Maclean's has received a lot of attention recently for a cover story declaring Winnipeg as the most racist city in Canada. I wasn't going to write anything about it, since I wouldn't have much to say other than link to my previous post about why I don't take Maclean's seriously. But then a news site offered me a link to an article at Maclean's site about how everyone was talking about the story. Whenever the media gets to the point of writing stories congratulating themselves for writing stories, you know something's gone wrong.
I really wouldn't know if Winnipeg is the most racist city in Canada. I'm assuming they are just talking about large cities; the true title-holder is surely a small city. Yes, I know, that's a stereotype of small communities being less tolerant. But, I'm from a small city, and it's true. Not to belabour the point, but I won't let the story colour my view of the city of Winnipeg, on the assumption that Maclean's put no more effort into ranking our most racist city than they do into ranking our universities every year.
I think the better question is whether it really does anyone any good to pick out a city and finger them as the worst. I've seen a lot of the people who work towards tolerance expressing gratitude for putting the issue on the national radar. I'm not convinced that it is such a good thing. For one thing, as much as I like tolerance, I also like truth, and I'm not comfortable with sacrificing it to try to spur people to action.
I thought it was telling that one activist commenting on television accidentally read the cover as "The Most Racist Country" rather than "City", before correcting himself. That stuck out for me because in the nineties, progressive activists frequently called Canada "One of the Most Racist Countries in the World." It's a ridiculous claim - for all our problems, we're one of the least racist countries - but it became acceptable to make the extreme exaggeration as a way of expressing frustration. I fear we're falling into that same trap again: using justified anger at lack of progress to fuel hyperbole and inaccuracies meant to shock the public into action.
Worse, this approach rarely works. For one thing, it's hard to get the public to buy an idea that goes so harshly against the accepted narrative. And the public doesn't like being shocked into action, even when the shock is legitimate. That's something environmentalists are learning, as they seem to be mixing more hope into their messages than they used to have.
And people don't react well to being singled out. Sounding like you're going after one city isn't going to spur that city to act, it's encouraging them to tune you out. You used to be able to attack Canada as an easy way to spur Canadians to act, since you'd be playing on our inferiority complex. But now, for good or bad, we're developing an ego, so it's time to look for a new tactic.
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Keep It (Patient) Zero
Mostly over been impressed by Larry Wilmore's new show The Nightly Show. He wisely didn't try to reproduce The Colbert Report at all, instead producing a distinctive show.
But I was really disappointed with thee recent episode on vaccination. Wilmore himself did the expected ridicule of the anti-vaccine movement. But then the roundtable discussion was essentially won by the token anti-vaxxer.
What was particularly depressing was that the show's panel discussion was a microcosm of the issue's spread through society, illustrating why it's progressing.
But I was really disappointed with thee recent episode on vaccination. Wilmore himself did the expected ridicule of the anti-vaccine movement. But then the roundtable discussion was essentially won by the token anti-vaxxer.
What was particularly depressing was that the show's panel discussion was a microcosm of the issue's spread through society, illustrating why it's progressing.
- The scientist is adamant in her defence of vaccines, but doesn't have the skills to get that argument heard or give it emotional impact.
- You have an aggressive promoter of vaccines, but her vitriol melts away when facing an opponent who - for all her dangerous ideas - is just a human being.
- Then you have a person whose cynicism - some of it justified, some stoked by the media - makes him fertile ground for act charlatan stoking mistrust of authorities.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Bay, Leaf
The Bay is rebranding. Oh, I'm sorry: Hudson's Bay is rebranding. Yes, they're using their full name now. No more of that yellow logo... what was that thing, anyway? I wasn't sure if it was supposed to be a ribbon or a rose. We'll never know now.
The new look with its dignified black font fits with their upmarket position in the market. That seems to be working for them, though I'm still surprised. I didn't think such expensive merchandise would sustain so large a chain of stores. But apparently we Canadians have a thing for Ralph Lauren.
And that's what's weird about the modern Hudson's Bay. It's a distinctly Canadian brand - not only is it our last department store chain standing, but it's a company that has been intertwined with European settlement of the country. And yet, it doesn't seem real Canadian. There are businesses that we have an affinity for, like Tim Horton's or Canadian Tire, which other countries don't really get. But Hudson's Bay just sells internationally recognizable look-how-prosperous-I-am brands. It would fit in pretty much anywhere in the world.
So what would a really Canadian store look like? That's hard to say. We really like Walmart and it's cheap, practical products. But even after twenty years here, it's hard not to think of them as distinctly American. Maybe it's the all the Disney stuff and Duck Dynasty t-shirts. A really Canadian store would have cheap stuff, but just enough style to let you feel like you're above crass commercialism. Ironically, that would be Target.
The new look with its dignified black font fits with their upmarket position in the market. That seems to be working for them, though I'm still surprised. I didn't think such expensive merchandise would sustain so large a chain of stores. But apparently we Canadians have a thing for Ralph Lauren.
And that's what's weird about the modern Hudson's Bay. It's a distinctly Canadian brand - not only is it our last department store chain standing, but it's a company that has been intertwined with European settlement of the country. And yet, it doesn't seem real Canadian. There are businesses that we have an affinity for, like Tim Horton's or Canadian Tire, which other countries don't really get. But Hudson's Bay just sells internationally recognizable look-how-prosperous-I-am brands. It would fit in pretty much anywhere in the world.
So what would a really Canadian store look like? That's hard to say. We really like Walmart and it's cheap, practical products. But even after twenty years here, it's hard not to think of them as distinctly American. Maybe it's the all the Disney stuff and Duck Dynasty t-shirts. A really Canadian store would have cheap stuff, but just enough style to let you feel like you're above crass commercialism. Ironically, that would be Target.
Monday, January 26, 2015
Rhode Island Red
If you've grown up in a capitalist society, you understand how demand shapes production. If the people want more cars, then more cars will be made. If they want fewer TVs, then fewer TVs will be made.
That's why I like chickens. They break the system. We consume chicken in so many different ways: one chicken breast in your dinner, ground bits of several parts as nuggets, and wings by the dozen at a bar. But no matter the relative popularity of any of these products, we have to produce breasts, thighs, legs and wings at the same rate.
And that means businesses have to get creative to get rid of the parts of the chicken that are less popular. Thus, you have Swiss Chalet's surcharge for requesting white meat, imposed by the invisible hand of the market.
It's also given us:
That's why I like chickens. They break the system. We consume chicken in so many different ways: one chicken breast in your dinner, ground bits of several parts as nuggets, and wings by the dozen at a bar. But no matter the relative popularity of any of these products, we have to produce breasts, thighs, legs and wings at the same rate.
And that means businesses have to get creative to get rid of the parts of the chicken that are less popular. Thus, you have Swiss Chalet's surcharge for requesting white meat, imposed by the invisible hand of the market.
It's also given us:
- the McNugget, an easy way of getting rid of the rest of the chicken. (According to the Wikipedia entry, there are four standard McNugget shapes: The bell, the bow-tie, the ball, and the boot. Now I'm going to have to buy some and go McNuggetwatching.)
- the proliferation of wing joints. We've suddenly got Buffalo Wild Wings, All Star Wings, and St. Louis Wings. All because someone is ordering too many chicken breasts.
- and when all other ways to get rid of chicken bits fails, there's always the unidentifiable battered and sauced chicken chunks in Chinese restaurants.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Go Miscellany Go!
Hockey's intermittent World Cup is back on again, in the fall of 2016. The big talking point has been the two oddball teams that will be joining the sport's traditional national powers: a team of under-23 North Americans, and an all-star team of Europeans from countries that don’t get their own team.
I'm quite surprised to see this development. A few months ago the news leaked out that these teams were being considered, and the reaction from the fans was profoundly negative. Obviously, you have to take negative hockey fan reaction with a grain of salt, since they hate everything new. They were similarly angry when the tournament was renamed from "Canada Cup" 18 years ago. However, this seemed to be more than the usual traditionalist grumbling.
I have to agree that under-23 team does seem like a bad idea. It waters down the nationalism that fuels international sports. Who's going to cheer on the youth team? It probably won't be young people, since child sports fans like to live vicariously through their heroes.
The All-Star Euro team didn't seem like such a bad idea though. I think the anger at it came mainly from being tied to the young team idea. There are lots of professional players who come from non-traditional hockey countries, like Anze Kopitar (Slovenia) or Thomas Vanek (Austria.) Why not throw them together to make the ultimate underdog team? Perhaps it would help to have a Disney tie-in movie about them.
I would make a couple of changes though:
So that's my prescription: seven traditional teams, one so-called gimmick team, that probably won't win anyway, and bury the Young Guns idea. If they insist on having the under-23 team, they might as well go whole-hog and make all the teams based on a theme instead of a country. Other teams could be:
I'm quite surprised to see this development. A few months ago the news leaked out that these teams were being considered, and the reaction from the fans was profoundly negative. Obviously, you have to take negative hockey fan reaction with a grain of salt, since they hate everything new. They were similarly angry when the tournament was renamed from "Canada Cup" 18 years ago. However, this seemed to be more than the usual traditionalist grumbling.
I have to agree that under-23 team does seem like a bad idea. It waters down the nationalism that fuels international sports. Who's going to cheer on the youth team? It probably won't be young people, since child sports fans like to live vicariously through their heroes.
The All-Star Euro team didn't seem like such a bad idea though. I think the anger at it came mainly from being tied to the young team idea. There are lots of professional players who come from non-traditional hockey countries, like Anze Kopitar (Slovenia) or Thomas Vanek (Austria.) Why not throw them together to make the ultimate underdog team? Perhaps it would help to have a Disney tie-in movie about them.
I would make a couple of changes though:
- Declare Slovakia to be close enough to a hockey power to get their own team, especially after schooling Sweden in the world juniors.
- Find some token players from Japan or Kazakhstan or something and call it the world team. No, I don't think that would get us big viewership in the huge markets of China and India, but a Rest-Of-The-World team just sounds more interesting and marketable than Rest-Of-Europe
So that's my prescription: seven traditional teams, one so-called gimmick team, that probably won't win anyway, and bury the Young Guns idea. If they insist on having the under-23 team, they might as well go whole-hog and make all the teams based on a theme instead of a country. Other teams could be:
- All small, fast players
- All Russian skill players
- Nothing but enforcers
- Every current player that the Leafs have traded away
- Retired Hall Of Fame players
- An all-Sergei team
Friday, January 23, 2015
Computer, End Program
Contrary to what you might think, I don't think of myself as the only intelligent/sane person in the world. One of the few intelligent/sane people in the world, sure. But there are times when I feel like I'm alone. A good example has been the talk about the upcoming Windows 10.
First of all, there's a distinct flaw in the premise which no one seems to be noticing. The story from the media has been that Microsoft knows it needs to hit one out of the park, so they've designed an interface that will be suited for the PC, tablet, or phone. Am I the only one who noticed that the reason Windows 8 sucked was because the tried to give it an interface suited for the PC, phone or tablet? They're trying to fix a problem by repeating what caused the problem.
Then there's the new HoloLens that they revealed along with the preview of Windows 10. There was tremendous excitement about it. In fact, the wow-factor seemed to deflect the cynicism that usually accompanies a Microsoft product announcement.
I have to admit, HoloLens does look like it has potential. And it's refreshing to see Microsoft doing something other than playing catch-up. But didn't Google just fail at pretty-much the same thing? I know, HoloLens is more sophisticated than Google Glass, but it does seem to have the same downsides: a (presumably) high price, a dorky, intrusive design, and vague usage scenarios.
But the other aspect that I can’t believe no one noticed: Microsoft had previously said they’d be offering info on Windows 10 that day, and used the opportunity to show a flashy new technology that no one knew about. Doesn’t that seem suspicious? Essentially, they stole their own thunder, distracting the world’s media from reporting on their big product. I’m assuming that they meant to do that, wanting to avoid people parsing every aspect of the new Windows. That would have lead to people realizing that it won’t give them much reason to abandon Windows 7. Or XP, for that matter.
First of all, there's a distinct flaw in the premise which no one seems to be noticing. The story from the media has been that Microsoft knows it needs to hit one out of the park, so they've designed an interface that will be suited for the PC, tablet, or phone. Am I the only one who noticed that the reason Windows 8 sucked was because the tried to give it an interface suited for the PC, phone or tablet? They're trying to fix a problem by repeating what caused the problem.
Then there's the new HoloLens that they revealed along with the preview of Windows 10. There was tremendous excitement about it. In fact, the wow-factor seemed to deflect the cynicism that usually accompanies a Microsoft product announcement.
I have to admit, HoloLens does look like it has potential. And it's refreshing to see Microsoft doing something other than playing catch-up. But didn't Google just fail at pretty-much the same thing? I know, HoloLens is more sophisticated than Google Glass, but it does seem to have the same downsides: a (presumably) high price, a dorky, intrusive design, and vague usage scenarios.
But the other aspect that I can’t believe no one noticed: Microsoft had previously said they’d be offering info on Windows 10 that day, and used the opportunity to show a flashy new technology that no one knew about. Doesn’t that seem suspicious? Essentially, they stole their own thunder, distracting the world’s media from reporting on their big product. I’m assuming that they meant to do that, wanting to avoid people parsing every aspect of the new Windows. That would have lead to people realizing that it won’t give them much reason to abandon Windows 7. Or XP, for that matter.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Deflation Leads To High Interest
If you haven't been following the early Super Bowl hype, investigations have revealed that the New England Patriots used curiously under-inflated footballs during the AFC Championship. That made them easier to grip in the game's very wet conditions.
Once again, we find ourselves marvelling at the odd creature that is the National Football League. It's a multi-billion dollar business with massive power over American media and culture, yet little amateur characteristics keep leaking out. They bring in amateur replacement referees when they can't nickel-and-dime the union, they can't research their players' crimes.
I guess it could be the relatively young age of the modern NFL. Is hard to believe given its current strength, but it's within living memory for most of their execs that pro football was a niche sport that was barely in the national consciousness. It seems like there are leftover structures from that era still in place now.
It also caps off an annus horribilis for the NFL in which everything went wrong. And it's a point that's been made many times, but let's sum it up one last time: it turns out Michael Sam was the least distracting thing in the NFL this season.
On a completely different note, I’m disappointed that people are calling this “ballgate.” Aren’t we all sick of the “-gate” suffix on scandals? There are so many great scandals in the past that we could make clever puns with. So I’m happy that some people are referring to this incident as “ballghazi.” Sure, that’s a little more politically raw, but at least they’re trying.
Once again, we find ourselves marvelling at the odd creature that is the National Football League. It's a multi-billion dollar business with massive power over American media and culture, yet little amateur characteristics keep leaking out. They bring in amateur replacement referees when they can't nickel-and-dime the union, they can't research their players' crimes.
I guess it could be the relatively young age of the modern NFL. Is hard to believe given its current strength, but it's within living memory for most of their execs that pro football was a niche sport that was barely in the national consciousness. It seems like there are leftover structures from that era still in place now.
It also caps off an annus horribilis for the NFL in which everything went wrong. And it's a point that's been made many times, but let's sum it up one last time: it turns out Michael Sam was the least distracting thing in the NFL this season.
On a completely different note, I’m disappointed that people are calling this “ballgate.” Aren’t we all sick of the “-gate” suffix on scandals? There are so many great scandals in the past that we could make clever puns with. So I’m happy that some people are referring to this incident as “ballghazi.” Sure, that’s a little more politically raw, but at least they’re trying.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Tell Me Now How Do I Feel?
Today was Blue Monday, reputed to be the most depressing day of the year. This is based on things like weather, time since Christmas and debt thereof. Of course it's really just a concoction in which a company creates a self-serving news story. In this case, it's a travel agency that wants to make us feel bad in the middle of winter. And apparently the company in question isn't even in business anymore, thus demonstrating the power of viral marketing.
But today didn't really seem that bad. In fact, whenever I've been made aware of Blue Monday, it never is a worse-than average feeling day, at least for a winter day.
I suppose part of the reason is that the concept comes from Britain, so there are going to be different factors involved. For one thing, the British seem to get a lot of their winter melancholy from the limited daylight, while we in Canada get most of it from the cold, which reaches its peak a month or so after the winter solstice. The Americans surely weren't depressed, as this was Martin Luther King Day, which - while solemn - is a day off for many.
So I'm wondering what factors you'd use to figure out a saddest day of the year in Canada. I would suggest the following factors:
But today didn't really seem that bad. In fact, whenever I've been made aware of Blue Monday, it never is a worse-than average feeling day, at least for a winter day.
I suppose part of the reason is that the concept comes from Britain, so there are going to be different factors involved. For one thing, the British seem to get a lot of their winter melancholy from the limited daylight, while we in Canada get most of it from the cold, which reaches its peak a month or so after the winter solstice. The Americans surely weren't depressed, as this was Martin Luther King Day, which - while solemn - is a day off for many.
So I'm wondering what factors you'd use to figure out a saddest day of the year in Canada. I would suggest the following factors:
- Accumulated snow on the ground
- Remaining road-salt reserves
- Time until Leafs' playoff elimination
- Number of times The Weather Channel has used The Red Screen Of Death
- Snowmobiles at the bottom of average lake
- Percentage of TV ads that are for sunny vacations
- Average Number of times a snow plow has blocked the end of your driveway
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Ready, Aim, Fired
So now Target is leaving the Canadian market. That had been suggested by market watchers for months, but I had assumed it was just the paranoia of folks who just look at the short-term bottom line. I didn't think they'd actually do it. And in one final moment of incompetent hubris for old-times-sake, they didn't tell their own employees, leaving them to find out from the media.
It's still hard to believe just how this all went so bad so quickly. Mostly when the media has reported on the company's problems, they've gone straight to the prices as the explanation, noting they aren't as good as the process at American outlets. Personally I doubt that's a big reason. Canada's news outlets have been banging the cross-border shopping fear drum so long that I think they've greatly overestimated the number of Canadians that have been to an American Target.
The should be obvious, but hardly-mentioned truth is that Target's competitor was not is American stores, it was Canadian Walmarts. Walmart has established as identity as being cheap and reliable, while Target's image was of nothing but mediocrity. Personally, I didn’t have that much experience with them, but even I found those experiences were mostly negative.
I mentioned my initial disappointment. Later, I went looking for running shoes, only to find the men's shoe aisle was mostly empty due to their infamous supply problems. There was another time I tried to buy a shirt, but found (1) they hadn't bothered to put checkouts at the store's mall entrance as well as the outside entrance, and (2) arriving at the checkouts, I found a security guard futily trying to herd people into one big lineup instead of just letting them choose their own checkout. Recently, I was shopping for a new computer, and wondered how prices at department stores measured up to the electronics retailers. Walmart's web site made it easy to get some prices on lap tops. Target's site didn't give any info on products, other than letting you peruse a scan of their latest fliers.
A lot of the problem goes back to their curious decision to close all the Zellers stores, sell everything off, remodel over the course of months, then reopen. Of course, the remodelling was just painting Target red over Zellers red, and replacing plain shelves with plain shelves, so it was all a big waste. That wasted money may have been a one-off, but I think it really hurt them. It may have framed them as arrogant, but worse, it set everyone up for disappointment. It’s hard to be impressed when someone has taken five months to arrive back where they started.
But besides the repercussions of their poor entry, there’s also the implications it has for things we can’t see. That is, if the publicly visible aspects were so flawed, who knows what was going on behind the scenes. Hopefully a disillusioned executive will write a tell-all book about what went wrong.
It would be nice if we could put everything back the way it was, resurrecting Zellers. I see some people are already campaigning for it. I couldn't find any info on Zellers' financial health, but I was under the impression they weren't losing the billion-plus a year that Target was losing. But I doubt that will happen. Hopefully someone will step in and provide a competitor to Walmart. Giant Tiger, you may be our only hope.
It's still hard to believe just how this all went so bad so quickly. Mostly when the media has reported on the company's problems, they've gone straight to the prices as the explanation, noting they aren't as good as the process at American outlets. Personally I doubt that's a big reason. Canada's news outlets have been banging the cross-border shopping fear drum so long that I think they've greatly overestimated the number of Canadians that have been to an American Target.
The should be obvious, but hardly-mentioned truth is that Target's competitor was not is American stores, it was Canadian Walmarts. Walmart has established as identity as being cheap and reliable, while Target's image was of nothing but mediocrity. Personally, I didn’t have that much experience with them, but even I found those experiences were mostly negative.
I mentioned my initial disappointment. Later, I went looking for running shoes, only to find the men's shoe aisle was mostly empty due to their infamous supply problems. There was another time I tried to buy a shirt, but found (1) they hadn't bothered to put checkouts at the store's mall entrance as well as the outside entrance, and (2) arriving at the checkouts, I found a security guard futily trying to herd people into one big lineup instead of just letting them choose their own checkout. Recently, I was shopping for a new computer, and wondered how prices at department stores measured up to the electronics retailers. Walmart's web site made it easy to get some prices on lap tops. Target's site didn't give any info on products, other than letting you peruse a scan of their latest fliers.
A lot of the problem goes back to their curious decision to close all the Zellers stores, sell everything off, remodel over the course of months, then reopen. Of course, the remodelling was just painting Target red over Zellers red, and replacing plain shelves with plain shelves, so it was all a big waste. That wasted money may have been a one-off, but I think it really hurt them. It may have framed them as arrogant, but worse, it set everyone up for disappointment. It’s hard to be impressed when someone has taken five months to arrive back where they started.
But besides the repercussions of their poor entry, there’s also the implications it has for things we can’t see. That is, if the publicly visible aspects were so flawed, who knows what was going on behind the scenes. Hopefully a disillusioned executive will write a tell-all book about what went wrong.
It would be nice if we could put everything back the way it was, resurrecting Zellers. I see some people are already campaigning for it. I couldn't find any info on Zellers' financial health, but I was under the impression they weren't losing the billion-plus a year that Target was losing. But I doubt that will happen. Hopefully someone will step in and provide a competitor to Walmart. Giant Tiger, you may be our only hope.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
What's Invisible And Read All Over?
Everybody is talking about this week's issue of Charlie Hebdo. And no one is showing it. I'm trying to think of something that has been as talked in the media without being shown in the media. The only other things I can think of are celebrity sex tapes. Even they usually show a few brief clips. No one is daring to even show part of the Mohammed cartoon on the cover.
On the one hand, I can't blame them. During the Danish Cartoon Controversy, a lot of smaller or more ideologically-motivated publications published the cartoons as a matter of principle. I didn't really agree with that: I don't think you need to help spread people's message in order to defend their right to speak.
To put it another way: they say the test of your commitment to free speech is defending the right to speak even for a speaker you disagree with or are offended by. Thus, it's entirely possible that you would want to support a person's right to speak while not wanting to help them speak (or listen to them.) From that perspective, I would think it was appropriate not to reproduce the cartoons, since many publications would support the right to publish them while not supporting the sentiments expressed in them.
In this case, it just seems strange. People are talking about this magazine that is mysteriously absent from the reports about it. It got really weird when one reporter held up some of the inside pages for the camera, even though they were careful not to allow even a glimpse of the cover. So the usual images you would expect from a story about a magazine (like showing it on a newsstand) are suspiciously absent. At this point it's getting pretty silly: we're worried the extremists are going to go after every news outlet in the world for catching view, in the background, of a cartoon drawing of Mohammed.
On the one hand, I can't blame them. During the Danish Cartoon Controversy, a lot of smaller or more ideologically-motivated publications published the cartoons as a matter of principle. I didn't really agree with that: I don't think you need to help spread people's message in order to defend their right to speak.
To put it another way: they say the test of your commitment to free speech is defending the right to speak even for a speaker you disagree with or are offended by. Thus, it's entirely possible that you would want to support a person's right to speak while not wanting to help them speak (or listen to them.) From that perspective, I would think it was appropriate not to reproduce the cartoons, since many publications would support the right to publish them while not supporting the sentiments expressed in them.
In this case, it just seems strange. People are talking about this magazine that is mysteriously absent from the reports about it. It got really weird when one reporter held up some of the inside pages for the camera, even though they were careful not to allow even a glimpse of the cover. So the usual images you would expect from a story about a magazine (like showing it on a newsstand) are suspiciously absent. At this point it's getting pretty silly: we're worried the extremists are going to go after every news outlet in the world for catching view, in the background, of a cartoon drawing of Mohammed.
Monday, January 12, 2015
Red China, Blue Planet
I was surprised to hear a TV commercial bragging of "Red China's Best Country Radio." I didn't know country was big in China. And I don't know why you'd be advertising it here. Or in English. But I quickly realized that it was actually "Regina's Best Country Radio." See, I was watching one of the Sportsnet channels, and when they're all showing the same thing, I don't bother tuning in to the one intended for Ontario. So I often end up watching refreshing new ads for local products and services in places far from here.
I'd never really noticed that similarity in pronunciation before. Probably because Regina has another, far more famous similarity to an English word. So I'm wondering: do people from Regina purposely pronounce their city name so that it won't be mistaken for "vagina?" I'm thinking that different cadence was what made me think it was "Red China."
Hopefully we can learn from Reginans (Reginians? Reginites?) and avoid other embarrassing puns and misunderstandings. For instance, whenever I have to mention the name of the seventh planet, I try to put the emphasis on the first syllable (UR-in-us) to avoid that stale juvenile pun. But it's not really catching on. Maybe we'll have to wait until people live there, and they can change the pronunciation out of embarrassment.
I'd never really noticed that similarity in pronunciation before. Probably because Regina has another, far more famous similarity to an English word. So I'm wondering: do people from Regina purposely pronounce their city name so that it won't be mistaken for "vagina?" I'm thinking that different cadence was what made me think it was "Red China."
Hopefully we can learn from Reginans (Reginians? Reginites?) and avoid other embarrassing puns and misunderstandings. For instance, whenever I have to mention the name of the seventh planet, I try to put the emphasis on the first syllable (UR-in-us) to avoid that stale juvenile pun. But it's not really catching on. Maybe we'll have to wait until people live there, and they can change the pronunciation out of embarrassment.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
A Presence I Have Not Felt Since...
While I recover from my cold, I'll continue my series of brain-optional musings:
A few years ago, a Danish company introduced a new sports car, called the Zenvo ST1:
As I looked at pictures of the car, I kept thinking that it looked strangely familiar. Have you ever seen a car that just makes you think of someone? Well I eventually recognized who this car reminded me of:
That didn't seem like a good inspiration, the expendable troops who can't shoot straight. Well leave it to Toyota to get it right. Here's the 2015 Yaris:
And here, I believe, is its inspiration:
A few years ago, a Danish company introduced a new sports car, called the Zenvo ST1:
 |
| Photo by G. Patkar, used via Creative Commons |
As I looked at pictures of the car, I kept thinking that it looked strangely familiar. Have you ever seen a car that just makes you think of someone? Well I eventually recognized who this car reminded me of:
 |
| Detail of a photo by Thomas Geersing, used via Creative Commons |
That didn't seem like a good inspiration, the expendable troops who can't shoot straight. Well leave it to Toyota to get it right. Here's the 2015 Yaris:
And here, I believe, is its inspiration:
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Gutting It Out
I'm sick, and having trouble coming up with ideas to write about, but I'll try my best.
When did "gut" become a scientific term? I can understand people using a term like "gut bacteria" trying to make the topic seem more accessible. But now even scientific types are using it.
I remember a kid in about grade two using the word "gut" to describe the stomach, and the teacher tried in vain to make him say something more sophisticated. And now authorities are telling me to be concerned with my gut health.
On the other hand, the dancing bacteria on the American Express ad gets to go by its scientific name, Campylobacter jejuni. And according to the Wikipedia article, it doesn't even look like the cartoon, grass skirt or not. I was kind of disappointed in the article; often Wikipedia articles will have a section with a title like, "in popular culture," where they will list all the times the subject has been mentioned in books, TV, etc. For instance, the entry on Albuquerque, New Mexico, solemnly tells you about Bugs Bunny's frequent references to it. So I was hoping that the otherwise esoteric entry on c. jejuni would have such a note about the ad, but no.
When did "gut" become a scientific term? I can understand people using a term like "gut bacteria" trying to make the topic seem more accessible. But now even scientific types are using it.
I remember a kid in about grade two using the word "gut" to describe the stomach, and the teacher tried in vain to make him say something more sophisticated. And now authorities are telling me to be concerned with my gut health.
On the other hand, the dancing bacteria on the American Express ad gets to go by its scientific name, Campylobacter jejuni. And according to the Wikipedia article, it doesn't even look like the cartoon, grass skirt or not. I was kind of disappointed in the article; often Wikipedia articles will have a section with a title like, "in popular culture," where they will list all the times the subject has been mentioned in books, TV, etc. For instance, the entry on Albuquerque, New Mexico, solemnly tells you about Bugs Bunny's frequent references to it. So I was hoping that the otherwise esoteric entry on c. jejuni would have such a note about the ad, but no.
Monday, January 5, 2015
Glacial Change
I was just reading this article about an underground complex of tunnels being carved out of a glacier in Iceland. They're trying to make it into a tourist attraction, putting in shops and exhibits. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before it is turned into an ice hotel.
Once again, I'm amazed that Canadians are failing to make the big cold-weather adaptations. It was bad enough that the Swedes beat us to making ice hotels. Now Iceland beats us to the idea of building things out of glaciers, even though we have far more people, more industry, and more ice. Worse, the same article points out that the Americans built a secret base in the ice of Greenland. Is there any crazy winter ideas that other cold-weather countries haven't beat us to?
Okay, Molson made that ice rink in the mountains that they're always talking about on their commercials. But that's not really on the same scale. Here's an idea: don't just make an ice rink; carve an entire arena out of the glacier. Make a big pit, put the rink at the bottom, and shape the sides into rows of seats.
Once again, I'm amazed that Canadians are failing to make the big cold-weather adaptations. It was bad enough that the Swedes beat us to making ice hotels. Now Iceland beats us to the idea of building things out of glaciers, even though we have far more people, more industry, and more ice. Worse, the same article points out that the Americans built a secret base in the ice of Greenland. Is there any crazy winter ideas that other cold-weather countries haven't beat us to?
Okay, Molson made that ice rink in the mountains that they're always talking about on their commercials. But that's not really on the same scale. Here's an idea: don't just make an ice rink; carve an entire arena out of the glacier. Make a big pit, put the rink at the bottom, and shape the sides into rows of seats.
Friday, January 2, 2015
It's Square To Be Hip
Once again, I find myself hearing invective directed at hipsters.
I've heard others make the point, and I think it's a good one: it's not really clear who hipsters are. It's not like Mods vs Rockers where everyone hates the other group but both sides are well defined and admit to who they are. In this case, no one really admits to being a hipster, and has only a vague collection of stereotypes to identify them. Yet all are absolutely sure that they hate these people.
It reminds me of my high school years, where there was a great deal of anger directed at "preps" even though my small-town high school didn't really have anyone that would qualify as truly preppy. Some students were better dressed than others, but hardly qualified on the global scale of preppiness.
I've occasionally referred to myself as a hipster, though that is, at best, just a joking shoot at my less-than-mainstream tastes, and, at worst, ironic. Of course, hipsters themselves are ironic, so ironically calling yourself a hipster makes you a hipster, surely. And they also hate to belong to groups, so if you hate hipsters, that also makes you a hipster. So one way or another, we're all hipsters. But that just makes it more confusing that we all hate them.
So what do we hate about hipsters? Some don't like the prospect of being judged. Hipsters have, at their most basic, defined what is and is not hip, and the assumption is that the standards are rather high and inaccessible.
There's also the sense of pretension. Certainly on the few times I've looked down on people for being hipsters, it's because they had a very artificial appearance that seemed to be working too hard to attain a particular image.
But here's the nonsensical part of those worries: they're no different from our everyday social concerns. Worried your cultural choices won't live up to hipsters' standards? That's what we all go through all the time: following other people's ideas of what to wear, watch, and listen to. As for the idea that hipsters are pretentious and artificial, you've surely noticed that all trends are just as fake, but we can't see it when we're inside the trend.
Of course, none of this justifies whatever negative behaviour you might have seen from people you identified as hipsters. But realize that they are no worse than anyone else. If anything, they deserve credit for choosing their own culture instead of just accepting the one that was thrust upon us. I'd like to think of them as chickens coming home to roost: they are to our culture what our culture is to us.
I've heard others make the point, and I think it's a good one: it's not really clear who hipsters are. It's not like Mods vs Rockers where everyone hates the other group but both sides are well defined and admit to who they are. In this case, no one really admits to being a hipster, and has only a vague collection of stereotypes to identify them. Yet all are absolutely sure that they hate these people.
It reminds me of my high school years, where there was a great deal of anger directed at "preps" even though my small-town high school didn't really have anyone that would qualify as truly preppy. Some students were better dressed than others, but hardly qualified on the global scale of preppiness.
I've occasionally referred to myself as a hipster, though that is, at best, just a joking shoot at my less-than-mainstream tastes, and, at worst, ironic. Of course, hipsters themselves are ironic, so ironically calling yourself a hipster makes you a hipster, surely. And they also hate to belong to groups, so if you hate hipsters, that also makes you a hipster. So one way or another, we're all hipsters. But that just makes it more confusing that we all hate them.
So what do we hate about hipsters? Some don't like the prospect of being judged. Hipsters have, at their most basic, defined what is and is not hip, and the assumption is that the standards are rather high and inaccessible.
There's also the sense of pretension. Certainly on the few times I've looked down on people for being hipsters, it's because they had a very artificial appearance that seemed to be working too hard to attain a particular image.
But here's the nonsensical part of those worries: they're no different from our everyday social concerns. Worried your cultural choices won't live up to hipsters' standards? That's what we all go through all the time: following other people's ideas of what to wear, watch, and listen to. As for the idea that hipsters are pretentious and artificial, you've surely noticed that all trends are just as fake, but we can't see it when we're inside the trend.
Of course, none of this justifies whatever negative behaviour you might have seen from people you identified as hipsters. But realize that they are no worse than anyone else. If anything, they deserve credit for choosing their own culture instead of just accepting the one that was thrust upon us. I'd like to think of them as chickens coming home to roost: they are to our culture what our culture is to us.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
Five-Pin Bowling
This year, for the first time, the champion of American college football will be decided by a tournament. Okay, it's only three games between the top four out of over 100 teams. But compared to the old Rube Goldberg scheme of polls and formulas, it's a big change. Of course, in Canada, we've had a straightforward tournament deciding our university football champion for years.
That's meant that we've generally had an undisputed winner, but the anachronistic system down south has some advantages. One is what we've seen played out in front of us over the last few weeks: the bowls. A lot of people hate the bowls, or at least, hate the huge number of bowls that mean even mediocre teams get to play in the limelight. But I actually like that. One thing I've complained about in sports is when there's a hegemony of teams that are constantly at the top. I've advocated for changes to level the playing field, but I guess another possibility is to throw a bone to the lesser teams that have at least played the best with the hand they were dealt.
Why not have bowls in Canada? True, we already have much greater parity in Canadian university football, and you occasionally see a Windsor or Waterloo rise from a joke to a contender. But for much of the time, Laval and Western games are as predictable as Alabama or Oregon facing a lesser team. So if, say, York overachieves and has a winning season, why not let them end their season with a moment in the sun by beating Guelph in the Petro Canada Poutine Bowl?
Okay, there is the problem that "bowl" games are named after the Rose Bowl, which is named for the shape of the stadium. But Canadian football stadiums favour seats on the sides, with open ends. So we'll need a new word. Instead of the Maple Syrup Bowl, it'll have to be the Maple Syrup Half-Pipe.
While we're at it, let's also adopt the conference concept. American college teams organize themselves into conferences based on location or ability. There are good and bad aspects to it, but a good thing is that big, athletically-successful schools can compete amongst themselves in the Big 10 or SEC, while lesser schools can compete in Mountain West, or Mid-America Conference.
So let's have the top teams beat up each other in the Big Prairie or East 10 conferences, and give the lesser teams their own space. Maybe some more schools would participate in football if they knew there wasn't a requirement of a yearly execution against Western. Put Waterloo in the Great Lakes East conference with Brock and Trent, and maybe we'd have a chance.
That's meant that we've generally had an undisputed winner, but the anachronistic system down south has some advantages. One is what we've seen played out in front of us over the last few weeks: the bowls. A lot of people hate the bowls, or at least, hate the huge number of bowls that mean even mediocre teams get to play in the limelight. But I actually like that. One thing I've complained about in sports is when there's a hegemony of teams that are constantly at the top. I've advocated for changes to level the playing field, but I guess another possibility is to throw a bone to the lesser teams that have at least played the best with the hand they were dealt.
Why not have bowls in Canada? True, we already have much greater parity in Canadian university football, and you occasionally see a Windsor or Waterloo rise from a joke to a contender. But for much of the time, Laval and Western games are as predictable as Alabama or Oregon facing a lesser team. So if, say, York overachieves and has a winning season, why not let them end their season with a moment in the sun by beating Guelph in the Petro Canada Poutine Bowl?
Okay, there is the problem that "bowl" games are named after the Rose Bowl, which is named for the shape of the stadium. But Canadian football stadiums favour seats on the sides, with open ends. So we'll need a new word. Instead of the Maple Syrup Bowl, it'll have to be the Maple Syrup Half-Pipe.
While we're at it, let's also adopt the conference concept. American college teams organize themselves into conferences based on location or ability. There are good and bad aspects to it, but a good thing is that big, athletically-successful schools can compete amongst themselves in the Big 10 or SEC, while lesser schools can compete in Mountain West, or Mid-America Conference.
So let's have the top teams beat up each other in the Big Prairie or East 10 conferences, and give the lesser teams their own space. Maybe some more schools would participate in football if they knew there wasn't a requirement of a yearly execution against Western. Put Waterloo in the Great Lakes East conference with Brock and Trent, and maybe we'd have a chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)