better year.

Generation Why?

2009-05-03T18:52:00.000-07:00

It's been interesting for me, indeed for the rest of the world, to watch as the so-called "Millennial" Generation (aka Generation Y, aka the kid who's sending you a text right now) grows up and fills the boundaries that will define itself. Every generation has its own set of defining characteristics: the Boomers were the hippy-cum-yuppy generation, selling out the ideals of the 60s to build the corporations of the 80s, the X-ers were the lost generation, a minimalist generation that venerated TV shows, songs and movies about nothing, and the millennials are proudly crafting their image as the entitled generation.

There are of course some famous examples, including the recent Miley Cyrus tantrum, when the members of Radiohead refused to be paraded around in front of her just because she wanted it, and every single episode of the almost-physically-painful-to-watch "My Super Sweet 16" is filled to the brim with entitled little brats complaining that their gigantic party wasn't gigantic enough, or their brand new BMW wasn't BMW-ish enough. And I can almost hear all the mothers click their teeth with disapproval at this sort of thing, as they finish the pedicure on mother-daughter day, gulp down their chai lattes, hop in the Jag and head on over for a mother-daughter tan (that skin won't turn to leather on its own, you know).

But these are the idiots you see on TV; exaggerated versions of the home-grown me-me-me kids you're lucky enough to encounter every day. These are the kids for whom the rules do not apply; kids who see every challenge not as a challenge but as an opportunity for Mom or Dad to do it for them; kids who have never heard the word no; whose primary form of communication involves single letters that replace entire words ('c u l8r'); and kids who would rather be somewhere else, no matter where they are. Always.

And it's obviously not only the millenials who are the problem; it's their parents. Like the parents who follow up with hiring managers about the status of their son's resume, or the parents who approach their daughter's office manager, inquiring why she recently got passed over for a promotion. And while the kids complain about the gigantic party and the BMW, someone has to be paying for all these things. Parents: j'accuse!

Of course, not everyone fits the profile of their generation, and so not every millennial is a selfish brat. There are all kinds of helpful, selfless millenials. And even the millennials are known as being more world concious and committed to things like charity and the environment. But despite the good, I think we have to prepare ourselves for a long period of annoying, self-entitled little shits ruling the planet. At least until they grow up and start saying no to kids of their own.

Life and Death in Canada

2009-03-07T06:23:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since I've blogged, owing to some recent major life changes. Now I'm sitting at the Ministry of health (these titles always sound so Orwellian to me), and that gives me time to catch up a bit.

And that's really what I've been doing this past month: catching up. First, I had to get caught up on school work. I got behind by three weeks, just waiting for my bags to arrive, and my schedule to slow down. But after weeks of burning at 100%, I'm glad to say that things are starting to slow down a bit. I finally caught up on school work, and now I'm staring down the barrel of a big project and an exam. And then, rest!

I've also been catching up with friends and family. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to get to everyone yet. Conflicting schedules and long drives have kept me from seeing some loved ones, but I'm getting there.

On the home front, Dara and I decided to move into an apartment, in the very building we once lived less than four years ago (we got a two-bedroom this time, though). We agonized over this decision for many reasons, but in the end, we were compelled to move back to our old place, right on the subway line!

On paper, it may seem like we're moving backwards. We're living in our old place, and I'm working at the BCE place building (now Brookfield Place), just like I was years ago. But while the details may seem similar, we've made some changes and things are different. I went away a single customer service agent, and came back a married appraiser. In any case, we were quite content with our old neighbourhood, and are quite content to be back there again. Two drawbacks: common laundry facilities and no central air. We deal.

And finally, I cannot comment on the events of the past weeks without mentioning the passing of our dear Papa John, Dara's maternal (and my adoptive) Grandpa. Papa John left us last month after a long struggle in the wake of a series of debilitating strokes. True to his fighting RAF roots, Papa fought for a long time before passing on a cold February day.

He was one of the kindest people I have ever met. I have always said that, though I am different from Dara and her family, clinging to my dubious claims of Jewish heritage (hey, my Grandma's maiden name is Hirschfield, and my Dad is Jewish... that's gotta count for something, right?), Dara's family has always made me feel welcome. Non-blood relatives always remark at how close this family is. I say "non-blood relatives," instead of outsiders because, people who know this family are always invited into it; there are no outsiders.

I mention this because, as Patriarch of this great body of loving people, Papa John had more than a little to do with how the family conducted themselves. He raised a great family, and he will be remembered by them always.

I look to him as a model because, like me, Papa was raised without his Dad. Despite this fact, as his kids attest, he was a great father and a great Papa. He always greeted me warmly, with a kindly "hello Dear," and as was attested during the funeral, he had no shortage of good investment advice.

For all these reasons and more, I will miss Papa John. But I'm very glad to have met him and to have been, however small, a part of his life.

The job so far

2009-02-11T19:27:00.000-08:00

A few people have been asking me about my first week at my new job, so I thought I'd be lazy and direct them here, where I can reach a wider audience. I'll still keep it brief, and may repeat some parts, but here's how it's going so far:

My week started inauspiciously, when I missed my connecting flight. This put me on the landing strip about three hours before my orientation began. So that first day, I went sans sleep. Incidentally, this way probably better than the alternative, which would have had me landing on Sunday night, sleeping, and then trying to acclimatize to the new time zone.

So the first day of new-hire orientation was pretty straightforward. Probably the strangest thing about this day was that Dara--the girl who's as afraid of driving as I am of flying--drove me to training. Twice! The second day of orientation went until 1:30, then I hopped on the subway to go down to the new office.

I got down to Deloitte (11th floor on the Brookfield Place), and met a bunch of people. This early into the job process, there's not much to say other than:

1) the office is a labyrinth. At this point, I can find the kitchen, the IT department, my desk, and the bathroom (which I can call a washroom again!) The office is very pro-environment (recycling bins is a no-brainer, but also biodegradable cutlery, and reports printed on both sides of the paper... weird).

2) I probably can't talk too much about the report I'm working on, but let's just say the scope is quite a bit larger than what I worked on at my last company.

3) I've had every lunch this week provided for me, which I'm not used to, but was convenient.

4) The simplest things, like setting up voicemail, faxing, setting up signatures, are more complex in big companies (at least this one). But, there are also many efficiencies that are very interesting to note.

This is my first time working at a big company. For many out there, it's old hat, but I've found it interesting. By my nature, I'm not comfortable in new situations, meeting new people. But I've also pushed beyond my roots, and I constantly shake things up, so that I haven't been 'comfortable' in a while. But I think it's good. It can take you to new places.

So this is my new place now.

Sorry if this seems scattered. I'm watching SVU while typing. Sam Waterston is better as the ADA; he's just not political.

Financial Crisis: a flow chart

2009-01-22T19:52:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine recently turned me on to this flow chart, which clearly and candidly describes the processes that occured to get us in our current economic mess. It's a quick, sobering read.

Changing of the Guard

2009-01-20T23:39:00.000-08:00

Well my friends, it's all over. The peaceful transition of power has occurred. The sycophantic masses over at MSNBC are skipping and clucking at Bush's departure, the melody on the tips of their tongues, "Ding dong, the wicked witch is dead." The two million people lining the Mall reflect the historic importance of the occasion. I speak, of course, of the fact that newly-minted President Obama is a south-paw. In fact, he is the fifth in the last 7 Presidents to be left-handed.

But seriously, this is a time for hope, and also a time for us to reflect on the last eight years that have comprised Bush's time in office. Opponents will no doubt have already posted their scathing online indictments; apologists will be spinning the faux-pas and turning our attention to the positive achievements; and fewer still will be praising Bush as a hero and father to the nation (Stephen Colbert characteristically asks his guests, "Bush: great President, or the greatest President?") But unless you play a character on TV, you most likely fall into the two former categories: scathing criticisms, or optimistic spinning.

For the spinners out there, there's not much for me to say. You probably feel he spent money like a drunken sailor, but are otherwise happy that he 'kept you safe.'

For the critics out there, whose numbers grow larger the further outside the US borders one goes, I have only this to say: beware the knee-jerk. A while ago, Vanity Fair contributor Christopher Hitchens, rebuked the audience of Bill Maher's talk show for their idiosyncratic calls of "Bush is an idiot." And while I disagree with the thrust of what Hitchens was saying (more on that later*), I applaud him for taking an unpopular position, namely, defending the intellectual integrity of George W. Bush.

I am an avowed Bush critic. I could talk at length about the man's failings as a President which, in my opinion, are legion. Despite branding himself as a compassionate conservative and trying to model himself as a Reaganite, many of his policies are anathema to the standards of the GOP. And plunging the country into war (at least with Iraq), then stripping back civil rights under the pretext of 'protecting us,' did not make him any friends in the left either.

But let me use this opportunity of the transition of power to ask us to be rigorous and not lazy in our criticisms of our public leaders. Let our criticisms be solid and well-founded; etched in the acid of research and known fact. It is but a lazy man who pokes fun at the icon of the Texan cowboy clearing brush and squinting into the cameras. Casual readers of this blog will note that I have, on more than one occasion, been lazy. It's a product of late-night blogs written in the heat of anger, without the insight of editorial reflection.

There is no shortage of legitimate criticisms for Bush. I'm sure there will be no shortage of criticisms for Obama. But let them be legitimate. Let us not descend into cartoonish depictions of these leaders. Such renderings take the focus away from the valid criticisms of these leaders, and will not likely evolve into a thoughtful debate.

*The Bush-as-idiot argument is frequent, and is frequently discounted by many who throw out counter-arguments like, "how many ivy-league degrees do YOU have?" Such questions are valid, but I think we should remember that Bush is being measured against other presidents in history and not the average Joe-the-Plumber. And while he may not fall in with the bottom of the pack (Buchana, Johnson), his frequent malaproprisms do cast him in a dim light compared to the glare of the magnificent brilliance of some presidents.

Doesn't Anybody Stay in One Place Anymore?

2008-12-21T10:57:00.000-08:00

I have been living in California for almost as long as I've been updating this blog, which dates back to late 2005. Three years ago I embarked on a years-long dream to live in the Golden State, and I took along with me my then-fiancee, a suitecase full of clothes, and some books. Our trials and our good times have been well documented on our blogs or in other arenas.

The toughest obstacle was obtaining my greencard. But we also went through periods of unemployment, lonliness, and homesickness. We have also had fun getting to know our friends here, and sharing good times. We've enjoyed the new restaurants (Melting Pot, foremost among them), Disney, San Diego, San Francisco, Central Coast, Napa, Santa Monica, and our peaceful, if infrequent, walks on the beach. Of course, we can't forget our little rag, Schmaty, who was abandoned, and subsequently rescued and smothered with attention. I have especially enjoyed my lunchtime visits with my sister, which we have finally managed to attend to with regularity.

But it has been apparant to us for some time that, despite the mixture of good and bad, the beautiful weather, and the proximity to family, California has never been a perfect fit for us. Perhaps it was a scapegoat for our suffering during the harder times. Perhaps it's true that we never really gave the place a fair shake; never truly gave ourselves over to the southland. But somewhere between my first magical visit here and the actual move, my tastes changed. At some point during our stay here, we realized that California isn't our home. So we've decided to move home.

This makes it difficult, as the relationships we have cultivated here over the years will now be put to the test of distance (the same way our Canadian relationships have been tested and, for the most part, have endured). Nevertheless, it is difficult telling the people you love that you're moving away. When I moved here, one of Carol King's immortal songs kept playing in my head, "So far away. Doesn't anybody stay in one place anymore?" Here, again, the words come back to me.

To answer her question, no, people don't stay in one place. For some reason or another, we are compelled to try on new locations, like a new set of clothes, to see what fits. My sister moved here over 15 years ago, and found that this place, over time, has come to fit her. A fitting analogy, perhaps, because she's always been so stylish and fashionable. So now to carry this analogy to its clumsy ending, I realize this place just doesn't quite fit us.

But in the sadness of parting, when goodbyes are difficult, I invoke more words from Carol King: "Winter, Spring, Summer, or Fall, all you have to do is call, and I'll be there. You've got a friend."

A Canadian Coalition Government: My 1.5 Cents' Worth (Written in Exile)

2008-12-03T22:30:00.001-08:00

Big things are astir in the normally sleepy arena of Canadian politics. As some Americans and nearly all Canadians are aware, the Liberal Party--the opposition party in Parliament--along with the NDP and the Bloc party, have decided to form a coalition government which would in effect overturn Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government and install a new Prime Minister. I won't get into the gritty details here (that's what Wikipedia is for), but I do note the polarizing effect this is having on the Canadian electorate. Or at least my facebook friends. So I would like to use this platform, as I so often do, to come out on one side of this debate.

I didn't want to react in knee-jerk fashion and so I've waited, consulted the interweb, and followed some online debates. At least anecdotally, it appears that most people I've run across, regardless of political persuasion, are against the coalition, or the idea of it. So naturally, I'm coming out in favour of the coalition.

Besides my distaste with Stephen Harper and his do-nothing government, what is prompting me to support (at least from afar) a group of three losers (in the political sense of the word) in their attempt to overthrow a legitimately-elected government? Is it not a betrayal of democracy to have the opposition usurp the proverbial throne? In a word, no. At least not democracy the way Canada practices it.

In Canada, we elect local candidates to be our members of parliament and to represent our interests and the interests of the common good, in Ottawa. Contrary to how many people vote, or how the current system is perceived (no doubt as a result of our proximity to American voter ethos) we do not vote for a party; we vote for an individual. This individual may form and reform parties or cross party lines however s/he sees fit. As an example, the parties, and never the Canadian electorate, choose party leaders and, as a result, the Prime Minister.

So temporarily gerrymandering the party lines in order to obtain the effective government that Canadians deserve as the world hovers on the edge of a catastrophe is, in my view, perfectly acceptable. And it is perfectly legal. Consider these points:

-There is a legal precedent for coalition governments in Canada, including Prime Minister Robert Borden who formed a coalition in 1911. Of course, those weren't dramatic times. He only oversaw the government during a little skirmish known as the First World War. Maybe that's why he was elected in 1917?

-The combined opposition parties, with 62% of the seats, more than represent the interests of the electorate.

-The Bloc separatists will hardly pursue a separatist agenda while brokering a power-sharing deal. Sometimes you have to deal with the devil. It's pragmatic.

-The Conservatives (nee the Canadian Alliance), who have not played nice with the other kiddies in the sandbox these past few years, had talks with the Bloc in 2000 about forming a coalition government. My how times have changed.

-Stephen Harper seems more interested in retaining power and surviving his Prime Ministerial post, than acting in the best interest of the country. (That's not really a fact, it's more of an opinion, but I thought I'd throw it out there).

-Finally, calling another election because of (ANOTHER) no-confidence vote is a waste of taxpayer money, and a waste of precious time, when Canada needs a strong government.

It's a shame that Canada has to call on three parties and three separate leaders in order to make one strong leader, but maybe that's what makes our country strong. We are not governed from the top down as a one-man operation; we are governed by many, elected to represent our interests, in an atmosphere of rigorous debate. So debate.

A difference between these two tribes?

2008-11-10T18:32:00.000-08:00

I keep hearing about the beating drum of the left. But then I see pictures like the one shown here, I hear the fire-breathing rants of sore-loser clowns like Rush Limbaugh, I notice the boos during McCain's gracious concession speech (and the conspicuous absence of boos during Kerry's 2004 concession speech), and I absorb the rhetoric about a permanent conservative majority, or the "real" America vs... well, whatever the alternative to the real America is. And I wonder to myself, who's really beating the drum here?

Why I think an Obama Presidency is good for America and the World.

2008-11-05T06:11:00.001-08:00

In my 29 years, I have been witness to several where-were-you-when moments in history. I sat in a school assembly on a cold January morning when an O-ring failed on the Challenger shuttle, creating the indelible forked, now iconic, vapor trails that haunted so many school children that day. In 1997, late night reports of a fateful car crash in France told me that Princess Diana was dead. In 2001, looking out from the skyscraper in which I worked, I contemplated the horror and spectacle of planes flying directly towards me; of a leap from terror into terror at an altitude more than twice that of my dizzying 45th-floor view. In all of these cases, I can tell you where I was, what I was doing, how I felt, and often who I was speaking to. How sad that all these events etched deep in my memory involve pain and death; evoke fear and sadness. This Tuesday, my newest where-were-you-when moment, like so many millions of people across America and around the globe, involved looking at the television screen and hearing the words, "we can now project that Barack Obama, 47 years old, will become the President-elect of the United States."

How glad I am that I will be able to share at least one happy, historic moment with my unborn children. They can ask me where I was, and I can tell them exactly. I can tell them what I was watching, and can describe the people around me, but I won't be able to describe that tingle, that thrill of hope and imagination, that comes from standing at the edge of a new moment in history.

This is an historic moment for everyone, and while many political and ideological opponents to the President-elect are not as elated as I am, many have been gracious about his win. My instinct is to condemn the sore-loser attitudes of the cat calling crowd in McCain's gracious and eloquent concession speech and the like, but I cannot say I would feel or react differently. So I won't gloat, but I will appreciate the comments of people around me who, though disappointed, prayed for Obama's blessing and throw their support behind their newest president. No doubt these people will offer rigorous debate in the coming years, but this kind of gracious attitude is most welcome as we enter a new political climate.

And now to the future. While the inevitable negative buzz of the campaign lingers in the air, it is natural that all this bad air will take some time to work its way out. We've focused so much on the negative attention, it's natural to hear the echoes of old arguments in our heads. He's inexperienced. He's a radical, he won't govern from the middle. He pals around with terrorists. These kinds of arguments, a cornerstone in any US campaign, are likely to hang around for a while. But like day-old doughnuts, these will get stale and it will be time to move on. I understand the apprehension about this iconic, yet unknown man from Chicago. Or is it Hawaii? Or is it Indonesia?

Although this is a steep uphill climb, and Obama has already begun managing expectations (perhaps the only page he'll take from the GWB playbook), there are three reasons why I think Obama will be good for America and, by extension, the world:

For starters, Obama will restore dignity to the office of the President. That dignity that has been lost through sexual cigar antics, and the ineptitude of one squinty-eyed Texan. Obama has a charisma. He has grace. What was pejoratively called his 'professorial manor,' we will realize is intelligence, thoughtfulness, restrained action, and a cool, level head.

In addition, Obama will restore (or at least increase) the good will towards the American people throughout the world. His election brings him more in line with the global political climate, and although America has always been its own man, so to speak, we are now in a global community. The world is smaller and America is a large part of it. I think Obama's very presence in the office can further this goal, and I think his commitment to diplomacy will command the respect and admiration of those around the world. His promise to pull America out of Iraq, if properly and carefully handled, will go a long way towards putting America on the right side of history.

And it will be an important step to solving the economic woes facing the country and the world right now. Pulling out of Iraq will plug the drain and provide some financial cushion as we figure out what to do. The economy will be Obama's chief worry and occupation, and as much as full blame cannot be sidled on George W. Bush, nor can full credit be given the Obama Administration if and when we pull out of this tailspin. My left-of-center instincts (not to mention a host of economists) tell me that supply-side economics do not work. At least not as a sustained economic model. One can only stimulate the economy so much, but at the end of the day, things must be paid for. I can only imagine Barack's calculated, basketball-playing hands will deftly work that scalpel on the things which need cutting. I don't think people have much to fear, unless they fear a repeat of the economic prosperity of the 90s. Obama is a student of history. He has shown a commanding grasp of many issues, and will approach things carefully. I think it is telling that he is looking to the Reagan and Clinton models- both leaders who began their administrations in difficult times and helped propel the country through those difficult times.

I don't think he will be assassinated, as a few macabre, and melodramatic people out there think (and sadly, some hope). I don't think he will pull the country into full-bore socialism, either. I think he will, given the opportunity, lead in the best way possible. He will make mistakes. He will make enemies. He will make some proud, and some ashamed. He will make some roll in their graves (Thomas Jefferson comes to mind). But on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, with friends all around, faces lit with the glow of the television, I watched Barack Obama make history. And that's where I was.

My Prediction For the US Election

2008-10-28T09:36:00.001-07:00

Well, here goes. Let's just put it out there. I predict that Barack will get 379 electoral votes, and John McCain will get 156. It's probably more likely that he'll get 364 (I'm being optimistic about his chances in Georgia) to John's 171, but hey, why not? As for the popular vote, my guess is that he'll get 49%. Any takers?

Drudge Report: our One Great Hope?

2008-10-25T09:56:00.000-07:00

Last week, my friend Tom and I engaged in an interesting discussion on the nature and perception of media bias. We both agree that bias is rampant in the media, but our opinions diverged on the degree to which some media outlets show their bias. I, for one, believe that Fox News shows its right-of-center bias to a greater degree than, say, CNN (with its left-of-center leanings). Tom had an interesting point that, because of my very own left-of-center political bent, I am less able to perceive CNN's slant as I am able to perceive Fox News's. I think there may be some truth to that argument, but then again, I am not incapable of perceiving the bias of those news institutions which are more decidedly left-wing, such as MSNBC.

For example, take the three most prominent news aggregators on the web (in order of prominence): The Drudge Report, The Huffington Post, and Hinessight. You, dear reader, are no doubt familiar with Matt Drudge's news aggregation website. Made famous by scooping the biggest story of its day (the Clinton/Lewinski sex scandal), The Drudge Report has an uncanny ability to scoop even the biggest news institutions. For this reason, this is my number one web-based news source. However, Drudge's leanings are decidedly right-of-center, which is manifested in the articles he headlines and gives the most attention to. It is easy to see, for example, that he is not a supporter of the global warming movement, based on the scope of articles he features, and the headlines he gives such articles.

The Huffington Post is another well-known establishment, but given its ties to Hollywood, and the sheer breadth of left-wing contributors, there is (or should be) no claim of objectivity here. Everyone knows what the HuffPo stands for.

But Hinessight is a different model. Labeling itself the Anti-Drudge Report, this website presents mainly news articles in a similar format to Matt Drudge's website. And instead of doing a more professional Drudge Report, this website wears its colours (royal blue) on its sleeve. For instance, it was very easy for even the casual reader to discern this website's support for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in the primaries. Once Obama got the nom, the aggregator was in the tank for Obama, with articles highlighting the Chicago Senator's brave political battle, while fending off attacks from an angry McCain, or the Christian Right... that sort of thing.

So my first question to Tom is, if I'm able to perceive the left-wing bias of institutions like MSNBC and Hinessight.com, would I not be qualified to expound on the relative degree to which these institutions show their bias?

I certainly don't think that the level of bias in each organization is the same. The degree of objectivity is only as high as the organization's commitment to professionalism. And news organizations will only strive for professionalism if we demand it of them. I think CNN and Drudge Report, while coming from opposite places politically, are the the news sources with the most amount of promise. It would only take a little bit of tweaking to render these outlets bias-free (well, as bias-free as possible). Neither have attained that level of respectability, but they could. I don't mean by throwing in a Republican pundit to balance your views (CNN), but to maintain high standards in reporting which news enthusiasts like me demand. Unfortunately, drama begets ratings, and so the clowns at MSNBC and FOX will continue to dominate the airwaves (not to mention other clowns like CNN's Lou Dobbs et al).

Perhaps we will one day receive our news from robots who are truly objective. Until then, can the media closest to the center please get its shit together?

Religulous... religicule?

2008-10-18T18:24:00.000-07:00

I recently took in the new documentary Religulous by comedian/TV host Bill Maher. The film tackles an important subject: the role of religion in society. Let me be more specific. The film is an essay denouncing the role religion has played in society. It doesn't so much pose the question "has religion been a force for good in the world?" as it provides the answer. And that answer is decidedly no. At least according to Bill Maher. While I feel that the question has merit, the discussion is too important to be left in Bill's hands.

In a recent interview with Larry King, Bill said that the issue of religion was his white whale. I confess that I haven't read Melville's magnum opus, but something tells me that Captain Ahab would have given a lot more care to his passion project than Bill Maher has. I confess myself disappointed.

Bill should be praised for tackling a subject that everyone is too afraid to talk about, and considering the fates of Salmon Rushdie and Theo van Gogh, this is not surprising. But if you're going to walk through that sacred threshold, why not do it properly?

Bill approaches interviews with intellectual vigor, dwarfing his subjects with his usual condescending mien. And his interviewees are not exactly the creme of the crop. With the exception of one scientist who represented the Human Genome Project (standing in for the pro-religion side), Mr. Maher's cast includes a host of intellectually bankrupt characters (also standing in for the pro-religion side). We're talking the congregation at a truck stop chapel, the Jesus character at the local religious theme park (one of two we visit), and the hip hop artist Propa Ghandi, to name a few.

Mr. Maher wasted an opportunity to pursue rigorous intellectual debate on the matter, which I would have welcomed. There was not a single interview with a doctor of theology (if we don't count the self-styled 'doctor' preacher, who didn't actually have a degree). The movie isn't really a debate at all. It's a platform for his views. Call it agnosticism, atheism, secular humanism, whatever... the movement has millions of sympathizers all over the world. And this movie is for them. What a wasted opportunity to start a public debate.

The film is not without its merits. Bill Maher has some interesting and (again) important things to say. To bad he's preaching to the converted.

Negative Campaigning

2008-10-07T21:45:00.000-07:00

A lot of people have said they're tired of the rhetoric currently flowing across the airwaves from campaign to campaign, and I agree. I'm tired of it, and I'm disappointed. But never surprised. As much as I sometimes wish the legislators would outlaw the practice, I know this is an impossibility.

The fact of the matter is, negative campaigning works. Why it works--when we all know how often politicians tell the truth, especially during a campaign, and especially about the other guy--is beyond me. No one likes it. For starters, those of us on the opposite side of the ideological divide are further ostracized from the offending opponent (and potential victor). Furthermore, it breeds distrust and bipartisanship. So it's really disappointing to see negative campaigning come out from these two candidates: one who has a history of crossing the aisle, and the other who had run on the idea of bringing people together.

However, it is rather humourous to me when people in one camp rage against the attacks against their candidate, but ignore (and often support) the attacks going towards the other candidate. It is mind-boggling how obtuse this is. If McCain often lies about about his opponent (and he does), is it conceivable, in some crazy plot to stay competitive, the Obama lies about McCain too? (Um, he does).

Again, the shame of the situation is that it has to happen at all. I suppose it's just poor strategy to ignore a well-known and highly-effective tool. Still, it would be nice if someone took the upper hand. Unfortunately, if your opponent (or your opponent's supporters) doesn't take the upper hand, you will have to fight fire with fire, or risk being swift-boated, as John Kerry was in the 2004 election.

The vicious cycle of negative campaigning begins with the candidate who's behind, and I make no secret that I believe John McCain started it this time around. With the Democrats favoured to win from early on, John had to attack Obama's weaknesses, and so he did. And Obama, in order to level the playing field and prevent himself from getting swift-boated, had to fire back. It's a shame, but once the gloves are off, you have to decide if you're going to run, slap, or punch back.

That's not to say that the Democrats don't know how to put out negative ads. Just look at the primaries for the most recent example of Democratic lies.

But if John McCain is going to try to tie Obama to, say, Tony Rezko (an exaggeration, to be kind), then does Obama have any choice but to exaggerate McCain's ties to the Keating 5 Scandal?

One thing seems certain (and I am not above this), if you favour a particular candidate, you will more readily swallow the half-truths and slander about the other candidate, and will (justly, but also reflexively) label the same half-truth about your candidate as a political smear. One thing is for certain, there is plenty of smear to go around.

Life as a Status Update*

2008-09-26T08:47:00.000-07:00

Myke is happy. Myke is horny. Myke eats dogfood. With the rise of the ubiquitous social networking website, Facebook, and the subsequent decline of the originator, MySpace, a new trend has emerged: Life as a status update. From the minute you sign up your Facebook account, you can beguile the world with your compelling personal narrative, your daily drama, and the general minutia of your life. Thus Facebook users were compelled to fill in the blank after “Myke is….” But in late 2007, users were freed from the tyranny of the "is," which has allowed us to expand our vocabulary of personal updates. No more Myke is angry, Myke is the shooter on the grassy knoll. All of a sudden, Myke can drink tea, Myke hates it when you rub his toes, Myke has never been to Burkina Faso. And so the sluice gates were opened.

For the active Facebook user, life has become a series of status updates. You wake up in the morning and immediately start composing your third-person narrative: Myke hates waking up this early. Myke prefers eggos to cereal. Myke should probably get some toilet bowl cleaner. Casual users will blend third- and first-person realities (Myke is losing my mind), which is somewhat confusing and hints at the presence of a third party. Who is this nefarious person who is losing your mind, and why did you lend it to him in the first place?

With the added flexibility of using your phone to access the ever-addictive Facebook, you can update your friends on the all-important activities of your day in real time, from nearly anywhere in the world. Myke is at a Pussycat Dolls show, Myke left his report at the office, and so on.

You can use these updates to facilitate all kinds of different functions. You can lie (Myke loves his job), you can come out of the political closet (Myke dreams of seeing Ralph Nader naked), you can subtly attack another user (Myke hates someone right now. A blonde guy who lives in Long Beach. Whose name rhymes with Donathan,) or you can experience that Albert Camus existential moment of laziness we all have with Myke is. You can write mini essays on the constant, pervasive nature of big brother (Myke was filmed in front of a live TV audience), or use the update as a stage for your innate wit (Myke has carbon footprint envy). You can insert yourself into classic song lyrics (Myke is the Walrus, coo coo kachoo), or you can hijack popular culture to express your feelings upon a subject: Mykie likes it!

Life is carried out online; relationships are formed and ended via the status update. Reactions can span from a quick laugh (lol), a brief comment (OMG! I didn’t know you liked Ralph Nader too!), a harsh response, to outright anger. Sadly, these updates have even aroused murder as in the case of the late Tracey Grinhaff, 42, of Sheffield England, who was murdered by her husband after publicly declaring her pending divorce via her status update.

Everything from the sacred to the profane, from the simplest detail of one’s life, to the profound revelations and attainment of enlightenment can be pared down into one- or two-sentence pronouncements. The bold, imaginative, uncaring, the humdrum—it can all be carried on the back of a well-composed status update. They define the parameters of our observation, and reveal where our interests lie. And judging from the frequency of our status updates (this, coming from a chronic updater,) there can be no doubt about our chief preoccupation: ourselves.

*Note: most status updates used in this post—particularly the one about Ralph Nader—are completely manufactured and are for demonstration purposes only.

Why Experience Doesn't (really) Matter

2008-09-09T22:16:00.000-07:00

Here is a great article I recently stumbled upon which better illustrates a point I have been trying to make to my friend Tom. Namely, when it comes to politics, experience doesn't necessarily make a better president. Read on:

How good are experienced presidents, anyway? Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President? If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked James Buchanan over Abraham Lincoln. Your pick disagrees with that of most historians, who see Lincoln as the greatest President ever and Buchanan as the second worst ever, better only than Warren "Teapot Dome" Harding. Both served in what was probably the most difficult period in American history, where slavery and secession tore the nation asunder.

Before becoming President, Buchanan had served 6 years in the Pennsylvania state legislature, 10 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, 4 years as ambassador to Russia, 10 years in the Senate, 4 years as Secretary of State, and 4 years as Ambassador to England. Talk about experience, Buchanan did just about everything except serve on the Supreme Court, a job he was offered by President Polk and refused. Yet by any measure, he wasn't up to the job as President. In contrast, Abraham Lincoln served 8 years in the Illinois legislature and one term in the U.S. House (1847-1849), a decade before becoming President. The rest of the time he was a lawyer in private practice, a bit thin one might say.

Another article from the Daily Kos goes on:

There have been 55 presidential elections in US history. 28 times the person with most "experience" wins.
20 of 28 times was a reelection.

There have been 21 elections which resulted in a change of party in power. 14 of those elections were won by the candidate with the least experience.

Since 1900 there have been 10 elections resulting in a change of the party in power. In 9 of those elections the candidate with the least amount of experience won.

Examples:

2000 Bush vs. Gore most experienced lost

1992 Clinton vs. Bush most experienced lost

1980 Reagan vs. Carter most experienced lost

1976 Carter vs. Ford most experienced lost

1968 Nixon vs. Humphrey candidates were equal in experience.

1960 Kennedy vs. Nixon most experienced lost

1952 Eisenhower vs. Stevenson most experienced lost

1322 FDR vs Hoover most experienced lost

1920 Harding vs Cox most experienced lost

1912 Wilson vs Taft and Teddy Roosevelt more
experienced lost

Time Magazine had TWO excellent articles about Presidential experience:

"Does Experience Matter as a President"
http://www.time.com/...

"Experience, in other words, gets its value from the person who has it. In certain lives, a little goes a long way. Some people grow and ripen through years of government service; others spoil on the vine.
[snip]
Baker, a former Secretary of State, still believes that a candidate with credentials should certainly tout them, but in the end, "there's no such thing as presidential experience outside of the office itself." The quality we ought to seek "is leadership."

and a second one:
"The Science of Experience"
http://www.time.com/...

"...three decades of research into expert performance has shown that experience itself — the raw amount of time you spend pursuing any particular activity, from brain surgery to skiing — can actually hinder your ability to deliver reproducibly superior performance. "

"in the end, determining which of the presidential candidates pays more attention to your concerns requires not adding up their years of experience but a far more complex calculation: deciding what their experiences have led them to truly value."

How to properly enjoy music

2008-09-03T12:20:00.000-07:00

I've given some thought to the type of music enthusiast I am, and I've decided there are two ways people enjoy music. There's the wallpaper method of music enjoyment, which consists of constantly keeping music on in the background. This is the music aficionado of the iPod generation, and you know him well. He's the guy in your office who brags about his music collection in terms of gigabytes, rather than number of CDs or, dare I say it, tapes (we'll get to vinyl later). His 80+ gig music "collection" would take months of consecutive listening to complete, and exists to set any mood he wants. This type of enthusiast can rattle off a string of obscure artists, but is unlikely to recognize trivial things like song titles, lyrics, etc....

The other side of the spectrum, in Myke's musical classification system, involves the food analogy. The 'food' user differs from the wallpaper user in terms of scope. While a wallpaper user might have thousands of songs on a computer, the food user may have a more modest collection of albums in the hundreds, or even less. This user usually prefers her musical food in CD or vinyl form, where she will put on an album, close her eyes, and enjoy the music like a meal, picking apart sections, and enjoying each selection, the appetizer, the entree, the dessert... This person usually regards herself as a purist.

So which are you? The above types are the on the extremes of the spectrum. At the extremes, these are music snobs. The former, a mavin of style and blender magazine, snubbing anyone who is not aware of the latest 'it' band from rural Idaho, the latter a purist who cannot see beyond the purity of vinyl, who spurns the idea of portable music.

As for me, I'm a hybrid of the two, as are most people. I love my iPod and the freedom it provides me. I'm also an amateur audiophile, listening for subtle nuances in the music, reveling in the mixes of George Martin, or more contemporary mixers like Rick Rubin. I tend to be slightly xenophobic about music, preferring to discover music on my own, rather than letting others thrust it upon me. Thus I slowly discover new music, collecting songs and artists like shells on the beach, and slowly bringing them into my collection. I don't think this is the 'proper' way to experience music, it's just how I do it.

When it comes to politics, let's try to be honest with ourselves

2008-09-02T13:22:00.000-07:00

So the teams are set. Come Thursday, the GOP will officially pit McCain/Palin against the Obama/Biden ticket. The ugly games favoured by Karl Rove/Lee Atwater from the 70s onward (dumpster diving, mud slinging, etc...) will be in full swing over the next several months. It's not my favourite form of political discourse, but I realize McCain has a strategy to play and, with the Republican brand in the toilet, he's got to play it.

I'm both nervous and excited, but I have one exhortation to both sides of the ideological divide: be honest with one another. As of last week, I have no doubt that the Wikipedia page for Sarah Palin has gotten more hits than it ever has. Some are already pretending that they have known and loved her for years; others have started the dirt-digging, and are claiming they have loathed her for years. I'll be honest: up until last week, the life of an Alaskan Governor was of very little interest to me, though her name was loosely bandied about as the black horse contender for VP (there's always at least one black horse, isn't there?)

Upon discovering that Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, I think Obama showed the colour of his character when he declared that family was off limits. All but the most cynical Republicans cheered that one. So I say again, give praise when praise is due, and be honest with yourself and with others.

If you don't like Obama's name and you're voting against him because of it, be honest. If you're voting for him because he's black, be honest. While I think your reasoning is wrong, it's valid and it's all yours. Just don't lie to yourself by digging up all kinds of dirt on one candidate or the other, so you can join right in on the mud slinging.

I think the majority of us vote along ideological lines. While I still respect John McCain's character for a number of reasons, I disagree with most of his positions, and that is one reason why I am against his presidential aspirations. Conversely, I agree with many (though not all) of Obama's principles, and that is why I would pull the lever for Barack in November. Theoretically. If I could vote (sigh.)

Here's more honesty. I think the last eight years have been a travesty of leadership. If Bush's weakness was limited to his famous malaproprisms (which, frankly, make Yogi Berra look like Winston Churchill), I would be fine. I'd collect the annual Bush-isms calendar, and laugh along with everyone else. But it doesn't take much digging to show all the failure of the past eight years (I'd be happy to list some things if anyone is interested). Even staunch conservatives at least agree he's spending too much, if nothing else.

Nevertheless, here are some intellectually dishonest positions that I feel that should be avoided:

-Obama is the messiah
-The Bush administration did a great job
-Obama wants to tax the nation to its knees
-McCain will stay in Iraq for 100 years (given the current situation, this is not likely to happen, as much as I feel McCain is a little too trigger-happy for my taste).
-Republicans are the only ones who truly respect and appreciate veterans
-Sarah Palin's youngest child is her grandchild
-McCain is too old to be in office (dude can do more pushups than I can!)
-Obama is an idiot
-McCain is an idiot
-All Democrats don't care about family values (there may be some who don't)
-All Republicans don't care about civil liberties (there may be some who don't)

Here's another one. If you feel the following is true:

-Obama doesn't have enough experience to lead the country...

Then you would be lying to yourself to say this:

-...but Sarah Palin does.

Palin: the good, the bad, the ugly (or should I say pretty?)

2008-08-29T08:14:00.000-07:00

so it appears that McCain will choose Sarah Palin as his VP running mate, and I say the choice is a brilliant one, for three reasons. For starters, it will steal the thunder from the recently-wrapped DNC, specifically as it relates to the historic nature of the event. Although, if chosen, Palin wouldn't be the first female on the ticket of a national party (indeed the dems hit that bar over two decades ago), if McCain wins in November, she would be the first female VP ever. This would add even more cracks in the glass ceiling Hillary Clinton referenced late in the primary campaign. Furthermore, this could scoop up some disenchanted Clinton supporters who were anxious to see a female in the Whitehouse. And though this is morbidly inappropriate, at 72 years old, McCain could inadvertently hand the keys of the White house to its first female president... Posthumously. Finally, this move could increase the excitement factor for a campaign that has largely played second fiddle to media darling, Obama. Perhaps this could finally give McCain some TV time. However, choosing a governor of a tiny state (population-wise) with only two years' experience will effectively nullify his argument that Obama doesn't have the experience to lead the country, which was his most potent argument. While VP picks tend to have very little to do with how people vote, these are different times, and who can say how this pick will affect his campaign. Still, it speaks into what kinds of decisions McCain would make as POTUS. We'll see...

Side note: this is the last time I blog from my phone!

Random Thoughts

2008-08-17T20:57:00.000-07:00

I've been watching the Olympics a little more closely than normal. I think the Phelps phactor is probably a good reason, though I will take any excuse possible to get away from the terrible television that Dara has been watching. Try hundreds of episodes of Criminal Intent, hundreds of episodes of Animal Precinct, and dozens of episodes of the reality show "I Love Money." But even one episode is like an eternity of bad TV, so bring on the Olympics. But as I watch this terrible, terrible television, I thought up a few reality TV shows of my own:

-Bloods vs. Crips. Talk about a ratings!

-How about a reality show where you drop contestants (practically) naked in the middle of Manhattan, with no money, no ID, and force them to build up as much of an empire as they can in the space of, say, two months.

-A reality show where all the former reality show contestants are gathered up and forced to fight for their lives. Fight to the death! I think it would come down to New York and Omarosa.

Those are my ideas.

Twilight: a Comparison

2008-08-13T09:45:00.001-07:00

Okay, so it may seem a little late to review a book that was first published in 2005, but I was swept up by all the anticipation for Breaking Dawn, the last in the Twilight series and I figured I’d give the series about teenage vampire love a try. The last time I did something like this was in the months preceding the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Though I had never actually read a single Potter book, I was caught up in the buzz (uproar might be a better word) that was ringing in the months before July 2007 and I wanted in on the fun. And so I read the entire series and was pleasantly surprised by what I discovered therein. Sure enough, I was in line at 11:30 on July 20, waiting excitedly amongst the crowd, and although I wasn’t sporting a robe and a wand, and hadn’t penciled in a lightning-bolt scar on my forehead, I had become a Potter convert. The same cannot be said about the Twilight novel.

Although they stem from completely separate universes, and share very little of the same audience (Twilight’s feet are planted firmly in what is pejoratively known as ‘chic-lit,’) much has been made about the similarities of these books. A recent “Entertainment Weekly” article on the Twilight series referenced J.K. Rowling and her Harry Potter universe no less than a dozen times. Because of the frantic sales of the Twilight series (over 50 million copies sold worldwide), people have appointed Twilight author Stephenie Meyer the ‘next J.K. Rowling.’ Nothing could be further from the truth.

As I’ve hinted, the intended Twilight audience is decidedly female. I had a friendly, somewhat embarrassing conversation with the sales lady at Barnes & Noble about how much my sister/mom/girlfriend is going to love the book I was buying for her. “Um, it’s for me,” I sheepishly declared. She hesitated. “Oh that’s okay. I’ve been trying to get my husband to read this too!” But while the terminology of ‘chic-lit’ may be derogatory, I think the insult here lies not with Twilight, but rather with ‘chicks.’ That is to say, the chic-lit moniker does not debase the book, but to label this book in such a way, debases the chic-lit moniker itself. This book is atrocious.
I approached it with an open mind, excited to be pulled into a new universe with new and exciting characters. But while Harry, Ron and Hermione have become flesh-and-bone people to me, the characters in Twilight are as flat and limp as the acid-free bond paper they’re printed on. Harry is a great (though imperfect) protagonist: conflicted, full of emotion, yet rooted in a strong sense of morality (he rarely lies, and is intensely loyal). Myer’s Isabella Swan, on the other hand, besides having a subtle-as-a-freight-train moniker, is flat and uninteresting. She’s deceptive, but not in an interesting, literary way. More in the way you wouldn’t want your teenage daughters to behave. Her would-be lover, vampire Edward Cullen, is instantly smitten with her ‘fascinating’ personality. Personally, I find the lint in my bellybutton to be much more interesting.

The writing itself is vague and uninspired, reminding me of the journals I kept in my pre-teen years. In fact, that may have been Myer’s master stroke here. Setting the book up with a first-person narrative, when your narrator is an immature teenager, and your writing style is painfully sophomoric—it’s a match made in heaven. But from a reader’s point of view, it’s like drinking a light American beer with too much head: all froth and no taste. While Rowling adeptly takes you from scene to scene with seamless transitions and chapter endings that make you want to turn the page and keep right on reading, Myer clumsily spools out narrative like a first draft English paper: choppy and full of stuffing. Rowling will advance a scene and reveal much about her characters in just a few lines of dialogue, while several chapters in Twilight can go by and the reader will wonder, what was the point in all that?

I’m not saying Rowling is the perfect author, either. She can often oversimplify the emotion of a moment, and has a recognized fondness for adverbs. But Rowling’s sins as an author have been Xeroxed and magnified 150% in Stephenie Meyer’s writing. Unconvincing teenage over-emotion: check. Excessive use of adverbs: check check.
I’m a strong opponent of praise for praise’s sake; success for the sake of success, such as Dan Brown’s steamy-pile-of-Mona-Lisa-extrement, The Da Vinci Code. Even the writing in Harry Potter, does not deserve the accolades it commands worldwide. But if Potter is a B+ book getting A++++ treatment, Twilight is a D- book getting A++ treatment. And that just doesn’t seem right.