Jesus Built My Hotrod

There are a lot of situations where different people have very different attitudes and actions. Take speeding. Lots of people go over the speed limit. On highways, here in Canada, it's the vast majority. But even there, there's a lot of variations. Some just go a little over the limit. Some act as though there is no limit. Most, I think, are like me: pick the maximum speed that won't get you a ticket, and treat that as the limit. And actually feel guilty when you realize you've gone over this pseudo-limit even though it's actually well beyond the posted limit.

But the important point is that even though we all have such different attitudes to speeding, we all know that we have all these different attitudes. That's for the simple reason that we drive in public, so we can all see the general approaches we take. I may not like people who drive as fast as they can, and I may feel morally superior for staying at an arbitrary but still-illegal speed. But I'm not surprised that some people drive like that. My world view includes people who think the laws don't apply to them, both the laws of the road and the laws of physics.

Other aspects of life are not like this. Alcohol is a good one. Other than a drink with dinner in a restaurant, we mostly drink in private. Yes, there are bars, but the only people seeing you drink in bars are other people drinking in bars. The point is that people with vastly different attitudes to alcohol won't see you, and thus, may not know just how much alcohol gets drunk there. Some people drink little or nothing, some drink every day, some binge drink. But if you've only spent your life in one of those types of households, you may not know that the other types exist. Or at least, you may not know how many there are.

Of course, you may not have this problem, depending on what type of person you are. Do you talk to other people? Even people with different backgrounds? Do you listen to them? Okay, do you at least read? Or watch meaningful movies and TV? If so, you may break out of this problem. For instance, I've always lived in low-alcohol environments, but, well, I've noticed that not everyone is like that. So I'm not shocked by people at any extreme of the alcohol spectrum. But I still run into people who are shocked to find that the alcohol experiences of them and their families is not the rule.

And then there's religion. Like alcohol, it's something we do in private, or surrounded by people with the same experience. But there's also the taboo against even talking about it in public, and we tend to live around people with similar religions. So even more so than alcohol, we often have no idea that other people in our society may have very different beliefs. And that's made worse by the fact that no matter your beliefs (or lack thereof) there's people in your religious circles who are misrepresenting others.

I'm constantly amazed at what people don't know about other religious beliefs. People greatly over- or underestimate how much different religions have in common. I see theists think atheists are anything from immoral to depressed. And there are atheists think that all religious people believe the same things. In these cases, we not only suffer from not seeing how each other live, we also have people within our own communities spreading falshoods about other groups. And without the opportunity to see for ourselves, we come to believe those things. The only way out is to start getting to know others with an open mind. Only then can we make religion more like speeding and less like drinking.

Sports Inversion

A few years ago, I remember a Toronto sports journalist ask the question, what is the second most popular team in the city? The Leafs were far and away the most popular, while the Jays were still in their generation-long post-World-Series doldrums. The Raptors were post-Vinsanity, pre-We-The-North, and Toronto FC was only just getting started.

Now things have changed: the Leafs are still pretty popular, but their deliberate rebuilding process has taken their fan support off the boil. The Jays' fan support of the 80's and 90's have been reawakened. And Raptor fanaticism during their recent success has been a shock to the city and the NBA alike. Even Toronto FC finally has success and star power. Oh, and I'm pretty sure the Argos are still in business too.

It's interesting, because it's always seemed like the Leafs' fandom is a different animal from Toronto's other teams. Yes, many of the fans of all these teams are the same people. But there seems to be a different culture to them. Anecdotally, the Leaf fans are whiter and richer, and I think maler. But there's also the way the media looks at it. It's been clear for the last twenty years or so that hockey coverage comes first, then everything else is a second-class citizen.

The is important to me, because of where I fit in to it. Demographically, I fit in with the hard core Leaf fans. Yet, that's not where my greatest passion lies. I grew up during the darkest years of the Harold Ballard era. Back then the Leafs were bad year-in, year-out. It was actually worse than their recent futility, since there wasn't even the hope of getting better. You just accepted that they were awful and always would be. It didn't help that this was in the era when you only got one or two televised games a week, so the only hockey we could get were the pathetic Leafs losing to slightly-less pathetic Norris Division rivals. Meanwhile, tremendous Oiler and Islander teams were making history, but we could only dream about what their games were like. So I came to resent the Leafs.

But eventually Ballard died, and some clever trades got them in contention. They had some great runs in the playoffs, the fan base was re energized, and I got caught up cheering for them along with most people in the area. So I've been a fan since, but I don't have the same deep connection that many others have. I'd like to see them succeed - which would be the basic definition of a fan - but I wouldn't be that torn-up if they didn't. A few years ago, it occurred to me that a Leafs cup win would be a huge cultural force; I've complained in the past about the ever-increasing legend of the Summit Series, but a Leafs cup win would be ten times that. So I asked myself, would that be worth it? And I said, no, I don't think watching the Leafs win the cup would be worth having to spend the rest of my life listening to Leaf fans go one about how that was the greatest moment in Canadian history.

Anyway, it's a bit of a mystery to me why Leaf Nation is so passionate today. You'd think they'd have a "lost generation" of jaded fans like myself. And yet, the fan base has seemed to become more fanatical over time. I don't understand why, but Canadian hockey fandom in general, and the Leafs in particular, has seemed stronger in spite of mediocre play and more sports options

Today, a large part of why I want the Leafs to win is because they've finally taken my advice of tearing the team down and rebuilding. It'll be great to shove that in the face of all the folks who eternally want them to trade for veteran enforcers for a gritty playoff run from the eighth seed. But really, I'd list the Blue Jays as my favourite team. Having watched Roy Howell while I was a toddler in the crappy outfield seats in Exhibition Stadium, I've literally grown up with the team. And I've become a Raptors fan, since they've become a relief from the all-hockey-all-winter nature of Canadian sports media. So they'd go second, followed by Toronto FC. Then I'd put the Leafs after that.

So I often feel like a freak in southern Ontario sports, a fan of everybody else, then the Leafs, while most seem to like the Leafs, then everybody else. But now with the recent phenomena of the Raptors' "Jurassic Park," Canadian media's attention has been piqued, and they've been working a little harder to figure out who these people are, and why they care so much about this team that hasn't had much success. And the Blue Jays have shown themselves to be eminently marketable, with support across the country.  For once, it's the golden age of non-hockey fandom in Canada. Welcome to the bandwagon, everyone!

Bland Turing

I keep hearing talk about how Artificial Intelligence is going to revolutionize everything. We're all going to be out of work, even you folks who think for a living. And yet, I keep seeing artificial stupidity everywhere. I've mentioned how Google Now keeps acting in seemingly random ways. The calendar app is similarly unpredictable: I schedule an appointment and it gives me suggestions as to where the appointment will be, and with whom. But the suggestions are bizarre. It thinks I'm going to have a doctor's appointment at my bank, and that I'm going to invite distant relatives. And Facebook just suggested I'd be interested in attending a favourite musician's latest tour, oblivious that all the dates are in England.

Speaking of Facebook, recently there was the big story about Facebook avoiding conservative stories in their "trending" box. That was, if the claims are true, disturbing in a political way. But it also revealed something technologically embarrassing: the "trending" feature isn't really automated, at least, not totally. That's pretty surprising; finding trending stories isn't exactly a no-brainer, but compared to self-driving cars, understanding natural language, or inventing things, it's pretty easy.

Really, I'm sure they could make a fully-automated trend system, but for some reason, they don't. It could be that an automated version would have unfortunate quirks (say, it can't tell trending news from trending porn.) Or it might not make much financial sense. Maybe it's just cheaper to have a team of people do the work rather than a bunch of computers. Or maybe they just can't teach the computers to have a liberal bias.

Meanwhile, I just saw a story about a translation device that fits in your ear. Yes, fellow geeks, it's an artificial version of the Babel Fish from The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy. The story even had a note about the fictional fish, confident that the reference wouldn't hurt the concept's credibility. Given how notoriously awkward current translation is, I find it hard to believe we're ready to make the jump to the Universal Translator anytime soon.

So maybe AI is going to make a big, fast push, quickly becoming a big part of our lives. Or maybe this is another case of reporters falling for technology hype, or AI's weird ability to fool people into seeming smarter than it is.

The Ninth Focus Group Of Hell

Yes, I know, I just wrote about a car ad; but car ads are like buses, there's always another along soon.

I often wonder if companies consider the implications of their ad campaigns. Take Hyundai's ads with the incompetent competitors breaking in to look incredulously at how good Hyundai's cars are. The lesson is supposed to be that Hyundais are far superior to their competitors, but the message I get is that Hyundai has really poor security. I mean, these execs who can't build a decent car never have any trouble sneaking in.

Then there are the Chevrolet ads where that guy with the beard does flimsy demonstrations to convince people that Chevys are best. Well, that's supposed to be the message; my takeaway is that Chevy are maniacal jerks who like to terrorize innocent focus groups. Like in the one where he pretended to shred a group's cell phones, or that other one where he locked a group in an elevator. That latter example was to show that the Chevy Volt's range-extended electric system is better than the Nissan Leaf's purely-electric drive. Now Chevy is contradicting themselves with the all-electric Bolt.

They also keep playing the ad with Mr. Sadist turning kids against one another over video games only one can play at a time. These "real kids" with "real reactions" say, "oh my gosh" in unison, upon seeing an SUV. No part of that sounds believable, especially when you realize that SUV's are to them what minivans were to the last couple of generations. So I'm guessing these kids were well compensated for their acting jobs. I hope so; it'll help them pay for the therapy they'll need after this experience.

But then there's the one where adults from the target market are shown a Chevy Malibu with the logos removed to keep opinions honest.

• First, they say it reminds them of an Audi or a BMW. Wow, that is quite an endorsement: In the esteemed opinion of someone who can't recognize a Chevrolet if it doesn't have the badges on it, this is like an Audi or a BMW.
• It has Teen Driver Technology, which mutes the radio until the seatbelts are fastened. This is met with amazement from the focus group, who can't believe such a thing exists. Really? You can turn on the radio by telling the car to turn on the radio, but it didn't seem possible that someone could connect the seatbelt to the radio? Personally, I would have prevented the teen from putting the car in gear until the seatbelt was fastened, but I guess the radio is good too. After all, how are today's kids possibly going to get access to music without a radio?
• But the big, I-can't-believe-they-got-this-past-the-legal-department trick is when the group is presented with the price, and someone says, "for all this technology?" That's never answered, but the answer is, no, not for all this technology, because all the things they've been showing off are options, not at the base price they just quoted.

I Want To Breed My Bicycle, I Want To Breed My Bike

You know what's weird? Commercial jets. Well, they aren't weird, I mean the fact that they never seem to change. During my life, they've never stayed from the tube-with-big-wings format. Yes, I know, now they have those little tail things on the end on the wings, but that's not much of an innovation for half-a-century, you know?

And bicycles. That same two-triangle design has been around forever. Sure, it's simple and efficient, but so were radio, books, vinyl records: I'm used to seeing tried-and-true concepts get unceremoniously pushed aside by progress.

But it may be changing. Take a look at this new electric motorbike. It's built by a subsidiary of Airbus to demonstrate new design and manufacturing techniques.

It's designed using an algorithm that "evolves" a structure to be as light as possible while still meeting the needed strength minimums. That means the design may be unusual or complex. The result is something that looks very organic, as well as modern.

This concept could lead to some revolutions. One is that we can get to lighter materials, which could put things like electric cars closer to the mainstream. (And maybe jet packs, he says, crossing fingers ) Another is that this could be the "killer app" that 3D printing needs to surpass conventional manufacturing. For now, it's still expensive compared to conventional factories in Southeast Asia cranking out identical crap. But if you could make significantly better things with 3D printing, that could tip the balance to make it preferable. And if that happens, it could lead to increased personalization, greater automation, and less concentration of factories in places.

But for many, the most noticeable aspect might be the new aesthetic. Organic design would give the next generation of things a distinctive look that would be unlike products from only a few years before. That would give this future we now live it a revolutionary style, which is something that's always been missing when we compare it with our past imaginings of the future. Even more than jet packs.

Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out

A while back, I discussed the possibilities of a basic guaranteed income. Now venture capitalist Sam Altman, on the Freakonomics podcast, has addressed the idea, coming down in favour of it. The interesting (and headline-grabbing) aspect of his defence came when he poopooed the concern that guaranteed income would take away the incentive to work. He said that society would continue to function even if 90% of people just get high and play video games.

The strange thing is, I find that believable. It's part of a question that many people have asked one way or another: how much of the work done in our society is actually necessary? I know, that sounds painfully cynical, but come on, have you worked in an office? On top of that, consider the amount of work that goes into cancelling out someone else's work, such as advertisers promoting competing products. Generally, we think of that as the lesser of two evils, the greater evil being a completely planned economy, where even more waste will go into bureaucracy and self-serving decision making. But even still, it's depressing when you think of how many careers go into it. Those lives could be just as well spent high in Hyrule, as far as overall productivity goes.

However, I do still have some concern with this reasoning: they're essentially saying that there are enough people with passion who would work without material incentive that we could keep society going. In many aspects of life, that's true. Most artists work despite the structure of capitalism, rather than because of it. And open-source software shows that programmers are willing to do work without pay, though usability experts apparently don't.

But what about farmers? Lots of people would probably farm anyway, they get enjoyment and satisfaction from growing things. After all, we have the term "hobby farm" for a reason. But would there be enough people, working hard enough, to feed us all? We urbanites don't really appreciate how much farming has industrialized over the past century. Yes, automation is a possible answer. Indeed, it's a possible answer to all concerns about post-work societies, but I'm not sure it will become that advanced fast enough. After all, we're talking about hobby farmers growing food to feed seven billion (or eight or nine by the time these changes come about.)

How about janitors? Garbage collectors? You could argue that without work requirements, the way we approach the distribution of work might change. Using garbage collectors as an example: if 90% of us are smoking pot and playing video games, and the other 10% are working, but not at a breakneck, nine-to-five pace, we might not mind taking our trash out to the dump ourselves. We also might not mind cleaning up our own workspaces, instead of expecting people to specialize in cleaning buildings on an industrial scale. Or maybe our standards of cleanliness in the office might drop down to the standards of cleanliness most of us have in our homes.

That's an interesting thought experiment: modern society has generally gained efficiency by having people specialize in jobs. But perhaps a future post-industrial society might undo that change. The only way empowered people might get unpleasant work done would be to spread it out among all of us.

Don't Blame This Sleeping Satellite

Plenty of times I've complained about ads, particularly car ads, but this Audi "choose the moon" ad has me emotionally perplexed. The aging of the astronauts who walked on the moon is quite sad. There were twelve, and only seven are still alive. So it's nice to acknowledge that, even if it's being used to sell a $180,000 car.

On the one hand, it's a lazy "association" ad, where the message is that our cars are cool because - look, spaceships! It's not the first time I've even seen a decline-of-the-space-program connection in a car commercial. A few years ago, there was a Corvette ad built around the idea that America still builds rockets. But that just came out as depressing evidence of American decline. Oh, a Corvette, that's much better than going to the moon. (And just so you know, astronauts actually got special deals on Corvettes.)

But on the other hand, this ad does a good job of emotionally drawing you in with this sad story of the aging astronaut. It actually expresses the melancholic decline of the space program better that just about anything else I've seen. Perhaps it took a German company to pull it off, since they didn't need to wave the flag, and could just concentrate on telling one person's story, even if that person seemed to personify the country's fading away.

Even the use of David Bowie's "Starman" is unsettling. Is that a nice tribute to a recently departed hero, or an attempt to cash in before he's cold in his grave.

And the catch phrase, "Mr. President, thank you for choosing the moon" is an interesting way to tie the ad together. Though it's also rewriting history. The moon landings were famously triggered by JFK's challenge in 1961, but of course, he didn't live to see them happen. In fact, the president during all the moon landings - the one with his signature on the Apollo 11 plaque on the moon that will outlive our civilization - was his rival, Richard Nixon. So he was the one making the phone call to the moon depicted at the start of the ad. Many think it was quite a shame that during the real-life phone call, Kennedy's name never even came up. Really, he was the one who "chose the moon."

But now that I think about it, here's why the commercial seems particularly touching: The idea of an old man feeling sadly disconnected from his past glories shouldn't be a surprising concept. But for people my age, when we're trying to imagine the young man behind today's senior, it's to picture a man marching off to war.  So you might feel some sadness comparing his elderly self to his more active youthful self, but that is tempered by the fact that he's probably better off in his dull present day life than in the horrors of war. But this man has positive, proud exploits that he'd want to revisit. That's not how we're used to seeing it, just as we're not used to seeing an older person who has experienced technological marvels we'll never experience.

Suppose They Gave A Brawl And Nobody Watched

This weekend, the Toronto Blue Jays found themselves at the centre of attention of the baseball world.  Combined with their playoff run last fall, that's twice in the last year.  Or twice in the last twenty years, if we're being honest.  Only this time, the team wouldn't be nearly as happy with what got them the attention. To review:

• In last year's playoffs, the Jays' Jose Bautista hit a decisive home run, leading the team to a comeback win against the Texas Rangers.  After hitting the home run, he watched the ball go, then flipped his bat away emphatically before beginning the ceremonial jog around the bases.  Though the batflip has been celebrated among Jays fans, other baseball fans thought it was a violation of the sport's etiquette.
• On Sunday, the Blue Jays were playing in Texas, and by a foible of the schedule, it was the last time the two teams would play this season. When Bautista batted late in the game, he was hit by the pitch, seemingly in retribution.
• Miffed at this, Bautista took out his frustration a few batters later by sliding hard into second base, trying to upend second baseman Rougned Odor.  Odor took issue with this, the two started arguing, and Odor punched Bautista hard in the face.  This led to a bench-clearing brawl.

And the funny part is that all this happened during the fourth quarter of the Toronto Raptors' game seven against Miami, so hardly any Jays fans saw this happen.

So since then, the sports world in these parts have been debating the ethics of sports fighting and vengeance.  Actually, people have been discussing it since the original bat flip.  Some baseball old-timers criticized the flip, though many have been defending it on the grounds that:

• This was a big emotional moment, and you have to judge it by the context (keep in mind that the home run capped-off a bizarre inning that included errors, lead-changes, obscure rules, arguments, and nearly a riot.
• You have to change with the times, people are showy than they once were.  You know, hip-hop and all that.

To me, this is another example of how sports has weird ideas about what is and is not acceptable.  I remember a psychology prof pointing this out once: in hockey, fighting is acceptable, and even celebrated.  But try spitting on someone in a hockey game and it's crimes against humanity.

Baseball, as the sport that's been professional the longest, seems to have far stranger and more arbitrary rules of behaviour. If someone hits a home run, and then jogs around the bases a little too slowly, there'll be hell to pay, since it might hurt someone's feelings. But it's also accepted that the pitcher may hit the next batter out of frustration.

Normally I hold up hockey as the ultimate example of a sport with strange and nonsensical accepted behaviours, but Baseball has plenty of foibles that could do with some revisiting too.  Hard slides and batter-hitting and other physically-dangerous actions are being equated with actions considered offensive just because someone in the 1800's didn't like it.  And strangely, anyone questioning the morality of the fighting and other physical actions is told to suck it up, it's a man's game etc. You essentially have to suppress your emotions, except in things like bat flips, which people probably wouldn't be angered by if they weren't told to be angered by it.

Preparing For The Trump Influx

Okay Canada, we've got a problem. Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee, and people are getting nervous. A President Trump would be a problem for a lot of people, but it's especially bad for us: see, the election's months away, and already Americans are talking about fleeing to Canada. Yeah, it may seem like idle joking now, but some people are taking it seriously. And just wait until Trump and Vice President-elect Palin are musing about which religions to ban; then the floodgates will open.

We've gone and set the precedent that we'll welcome refugees. That seemed like a good idea when we had an ocean between us and all the countries producing refugees. But if there's a despotic leader right next door, it could be a disaster. What are we going to do with all these people? there are 2.6 million Muslims in the U.S. and 50 million Latinos. Then you have to add in a fair portion of liberals who just want to leave, and then all the people dodging the draft to avoid the new war against France. Face it, we're going to have to use some more radical approaches to fit everyone in. Here are some ideas:

Accelerate Global Warming

The easiest way for us to get more usable space is to use more of the land we already have. For that, all we need are a few more degrees and the extinction of the blackfly. Of course, we've always had the capacity to pump out the greenhouse gases, and now we have the incentive. And when Trump mandates maximum mileage standards, that'll help too.

Once the ice is gone, we start building condos and subdivisions in the Arctic. Hey, we've created real estate bubbles pretty much everywhere else in the country, why not the North? Once developers run out of room on Toronto's waterfront, they'll be glad to have new land to work with.

Annex Everything We Can

I've mentioned the possibility of adding the Turks and Caicos before; well, there are plenty of other ex-colonies of Britain in the Americas that we could adopt. I know, the Falklands aren't that big, but I'm sure they'll be a fine place for Bernie Sanders to spend his exile.

Also, we could probably talk Trump into just giving us Puerto Rico. It's nearly bankrupt, and full of Latinos, so he'll want nothing to do with it.

Fill In Some Places

Saskatchewan, Labrador, Northern Ontario: you're going to have to make room.  Sure, we can hide some more cities deep in the forest and you'll never even know they're there, but you on the prairies are just going to have to live with a New Chicago that you can see for miles around.

New Provinces

Every province has land they're really not using. We could slice-off big parts of them so that refugees could build their own Provinces from scratch. Honestly, we could just redefine Ontario as "everything within a hundred miles of the 401, and most of us wouldn't notice the difference. Why not take everything between Stratford and Tobermory and give it to American ex-pats to establish New Connecticut.

Since a lot of the Trumpugees™ will be fleeing due to their religion or ethnicity, we could create homelands for Muslims, Hispanics, homosexuals etc. I'm sure putting all the people with one culture in the same province couldn't possibly come back to haunt us. But seriously, that's just the decent thing to do, letting people with their own culture govern themselves. What's that, Native Canadians? Well, um, you know...

Expanding Cities

We don't really want Toronto to balloon into a sprawling megalopolis surrounded by American shantytowns. So let's think about how we can fit more people into other cities. For instance, if we in Kitchener-Waterloo want to squeeze in more people without changing the community's character, we'd have to build a few more conjoined communities. There's enough room between KW, Cambridge, and Guelph for another city. We can just make it one big mass of cities that can't agree on a merger.

Making New Cities

There are plenty of parts of Canada that don't have a big urbanized centre, but could probably benefit from one. For instance, the Maritimes. Wouldn't we all like to see what happens when we squeeze a million Nova Scotians into a mega city to create the worlds friendliest metropolis? Bonus: they could finally get their CFL team. And how about a big city for Newfoundland? That would be beautiful with all those wooden, brightly-coloured skyscrapers.

And since some American cities will probably move wholesale to Canada, we might as well just rebuild them in their entirety. So let's start looking for places we can put replicas of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Boston.

Learn Spanish

All the Spanish speakers are going to mean some big changes. for one thing, we'll have to find a way to put grocery items in three-sided containers so we can print the label in three different languages. But I also figure Quebec would be willing to house them. Sure, they might overwhelm the French-Canadian culture, but at this point, I'm sure they no longer care which language wins, as long as it's not English.

More Hockey Teams

If the blue states start to empty out, they might as well bring their hockey teams with them. But keep in mind that a sudden increase in Canada's population would mean and an explosion in the number of hockey players a generation from now.

Steal Parts Of The U.S.

He may claim otherwise, but Trump isn't really a detail guy. So we could easily sneak in and take a few parts of America without him noticing or caring, as long as we take parts he's not real fond of. For instance, Detroit has no money, cheap real estate, and a big Muslim community. He'd probably be glad if we took it off his hands. Same for Buffalo.

As I've mentioned before, there are plenty of empty states bordering Canada that America wouldn't really miss. Unfortunately, they're mostly places that would support Trump: As soon as he wins the election, you know North Dakota will be out building a fence on the Canadian border, then leaving us a bill. Really, the only state we could annex wholesale without trouble would be Vermont. That doesn't really give us much extra space, but at least then we wouldn't have to send Bernie Sanders to the Falklands.

Nulcear Weapons

At this point, we'll have a small empire, most of America's scientists, control of the world's media, and about a hundred million people, many of which are the people Trump has taught his followers to demonize. The point is, we'll be next in the crosshairs of Trump and his government propagandists at the new PBS (which will actually just be rebranded Fox News.) So no more of that undefended border crap; it's time for a cold war. Oh, and we still have to protect the Falklands from Argentina.

Again, I'm hoping that some of the fleeing Americans can bring some military equipment with them. And maybe Justin Trudeau knows where his dad put those Cruise missiles we tested for the Americans in the eighties. And I'm sure we've still got the plans for the Avro Arrow around here somewhere. Yes, it's obsolete now, but remember, it will just have to beat the new F-35. That shouldn't be too hard.

We Can't Build Our Dreams On Suspicious Minds

Baseball has a weird relationship with steroids. On the one hand, it's clear that association with performance enhancing drugs have a huge effort on a player's reputation. We've seen Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa go from hero to pariah. And we've seen Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Alex Rodriguez go from hated for their personality to hated for cheating.

But A-Rod is an interesting case, since he's still playing in the aftermath of steroids revelations. It seems that he is treated very differently depending on the circumstance: journalists and fans continue to treat him as persona non grata, while commentators in-game fawn over him as though nothing happened. That's especially odd when they they fawn while the audience boos. And apparently directors are on the anti-A-Rod side, since they always arrange to show fans holding up asterisk signs to put the brakes on the announcers' praise.

Further, there seems to be an undercurrent of journalists looking to forgive the steroid users. I've heard a few say that young fans and young and up-and-coming journalists don't share the anger at the cheats, and will eventually let them into the Hall of Fame. I'm not sure I buy that. I'm not sure I even buy that there are many young baseball journalists. This claim of young, forgiving journalists may be real, or it may be a subset of the media depictions of millennials. You know, the one where you not only depict them as completely different from previous generations, but also conveniently in line with what you want to happen.

On top of all this, there's the lingering doubts around many high achievers in the game. Jeff Bagwell never been implicated in cheating, yet is kept out of the Hall Of Fame in large part because of suspicion based on statistics alone. And now, accusations are being made against pitcher Jake Arrieta, based on nothing more than the fact that he's on one of the great hot streaks of all time right now.

So to summarize: some people in baseball will consider you reprehensible if you are merely successful enough that you might have used drugs. Others will forgive you even if you've been caught red-handed.

The Overly Expendables

For a while now, people have speculated that digital special effects have hurt movies. Sure, they've allowed for much better effects, but the problem is that it's now so easy to throw together a visually-impressive sci-fi/fantasy/superhero movie. It used to be that such movies were so difficult that the studios would put everything into them. Now, they're so common that Marvel was already advertising their next blockbuster before the current one even opens.

But I think it might actually be worse for TV ads. It used to be that special effects were out of the question for them, except the odd Superbowl spot. But now they can have effects well beyond movies of thirty years ago. And that's made them kind of lazy. Any old idea can be done pretty quickly and cheaply, so little thought or oversight is applied.

Of course, I'm thinking of that LG ad which takes place on a city street where everyone is played by Jason Statham. What the hell is that all about? I mean, normally I can understand the point any ad is making, however convoluted. For instance, several phone and insurance companies have started showing people doing fun or heartwarming things that have nothing to do with phones or insurance, and you just have to make the connection that their lives are so much more complete because of the money they saved on phones and insurance.

But long-haired Jason Statham dancing in the street while filmed by elderly Jason Statham in a cafe? Because someone, presumably Jason Statham, bought an LG phone? I've got no explanation, other than the idea that putting this commercial together is now so cheap that the whole project passed through the ad agency so quickly that no one stopped and said, huh? Normally I wouldn't criticize Statham, since I appreciate his bringing unprecedented masculinity to both baldness and the name "Jason." But this commercial is just weird.

I think it's just because ad agencies can brainstorm any old idea, then put it into practice so easily. Somebody watches The Transporter and Being John Malkovich in one night, follows that up with a three-martini lunch, and suddenly ad sounds like a good idea.

This wouldn't have happened in the eighties, simply because you wouldn't have been able to fund it unless it was a really brilliant idea.

"We'll have an army of Rambos, all played by Sylvester Stallone, and they'll be on a mission to find the beef that's missing from hamburgers. It'll cost $50 million."

"We'll give you enough for one old lady."

These Reboots Are Made For Talking

I just saw a headline that excitedly told me "The Interview with the Vampire reboot is happening." I'm left wondering, how is that a surprise for anyone? There are reboots everywhere, targeting properties new and old. I just assume that reboots are happening unless I've heard otherwise. I assume there's a Misfits of Science reboot in the works, because I haven't heard any contradictory reports.

(Pause while I check if there really is a Misfits of Science reboot, because that would be awesome.)

But seriously, is anyone rebooting Reboot? That would be good too. Oh look, there is one. That should teach me that when I make silly claims to emphasize points, I should actually follow through, because the world is always more extreme than I realize.

Cruz In For A Bruisin'

A while back, I wrote a post in which I admitted that Ted Cruz was right about something. It was one particular aspect of one particular issue, and it was in ways he probably never intended much less understood. But it was still quite shocking for me to admit. Well, now I've got something even more unexpected to admit:

I feel sorry for Ted Cruz.

I'm sure I wasn't the only one who was sorry to see his campaign end, if only because he was the slightly-lesser of two evils. But beyond that, I can't help but feel bad for him and the way he's been treated. That treatment reached new levels of clarity in that final few days, with those much-publicised encounters he had with Trump supporters. Those folks treated him pretty much according to Trump supporter stereotypes, with ridicule and playground-level arguments.

This was made worse by the way satirists seemed to take the Trump supporters' side, pulling-on Cruz rather than acknowledging the awful behaviour of his tormentors. This might be because Cruz is - according to nearly everyone he isn't related to - an rather unpleasant person. Though I fear that it's because Trump's behaviour has been so constant that is just fading into the background.

I've noticed a disturbing trend where Trump's rivals criticize him, then the ridicule seems to be scattershot, with no consideration for the possibility that one side might be far more deserving of attack than the other.  For instance, when the Pope criticized Trump's border wall proposal, I saw several people on TV and the Internet point out that the Vatican has a wall around it.  Yes, it's an easy joke, but is that really the aspect of the story that needs the satire here?

On the other hand, if people target Cruz because of disdain for him as a person, that's quite disturbing too. Politics is becoming more and more like the social world of a school; that became obvious to me in George W Bush's election wins against Al Gore and John Kerry, which was essentially the frat boy using his social status to beat the nerds. Though I suppose in retrospect, Bill Clinton's victories had a Big Man On Campus vibe, so maybe it's been going on for a while.

Extending this analogy, Cruz is the creepy kid that no one likes. But the thing about that kid is, if you have a shred of humanity, you feel sorry for him because you know that even he doesn't deserve the universal scorn he gets.  And that's how I'm looking at Cruz right now.  I don't like him any more than most do.  But when the school bully picks on someone, you have to take the victim's side, whoever he is.

Fleet Foxes

Do you know someone from England, or perhaps a sports fan with an interest in international sports? Are you confused as to why they're suddenly raving about some guy named Lester? Allow me to explain:

In European soccer leagues, there are usually several divisions, in a hierarchy. At the end of each season, the top few teams in each division are "promoted" - allowed into the next division up next season. The bottom few teams are "relegated" - moved down to the next lowest division for the next season. To win the overall championship, you have to finish first in the top division - there are no playoffs.

Also, in sharp contrast to American sports leagues, there are no measures to help teams that are unsuccessful either on or off the field. Revenue sharing, salary caps, drafts, limited free agency, luxury taxes, tampering rules - they've got none of them.

So generally, each country has a small number of teams that stay at the top of the top division because they have all the money. Take for instance, England's top division, the Premier League. Over the last 24 years, only four teams have won it.

And this is why this year has been so remarkable. Leicester (pronounced "Lester", nicknamed "The Foxes") was only just able to avoid relegation last year. Coming into this season, they were 5,000 to 1 longshots. As many people have been pointing out, British bookies will give you the same odds that the Loch Ness Monster will be found. But they had a miraculous year, leading most of the season. When second place Tottenham failed to beat Chelsea today, Leicester clinched first place.

This title is being listed among all-time upsets

This could be a new era of competitiveness in English soccer. At the very least, everyone has some hope today. Now your wildest dreams have some foundation, as you know an underdog really can break through. But it's bittersweet for me. See, at the same time I'm cheering on Leicester righteously slaying the game's elites, I'm also mourning my family's team.

Aston Villa, the dominant team of England's West Midlands, is going to be relegated. Since the modern creation of England's Premier League in 1992, they were one of only seven teams that had never been relegated to the lower divisions. But no more. They're in last place, with no mathematical chance getting high enough to avoid relegation this year.

Blue, the Aston Villa bear, says wait 'til next year

An unwillingness to spend on players, an inability to groom young players fast enough, and a revolving door of coaching has caught up with them. After years of being mediocre, or just "not terrible," the bottom fell out and they won just three games out of thirty-six. Yes, we should have seen this coming when the team was bought by the guy who owns the Cleveland Browns.

So at a time when my family should be optimistic, we're feeling hopeless. At a time when the whole world is looking at the Premier League standings, we're right there at the bottom. If the league were Good Will Hunting, we'd be Ben Affleck to Leicester's Matt Damon. So we'll just have to use this new optimism to believe that we'll be back to the Premier League again soon. Or we'll just resort to the usual dream, for a new billionaire owner who'll spend his way to the top.

To Bleep Or Not To Bleep

There's a Subaru ad running now in which they use the term "bleep-holes."  We're to assume that "bleep" stands in for "ass" in this case. I feel the need to let them know: that just sounds silly.

I understand where they're coming from. As a child, I briefly tried using the word "bleep" as a stand-in for profanity; it's a tempting way to bridge the gap between personal politeness and a society that wants you to show tokens of rebellion. But they'll learn - as I did - that it doesn't work. It's a redundancy that substitutes one symbolic sound for another, thus exposing the arbitrary nature of linguistic associations. And it just sounds stupid. You're making a mechanical sound as part of a sentence and hoping it sounds a little bit badass. Oh I'm sorry, bad-bleep.

It's worse in this ad, since they're trying to sound humanizingly cynical. But instead they come off as patronizingly artificial. So please, Subaru, even if it is suited to your adorably dorky image, please stop making a fool of yourself.