Maestro Fresh Wes is on a stamp.
![]() |
I came across the existence of Longleat Safari Park in England. It’s one of those drive-through safari parks. What's weird about it is that it's on the grounds of a historic stately mansion. Of course, you have to wonder how that happens: A safari park isn't really what you associate with British aristocracy. Okay, you might imagine a rich British person with a private collection of exotic animals, but that's not what this is. Picture a huge and luxurious Victorian house in the English countryside; then imagine the camera shifts a little to the side and you see a middle-class family in their sedan watching the monkeys converge on the car looking for handouts, and the family is going from delight to a slight panic as more and more monkeys show up.
And yet, this cultural juxtaposition isn't that unusual. I remember going to an amusement park called Alton Towers, which is also on the grounds of an old estate. It seemed a little weird; I mean, I realize they need to put the theme parks and Safari parks somewhere in England, and they also have historic Manor houses. And since there's not much room, they could be side by side. But you'd think the historic Manors would want nothing to do with the entertainment of the common people. You know, build a tasteful wall between them. At the very least, don't name the park after the house.
But apparently, running a massive luxurious house is all fine and dandy when it's the nineteenth century and you have tenant farmers paying rent, and you're not paying any taxes, and there aren't many factories to outbid you for your workers. But in more modern times, these big houses became unaffordable even for the wealthy, and many were torn down or sold off. Others had to find new sources of income, and that's how a few of them came to have attractions for the masses on their grounds. Even at Alton Towers, the amusement park wasn't enough to make ends meet: the interiors of the house were sold off, and only the stone shell of the building remains.
Anyway, part of the reason for my interest in this concept is that I just read Pride and Prejudice, which mostly takes place in such homes. One of the odd aspects of the setting is that the heroine’s family, the Bennetts, are on the poor side of rich. They may lose their house and their income, and probably end up in a Dickens novel. So you have to keep reminding yourself throughout the book that even though their cohorts look down on them, they're still much better off than most in that era.
But now that I've seen the fate of such houses, I can't help but wonder what became of (spoiler alert) Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy's descendants. By now Mr. Darcy's estate at Pemberly is either gone, or maybe home to Europe's third largest water park.
Yes, I know, it's actually a good thing that these houses are no longer focused on a wealthy few. And this is a win for society: the welfare state and market forces combining to deliver a deserving comeuppance to an exploitative system.
Maybe it's my English blood, but it still feels sad to see an end as undignified as Pemberly Splash Xtreme (Liz Darcy VII, proprietor.)
Well, it’s another year of The Great Canadian Stanley Cup Drought. Last year, I made a post about how long it’s gone on, but this year, I’m trying to be more positive.
It was an oddity of watching Shai Gilgeous-Alexander lead the Thunder to an NBA title while Canadian hockey teams couldn’t make it to the summit yet again. That got me thinking: while the past thirty-two years haven’t been good for Canada’s NHL teams, it has been a great time for sports we aren’t traditionally good at. You know, non-winter sports. So here is my list of things that Canadians have (rather surprisingly) won since the last time a Canadian team won the Stanley Cup:
We’ve had most of a season with the new PWHL team branding now. Personally, I didn’t really miss them in the opening season’s cities-only identities. And some of the new ones are still not feeling quite right. So here’s my reviews of them:
Pretty clever: has the double meaning of the sound often heard in New York, and the Sirens of Greek mythology.
Kind of disappointing. I realize it’s difficult to make a symbol for a team named after a sound. What would you do, show a mythological siren holding an air horn? Though the extra bits of letters at the side, to look like an alarm light was very clever.
The teal is borrowed from the WNBA’s New York Liberty, which in turn is borrowed from the Statue of Liberty. Combine it with the dark blue and amber and it looks like a blending of the 90’s and today. Nice.
The use of multiple colours in the uniform is refreshing when so many teams have fallen in love with an all-one-colour look. So now you can enjoy teal without O.D.ing on it like in San Jose. Too bad the word, “Sirens” on the logo is the same colour as the home uniform, so from a distance, you just see these two disjointed chunks of white above and below it.
If you’re going to make a bunch of team names, there’s bound to be a WTF entry, and here it is. I have to admit, when I heard the name, my mind went to an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer where she fights the old shamen who created the slayers, and defeats one by breaking his staff, which turns out to be the source of his powers, and she says, “I knew it. It's always the staff,” as if to comment on the phallic nature of so many symbols of power. So does it really make sense to name a women’s team after such an item?
But I’m also thinking they need to read the room. There are places for taking a chance on an off-the-wall name, but Canadian hockey fandom in general, and Toronto in particular, is not it.
That was well done; it looks classic without being dated, thus winning back some of the Canadian Hockey cachet that the name lost
You had to go with blue, which was Toronto’s civic colour before the Raptors started dragging it towards the red end of the spectrum. Light blue was bold. But yellow? It’s a little St. Louis Bluesy to me. I normally hate it when sports teams describe their yellow as “gold,” but in this case, it might have been a good idea to darken and dull the yellow a bit and tell everyone it’s gold. After all, what else would you make a sceptre out of?
It’s pretty nice; sounds tough while also sounding modernly singular. Though it loses some marks for being recycled from the Alliance of American Football
A "B" shaped like an anchor: The letter-that-looks-like-something is a classic sports logo strategy. And it gets a big bonus for looking like a sideways version of that greatest-of-all-hockey-logos, the Hartford Whalers. Of course, that means that I keep looking for something hidden in the negative space, and being disappointed that I can’t find it. At least it has the surreal quality in that it's an anchor — something you put in water — though it appears to be full of water, like a sporting tesseract.
Going green was a good choice. You’re copying a Boston classic, without just piggybacking on the local hockey team. And the light green accent is a bold twist on it.
But watching them on the ice, I keep thinking there must have been a mistake at the cleaners. Whose blue pants are these? Okay, there are tiny blue accents elsewhere in the uniform, but the pants still look out of place.
Kind of generic, I mean, for a modern sports team name. All the possibilities offered by a national capital, and the name sounds like a USFL reject.
It’s an O. No, it’s a C. No, it’s a wheel. It looks like you asked an AI to make a sports logo for a team with the initials, “OC.” Though you have to remember that it’s pretty hard to build a logo around the letter O, As some of the Senators’ alternate jerseys have shown.
They’re not bad looking, but well… There aren’t many cities that have coordinated sports team colours. Really just Pittsburgh (Black and Yellow) and Ottawa (Red and Black.) But in Ottawa’s case, they even have a team named after their civic colours. The Charge tried to nod towards that colour scheme with various greys, and they look more like red and black on the ice, but I feel like yelling, “You had one job!”
I saw some people comment that Montreal “won” the PWHL identities, and I think they’re right. “Victoire” is new, but sounds classic. It’s distinctly French, but doesn’t need explanation in English, like Nordiques did.
Again, they won here. Looks good, looks timeless, looks like a bird, has a hidden “M” in it, looks sort of like the board for Atari’s Tempest. What more could you want?
Did a better job than Toronto of paying tribute to the local NHL institution while carving out a new identity. The colours of dark red, dark blue, and really-old-newspaper looks great without tying it to an era. My only change would be to make the logo on the home uniforms reverse colour. Having it on a light-backgrounded shield so it shows up is a little busy.
They won the first championship, and now they've got a great name too. It’s got the WNBA abstract-concept name style, but without sounding contrived. For most of the PWHL names, we can argue whether they’re better than the city’s NHL counterpart, but this is the only one where the PWHL team wins in a knockout.
A nice simple letter in a distinctive style, that’s a classic approach. More for baseball, I guess; but it works here too.
Purple is the colour of two of Minnesota’s most beloved institutions: The Vikings, and Prince. It's a nice color, though it doesn't make one think of frost so much as frostbite. It’s also nice that they included a contrasting lightish red, or magenta, or light purple. I guess it’s lilac. They put lilac in there and just dared you to complain. That's pretty bold.
I’ve started learning to make electronic music. It’s kind of a crazy thing for me to take on because I don’t have a background in music. I was the one playing outside while you were taking piano lessons; it was fun at the time, but now I’m trying to learn music theory from scratch.
But I’m not going to whine about my lack of music fluency; I’m just pointing out something I’ve noticed about music software. I won't bore you with the details, but I'll just tell you that to be a bedroom producer, you'll need a piece of software called a Digital Audio Workstation (DAW.)
There's something weird about the DAW market. See, they can get pretty expensive, so the makers of DAWs usually let you try them for a limited time, or have a lesser, free version. So far, these are the ones I've tried out:
And there are many more I haven't tried. A few of the more famous ones:
What I'm getting at is that there are a lot of options. And out of all those, only LMMS and QTractor are not-for-profit open source projects. The rest are by people trying to make money.
This isn't modern capitalism! There should be only two options: the crappy one and the expensive one. Or maybe two nearly identical competitors, but people get really worked up arguing which is better. A bunch of these should have merged together. Some of them bought by big companies who lost interest and discontinued them. Statistically, if you have this large a group of tech companies, at least one would have been bought by Yahoo and mismanaged out of business. And either Google or Microsoft should have started their own competitor and run another half-dozen out of the industry. And what about changing focus? Every time there's a new buzzword in tech, one or two should have announced a pivot to the new paradigm, and now they're in cloud computing, cryptocurrencies, or A.I.
But no, somehow this is the one industry where there are dozens of options: synergies and economies of scale be damned. I'm not sure why. One explanation is that it's a labor of love. Music is a business that's very personal, and everyone wants to do it their way.
Also, the market is at just the right size: there's a fair-sized market available when you consider both the pros and hobbyists. It's enough to keep each of the competitors going, but not enough to attract big companies that will wipe out the competition (save for Apple, which makes Garage Band and Logic, but being exclusive to the Mac, they won't push everyone else out of business.)
There's also a lot of nuances to the industry, where applications have grabbed their own little niche: Pro Tools has established itself as the standard for recording studios, while Ableton Live is the choice for Electronic Music. FL Studio has hip hop, and Logic is the choice of Apple worshippers. Reason is the best for people used to working with traditional electronic music equipment, and Reaper is beloved by the folks who think the best application is the one that can do anything, but in a really complicated way, and thus keep recommending Linux to your grandma.
It's also weird that visual art didn't work out this way. That industry is dominated by Adobe. And yet, you'd think that if any software customers would walk to the beat of their own drum, it would be visual artists. They'd be the ones to ignore the advantages of compatibility to get a product with the right intangibles, or one that's made by a little band of idealists. But no, they've given one giant company a near monopoly. The only ones walking to the beat of their own drum are the ones programming it on a drum machine. Okay, that was pretty corny, and I apologize; I wrote that thing about the artists walking to the beat of their own drum without even meaning to make a joke, and then felt like I had to do something with it, and it all went wrong.
So I don't entirely know why, but this is the one industry where things worked out the way I expected the future to look: Dozens of options, something for everyone.
There's a new made-for-television golf event called TGL. It's a golf league, though I'm disappointed it doesn't stand for, "The Golf League." I've watched a few times, even though I'm not really a golf fan. I was just curious what it would be like. Strangely, I find it's like looking at an edgy work of art: I'm not entirely sure if I'm enjoying it, but it's so relentlessly weird that I can't look away.
The idea is to repackage golf in a smaller, more viewer-friendly format, with everything taking place in an indoor arena. The courses are all computer-simulated. The golfers tee off, hitting the ball at a big screen showing the virtual fairway. Then the computer figures out from the ball's trajectory where it would have landed. They either hit another drive at the screen, or, if the ball landed on the virtual green, they move to a big putting green, and putt from where the computer said the ball landed. The green can be warped and angled to simulate the lie.
Oh, and it's a team game of match golf. With fifteen holes for some reason. There's a bunch of other rules that are still a mystery. They sometimes throw a hammer on the green, but I'm still figuring that one out.
But the basic idea is that it's deconstructed golf: all the parts of golf, but dismantled and crammed into a new form. The shocking part is that I jokingly suggested something similar years ago: I saw a driving range with a mini golf course, and realized it could be a substitute for actual golf. And now, here it is, turned into a televised spectacle.
The whole thing is pretty bizarre. On the one hand, it's like the future we imagined, with people playing simulated sports, surrounded by a wildly enthusiastic audience. Throw in some mortal danger and it would be Rollerball.
But on the other hand, it's lacking in the polish you would expect future sports to have. I can't help thinking there is a weird inconsistency using technology in simulating real golf. Like you have this big mechanical surface that can morph itself into any hypothetical golf green, but it also has sand traps, and they're just plain old sand. Not computer-controlled magnets in the turf increasing the resistance to the golf club to simulate the resistance of sand. No, just a big pit full of sand.
One good thing is that many of the made-up holes are arrangements that would be hard to build in real life, like the tee and the hole are on opposite sides of a canyon. That's fun, but it loses something when it's just simulated, and you're not really watching the heartbreak of the golfer watching the shot come up short and bounce all the way down. Though it might be better if they got even more impossible, like the tee and green are on the roofs of different skyscrapers.
Of course, I'm now wondering what other sports could be deconstructed and remade like this. Auto racing would be an obvious possibility, since it's also a sport that takes up an inconvenient amount of room, and is difficult to watch live. You could have cars on giant treadmills, but that would be dangerous and loud, and even sillier. It would be better if they were just driving simulated cars. But they already have simulated racing; it's been part of eSports for a while now. While it does attract viewers, I don't foresee people packing an arena to watch it. Though it might be fun if — like the simulated golf — they had them drive on crazy, unreal courses. It would also be nice if the drivers could have a casual interaction with one another, like the golfers do in TGL. Maybe people would pay to see live racing simulation if they could hear Verstappen swearing at Hamilton, live and in person. (Lewis Hamilton is an investor in TGL, by the way.)
Of course, that introduces the idea that there would be some sort of interaction through the simulation; a way to get revenge within the sport. Okay, I've just reinvented Mario Kart, haven't I? But seriously, the world's top drivers playing Mario Kart: I would watch that.
After last night’s college football final, I should mention a weird discovery I made during Bowl Month. Over the holidays, I saw a bowl game involving Texas State University. Yeah, can you believe Texas has a State university? Lyndon Johnson even went there. Anyway, I noticed the coach was wearing a hat with this odd hand sign on it. It looked like this:
It's the coach of a large university, so I'm assuming it's not offensive. I figured it was just some obscure clothing brand or something. But then they showed some Texas State fans in the crowd, and they were giving the same sign (and always with the left hand.) Fearing this was some sort of cult, I googled "Texas State hand gesture," and was relieved to see that it was much more innocent than I'd imagined.
Yes, it's the map of Texas.
So that got me wondering what other states could have their own hand map. Obviously, there's Michigan.
But don’t forget the Upper Peninsula…
I couldn’t think of any provinces that could be represented with hand signals, but there were quite a few states:
Idaho
I remember when my hometown library first replaced the trusty old card catalogue with a computer version. I looked up - fittingly enough - books on computers, and I discovered that the system had three related categories: One was just "computers," another was "electronic computers," and then there was "digital computers." Of course, "electronic computers" only rules out the abacus and Charles Babbage's difference engine. But "digital" includes all modern computers, save for some curiosities. So essentially the three categories are the same, and if you're looking up a book on computers, it could be in any of them, you have no idea which.
I bring up this tale from the library of the nineties because I'm amazed at how often the same sort of problems come up. No, not in libraries, but in stores.
You'd think that a modern e-tail store would be able to do better than my nineties small town library. After all, they have decades more technology, millions more in their budget, and they only have to categorize a limited selection of products, not all of humanity's knowledge.
But still, they have the same inability to clarify things. Similar to that nineties librarian, whose classification system was technically correct, but worse than useless, they have difficulty classifying their wares in a way that helps people find things.
Again, I'm having difficulty shopping for an external hard drive. Hard drives can be internal or external. They can also be solid state or, um, the spinny kind. So you'd think I'd just have to make my choice on those two dimensions and look at what fits the category. But often there are weird, imaginary dichotomies, like they have categories for solid-state drives or external drives. So if I want a solid-state, internal drive, I don't know where to look.
(And this is fun: when I typed, "spinny" into my phone, it interpreted it as "spiny" and suggested the hedgehog emoji.)
Another weird aspect of that early computer catalogue were the dates. See, on a lot of old manual typewriters, there were keys for digits "2" through "9," but no "1" key, since that was identical to the lower-case "L" in the old Courrier-like font they used, and apparently keys were incredibly expensive. So I would occasionally see that a book was published in "l985," because it was typed by someone who was still used to those old typewriters. Those entries must have been fun for anyone who had to search for a book by year.
But even today, we're at the mercy of whoever types in the information, just hoping they get it right, and are consistent. When I was looking for the game controller previously, I found Walmart had only four Xbox controllers. Actually, they have hundreds, but there were only four where the underpaid stock boy who enters the info had bothered to add the Xbox tag.
And when I went looking for earbuds, I found that when filtering the brands, there was an entry for "Sony" and another for "SONY" from someone who must have thought it was an acronym. Or I suppose the problem could have been they just didn't know their caps-lock was on, but that just adds to the 90's computer system ambiance.
I'd like to think that we will eventually build up a better understanding of how to organize things. Like maybe once databases are as old and commonplace as that card catalogue was to the librarians in the l990's. Maybe then the understanding will be so innate that people will just naturally organize things in a nice efficient way, and when I'm shopping for my nanobot farm, I'll only have to think "indoor nanobot farms" into my neural interface, and not worry that it will exclude the new transquantum nanites just because the warehouse cyborg entered them separately.
I remember a time in my teens when I was at a friend's house, and his mother arrived home from shopping and announced she had bought him new running shoes. I was amazed: when I bought new shoes, I needed to try on at least six pairs to find one that fit comfortably. The idea of just buying shoes based on nothing but the size and then assuming that's it, the transaction is done? That was mind-blowing.
The point is, there are two types of people when it comes to shoes: picky, and not picky. Okay, I guess "picky" then subdivides into picky for fit and picky for style, so, um, that wasn't as neat as I'd hoped.
Our current retail world is really not good for people like me. For most people and most products, ordering things online is great. Essentially, the plus is that you have incredible choice because the whole world is available to you. But the disadvantage is that you can't inspect anything before buying. Oh, there's the whole lack of human interaction too, if you're into that sort of thing. For most products, that's a reasonable trade off: you don't really need to feel a new iPad before buying. But for me, it's trying on the shoes that I miss.
If you find comfortable shoes easily, this world is great for you: type your size into Amazon and you're done. If you're in that choosy-about-styles subgroup, it's not perfect, but you might trade the ability to try on shoes for the increased selection. But for me, it really sucks. When it comes to casual shoes, there's just Wal-Mart, Foot Locker, and a few locally-owned stores. Previously, I would have gone to Zellers, Target, Sears, Payless for the sweet spot of cheap but with some quality. But they're all gone in Canada. So I'm stuck with super cheap or super expensive. It's the first time I've come up against this problem. I've bemoaned the lack of bricks and mortar options in modern retail before, but this is the first time I've had the experience where I need to buy something, but I'm not really sure where to get it.
General Motors has been awarded a formula one team. Michael Andretti had been campaigning for an American F1 team, but now he's stepped aside and the team will be more GM than Andretti. And it's going to be called the Cadillac team, as part of GM's eternal effort to associate the brand with something other than your rich uncle Wally's land yacht.
I'm wondering if anyone is taking bets on how long this team will last — or at least, how long it will have the Cadillac name. I'm thinking the over-under should be about 5 years. In recent history, there have been several examples of companies slapping their name on an F1 team, then changing their mind a few years later. Toyota lasted eight seasons, and Honda only three, and I don't see GM being more patient than them. It won't take long for the suits to ask why they're spending tens of millions to finish fourteenth.
The fact is that Formula One isn't a real great investment. It's not just expensive, but it's also hard to get to the top even if you're willing to spend with the big boys: You also need people with specific skills that aren't always available. Worse, there isn't much of a consolation prize: If you don't make it to the top, the whole world hears your name applied to the irrelevant car getting lapped by the champion.
So Formula One is a weird kind of never-ending investment bubble, where new people buy a team expecting great things, then realize there's not much reward in glory or publicity, and give up. But somehow, there's always more investors ready to take any team off the owner's hands and begin the cycle again.
Having said all this, Formula One has been more competitive this season, with four different teams winning races, so maybe this was the best time to buy into the series. But having said that, the other six teams had a combined total of two podiums in the 24 races, so there's still a big gap between haves and have-nots, even if there are more haves than there used to be. That will be the big challenge: those years in the wilderness without success before any chance at a publicity payoff.
Like a lot of wannabe intellectuals, I’ve tried reading Ulysses by James Joyce. And like a lot of those wannabe intellectuals - particularly where the accent is on the 'wannabe' - I didn’t get very far. It’s not hard to read, it’s just that there is a lot of it, and it feels like being in a room where someone is telling jokes, and you’re the only one who isn’t getting them.
I know some people today still find it enjoyable and funny, so it can be understood. It was just going over my head. So I searched the web to try get what I was missing. I wanted to at least know if it was worth continuing, or hopefully find a Rosetta Stone for deciphering the humour in it. I found notes on the first chapter, and it went on endlessly about Catholic references. That surprised me — not that it was Catholic; I know many can laugh at themselves — but rather that it was so specific. Ulysses has more than a cult following; I’ve seen it top lists of the greatest books ever written. Surely its entire audience is more than just the Venn Diagram overlap of “Highly-Observant Catholics,” and, “Looking for Catholicism Humour.” That doesn't seem like enough people to propel a book to classic status.
So I’ve continued searching for ideas on how to enjoy the book. Most say it’s not about those religious references or about the parallels to the Odyssey, but about the manipulation of language and the celebration of common people surviving their daily struggles. There are many readers who will attest to how personally enjoyable they found the book, but there’s no real consensus on how to get something out of it: Some say it’s best as part of a class, some say you should just sit back and enjoy it without worrying about symbolism, some say you need a companion book to appreciate it. But the things people do agree about it are that it’s not really necessary to read the whole thing in order, and the first three chapters are kind of a drag. So I may yet try again.
In other old book news, I recently came across an odd title of a book: The Man Who Was Thursday by G. K. Chesterton. Given that it was written in 1908 — and thus even older than Ulysses — the title stood out as kind of avant garde. Also, I’m a fan of the “Thursday Next” books by Jasper Fforde, so perhaps I have a weird fascination with Thursday-related literature. I also noticed that, by coincidence, it had just passed into the public domain last year, so I downloaded it and gave early twentieth-century literature another chance.
To my surprise, I really enjoyed it. It’s the comic story of police efforts to infiltrate an anarchist organization. It has various flavours of satire, farce and surrealism, and delivers humour that feels relevant. It goes a bit off the rails at the end, as it tries to be more profound than it really should be. But I liked the rest enough to forgive it.
What made me think back to my aborted attempt at Ulysses is that it seems the difference is all in the subject matter of political and sociological philosophy. That’s more in my area of interest and background knowledge. So in contrast to Ulysses, I felt like I was in on the joke. It also has a lasting relevance: While the book’s big organization of nefarious rebels are termed, “anarchists,” really, you can insert your favourite ideology of revolutionaries who are too intellectual for their own good. And arguably, the book's age makes it more palatable: we’re insulated from the hot-button issues of the day, so it’s easier to view the concepts in the abstract. And, weird fact I discovered: Apparently there are references to The Man Who Was Thursday in the video game, Deus Ex. I must have missed those. But that weird juxtaposition helps prove the continued relevance.
(Yes, I just argued for the relevance of a 116-year-old book by mentioning its place in a 24-year-old video game. Yeah, that's the world we live in.)
Conversely, I can definitely imagine someone reading The Man Who Was Thursday and reacting the way I did to Ulysses. In the opening chapters, as the characters whip proclamations on the nature of art and human society back and forth, I can see many readers zoning out. But the point is, you may have to search to find something relevant to you, but you may yet find it in an unexpected place. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to hunt down a copy of Frederick Pohl’s Turn Left at Thursday.
I recently mentioned Canadian media mogul Moses Znaimer, and by coincidence, I recently came across a mention of a Polish man with the similar name Alfred Znamierowski. He was known as a great vexillological artist. That is, a great flag designer. That was of interest to me, because, like many nerdy people, I've always found flags fun.
But I also have to ask, how does a person become known as a great flag designer? Okay, let's start with, how does a person become a flag designer? I mean, it's not like that's a big industry with a lot of work to do. You can't get a job at Flag Inc.
For instance, Canada's flag was designed by George Stanley, a historian. Note that he was a historian who once designed a flag, which doesn't make him a flag designer, because he designed that one flag, and that was pretty much all there was to do in that area.
I can understand how you become, say, an architect, because there are always countless new buildings that need designing. But flags? Even if you count the flags of regions, cities, and organizations — that most people never see — that's still not a lot of work.
And it's not like flag design is that complex a concept. Just look at some of the flags in the world and you can see that not much effort gets put into them. (I'm looking your way, Netherlands.) Even the aforementioned Mr. Stanley just slapped a maple leaf on the Royal Military College flag. You can't really be better at that than anyone else. Or at least, you can't be so much better that you end up getting all the big flag contracts from around the world. Oh yes, we must get Znamierowski to design our flag, we couldn't possibly trust some guy off the street to slap three brightly-colored stripes together.
This brings back bad memories of when I was in university and looking for a career. I found that job search books had weird ideas of what occupations existed. I think the weirdest was a book that listed "programming language designer" as a job. Again, interesting thing to do, but really it's something a handful of people do once in their lives and that's it. Calling it a potential career is like recommending you pursue a career designing new sports. And yet, Mr. Znamierowski somehow did that.
So:
It's just like how JJ Abrams got to run the Star Trek and Star Wars movie franchises at the same time.
Anyway, the point is, this is a great tragedy of our time: there are many fun and interesting things to do in this world, yet those jobs aren't well distributed, and they so often just go to the last guy who did a similar job, even if he was mediocre at it. The rest of us are stuck doing it in our imaginations only.
![]() |
| Anyway, here’s my proposed new Ontario flag |
There’s an intersection I frequently drive through where the line of cars stopped at a red light often stretches past the exit to a busy gas station. That means that I sometimes find myself stopped near the gas station’s exit, and have to make the decision of whether to let someone out in front of me. Generally, I try to be nice, and let someone out, but sometimes I’m stopped across the exit, and it’s not clear if there’s enough room, so I just move ahead and let the driver behind me decide whether or not to be a Good Samaritan.
Yesterday, I was in just such a position. I had come to a stop at the light with my car pretty much blocking the exit, so I couldn’t have let anyone out. Except, the driver coming out of the gas station was on a motorbike. And he didn’t even wait for my permission, he just drove out into the space I’d left in front of me, which was enough for the bike.
At first, I was kind of annoyed. How dare you take this space, which I think sort of symbolically belongs to me. But at the same time, I had to admire the audacity. And I have to admit, it didn’t cause me any inconvenience at all: He was just taking up room that would have been left empty anyway. Okay, the reason I leave a car length between me and the car ahead is in case I have to move forward to avoid being rear-ended. But as long as he’s okay with getting pancaked between us in that unlikely event, then I guess he’s welcome to the space.
Years ago, I noted that motorbikes have the potential to be what sports cars wish they were, but usually aren’t: a way of going faster on modern roads. Usually, that just manifests itself as going way over the speed limit, but I was envisioning someone going at the speed limit, in spite of traffic, by taking advantage of your ability to fit into the smaller spaces other vehicles can’t get into. And that’s kind of what he was doing, albeit in a mundane manner. I wonder if you can take this even further, with a vehicle that gives up some of a motorbike's straight-line speed for even more maneuverability. A motor-unicycle would do it, but wouldn't be worth the dorkiness. I mean, you have to keep in mind the real possibility that this device will be mentioned in your obituary.
Maybe a higher powered motorized skateboard. Or - I hate to suggest this - those things they call hoverboards. Okay, I see the etymologists have struck back, and are insisting on calling them self-balancing scooters. with the Oxford English Dictionary saying that "hoverboard" refers to "boards that Marty McFly would recognize." I love those guys!
Now that we have that out of the way, I feel less guilty about suggesting them as the extreme vehicle of the future. Well, less guilty linguistically; I guess the inevitable casualties are still bad. Anyway, I'm thinking: give one of them, say fifty horsepower, and you could just fly around traffic. Around, past, and — with a bit of practice — over. I look forward to cursing maniacs on self-balancing scooters.
I've complained more than once about the song "It's Your Thing" by the Isley Brothers being used in commercials. Specifically, that it's been used in commercials for a variety of different products, with each company seemingly oblivious to the fact that it's already been associated with a different brand.
So, imagine if I'd been asked, "What do you think will be the next song to get overused in commercials for multiple brands at the same time? Hint: it's from another group with 'Brothers' in the name."
I would have said, oh, no, not "Unchained Melody!" That's such a classic song that so many people love. It would be such a shame if it became associated with dog food and denture cleaners
But no, it's "Galvanize," by the Chemical Brothers.
It started with a series of Michelin ads, which used the song for its distinctive "dun dun dun" part. That got it recognized enough that stadium DJs started playing it at sporting events. I thought that was a weird enough path for a song to go through pop culture: being revived by a commercial almost twenty years after it was released and getting attention beyond what it originally got. So I thought about remarking on it, but never got around to it.
But then, I hear it again on a Hummer ad. They're using the "Push the button" part to advertise their four-wheel steering. That's a different part of the song, so people may not even realise it's the same song. I suppose that's a way around the problem of over-using songs in ads: each company uses a different part of the song. Maybe that will even have a positive effect on music: You’ll put more effort into the complexity of your songs if you know you can sell different parts to different companies.
Oddly, we still haven’t seen the most obvious use; the song is, after all, named after an industrial process. It just seems natural that eventually we'll hear, "Ziebart reminds you..." (start music) "The time has come to…Galvanize!" (cut music quickly, because Michelin owns the dun dun dun part.)
But I'm also thinking about the demographic implications of this. It was all fun and games when it was another generation's songs getting overused. I could feel cheapened, but I'm trying to look on the bright side: We won the demographic competition (where "we" refers to late Gen-X, early Millennials, or in my case, Mid-Xer who stayed in university too long and thinks he's a borderline Xer-Millennial.) And now our music is being used to sell expensive stuff like high-end tires and SUVs. Yes, I realize it's a fleeting title, since it's only a matter of time before the next music takes over. But we could get a bit of an extension while advertisers struggle to make ads out of emo.
Right now, we're seeing ads gleefully telling us that “Bravo is coming to Canada!” Many of us, will then say, “I thought Bravo was already in Canada.” I remember it starting up with a wave of new specialty channels in the nineties.
The explanation is that the original Canadian Bravo that started in the nineties was based on the American Bravo, but with mostly local programming. Each network evolved in its own way in the intervening decades, with the Canadian Bravo eventually rebranded into CTV Drama. This Bravo being advertised now is a new channel, based on the American Bravo as it now exists.
So this is also a good opportunity to observe how cable channels change over time. When the previous Bravo started, it had highbrow content (okay, upper-mid-brow) and targetted as sophisticated audience as TV dares to court. It got a bit watered-down in turning to dramatic series, but in an age of Prestige TV, that didn’t mean much of a shift. That was still my mental picture of Bravo, so imagine my surprise when they attempt to relaunch with ads that are just montages of the trashiest of trashy reality shows. But that’s what Bravo is known for today. So now it all makes sense. In as much as a cable channel starting with the most sophisticated programming and ending up with the most dumbed-down crap available makes any sense.
And that concept turns out to have a name, at least according to Wikipedia. It’s called channel drift. And their article on the concept makes for depressing reading. It’s just one story after another of channels that moved to something less intelligent in search of a big audience. I mean, with so many cable channels, you’d think that there would be a few cases where they moved to programming that was a little smarter. I’m not asking for much, just a channel that switched from live police chases to Law and Order reruns. But no, all of their examples were dumbing down. The closest thing to an intellectual win were some of the failed drifts, like the mass revolt that followed the American Weather Channel’s attempt at showing movies. I suppose you could argue that HBO and AMC became more sophisticated over the years, going from mainstream movies to award-winning TV series, but they seem to have eaten up whatever intellectual demand television has, and there’s nothing left for anyone else.
So it’s time for us in Canada to pay tribute to Moses Znaimer, long-time leader of Toronto’s CityTV, and its stable of cable channels, such as the original Bravo Canada. Yes, their output could be annoying for their look-how-hip-we-are attitude, but at least they had an idea what they wanted to be and delivered that, instead of sacrificing everything to the lowest common denominator. It’s too bad that City was one of the losers in Canada’s media amalgamation Armageddon. Now we’re stuck with no-personality CTV dominating the media landscape instead, and Znaimer is trying to build a new media empire around seniors. But he was a bit unlucky in choosing the name ZoomerMedia, so now he’s struggling to convince people that “Zoomer” is a cool Boomer, not an alternate name for Gen-Z.
In a bank, you will no longer confirm a transaction by signing a paper on the dotted line. Instead, you’ll sign on a touch-sensitive computer screen, using an electronic virtual pen. The screen detects the pen’s movement, instantly displaying the signature in high resolution, indistinguishable from ink. The image of your signature will then be recorded on the bank’s computer system, where it can be retrieved and compared with your signature at any of their branches, from anywhere on earth. The pen will still have a chain attached.
Did you know that there’s only three days in the year that North America’s “Big 4” team sports do not have any games? Okay, probably, because we’ve just had them: they’re the tree days around Baseball’s All-Star Game. In recent years, ESPN used this break as an opportunity to have their annual award show, the Espys. But for some reason, they had it a few days early this year, so I was unprepared to publish another instalment of suggested awards. Previous suggestions are here from 2014 and here from 2015.
In many ways, I reject traditional masculinity, but in other ways I embrace it. One obvious way is sports. I counted it up, and I now have items of clothing to indicate my team of choice in no less than seven different sports leagues. (MLB, NBA, NHL, CFL, NFL, MLS, and the latest addition, the National Lacrosse League.)
That's nearly all of my teams. Okay, there are some leagues where I have a favourite team based on something like a weird name. (Forced to choose a team among Indian Premier League cricket teams I'd go the Kolkata Knight Riders, but I can't pretend to be passionate about them.) Among teams I truly care about the only ones missing would be the family soccer teams, Aston Villa or Birmingham City. And I point that out not entirely as a gift idea for friends and family.
But now I realize that this manifestation of my masculinity is about to get even more complicated. And ironically, it's because of the rise of women's sports. I jumped on the bandwagon of the Toronto PWHL team, but since they don't have a name yet, I have a reprieve before buying any merchandise. But as soon as they become the Toronto Narwhals or something, I'll be heading to the stores. And now Toronto is getting a WNBA franchise, so that will need another piece of clothing with their presumably non-plural name splashed across it.
The fact is that we're entering into a more complex sports world. The days of just hockey in Canada and just baseball in the US are long gone. We've even moved beyond a Big-3 or Big-4 team sports. I'm wondering how that's going to change fandom in the future. Because at the same time, the ways of spending on your team has increased too; clothing is just one aspect of it. Above, I was just talking about cheap t-shirts and hats, but if you're going to go for the replica uniform route, you could be spending a thousand dollars on your full collection of teams, before we even get to the jackets, lamps, novelty home scoreboards, etc. And that's before we consider how much you might bet on your teams of choice.
So I'm thinking that sports fandom could get watered down: The days of looking into the audience and seeing half the fans in the team uniform could be numbered. After all, it wasn't that long ago when such fans were a lot less common. Maybe we'll return to those before-times of more casually-dressed spectators, and the current era of monochromatic crowds will seem like an awkwardly-obsessed outlier.
Or, we could see fans concentrating more on individual sports. Instead of just automatically maintaining fandom of all the teams from the local metropolis, fans may choose to specialize. That would be odd, because now we just assume that teams from different sports in one town are kind of allies, since their fans are mostly the same people. But if they have to fight to be the object of local fans' obsessions, that could get ugly. You think it's hard to back a team between Lakers-Celtics or Dodgers-Giants, how about when it's Dodgers-Lakers? Rich teams fighting over entitled fans? That's no fun. I'd be willing to keep buying sports merchandise just to keep that from happening.
It's kind of depressing how fandom can come and go. I mean, there logically will be a last person alive who still misses Automan, what if it's me? That's why I find it reassuring whenever I see evidence of an old fandom. So if I come across Greatest American Hero fan fiction, I rejoice (but don't read it) because I'm glad to see passion for an older media franchise. And genuine passion too, not just someone name-dropping it to sound eclectic like I just did.
So recently, when I saw a personalized license plate that read "Zsa Zsa G," I found it reassuring. I was never a fan of the actress, Zsa Zsa Gabor, but I'm glad that there's still someone around who misses her. So much so that I'm not going to do the math on the likelihood that it really is a Zsa Zsa Gabor fan, vs just someone named Zsa Zsa G. I don't think there's a big Hungarian community in town, so I'll just go with my initial assumption.
By the way, it's as good a time as any to revisit those 70s-80s pseudo-celebrities. It might seem weird to current generations, but there was a certain type of D-list celebrity that hung around on game shows or did guest spots on sitcoms, or appeared on a talk show in need of a human punchline. Today, we often talk about someone who's "famous for being famous," but that just means they are famous for reality TV or social media. But back then, these people just kept showing up on our TV and we weren't always sure why.
Of course, those were real people, and in the modern day, we've learned more about them. It’s sort of like when Dolly Parton was only known for her bustline, and Betty White was just another frequent TV star. It'd be quite a tragedy if society had never seen beyond that. Well, I’ve since learned that Charo was actually quite a good guitarist. Fannie Flagg wrote Fried Green Tomatoes. JM J Bullock lived with HIV for much of his career and co-hosted a talk show with Tammy Faye Bakker. Which reminds me:
An actress will win the Best Actor Oscar playing Tammy Faye Bakker.
Anyway, it’s unfortunate timing for that generation of borderline celebrities. Today’s media landscape is just built for such people: Then, they had to make do with guest appearances, but today they’d have reality shows, Hallmark movies, and so many social media followers.
There’s a service where a small business can get a name and logo made for them by Artificial Intelligence. Such uses of A.I. in creative industries is quite controversial. And yet, a TV commercial for this service sidesteps the controversy, and instead shows a young proprietor of a small business explaining the concept to her older business partner. The partner exclaims, “A-I-Like-It!”