o/ lord I was born a ramblin' writer/speaker/thinker o/

BOOBtubeS!

I think it's more than safe to say that of all media, television is the most maligned. Forget Shakespeare's lowbrow roots, forget about the harlequin romance, the incessant repetition of this year's "hits" on 9/10 radio stations, Meet the Spartans...the pollution brought by these wretched works doesn't seem to contaminate their respective art forms the way we have allowed bad television to colour everything we see and hear on the good ol' boob tube (even though most network TV is too tame to show anything remotely resembling the actual female breast...). Videogaming is I think a close second, despite the best efforts of self-appointed moral crusaders. At least games are known to improve co-ordination and problem-solving skills. Television gets pretty much zero good press as a medium.

Which is why it's so awful that I am a sucker for good TV.

If I'm tired enough, I'm a sucker for just about any TV, but that's neither here nor there. No, I'm talking about Farscape, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica (remake), Cowboy BeBop, jPod...intelligent TV. I might as well toss in Mythbusters, Magic School Bus, Robot Chicken, Popular, Buffy, Heroes, and Dead Like Me, while I'm in a listing mood. These shows are all different, but they can be collected into groups, sometimes overlapping. You've straight-up solid writing, acting, and wit; you've got pertinent social commentary; educational value; comedy, romance, psychosis: you have art.

When you think about it, TV is the perfect mirror for society: sure, a lot of it is made with very little thought input, or a great deal of thought is put in to ensure that very little comes out, but either way, a lot of it is the bland homogeneity and routine - filler - required as if by law to stop the masses from discovering existentialism (gotta keep your power sources safely plugged in, after all). But there's always that small, rogue band of people who keep thought alive, with such alien concepts as "plot", "character", and "cinematography". I may be overly melodramatic in casting TV as some kind of socio-political battlefield, but maybe there's something to it. Television has, like Religion, been called "the opiate of the masses", after all. It would certainly explain why intelligent TV tends to get cancelled with alarming regularity: get too subversive, and the Capitalist Oppressor takes you off the airwaves. I think Heroes, Galactica and Farscape managed to hang on (although the latter was cancelled after 4 seasons) by having a strong emphasis on family, which the conservatives must like enough to make up for their boldness elsewhere. Looking deeper, I guess Heroes and Galactica both feature powerful elites making decisions that affect the fate of humanity, and they generally tend to make the right choices. The powerful elites must like that vindication.

So, with new TV comes a new cast of shows to be examined, the ones I've seen at all would be jPod (already in the list of intelligent TV, and duly cancelled), the Sarah Connor Chronicles (which I think survives on overtones of family and religion, as per my theory), and finally Eli Stone, which I'm still evaluating. On the one hand, they did do an episode where a vaccine maker was trying to hide the fact that it's products could cause Autism (dumb, 'cause that myth does not need more support: note how the vast majority of people are non-autistic and immunized? Yeah, I thought you might enjoy your health). This week, though, was much better: they totally took the US government to task for only funding the LIES of Abstinence-only "sex education"! On TV, in front of (hopefully) millions of viewers. I like their style this week, although I wonder if they mean to educate, or just to provoke a different group every week by subverting their usual message somehow? Also, the whole "Eli-as-prophet" storyline has the potential to get really, really annoying and preachy if done wrong.

I guess the bottom line is that Eli Stone has Natasha Henstridge, which should keep at least the male viewers, even in the event of severe shark-jumping.

More on this as my artistic appraisal continues. I think I may just go and watch some more Battlestar Galactica Season 3 (which you should buy or rent or borrow and watch and no they are not paying me, unless you count the part where they're making more for me to watch)

LOUD!

<3 The Princess Bride

phiLosOphical? VErily!

Over in the land of Fog and Castles, I read an interesting treatise on the non-presence of (True) Love in modern society. Something - I suspect it was reading this particular piece after having written a PolySci essay on Feminism - tripped a switch in my head, and suddenly I saw politics. I saw power: social power, political power, economic power. I saw hints of religion and culture. I saw that Love does not conquer all, but is instead conquered BY all, like some unfortunate border province in the middle of a warzone. Love is what society makes it; it is power, it is pain, it is community, it is pleasure, and so on.

In a Tyranny, Love is tricky to pin down. Marriage exists as a power-play, to form strategic alliances. The individual is capable of Love - an unfortunate byproduct of their humanity - but it is the head of the household (be it a Grandfather, Mother, or fratricidal Uncle) who decided what marriages are to be allowed, and what forms of Love are unseemly. In an Orwellian dystopia, all interpersonal Love is seen to interfere with Love for Big Brother, and so is forbidden. Other systems may not be so extreme, but they do share a certain Machiavellian element with IngSoc (which I will get to in good time). For those confident enough to get away with taking a Mistress or...Mister (correct term? Tee-Hee!), adultery might allow a romantic escape from the confines of Royal marriage. Those forms of Love which are condoned under Tyranny are tainted all: The Love of power, which so dominates all other Love that families effectively sell their children for power; and the Love of God, King, Pharaoh, or Big Brother which - in accordance with the Machiavellian ideal - is coincident with equal and opposite fear of their wrath.

In a Capitalist society (I omit the terms "Free" and "Democratic" for good reason), Love is commerce. Love is Hallmark^TM and Jubilee fine jewlelers^TM and Chanel no.5^TM. Valentines day isn't even about Love anymore, it's more like an in-class Halloween! "Bring Valentines for everyone" is a good sentiment, sure, but it doesn't really say anything about Love. Being the Charlie Brown of the class came with a lesson, at least. I can put it no better than the Dread Pirate Roberts, who famously said "Love is pain, highness...anyone who says different is selling something.". It's a holiday that is either meaningless consumerism, or pointless heartbreak for some poor kid. The former is slightly more benign, and so we choose it, and we teach each generation that it's REALLY about the impeccable suit, the box of chocolates, and the bouquet of flowers. For the University-and College-goers, there is a significant period in which these more elegant tools of the trade are replaced by Cocktails and Condoms. The result is best expressed as it was by a very good friend of mine: "Girls spend money on clothes and make-up. Boys spend money on Girls.". When Love isn't being bought, perhaps we are competing for it. The social-Darwinist aspect of the Capitalist ethic would certainly propose that humans competing for the most desirable mates would work to the benefit of humanity. Of course, it's not quite the same game as the horny battles of mountain goats or deer, but it's close enough. A romantic poet just happens to have horns in the form of his skills with pen, paper and voice. The relationship structure that results from this process of natural selection is generally exclusive, and it's telling that "cheating" is the name we have given to the practice of seeking emotional or sexual gratification elsewhere. If Love is to be bought, sold, and competed for in Capitalist society, are we - those struck by Cupid's Arrow®- not competing for a contract, made microcosms of the dominant economic ideal?

Love, as it might exist in some post-Feminist Collectivist utopia, could be entirely the opposite. Exclusive Love is hardly helpful if one wishes to socialize Citizens into a system which abhors private property. At the most cynical level, the means of (re)production cannot be controlled by any one entity, and must instead be managed by the larger community. This is not to say that women would be stripped of reproductive freedom, but that the process of parenthood would be much less of an individual affair. Children would be born to the community, and raised by it; nowhere would you hear "MY toddler could speak before yours!", any early inequalities might even be looked on as a tragedy by the community. Sex-for-pleasure would be subject to the same philosophy, the ideal being that any two people could upon choosing have sex together without guilt, or jealousy on anyone's part. Maybe the Milkman *is* your dad, but at least whoever else your mother was gettin' with at the time was cool with it! (Note: "your" in the generic sense, before someone kills me for disgracing mum's name and honour, etc.!). Society would be a complex network of entirely open relationships. This is no Huxley-esque dystopia, mind you: there is a difference between polyamory and promiscuity. The denizens of the Brave New World did not make the distinction between Sex and Love, so if you "Loved" someone you fucked 'em. Here I apply the fundamental principles of collectivism to Love, to discover what the Romantic ideals of some as-yet-unrealized Marxist paradise might be. I find the results to be conceptually attractive, although I suspect that the lack of enduring commitment would run against the well-set grain of my Romantic side. I think that this sort of friction between the ideal of how we should be and how we are would tear such a system apart. While gender equality is essentially realized, there is the eternal issue of pregnancy - which may some day be made independent of sex through technology - and the commitment faced by a woman that the biological Father might not have to share in such a system. Would swinging males treat women as pleasure receptacles, and nothing more, leaving them to raise children communally as they go off in pursuit of their next conquest? I would hope not, but there are always some who defy normalcy in a negative way.

What Did I Learn?

I think that the reason that there is no Love in our society is that there never has been. Society colours "Love" to suit its purposes, but I think it's clear that the concept of that powerful, magnetic force between people never really changes. My friend who wrote on this lack of Love in society was also writing a paper, in which he argued that remorse exists in Humans because we are the crossroads of Divine Reason and the Impulses of the Beast (in response to a St. Augustine quote, in case you're wondering why an Atheist would argue such a thing...). I propose that Love must then belong to the Beast. Reason applied to Love leads to the societal construction and ideals thereof, but it CANNOT change the base nature of Love itself.

In the Bedroom, the Mighty Bedroom...

I'm getting a little tired by now, but I promised to include a review of the very topical Insight Theatre premiere.

It was really, really awesome. I get more and more comfortable with the source material every year, and now it's just FUN to hear these people yelling "the ERECT MALE PENIS" or "My VAGINA is too dry, whatever shall I do?" (the answer is "Lube", by the way). They don't actually say the latter in that form, but there is a skit which goes down like that. Yeah, it's fun now. I like the ideology, I like how they try to make it approachable, but when they use the vernacular they're self-consciously silly. Nothing is worse than someone who thinks that they can actually say "Yo, you should get tested fo' STDs, DAWG!" with a straight face. No, all the slanginess is played for laughs, and rightly so.

I must give EXTRA-SPECIAL props to my woman-on-the-inside of this year's production, who delivers a fantastic performance throughout. There is a scene in which this fantastic female portrays a girl who may have had sex, and may or may not have wanted it (Alcohol plays a role in the narrative, you see). There are a lot of skits that end on a sedate and somber note, but her incomparable voice lends such credibility and gravitas to the scene that she might as well be the only person on stage here (although the guy does do a good job of his lines).

Go see the show already, although I don't suggest you sneak into some random high school to do so. These endless false-alarm lockdowns seem to have everyone on edge...

One sad note is that the coolest song ("In the Jungle", but with Masturbation instead of a Lethargic Lion) was cut from the performance. I don't understand, but hey, show's still awesome.

-Loud!

Newtonian Sociology

1) Masses at rest will stay at rest...

...Until acted upon by an outside force. Being the most populous of the provinces, Ontario's masses are statistically likely to be the most massive. Speaking - again, generally - these masses will therefore require a greater application of force to be moved. I alone have not the means with which to apply this force, but with a little audience participation, this state of affairs can be changed. I am speaking again of the upcoming referendum in this province, in which these masses I spoke of will be asked a question which - given the sparse and passive publicity campaigns I have seen - they may very well know nothing about. It doesn't help that the government has set a very high bar for this referendum (and rightly so: they're a beneficiary of the injustices perpetuated by the current electoral system). This is wrong, and it must be stopped. For my part, I have already signed up to volunteer with Fair Vote Ontario. This upcoming Thursday, I will be making my debut as an activist for change in an arena other than the blogosphere. If anyone reading this post (who lives in Ontario, of course) believes in fair elections, and in a real democracy, then I urge you to do the same. Join me, and the McGuintys WON'T rule the galaxy as father and son, etc.

And if you won't listen to me, will you listen to Don Ferguson?

There is no reason not to vote for MMP, not one. If people can't handle the fact that not everyone votes either Conservative or Liberal, could they please just move to the fucking United States where there are only two parties (ok, so there's Nader, but they care about him less than we care about the NDP, or even the Green Party)? This referendum isn't about making every government weaker. Quite the opposite is true, in fact. The powerpoint presentation here makes a very good point, in that if coalition governments become the rule, parties will no longer have the ability to tear down that which their predecessors spent 4 or more years instituting. Why, if MMP is adopted as Ontario's electoral system, progress might actually become possible! The people who want to resist this change aren't standing up for strong government, and they're not standing up to make sure you're represented. The argument that list PR members will be loyal to a party and not to the people only holds if no one is ever willing to vote for someone else if their previous choice doesn't do a job with which they are happy. That may be the current state of affairs, but then the problem rests with people who can't think or vote outside a fucking box, and is a detriment to ANY electoral system, not just MMP.

Today, a Citizen editor expressed the opinion that FPTP was "fun" because you could give the thumbs-down to a star candidate, and not have them just pop into a seat off a party list. This man would silence the political voices of what could theoretically amount to 75% - 1 people in a riding, just so that Stephane Dion or someone of his ilk could be shown up when his or her "star" candidate gets humiliatingly outvoted! This man would compromise the very integrity of democracy itself, because it's more "fun" that way! As if there aren't enough public figures humiliating themselves already, we have to accept a flawed, archaic electoral system, just to have more! I don't buy it, and I hope you don't either.

Please, think with your head and your heart: MMP is a better system for you, and it's a better system for everyone around you. One of your votes will be wasted this October 10th. See to it that your other one isn't.

2) Masses in motion will stay in motion...

...and "that's not much"

"It's enough"

I watched Serenity tonight (last night?), and I was reminded of how much I am in love with that world, and those characters. It made me think about the value of standing up for something, both within and without the fiction. I may not wear a brown coat and write steamy fanfic about odd and potentially unnatural BDH "OTP"s, but I've purchased, or been involved, or been the cause of purchasing at least 3 sets of Firefly DVDs, which may not be too too much money, but I'm glad to have contributed to those marvellous figured wich gave the world that very same movie I just watched. Every year it pains me more to think about the could-have-beens, and then I recall that if Firefly hadn't been cancelled, I mightn't have heard about it. The fact that I had the privilige, no, the honour to witness fourteen episodes of the best show ever may not be much, but it is - to quote Mal Reynolds- "enough". This may not "Wash" with the crowd of fans who saw the show on-air, and I have no idea what to say to them. This digression aside, I think that if it's good and just to fight so hard for excellent TV, that not only should THAT be done more often, our resolve when fighting for real political change should be doubled.

So, if this referendum fails, what's the political equivalent of getting a movie made of an (excellent, cancelled) TV show? I suppose a bunch of people could apply to emigrate to countries which have instituted such a system...

*Impossibly pleasant guitar chords which make you feel warmth in every part of your body, and - for dualists - your mind/soul. Oh, yeah, and they make everyone else look prettier, and the day look nicer and...fuck, I miss Firefly! *

3) For each and every action, there is...

...A large group of people who are unhappy with it. Be mindful that there are people out there who wish for the simpler days of a two-party system, when FPTP was much fairer than it has become, what with a voter being offered real choice. There will be people who will ask "why are these other parties on the ballot?". If you happen to meet one of these people (and you will clearly do so, because you're volunteering, right?), you tell them that a two-party system is about as democratic as a light-switch. I mean, it's absolutely thrilling to sit around for hours and hours flipping the lights on and off, but if you want light, but don't enjoy the colour produced by the particular bulb, you're out of luck! Democracy needs not only a light-switch, but hardware stores, and a selection of fixtures, toolboxes, and a stepladder. Oh, and y + 1 [insert derided socio-economic/political/racial group x here].

Disclaimer: you may want to leave out the last one if you're actually volunteering.

-LOUD

because a "quiet revolution" is clearly masterminded by people with no sense of style

Buy Now, and Receive a Lifetime Supply of Whipped Topping!

Keep Product Placement at Bay

Some hours ago, I read the Citizen review of the new Transformers movie, and I have since read the Wired magazine feature on the very same. Both waste no time in discussing the role of product placement in the movie and the Transformers canon as a whole, and rightly so. The franchise began as a series of toys with a promotional cartoon show, rather than as a tie-in to an existing fiction. In securing the merchandising rights to Star Wars for himself, George Lucas instigated the age of the tie-in, where Transformers and its ilk introduced it’s mirror-universe counterpart. In a feat of what I can only describe as meta-marketing, the new movie not only contains product placement (ie. The Camaro), but it will have its own tie-ins (the franchise has come full-circle in this regard, notes Wired). Finally, the portrayal of the United States military in the film lead not only the Citizen reviewer, but director Michael Bay himself to believe that the film also serves as something of a recruitment ad (well, technically Bay was referring to the entire set of US Army policies towards films for which they have supplied equipment. Transformers just happens to be one such film, so I don’t think my assertion is that much of a leap).

Having not seen the movie myself – it’s on my to do list, but not at the very top – I will reserve my judgment on the prominence of product placement and pro-militarism in Transformers itself until after I have attended a screening. I will, however, address the issue of product placement/commercialization and “art” (quotation marks necessitated due to the use of Transformers as an example), as well as broader themes of capitalism, greed, and happiness. Terribly tired, terminally tepid topics? To tell the truth, ‘tis a trail well-treaded to talk of them. Still, the inspiration for what will form the body of this post has been bouncing off the inside walls of my skull for some time now, and I feel that whether or not it is novel, I should commit it to the blog. Here follow my mercantile musings:


Are We Using the Wrong Bait?

Everyone knows the old saying, in which it is postulated that Happiness is an ichthyoid which eludes capture. In the context of capitalism and consumerism, I find this saying to be entirely false, but more on that later.

If given the chance to comment on the aforementioned saying, there are those who would assert that we are indeed simply using the wrong bait to catch this fish we call “Happiness”. The Beatles boasted that they “didn’t care too much for money, money [couldn’t buy them] love”; Prince screeched that you “don’t have to be rich, to be my Girl”, and so on. Of course, that’s easy to say when one is rolling in it, so to speak. Still, there are those less ‘loaded’ who still maintain that the road to true happiness is not paved with toaster ovens and Gucci handbags. The argument, such as I understand it, is that the pressure created by markets has an adverse effect upon our mental health. This makes a lot of sense to me, by way of the following rationale: In order for a market economy such as our own to exist for any sustained period, money must flow. Money flows when it is exchanged for a good or service. If people are happy with a product or service that they have, then they will be less likely to buy another. If people are dissatisfied, the opposite is true. Therefore, it is in the interests of those who profit from the existence of the market to ensure that consumers are dissatisfied with those products and services which they have as much as is possible. Dissatisfaction is a form of unhappiness, which is indeed harmful to an individual’s overall mental health. An offshoot of this viewpoint is the adbusters position, namely that the advertising used to create dissatisfaction (aka. Manufactured desires) is harmful and invasive. If you believe I have misunderstood in any way, please correct me, but this is my perception of this line of arguments.

Whenever I reflect upon this argument, I become more than a little unnerved; I am - after all - a consumer, raised by society to be a cog in the great economic machine. On account of being relatively poor, there are a great many desires which I have (which would be considered manufactured) which go unfulfilled. Still, I devote time to comparing prices, looking for sales, browsing Ebay, etc. I read reviews in magazines and on the internet, I take great care in envisioning the purchases which I would make if my financial situation provided. These activities, sadly enough, DO make me happy. The actual act of making the odd purchase also makes me happy, and having that which was desired also adds to my happiness…but only for so long. After a time, the novelty wears thin, and I revert to the “desire” stage, only to repeat the cycle. Reflecting upon the argument which tells me that such behaviour should not make me happy is disturbing in two aspects: 1) that consumerism DOES make me happy, and 2) Without consumerism, what on Earth would I do with the time I currently devote to the pursuit thereof?

I can understand that the need to spend time with friends and family should be held higher than the need to brag about your new gadget to them, but even removing that factor, consider what friends and families do: Play games (ones purchased as often as those invented), discuss various products from the Average to the Zany, and consume in groups, whether it be television, music, movies, video games…there is simply no escaping commercialism, unless one is willing to live in a world where “red rover” and “capture the flag” are as sophisticated as games get. Come to think of it, that sounds far more pleasant than I would have imagined….yet it would be an unlikely result of a drastic shift in our way of life. To eliminate the rat race and all the trappings thereof, one would have to shun civilization as we know it. If food production remained such as it is, currency would linger as a means for non-producers to acquire food. To earn this money, they would have to work or create, and in order to earn more money they would have to promote their works, and before you know it, you have a functioning market economy. To truly escape, one would have to embrace either self-sufficiency farming for every family, or a hunter-gatherer society. While it’s true that most urban land is, in fact, prime agricultural land, I question the ability of a total maximum of 6 Billion people to live in such a fashion while leaving room enough for the countless other inhabitants of this blue speck we call home.

Speaking of the wrong bait, our present system may or may not be guilty of using it, depending upon one’s point of view. The way I see it, there is no better way to motivate than direct personal reward, and I doubt that there are many who will challenge this. The real question is whether the quality of life benefits which have been brought to us due to this system are worth the moral injustices committed by those who have taken the search for the benefits thereof too far. Given the immensity of each, I can’t say that anyone is, nor should be entitled to make that decision. This does not prevent me from having an opinion, but for the moment, I cannot arrive at one. On the one hand, so many of us owe our lives to progress, and indeed I owe my ability to share these very ideas with you to it. But the closer I lean to a “yes” verdict, the more I realize what horrors I would be condoning by making that choice.

To be LOUD is to Avoid Suffering in Silence!

50 Ways to Waste Your Summer

To all of those people who might take the title of this subsection to mean that I consider my time too valuable to be spent with the likes of you, I apologize immediately. My point and purpose is nothing of the sort. I am - in fact - quite happy with how this summer is turning out, so much so that I'm afraid that those weeks which remain will not compare. It's too easy to waste time sitting, pondering, hesitating, and sleeping in. The last one is like to be hotly debated, but it's just awful to wake up at 11 or noon, because it means that my day won't get underway until maybe 2 or 3 in the afternoon. Granted, my day often ends at 2 or 3 in the morning (and those aren't the latest, but more on that later), but for some reason I cannot suppress the sensation that if I'm only just getting out of the house at 2, my day is as good as over.

My best guess is that it's a hold-over from those days when I could - and had to - wake up early. These last two years I have pressed my reveille to 8:00 most mornings, to disasterous effect. In junior high, I was one of that "unlucky" bunch whose schools began at 7:00 or so, necessitating a 6-ish waking time. Ah, the days of taking a bike to school and back. I hesitate to remember any more than that, as I have just as many bad memories as good from that wretched place called "Middle School"...

Anyhow, I'd like to wake up early, again (I used to be able to get up at 4:30...then I'd watch Discovery Channel). The urge was stirred some days ago when I was ascending to my chambers (ok, chamber....well, room. It's far too messy and not-stately to be a chamber) at a quarter-to-six in the morning, after an animated, but long-runnning MSN conversation. It was light outside, and not just the light of the sun perched expectantly beneath the horizon. This light was comprised of the invigorating rays of morning, bringing illumination to the tabula rasa of the neonatal day. For a lingering moment, I considered eschewing sleep for the crisp embrace of morning air. I would throw slothful rest to the dew-frosted grass, and there it would land with a dull thud. Through eyes crippled by shock and pain, idle rest would see me frolic with abound. In that brief moment, I felt the morning person swell within me...before he(?) was pushed aside by the rational mind informing me that without sleep I would doubtless collapse in the mid-afternoon if not before.

I'd like to wake up early, because that same morning person who has endured year after year of ever-later bedtimes wants me to believe that somehow, if I were to wake up at a "proper" hour, I would feel better, do better, do more. And without any proof to the contrary, I feel compelled to try, despite the protests of the currently-dominant night-owl, and the rational mind, secure in the knowledge that it matters not which end of the candle I burn (so long as it isn't both, which is a sometimes-habit of mine).

My original plan was to go to bed perhaps two hours ago. I've given two hours' concession to the night owl within, and as such I shall attempt to wake up at ~7:00 this morning, which is again two hours later than I would have liked.

On the good side of things, I might be getting paid for work I do tomorrow

On the bad side, the job isn't going to be steady, and it isn't so much employment as 'paid chores'

I think that in general summer is an awful time because so many of a schoolgoing child or young adult's hopes are pinned upon a two-month span which is ill-equipped to support them. For years have I watched as so many summer projects died deaths of neglect or impossibility, and for years have I felt the worse for it. This year promises to be no different, unless I exert a continued effort to bring all the plans stashed within my cranium to fruition (or at least those which are at all possible). So far, I've spent far too much time out of the house (not that I regret it), at the expense of other passtimes.

There never reallly is a perfect balance, is there?

Anyhow, that's quite enough winging about my inability to galvanize myself to act, and it is now time to share with you a small but VERY IMPORTANT goal for this summer. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated, leave me a comment/drop me a line/email me/call me if you want to help, it would mean so much

I want to spread the word about the upcoming referendum on the electoral system in Ontario. I'll be of voting age when the day comes, and I know how I will cast my ballot on that issue: I wish to support changing the system to a mixed-member proportional-representation system (I think that's how you write it in full. The short form is MMP). In contrast with the currently-used first-past-the-post system, MMP is better in some areas, and worse in others...but I would not be voting for it if it were a lateral upgrade! MMP offers voters one thing which FPtP CANNOT in a poly-party environment: a vote that counts all the time. In FPtP, practices such as strategic voting or vote-swapping occur when - for example - a supporter of party X lives in a riding dominated by supporters of party Y. Party X is far smaller than parties Y and Z, the latter of which is the only party which can challenge Z. In this instance, the X supporter can either vote for party Z for fear of Party Y winning (strategic voting), or agree to vote for either Y or Z, in exchange for which a supporter of either party will vote X in a riding in which X can win, but Y or Z (whichever this voter supports) cannot (vote-swapping). If the first voter votes for X in his home riding, Y wins, and his vote DOES NOT COUNT FOR ANYTHING, not in his riding, not in the legislative assembly, not ANYWHERE. What's worse is that even with vote-swapping, a supporter of, say, The Green Party is unlikely to be able to affect change. While an overall share of 5-10% of the vote might equate to a population equivalent to one riding's worth or more, it means nothing if that 5-10% is distributed evenly among the ridings, because in no single riding will the Green Party get the required 51% to win. Short of every Green voter in the province vote-swapping with a different member of ONE SINGLE RIDING, there is no way that a less-known party like it will get a seat. In this way, 5-10% of the VOTING POPULATION, which is an increasingly rare segment of people in Canada, go COMPLETELY UNREPRESENTED. In an MMP system, a certain number of seats are not tied to ridings. Instead, parties are given seats (filled with members in the order that they are written upon a party-created list) until their share is roughly equivalent to their percentage of the popular vote. This generally creates minority governments, which must form coalitions to rule. Some call this solution unstable, while I personally believe that a coalition government cannot pursue one single political ideology, instead cleaving far more to the will of the people, whose opinions are clearly NOT IDENTICAL, and NOT IN LINE WITH ONLY ONE PARTY'S VISION.

In short, I support the system which is - to my mind - far more democratic. You should all do the same, no matter which system YOU believe best deserves this prestigious title!

Ah, yes. I have a final note to make:

I am now linked in a tab at the top of the page here. I'm actually kinda flattered, as it's quite a prominent link.

Sorry about the Road-Raging Pirate Trivia Team Attack...I Blame it on Chernobyl!

Apologies to My Readership

...If you still exist, somewhere out there...

It has been roughly a month since my last post, and although this is not the first time I have gone so long without posting here, this time stands out for one simple reason: things happened. A LOT of things happened, and I haven't been able to eke out enough time to do any of them justice, at least not until now. I should be able to have nigh-on-daily posts, depending upon how I divide up the information to be presented. I apologize if these narratives end up a little disjointed: the passage of time, and the desire to type at the speed of thought can have such an effect upon my writing. I think that's all, so HERE WE GO!

Civic Pride

Heh, that's actually a clever title, because it has a dual-meaning for me right now. First, I did indeed promise to write up a little something about the flak directed at Ottawa (now VERY old news, sadly), and Second, I am indeed very proud of the Civic which I presently drive. I'll write about 'em in that order...

I should hope that by now most of the Ottawans reading this are aware that our city was not so long ago lambasted for sqandering its greatest assets, and other conduct not fitting of a “world-class capital”. Readers of the Citizen will have noticed the great number of pundits both attacking and defending decisions, people, and organizations which have shaped our home for better and for worse. It has just occured to me that the whole fiasco has provided a number of people with a soapbox from which they can push their own “city improvement” plan, from light rail redux to community gardens. The bottom line is that this city is, on average, average. It sounds inane, but if you look at the best of anything in Ottawa (ie. Comfy seats on the O-train), and then pit it against the downside (ie. Nowhere to go on the O-train), the result is decidedly average. The issue shouldn't be “is merely average OK?”, but instead “do we care if we remain so?”. Personally, I've been known to accept mediocrity, however I'm not one who enjoys it greatly. Ottawans, I ask you: is the effort of changing a greater burden than the tolerance of averageness? If not, then we do indeed have our work cut out for us.

One of the first things that ought to be done – in my opinion – if we are to raise ourseves steadily and triumphantly from the mire of the mundane is to undo the bone-headed decisions of Ottawa past. There is a former railway station in THE MIDDLE OF DOWNTOWN, and yet it is now a conference centre. Thankfully, a recent proposal did indeed include the re-instatement of that building as a transit hub. Sadly, the proposal is alleged (by a Citizen columnist, if I recall correctly) to be a shoddy affair indeed; a vaguely-budgeted mish-mash of self-service by the committee members. I'm not even sure how to address this, because it does not stand to reason that the capital city of such a proud country would allow itself to be abused by its own government. It might not be so bad if the complainers were fully competent, but the columnist who so savaged the poor proposal defended instead the North-South rail line. Points for “we could be building one now”, but remind me again why we ought to do such a thing if the urban spread in Ottawa is predominantly EAST-WEST!?! It can be called “rapid” if it is fast, but to affix the name “transit” to an end product, someone has to ride it!

I've read snippets here and there about transit in Ottawa: stories about our high downtown parking fees, opinion pieces about how great or terrible it was that the rail line got cancelled, letters arguing either side... I think it's safe to say that this city can't and won't make up its mind about what will best serve our needs. This would be fine, if we were an ordinary city of ~1 million. It wouldn't matter in the slightest that we couldn't get around: it would be our own fault, and that would be that. One problem is that we aren't just any city. Another is that we cannot swallow our pride and admit that we are wanting as a city. We defend tooth-and-nail our “good”, our “solid”, our “quite decent”, for no other reason than it belongs to us (see: the “Montreal Food Snob Incident”). I doubt I'll stay to find out if that pride can be swallowed; even if public opinion could be changed, I imagine the entrenched bureaucracy would not be unseated by anything short of a full-scale revolution. Hmmm, maybe I'm on to something with that...?

Commentors, I'd like to know what you think would be effective as a solution to Ottawa's transit issues. Personally, I think that the top 3 steps would be (least important is 3, most is 1):

3) PLAN AHEAD, and PLAN SMART. The trains(?) SHOULD NOT be waking people up at unholy hours, etc.

2) Don't use track because it is there, use it if and when it makes sense. Duh.

1) Build the city UP or DOWN, instead of OUT!

Ok, this is just one little bit, more is on the way!

-LOUD!

Ok, time for the first (of many, with any luck) updates to this post. It's rather unfortunate that it has taken me so long to get around to this, because much of what I will end up writing would have been current and topical if it had been posted when the words were fresh in my head. Instead, I'm left typing up thoughts which have long passed their "best before" dates. Eh, those things are just for planned obsolescence, anyhow.

I saw Pirates of The Carribean 3: At World's End at Silvercity's advance screening, the Thursday night before I left for the Reach for the Top national championships (which get a write-up later, fear not). Somewhere, I have the beginnings of a review, which I started writing on the flight to Calgary, but since it isn't getting later any slower, I'll have to rely on memory.

I'm going to assume that anyone who would care enough to read a review of PotC 3 has already seen it by now, and I shouldn't have to tell you just how epic it is. To be on the safe side, however, I will give those readers who have not seen the movie yet something of an idea:

PoTC 3 is PRETTY DAMNED EPIC

Are we good? OK!

Most everything which is good about the film is more or less related to the above: PotC 3 starts by pulling out a few stops here and there, and then proceeds to pull just about every single one you can imagine (and some you can't) before it ends. And Cap'n Jack wonders why the Rum is all gone? Come to think of it, PotC has come full-circle: the first was a movie inspired by a theme park ride, and now the (hopefully) final installment is a film rather evocative of a thrill-ride experience.

You might be wondering why I hope that PotC 3 is the final movie in the series, when it is so good? The most compelling reason is that the ending of this particular volume needs no extension; the stories that we, the audience, need to see...we have seen. Leave the remainder of their lives' exploits to imagination, and resist the temptation to ruin the franchise by allowing it to become more of a cash cow than it already is. Of course, this is Disney I am talking about, the same people who brought you Cinderella 3: A twist in HOLY FUCK WHO GAVE THESE DIPSHITS THE IDEA THAT TIME TRAVEL AND A WATERED DOWN VERSION OF A BROTHERS GRIMM STORY WOULD MIX WELL?!?! I may not have seen Cinderella 3 - as this would validate its existence, and I cannot bring myself to do that - but it has all the hallmarks of a cash cow.

I should attempt to remain on-topic, for fear of this post devolving into the sort of stream-of-consciousness ranting which so characterizes my "conversational" speech (some would argue and substitute "monologue" for conversation). Back to what is good about Pirates 3. I enjoy how plot threads are tied up, and yet the ending is left open. While it does leave room for the sequel I so dread, it is such a good ending, because the characters you've grown to love don't end: they continue on forever through good and evil, with the imagination left to decide in what proportions. This being said, I think that the mark was sorely missed on a few counts in the movie. Nothing which detracts from the viewing experience, but as I reflected upon the movie in writing my initial (lost) review, careful thought brought these minor flaws to light.

The first of these is that for a movie about Pirates, there is very little piracy. There IS plenty of betrayal - the likes of which would make Judas cringe - which allows the filmmakers to continually raise the stakes by having alliances shift on the fly. With a running length such as it has, the movie desperately needs these shifts to keep the audience from settling in too much. It remains a mark of shame upon the series, still, that there has been only one scene in which a pirate crew loots, pillages, and burns (all the way back in Pirates 1) for the acquisition of booty. Even then, their true cause was to retrieve Elizabeth's piece of cursed Aztec Gold, with the Piracy thrown in for good measure. It would be excusable if Pirates 3 focused solely on the established characters, who are generally preoccupied with supernatural matters more than financial gain...but Pirates 3 goes so far as to introduce NINE Pirate LORDS, a keeper of the code (Keith Richards FTW!), AND a Pirate KING! Their bickering and general narcissism goes a long way towards creating a piratey atmosphere, but it's something of a letdown that they are never seen pillaging. I suppose I shouldn't complain, given that such scenes are unnecessary in such a long movie, but [HIGHLIGHT FOR SPOILER] the fact that they're not even heavily involved in the final epic battle [/SPOILER] is just TRAGIC!

The second minor flaw in the movie was that it required perhaps one too many suspensions of disbelief, and yes, I mean past the obvious ones, such as the existence of supernatural creatures, etc. I mean Jack Sparrow's impeccable use of the laws of physics to move, fight, and do Important Heroic Things in the movie. The writers redeem themselves a bit by poking fun at his apparent ability to escape any conundrum in spectacular fashion ("Do you think he has it all planned out, or does he just make it up as he goes along?", I think the line goes), but it's placed just a little too early, long before some of the good Cap'n's most outlandish moves are seen. All these stunts work when you're watching the movie, but they don't really hold up afterwards.

My overall recommendation is that you see Pirates 3, because it's far better than 2, and because you will just be blown out of the water (Harr Harr) by it.

And now, if I may be partisan, it would be nice if Science Fiction could get a few epic film treatments, now that the fantasy genre has seen more than its fair share of the action (LOTR, Pirates, Narnia, Golden Compass). And no, I don't think the new 'Transformers' movie is going to herald anything big on this front. A proper (read: NON Sci-Fi channel) treatment of Philip Jose Farmer's 'Riverworld' series would be a good place to start, for many reasons. The basic premise is that in the far future, unknown Aliens have sculpted a planet into one single flowing river (it coils from one pole to the other, I believe)...and proceeded to re-create every single human being who ever lived to over the age of 5 (with their memories at their time of death) in a permanently 25-year-old body. It's a FANTASTIC concept, and the books (I have read 1 and 2. I should eventually read the third and fourth, but the former hasn't "caught" yet) do it more than justice. While I don't suppose the books are too well-known, I think the premise could be mass-market-friendly; as Farmer wrote in an aside, everyone reading the books is SOMEWHERE in the cannon, just waiting to discover their own story. While it would be impossible to deliver on that promise in film, the potential for cameos is impressive, to say the least.

Speaking of novels with titles starting with "Ri" and ending in "world", Larry Niven's 'Ringworld' would also make a pretty kickass movie. Kzin for the Win!

I'd like to be excited about Star Trek XI, which will eventually "beam down" to theatres, but..ehhh. Nemesis was hyped up, and most people found it generally disappointing. To be honest, I didn't hate it; I was young enough to enjoy it when I saw it. I may...ok, who am I kidding, I will go see it when it comes out, but it's just not weighing heavily on my mind at the moment.

Children of Men was a spectacular movie (I'll post a review in an upcoming post, or tack it on to this one in an edit), which I urge people to see. If you want me to decide which is better between CoM and PotC 3, I'd give you the "apples to oranges" speech, and then tell you that either will give you goosebumps-a-plenty. In the end, I have to recommend CoM, though. The after-pirates experience is by no means bereft of conversational topics, but the intellectual landscape of the discussion is a salt flat to CoM's Himalayas. I'll save detailed praise for the review, so suffice it to say that CoM is a masterwork.

PS. Points to CoM for featuring the impeccable Chiwetel Ejiofor

Looking ahead at the next few weeks, there is also "Sunshine", which could have been good...but a while back I read a New Scientist opinion piece on how poorly the science in that movie had been treated. I think I'm turned off of this one, although I might end up seeing it anyways.

Who in the hell thinks that even a nuke the size of Manhattan would have the slightest hope of re-igniting the fucking SUN!?!? I think that film schools should start mandating that students take some basic science courses!

Balance?

Yin and Yang

Yet another Great Fear has been realized, as Nicolas Sarkozy ascends to the French Presidency. I respect that his rule is the result of free and democratic elections, and that he may yet prove himself to be a fair and competent leader...but the fear remains that his "tough stance" on immigration is the first step down a dark path. There have already been rioter/police clashes, and not a one of Sarkozy's policies has been implemented yet! The Citizen printed a little sub-story with interview snippets from immigrants living in France, entitled "With Sarkozy, the riots will be permanent"... I imagine that - if nothing else - the news from France in the coming months will be colourful. Personally, I stand by what I said here.

On the plus side, a newly-published report could be a nice BITCHSLAP to the Right-Wing: The Justice Department of Canada has found that Same-Sex couples raise children just as well or better than their Heterosexual counterparts. From what I have just read, it seems that our not-new-anymore Conservative government wasn't all that keen on publishing this study (what a surprise!). I'm sure there will be all manner of "explanations", or "secret bias" hypothesis floated by the diehard homophobes, but maybe, just maybe this will permit everyone to settle down and live as equals, as it is written in the Charters and Constitutions of this world (some of it, at any rate).

Some Dumbass won't let that happen, but it's a good hope while it lasts :)

Again, with the limited time imposed by internet cutoff. I hope to post more later.

-Loud

Betrayal From Within

A Not Inconsequential Co-Incidence

This is my 88^th post, and I'm going to be talking about some of the racist scum that litters our planet. It wouldn't strike many of you as eerie, but that's because you may not be aware of what 88 can mean. The 8^th letter of the alphabet is 'H', and 2 of them together (88) is some Neo-Nazi code for “Heil Hitler”. In case you are wondering how I know this, I believe it was in a Citizen article about a worrying rise in Neo-Nazi activities. Anyhow, it is rather appropriate that my 88^th post be dedicated to denouncing this blight upon our societies.

It all began when I wanted to listen to one of my favourite political songs of all time; “George Bush Don't Like Black People”, I believe it is called. Well, I decided to look for it on Youtube, because...umm...I'm a bit of a sellout that way, I suppose. It is common knowledge that Youtube commenters are perhaps the least intelligent people on the web this side of Myspace or LJ. Well, in with the n00bz, and the genuinely deficient, there are also the mentally challenged AND racist folk, too. I will not quote any of the filth that was posted below, but if you follow the link you WILL be appalled by some of what you read. Now, I have no idea what comments will be on page 1 by the time you read this, but chances are there will be a good enough example. No need to dig down, your imagination can surely conjure the utter vitriol that some have thrown.

Well, some mention of the BNP – British National Party – in one comment or other on a video jogged a vague memory of a video seen in World Issues class last semester. It was NOT a good memory. Ah, yes, I thought, the genuinely frightening skinhead party in Britain. I was not amused by suggestions that this party sounded like “Reasonable People who want their country back”, even though it's par for the course given the average intelligence of a Youtube commenter (as discussed in the previous paragraph). This was a victim of PR, clearly. A little reading later, and I was in full-on panic mode. This morning brought further bad news, which is that France's mainstream political parties are adopting forms of the extreme-right's immigration control, no, reversal. I'm not talking “ooh, spooky” afraid here, I felt the kind of dread I feel when contemplating a mass extinction by asteroid impact!

As a society, the West has a well-documented history of violence and oppression. If it wasn't being done to outsiders, we were visiting both upon our brothers and sisters! Apologizing for what was done by our ancestors is meaningless, on so many levels. We should not shoulder the blame for actions which are not our own. What we should do is ensure that nothing of their like should ever occur again. It's so easy to apologize to the Acadians for deporting them, when no one is alive to stare you in the face, and tell you just how they suffered. It's easy to be removed. It would be another thing if George Bush looked an ordinary Iraqi man or woman in the eyes, and tried to explain to them why their son/daughter/father/brother is dead. It may sound, it may even BE cliché, but we can only change the future! Groups like the BNP threaten to drag us back into near-barbarism.

We cannot look at the problems in our society, and point to a single cause. The world doesn't work like that. Everyone running the BNP surely knows this, but they understand that people can be made to accept such a declaration as truth. The shepherd leads the sheep, and this shepherd wants the white sheep to fight the black ones. Why? Perhaps because some people get their rocks off creating conflict, and watching the gory aftermath...the greatest snuff film of all, in a way. Determining the real reason can wait until we have these white-trash warlords thrown into one of those convenient Guantanamo-style prison camps (where they can be subjected to the very humiliations they would visit upon the Other). What is important is that they be stopped NOW.

We can start by making immigrants feel welcome in our societies, by following the one rule we all have in common. Welcome others as you would be welcomed, extend them the courtesies you would wish extended. It may be presumptuous to assume they will enjoy or make use of either, but a misinterpreted overture of goodwill is better than no overture at all, in my mind. When people are uneasy, they will look for the familiar, and we end up with ghettos. Add a little poverty to the mix, and you have a recipe for crime. If you knew that a handshake, or a friendly word to a newcomer might save their child from a life of violence, you would give that man or woman the warmest handshake you'd ever given! It may not be so simple, but again, the best course is to act. Handshakes may not cure poverty, but they go a long way towards solving the problem of alienation.

To say that “poverty is a tougher nut to crack” would be rather akin to saying “Robbing Fort Knox will be more than your average stickup”. I sure as hell know what the solution ISN'T, however: deport 'em all, and enforce 'cultural purity'. Even if immigrant groups are statistically more likely to commit crimes, it makes no sense to halt immigration, deport them, or anything of the like. The Fact is that males are FAR more likely to be serial killers than women. Should we ban all men from society for this reason? I hope not...I'm rather fond of my social contract, thankyouverymuch. If groups like the BNP were actually intent upon preserving Western society, they would use REAL logic and reason. There are number of cause-and-effect relationships between poverty, and things Unpleasant. Remove the cause, and we remove the effect. It could conceivably be argued that Immigrants are the cause, and that they should be removed. Sure, if you like forcing people from their homes, dividing families, and otherwise destroying millions of lives, in order to improve others. Even if we decide that the “Greatest Good” is morally right, no matter what evil is done to obtain it, I imagine that the negative consequences of a mass deportation VASTLY outweigh any positive impact upon the “indigenous” Caucasian population. Why is it that arrogant, self-centered right-wing bastards would spend tax money to evict immigrants, when that very same money could go towards enhancing EVERYONE'S quality of life? Perhaps the same reason that the US has publicly-funded killing, and privatized life-saving...whatever that reason is.

I firmly believe that if ANY Western country elects a government in the vein of the BNP - for that matter, any state or province – it is the solemn duty of every other country in the West to declare all-out War against that country (or state, or province), until every single party member or supporter, every single soldier sympathetic to the cause, lies broken, bleeding or dead at our feet (ok, ok...Imprisoned works too, if we must). Why should we indulge in such bloodshed, you ask? Because we fought Hitler in World War II, and these...calling them “people” elevates them above their due...are no better. We could hold our noses, hold our tongues, and say to ourselves “peace in our time”, no matter how repulsive we would find a xenophobic government...or we could learn from history, and waste no time in ERASING THAT GOVERNMENT FROM THE FACE OF THIS EARTH!

Fortunately, there is an alternative. Westerners possessed of the franchise in their country can fight intolerance, injustice, and inequity with the most fearsome weapons of all: their votes. What if you support hatred and intolerance? See above paragraph.

The Rant Came Back!

What Will It Cost Me....

To have safe streets?

To have proper urban design?

To have rapid transit which deserves the name?

This is what the people of Ottawa should be asking, before they go on record as saying that the cost of not having a car is “too high”. Now, I enjoy driving with my G1, but I also make extensive use of the bus system here, and with the exception of a few routes (true Ottawans will no doubt cringe at the mere mention of the infamous Route 14), the service is very good. I agree that past a certain hour, it can be pretty intimidating to wait around at even well-lit Transitway stops (and I'm a guy, no less), but this can most often be attributed to my healthy paranoia, rather than the presence of an actual threat. According to the Ottawa Police, the 5 year average for violent crime is just under 6000 incidences per year. Greater Ottawa having a population of 1 million means that the number of violent crimes per person is 0.006. Meaningless statistic? This I will concede. Still, I think it's fair to say that the average Ottawan is not in imminent danger of being beaten or killed on the street. The fear of kidnappings, swarmings, rape? Media-induced. These things do happen, but as with acts of terror, you cannot allow the worst elements of society to paralyze you in your daily life.

I think there exists a solution, one that will cost perhaps more time than money. The Guardian Angels are supposedly starting up a chapter in Ottawa this year. I think it will be great for Ottawa, because it's an agressive response, without the agression per se. It is advance, rather than retreat. It is an assertion that we have a right to walk on our streets at any time we like without fear. Call it vigilante justice if you want, but for all the hot air about “if it saves one life, it's worth it”, you'd think that the police forces of the world would see the Guardians for what they represent: a powerful ally in fighting crime. It stands to reason that much crime is based on the assertion that “they can't see me”. The presence of a man or woman in uniform patrolling the street might be enough to dissuade the less pathologically criminal from nocturnal banditry. And if not, someone is there to see, to call the police, perhaps intervene before the situation escalates. Unlike hiding inside the tonne of steel and rubber we like to think of as “convenience”, this goes some length to solving the problem. The letter-writer to the citizen is a father who obviously cares for the safety of his children. A man (or woman) of such a disposition should be one of the first in line to volunteer when the call comes from our new Guardian Angels chapter. I'll bet that all the training, uniform costs, and all are still cheaper than buying gas for a car to feel safe!

The second part of the solution is far costlier, at least for the moment. Ritzy, SUPREMELY convenient condos are coming to downtown Ottawa...and a penthouse can be yours for something like a cool $Million. Damn, if I had the money, I'd do it too. The ones at 700 Sussex are quite literally at the heart of this city. Hopefully, like other fads of the rich have done in the past, living downtown will trickle down to those with less money to burn. Failing that, I hope I can be rich long enough to set myself up in a swank pad somewhere downtown. Yeah, that's going to happen. The problem is the allure of cheap housing elsewhere. I imagine that it is far more profitable to buy land in fallowfield, or worse, along one of the regional highways out of town (this happens, and it's pathetic to see the malaise of suburbia rising above the distant plains). The houses I see are obscenely large (to be fair, one might consider my present abode to be gluttonous. I would tend to agree), usually having attached garages for two cars...well, a car, and all the workshop junk that invariably clogs sheds, garages, and basements. So long as young couples decide that an affordable house and an SUV is worth what they pay in gas and maintenance, things will not change, and there will be those who will see the SUV or sedan as obligatory. Well, if you live a half-hour from the edge of what actually constitutes Ottawa, no shit! This would be bad enough of itself, but as (bad) luck would have it, there's more fuel on this fire: have you seen how they build these houses? Plywood, plaster, and then some hasty brick-like exterior. Some new houses went up not too far from here, and the complete illusion is staggering. It looks as if there is a real house, probably even feels like it, too. But take away the brick facade, and what you're left with is a wooden box and the ubiquitous pink panther insulation, near as I can tell. At least my house has been standing for 50 years or more. Houses in the glebe, and other neighbourhoods just outside of downtown must have houses approaching 100 years old. I know Mutchmor school has been around for a century or more by now...it's not so much of a stretch to imagine that some houses must be of a similar vintage. Somehow, I see the future of modern housing looking more like scrap heaps than quaint neighbourhoods. On an “up” note, there may be an alternative to both expensive yet chic condos and crappy housing: The nascent “eco-community” (well, as-yet-nonexistent would be more like it) at the former rockliffe base site. The plans may be just that, but I can't think of a better way to reconcile a pleasant lifestyle with ecological responsibility.

One other argument which pops up in the letter upon which this rant is loosely based is that giving up a car means giving up activities (ie. Horseback riding, sailing) which require frequent commutes to outlying areas of the city. Supposing a resurgence of central urban population, it is easy to imagine rapid transit to distant parts of the city. With reduced automotive traffic, street-level light rail becomes a real possibility, and - more importantly – actually useful. Before someone points out that the relatively low numbers of hobbyists hardly justify transit expenditures and emissions, imagine this: central living = less $$$ on Gas and Car repair + less transit time = more free time and money = more time for hobbies.

None of this will happen overnight. In all likelihood, no one will become all that richer financially. What will be regained is community. People without lawns and fences to separate themselves, people who live and work, and relax together. Grocery stores not a two-minute jaunt from your appartment building door, other shopping another five minutes away...Eventually, space once used for inefficient housing could become parkland, or maybe return to it's original purpose as farmland. Add the odd urban garden, and you've got a solid local food supply. Ok, this is total utopian BS at this point, but it's something to aim for. Even half of the above would be damn fine in my book. It's easy to start...repeat after me: “I do not need a car all the time. Walking, biking, and bussing are safe alternatives 99% of the time. Sustainable living is not only possible, but desirable. I bow before the staggering wit and insight of Loud the Magnificent”...

Did it work? No?

Nuts.

I Am Not A Number, I Am A Free Man!

Guess who just took the cSAT?

The Cotton Gin? What the hell-ass crunk juice are YOU sippin'?

Anyhow, the SATs are not half as frightening as the literature would have you believe. Perhaps that's easy to say when my academic future does not entirely hinge upon nearly four hours of test...but really. I cannot (under obligation) release specific question details, but let me lay it out for you: 9 out of 10 “math” questions are pure logic, and your biggest foe on the reading comprehension segments is the wording of some possible answers. In fact, I found myself answering the question “what do THEY want here?” more than “what IS here?” when considering my answers to many a question. I was writing a meta-exam, or something! I finished a good number of the sections with time to spare. Should any readers be taking the SATs in future, and find themselves doing the same, I offer the following advice: Use the 4-2-4 breathing meditation technique. Being rather untrained, I really can't seek nirvana, nor anything remotely along that path. What I can do is at least breathe calmly, and keep my mind clear. Anyhow, my swordhandling instructor taught it to my class thus: Breathe in for a count of 4 (4 seconds works nicely). Hold for 2. Breathe out another 4. Repeat. Usually, concentrating on keeping the rhythm is enough to keep my mind from going too far astray, but it helps to try and clear your mind. Eyes closed when you are meditating, and I recall that your head should be bowed. Ideally, you should be in a proper position, but I had to make do sitting in a chair. Anyhow, I hope this helps...incidentally, the same breathing technique may have helped me get to sleep on occasion.

Back to the test itself, I am going to be worried for ages now. A friend of mine scored very well on SATs last year, and as much as I should only worry about doing well for myself, I know in my heart of hearts that I will feel hopelessly inadequate should none of my scores enter the realm of 'phenomenal'. My future may not rest on the scores I receive, but my pride will. I realize that this is a __________ position, but it is human nature to abandon the way of _____ in matters of 'honour'

A. terrible, generousity

B. hypocritical, medecine

C. foolhardy, reason

C. morose, spirituality

D. stupid, science

E. onion, rings

Speaking Of "Matters of Honour"...

Honour Killings. I *could* have another SAT joke, but all I can think of is a nice list of disparaging adjectives, with "All of the above" at the very bottom. Every so often, there will be another story about a nice girl, who has the *nerve* to have a (gasp!) platonic male friend, or maybe a boyfriend of a different race, or maybe one from a family which originates from across some forbidden line in the sand back home. For whatever reason, some nutjob father, brother, uncle, aunt, grandmother (I think it's happened) will either pay for or commit her murder. But you're read the stories, you know this. You know that the barbarism has to stop, and it has to stop NOW.

This is just another way in which multicultural society is often abused. The murder to which Saturday's Citizen editorial referred to was in Jordan, but there have been so-called "honour killings" in the West as well. In countries where these foul deeds are accepted, only massive cultural reform can help. But here, there can be progress. The message has to be sent that coming to Canada does not have to mean the loss of your cultural identity, but at the same time presents the end of your hatred. It's a fine line, but it can be drawn fairly, I believe. Art, music, stories, literature, cuisine, dance, language, clothing...these are all positive cultural elements that add to the richness of our country. Hate, vengeance, prejudice...however deep-seated they may be cannot be allowed to enter our country with immigrants. These can be separated from the components of the first list (albeit with great effort). This is not to say that immigrant populations are the only ones with work to do. One look at David Warren's unmasked avarice and it is clear that every single one of us could stand to leave our hateful baggage behind.

$3000 of Gyro-Stabilized...Foot Replacement?

Sadly, I do not own a Segway. What I do possess, however, is what some might call an uncanny ability to create the topic-shifting sort of Segway in today's post. Dear readers, look upon the cost of hateful baggage:

"I've come to realize that the past year may simply be a phase induced by stress and curiosity."

I will not tarry long on the source of this quote. The important knowledge for you is that this is the doing of HORRID parents. The recipient is a dear friend of mine (no, not the "friend" who gets viruses on "their" computer while surfing porn. This is, in fact, a friend of mine we are talking about here).

I can imagine how awful I would feel, had Star's parents (or my own) found our courtship dissatisfactory. Not so much now, given that it is 3 AM, but I know it's bad enough when we have our own problems, so parental intervention could only ever be worse. What would really drive the blade into the wound would be an obviously forced email, detailing how our "explorations" or "flirtations" were meaningless in any grand sense. Suppose, through repetition, and sheer force of volume, that such a message became ingrained belief (How terribly Orwellian). How could we ever face each other again, after being broken in the deepest and most humiliating way? Parents who perform, attempt, much less consider this kind of torture, after years of supporting a child are the worst of scum. If their love proved so ephemeral in a delicate time, they should never have pretended to love at all. They should have simply said "you receive sustenance at our pleasure" each night, before school, at sports games...never "I love you". The more I think about it, the more I am disgusted that parents could ever hate their children. I have never been the best child, but my parents have weathered the worst I have to dish out, and still their wind is in my sails...should the parents responsible for the bold quotes ever read this, I can say only this: my parents managed with a slacker/gifted/picky eater/ADHD kid, and a perfectionist with severe Allergies. What's your excuse for not being able to handle a simple confession of Love?

Happy 70th (post) to my Blog

Raise some glasses, Ladies and Gents...this Blog may be 70 posts old, but - like most everyone still living* at 70 - it's still a feisty teen on the inside. Don't know why I'm choosing 70 to make even a small fuss about a milestone or other....maybe 70 is the new 50? Doesn't really matter...if you really want to complain about an excuse to celebrate, go ahead, for all the good it will do you!

*"Living" is more than the state of not being dead yet.

Winston Smith

On my way home from Star's today (We did indeed talk things over a bit. Most of the day was spent being thoroughly lazy and comfy...fine by me.) I picked up the X-Press,

Why in hell is Metro still around in Ottawa? If you're going to read a short paper, do you really want to read one that takes itself so seriously? Serious news requires the space for a decent volume of information, enough room for debate...the Metro has neither. Dose worked because it had a sense of humour, bizarre horoscopes, and, of course, sex advice from strangers. It was something you didn't find in greater detail in the Citizen or Sun (let's face it: Dear Abby is TAME!). X-Press is one step up, because it barely even covers Newspaper material, and has cool local stuff instead....and 'Savage Love...best Sex advice column Ever! Metro is as useful in the hand as it is trampled on an OC bus floor!

PS. If, by any chance, someone who writes for Metro sees this...I say "take two pages less talking about celebrities, and call me in the morning!"

Well, I read the "High Bias" column, which informed me that Security services in the US and Canada are now using the same computer algorithms to determine if YOU are a terrorist. I believe one of the criteria was "seat and meal choice on aeroplanes". I have melodramatically suggested in the past that a lot of "antiterror" legislation was the beginning of a Dark Path, and I know that others have predicted a loss of all privacy, and everything from there up to the rise of totalitarianism. Wherever that Dark Path leads, we have now embarked upon it, for better or for worse.

I am not against computerization in general, but here, I have to start by opposing this particular use. This is no game of chess, no daisyworld, no SETI! Terrorism comes in too many colours, shapes, and sizes to be calculated. More importantly, many of these colours, shapes, and sizes are NOT NECESSARILY terrorists. If, as is proposed, anyone with a risk factor above a certain threshold will have their personal data forwarded to other agencies, does it not make sense to have a PERSON REVIEW SUCH CASES? The computer will work only as well as it is programmed (Example: In 2001, Hal 9000 was NOT FUCKING EVIL! He was a computer programmed for accuracy who was ordered to lie, and went crazy as a result of the conflict. The error was Human!), and the program is not (yet) capable of the flexibility that a human mind is. Were that it the case, though. An impartial, human-like mind would be a very useful asset indeed. At any rate, there will be people who are flagged by bizarre coincidence, and it would save time, effort, and money in the long run if you paid a guy to look out for red herrings (as it were) among the "high-risk" crowd. If this sort of thing is going to happen, every citizen is OWED this service. The reason the Government turns to such barbaric measures is because they are easy...regulation and due process would make the methods less easy, and therefore no better than honest ones. This would be VERY, VERY good. Plus, even if the governments go ahead anyway, there will be STANDARDS to ensure fairness.

It is such a cowardly thing, to collect data which should be private. It is an admission of fear, of resignation. An American soldier killed in Iraq is not a victory for Terrorists, but every granule of 'dirt' collected on any citizen IS! What freedom do you have, if everything you do is recorded, and should a computer, simply following orders, decide you are a threat, you can be arrested without charge, and held indefinitely. Ladies and Gentlemen, you no longer live in the Free World. The internet, thankfully, is still around, but suppose someone codes a national terrorism filter, and decides to add a little here and there, take out "dissidents" by "accident", hmmm? This may or may not ever happen, but that might not matter. Why risk the PR backlash when you can just record every site that anyone visits, and then "vanish" the people who read what you don't want them to? Maybe if you talk to someone who says the wrong thing, overhear someone, even? There are CCTVs everywhere in the UK these days, they could tell if you were in earshot of someone "dangerous", and they could have you dealt with. If this sounds more than a little alarmist, you are correct. None or all of this may happen, but the fact remains: Big Brother Is Watching You!

Now, you may say "but these measures are for COUNTER-TERRORISM purposes only!"

Good one, skippy! Remember when the GST was scrapped? Of course you don't, because it WASN'T. It WAS promised, some years ago, however. Or, how about that Ad-scam in Quebec? Government so honest, why, Abe Lincoln would be put to SHAME! If we are lucky, these petty crimes may only be portents of more petty theft to come. If these lies are the beginning of something greater, however, it would be wise to begin fearing for your life!

But back to that whole "cowardice" thing I was on about. There is a nifty little thing in our laws called a 'statute of limitations', which is a lovely thing. If the law cannot catch you and prove you have done something after a certain number of years, you can confess, and you cannot be held accountable, because the Law failed. Some crimes cannot have such a limit (it is never safe to let a murderer lose, after all), but it is a healthy thing, because it provides additional motivation for the Law to WORK HARD in the alloted time. Antiterror legislation allows you to be held indefinitely without trial. There is NO motivation for them to convict you. There is every reason to keep you in a cell for the rest of your life, and say "We have made this country SAFER by [FUCKING OVER THIS POOR BASTARD and] holding him as a suspected terrorist!". The reason is simple: you cannot catch a truly dedicated terrorist, because he or she is clever enough to blend in. Governments need smoke and mirrors to make people believe that terrorism wears a Burqa, or somesuch, because the minute the general populace realizes what I have said here, the Governments lose all that nice, cushy power to make life a living hell for anyone they don't particularly like.

Don't laugh it off. Could be you they have in the crosshairs...

"I only have 2 nipples, but I have 3 PS3s"

WHAT THE HOLY MOTHER OF FUCK!?!?

Yeah, well I have NOT-several-thousand-dollars-spent-on-3-systems-that-will-be-more affordable-when-there-are-games-worth-playing-on 'em!

On the other hand, I can't really criticize. Soon, I should be bragging about my having a new Lian-Li case (for the uninitiated, simply imagine if pure sex could be made from brushed aluminum. Now, bend that into a computer case. That is Lian-Li). I hope I can still snag it at near-half-price. Now the question is, do I buy 3?

That would be fucking RAD!

Anyhow, that's all for tonight. I feel like a little bit of Videogame commentary in the near future, a little escape from the spooky spooky politics will do everyone some good. WoW: Burning Crusade (or as I like to call it "ha-ha, I'm not going to buy it because I like having money and some semblance of a life!") is coming out soon, which ought to be...interesting.