Search This Blog

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Coincidence...or a sign?

So I listen to a variety of podcasts, two of which are the Totally Laime podcast, hosted by Elizabeth Laime, and The Nerdist podcast, hosted by Chris Hardwick. The guests this week on said podcasts were Marc Maron and Maria Bamford, respectively. Now, these podcasts, while starting at around the same time, are run entirely independent of each other. My listening to them on the same day was a coincidence, but all the better to catch what did happen.
Marc Maron, on the Totally Laime podcast, name-dropped Maria Bamford as a comic he enjoys watching. As I was aware that Bamford was the guest on The Nerdist, which was up next on my listening queue, I thought "Hmm, that's odd." And then didn't give it any more thought. And then, on The Nerdist podcast, Chris Hardwick, while recounting one of his drunken nights tales, proceeds to name-drop Marc Maron as a person he was at this particular party with.
Coincidence? Yes, most likely, unless you buy into the theory that all four aforementioned people got together and hatched this conspiracy with the sole purpose of messing with my head, which, I will admit, does sound very likely. Hmm...
Either way, I took this as an indication that I should end my unexpected hiatus from this blog. Should any of you be interested in any of the podcasts mentioned, their official sites are linked to in the opening paragraph.
So yes, I'm back. Hide your daughters.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Just a video today

Of an excellently done "Academy Award Winning Movie Trailer" that manages to outline pretty much every Oscar bait cliche in the book in a pretty original fashion. Take a look.



Credit goes to these guys: http://www.britanick.com/ for making this excellent piece. Their youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/BriTANicKdotcom

Any thoughts? Anything they missed?

JULY 6 EDIT: The link has been updated, and should work now without the need to sign up.

Friday, March 5, 2010

"So you support your country's athletes, eh? You know who else supported their athletes? Nazis, that's who!"

So for those of you who may not know, Canada recently hosted the 2010 Winter Olympics, and during the course of the Games, broke the record for most gold medals one by a single country by racking up a total of 14 Gold Medals, culminating in an overtime victory in the gold medal final match between the Canadian and American men's hockey teams on the last afternoon of the games. Altogether, it was a resounding success for the Canadian team, and for the Games in general, despite some tragedies along the way.

Well, Gil LeBreton, a writer for the Fort-Worth Star Telegram, walked through the streets of Vancouver and saw something else altogether. He watched on as Canadians wore their pride openly, and he saw...Nazis.
Yes, that's right; in an article he penned last week, Mr. LeBreton likened the crowd reaction at the 2010 Winter Olympics to that of Germany, then deep in the throes of the Nazi party, at the 1936 Summer Olympics.


The gist of his argument is that Canadians did not pay attention to international athletes at all during the Olympic run. He also implies that the Organising committee was complicit in this, stuffing every event with large Canadian crowds.
He also, paradoxically, seems to state that Canadians wanted to party, and the success only gave them a valid excuse to do so. This is the gem of the paragraph where he reveals that

"There was embracing, all right, but then Canadians have always had the reputation for drinking a lot of beer. The loose marijuana laws only added to the nightly revelry in the downtown streets -- which, frankly, seemed to have little to do with the Olympics."

And he closes with this line.

"Nice party. But so 1936."

Yes, Mr. LeBreton thinks that, because Canadians wore Canadian jerseys and supported Canadian athletes, that a comparison to Nazi-ruled Germany was appropriate. Since he didn't see "a single flag or shirt with the five Olympic rings", he was able to jump to the conclusion that we'll start a war in the next 3 years.
The funny thing about the article is that Mr. LeBreton, an American citizen, spends a whole paragraph writing about American achievements before showing his impartiality by talking about athletes from other nationalities, like Apolo Ohno, who is...american.
Even if one were to look past the Nazi comparison, the tone of the entire editorial smacks of unfounded cynicism, as if somehow Canadians were at fault for putting their own athletes ahead of everyone else and not loudly cheering and celebrating when athletes of other nationalities won prizes. But why? When did it become a bad thing to cheer for the team you think represents you? That people identified with nationalities is a natural product of the games, but I don't recall any such sentiment following the Sydney Olympics, the Salt Lake Olympics, the Beijing Olympics, the Greek Olympics, the Turin Olympics. Do you mean to tell me Canadians cheered harder for their teams than people in all those countries? And you mean to tell me this is a bad thing? How?
It seems obvious what Mr. LeBreton wanted; Canadians to lie on the street and cry whenever Americans lost, the government to issue a formal apology every time a Canadian joined or beat an American to the podium, and so on. The fact that Canadians cheered for Canadians somehow irked him, enough to basically call us a nation of fratboys. What we ever did to him will remain one of the world's mysteries.

Following the tide of angry questions thrown his way, Mr. LeBreton issued an apology the next day, which read like this


Essentially, it boiled down to this paragraph

"My intention in Monday morning’s wrap-up column wasn’t to offend Canada, the land of my ancestors, and my hosts of the past three weeks. On the contrary, I was trying to express my disappointment and surprise that, in my opinion, Canadians had failed to grasp the global mandate that being an Olympic host entails."

The global mandate being, essentially, to play gracious hosts to everyone else. Yes, Mr. LeBreton essentially thinks that Canada should've acted like a 1950s housewife throughout the Olympic games. He continues to slam Canada's patriotic display, painting a scene where Canadians were leaving during a medal presentation to German athletes as the straw that broke the camel's back and pushed him to this sentiment.
The real source of Mr. LeBreton's comparison of Canada to a World War instigating government, then, was that Canadians didn't behave the way he thought they'd behave, which is to say, with not an iota of displayed pride. Which is real smart on his behalf, and perfectly understandable. I mean, if we're not going to formulate our sense of identity on the pre-conceived and unfounded notions of a Louisiana-born journalist, how are we going to formulate our sense of identity?

And another point I wanted to add to this whole matter; Can we stop comparing every perceived slight to Hitler and the Nazis? They put people in camps for being different and attempted to conquer an entire continent through war. If your neighbour Hank lets his dog pee on your rose garden, that doesn't make him Hitler. If your professor gives you a low grade, that doesn't make her a Nazi. And if Canadians support their athletes with more fervour than you'd like, that doesn't make them Nazi Germany. So can we stop blowing things out of proportion like this? It serves no purpose other than sensationalization, and it diminishes the horror of the atrocities they did commit. Your pissy, anal boss is not the same person as someone who killed thousands of people in a quest for a master race.

And finally, there's this response I found to Mr. LeBreton's columns


In particular, this sentence stood out to me

"My two cents: Gil, if you have the balls to write a column comparing Canadians to Nazis, then have the balls to tell them to kiss your ass when they show up at your door with pitchforks."

Balls? It takes balls now to agitate a country like Canada, which prides itself on its peacekeeping status, and has never instigated a war in its history? It takes balls to compare such a country to a party who's pretty much synonymous with evil? And it takes balls to do this from the comfort of your own country? Did I miss the part of history where Canada became the hulking bully in the playground whom nobody insults because that's a guaranteed punch to the face? Because that's what this article seems to be making Canada out to be.
You know who has balls? Jerry Mitchell, whom I've mentioned before, who looked a murderer in the eye and pursued justice for people he didn't know despite having his family threatened. You know who else has balls? Rosa Parks, who faced down an entire way of thinking and a bus full of angry people just because she refused to be treated badly due to the colour of her skin.
Look at those two accomplishments. Compare them to the act of calling Canada a modern day Nazi state, from outside the country, no less. You see the discrepancy? But apparently it's brave to hurl insults from afar now.
But there is a silver lining; if the bar for having "balls" is so low now, eventually just walking out the front door will become an incredibly brave act. Then we'll all look like badasses.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

A rant on discrimination

So anyone who's even remotely plugged into the news has likely heard of the Kevin Smith/Southwest debacle at this point, but just in case it has somehow passed under your radar, the gist of it is this; Smith, who is portly at best, was tossed off a Southwest flight because his girth was apparently posing a safety hazard and making the other passengers uncomfortable, despite the fact that he was not given a chance to prove that he wasn't too fat, and the other passengers around him didn't actually complain about his presence.
I had to opportunity today to hear Smith's side of the story in detail today, and really, what it boils down to is discrimination. Someone, at some point, looked at Kevin Smith and profiled him. This someone then proceeded to act on his or her prejudiced notions via other employees. That's really what it does boil down to, as is proven by what happened with another passenger on the very next Southwest flight Smith was on, where, despite sitting on an aisle seat where nobody was guaranteed to be sitting next to her, this passenger was told by the flight crew in no uncertain terms that she was too fat to fly and should buy another seat lest she inconvenience the passenger sitting next to her. Let me reiterate; the seat next to her was empty and was guaranteed to never be full. Smith, who was sitting on the other end of the three-seat aisle, had purchased the middle seat as well initially, because he liked to stretch out during flights. Mind you, this was after said passenger was ordered to sit in Smith's aisle.
As to Smith himself, well, not only did they toss him off the plane for being fat, they did so after the plane was full, and then they proceeded to dance around the reason they tossed him, saying that they weren't calling him fat, but he was "taking more than the space allotted to a single passenger."
Listening to this case, there's something to be said for the shockingly poor customer service values Southwest airlines displayed, but that's almost expected at this point. I could start telling you all the times I was chewed out at my old job for trying to help a customer, but that'd take a few weeks just for the abridged version, so I can't really blame the employees for that. No, what really got me about this case is that, as I mentioned earlier, it really was a case of profiling and discrimination, plain and simple.
What stuns me the most about hearing this whole story is that a collection of people thought this was perfectly acceptable. Somehow, the idea that they're treating a person adversely due to their physical appearance either did not register with these people, or they brushed it aside.
Let's be honest, fat passengers are not a threat to airline safety like the companies claim. If that were the case, they wouldn't be allowed on if they bought two seats, they would just be banned, period. You never see a sign on a carnival ride that says "if you're not this tall, you have to pay extra to ride", and there's a good reason for that. So not only are people gouged out of their money, but then they're publicly humiliated as part of company policy.
It really is not much more different than the discrimination of years past. It used to be women, then people of colour, and most recently it has been homosexuals. But the basic concept is the same across the board, even in regards to fat people; you'll be treated differently because of how you look and act.
And to those who say "fat people can control being fat", that's not an excuse. You can control being a douche too, can't you?
Now, I'm not saying we need to exist in an Orwellian society where thought is suppressed; you're perfectly free to dislike a person based on their appearance. That's something that occurs naturally, and nobody can control that, or should be forced to. Where I draw the line is when people act on their unfounded reactions to treat others in an inferior manner. Regardless of what you think, nobody has the right to treat anybody else in a derogatory manner due to factors and practices that are essentially harmless. It's true for gay people, it's true for fat people. Women don't hurt anyone by being women, so why treat them like they do? I'm not saying you have to like fat people, but you can't treat them like they're scum. That's crossing a line, and crossing this line under various pretenses has to end. Otherwise, we might as well just extinguish ourselves as a species now.

Friday, February 12, 2010

On the marriage status of politicians

So recently, the mayoral campaign of Toronto Councillor Adam Giambrone was cut short when the press leaked news of his affair with a college student, adding his name to the long and ever-growing list of politicians who prove the high aphrodisiac component that power brings.
Frankly, no matter how scandalous the media tries to make it sound, the fact of the matter is, politicians getting caught cheating is nothing new or even particularly shocking anymore. What I've found very interesting, however, in the case of Adam Giambrone, is how it has affected him. See, Mr. Giambrone, before his mayoral aspirations, was the head of the city's transit authority, essentially in charge of it, a position he has held for years now. During his tenure, several employees have been caught sleeping or worse on the job, rats have been seen running around in bakeries within subway stations, and fares have gone up while overall coverage has remained the same; and that's just in the past 6 months. Throughout his tenure, Mr. Giambrone has not shown a shred of competence in his current job, yet when he decided to run for mayor, nobody really questioned how he'd take on a much bigger responsibility when he was unable to fulfill the requirements of a smaller job. The odd thing is, all the mishaps that occurred under his watch to the city's transit did him less damage than news of one affair.
This leads to an interesting point; does the public value relationship sanctity more than job performance? I mean, what happened to Giambrone was essentially the equivalent of an office worker who never gets projects in on time and doesn't contribute to groups get considered for a promotion, then refused because the boss found out he was two-timing his girlfriend. The oddest thing is that it doesn't even seem to be the straw that broke the camel's back, but rather the log that single-handedly broke the camel's back, independent of every other weight on it.
But like I said earlier, politicians having affairs is nothing new, and every time, the same reaction occurs; the public sees this as an indication of the politician's dishonesty, and they're forced to quit, despite great hopes for their future prior to the scandal.
However, despite it all, single politicians are hard to find, and do not hold significant positions of power anywhere. This strikes me as very curious; after all, if all the politicians who did cheat on their partners had been honest and not gotten involved in relationships in the first place, then voters would've known where they stand, and there would've been no betrayal. So by this logic, single politicians should automatically be seen as more honest, right? Isn't it better to not commit rather than commit and then break that commitment?
The prevailing consensus on single politicians seems to be that the public cannot trust them because they haven't proven themselves capable of handling large responsibilities, which is an idea that holds true, seeing as how politicians are run out of office once their affairs are discovered. But then again, how many people do you know who are single because they're workaholics? How many people are so happy with what they do that they prefer not to be in relationships? Don't these people deserve a chance to hold power? After all, I can't believe that such personalities do not exist in the political realm, and it does seem unfair that they're being judged and deemed unfit for positions based on something that only tangentially relates to their job.
Which is the other point; why does a politician's relationship status matter? Shouldn't decisions be made on the basis of their ability to do the job at hand, rather than how they handle their home life? I mean, asking job applicants about their marital status is unethical (and if I recall correctly, illegal) precisely because it has no bearing on their ability to to the job they're being interviewed for. So why is it different for politicians (running with the analogy that the election process is like filling a vacancy, with the public being the hiring boss in this instance) ? Why is cheating on your spouse (in the case of Mr. Giambrone written above, he was simply in a relationship with his girlfriend; they hadn't even gotten engaged yet) the one inexcusable sin, but poor job performance is acceptable? Why are unfaithful politicians not tolerated but single politicians not given a chance?
The mind boggles. The three of you who accidentally stumbled across this blog have any thoughts?

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

In light of the Grammys last weekend, here's some unrecognised talent

There's a person who goes by the name of DJ Earworm, who has taken the top selling 25 songs of 2009 (as declared by Billboard) and made a rather fantastic mashup of them.

Here's the artist's website

And here's a youtube link to the accompanying video


It's brilliantly done, and frankly, better than a lot of the songs involved in the mashup. DJ Earworm even manages to infuse the theme of hope and picking yourself up after you fall (which he claims was a theme he found in the songs, so he doesn't take credit for it).

I don't know if DJ Earworm will ever win a Grammy or be a household name (he has had some success with these mashup series, which he has done since 2007). What I do know is that the level of sheer effort that goes into making something like this, and the sheer talent that goes into making something like this so immensely entertaining, is astronomical. He deserves recognition for that from sources far more accredited than me, but until then, I'll do my part.