Power To (A Lot Of) The People!

There seems to be an ongoing problem where countries are hugely divided.  In both Ukraine and Thailand, there are mass protests against the government. But the catch in both cases is that the governments also have support from many in the country, and would likely win any new elections.

It's a new paradigm for protesters vs. governments. Those of us who came of age in the eighties are used to the idea of people standing up against oppressors. But this is half the people rising up against the government of the other half. Also, we've all heard of elected governments that go on to abuse their power, but not governments that could get re-elected.

There are less dramatic examples elsewhere. The U.S. famously has its red state/blue state divide, and Toronto has its bewildering love/hate relationship with Rob Ford.

It makes one wonder if there can be compromises made to please both sides. Certainly in the American situation, people have proposed - tongue in cheek - splitting the country up along ideological lines. I don't really expect that to happen any time soon, but one wonders what else can bridge the divide.

Maybe countries should be organized by ideologies, not culture. Ironically, all this is happening at a time when Scotland and Catalonia are pushing for separation. In both those cases (and Quebec, too) the culture looking to separate isn't that ideologically different. That is, Quebec does have political differences with the rest of Canada, but they're small compared with the differences between America's two political solitudes. What do you think, fellow citizens of Healthcaria?

Snowbirds and Penguins And Gnomes, Oh My!

That's it, I can't take it any more! I know winter is nearly half over, but it's driving me crazy; it's just so much more intense than it has been in years. Oh, I'm not talking about the weather. I mean the travel commercials.

With Canada finally going through an old-time Canadian winter, all the businesses that profit on travel are smelling blood in the water and working themselves into an ad frenzy, promising you beaches, and sand, and not freezing.

It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't so obnoxious. I blame the Travelocity Roaming Gnome. I complained about him earlier, and I have to apologize for saying he ripped off Amelie - turns out the idea of travelling garden gnomes goes back farther. But it seems every travel agent dot com wannabe is intent on starting their own running joke. Special contempt goes to Booking.com for trying to make "booking" a profanity. All I can say it, go book yourself.

Strangely, none of the ads really make their getaways seem fun or exciting.  They're so focused on the mundane annoyances of travel.  Bad hotels, extra fees, arbitrary restrictions.  And when did "Travel Rewards Card" become a thing?  And they always try to appeal to a bourgeois need to appear better than the Joneses.  Don't use our credit card so you can fly to Florida, get it so your neighbours will wonder how you earn points so quickly.  The impression one gets is that air travel is expensive and inconvenient, and hotels are unpredictable and full of Canada's most superficial consumers.  Suddenly the wind-chill doesn't seem so bad.

Canada Defined

A while ago I saw a funny graphic: for each state in the U.S., they had typed "<state name> is" into Google, to see what Google's would suggest based on other searches.  They took the funniest one and put it on a map of the U.S.  So if you type in, "Wyoming is" and Google suggests, "Wyoming is a big rectangle", they label Wyoming on the map as, "A Big Rectangle."

Of course, I had to try the same thing with Canada.  Here's the result:

Just so it's clear, none of these are my opinion.  And the title of the map is what you get when you type in, "Canada is."

In case you're wondering, "Prince Edward Island Is Heaven To Me" and "B.C. Is On Fire" are both songs.  Very, very different songs:

Supercar Sanity

Yes, it's another post questioning how rich people spend their money.  I'm hoping any rich readers won't be too offended.  I know you're a bit touchy about criticism, but at least I'm only complaining about your spending choices, rather than starting a revolution.  So hopefully you'll find this a bit refreshing:

Currently, McLaren sells two cars. The MP4-12C costs in the $300,000 range, putting it in line with similar cars like the Ferrari 458 and Lamborghini Aventador. And the P1 costs well over a million dollars, similar to other most-expensive-cars-on-earth like the Bugatti Veyron.

But now they're planning new models. The P13 would cost about $150,000, and the P15 would cost about $500,000.

First of all, they need to hire someone to come up with names for them. They don't make any sense, and even the German manufacturers would find those boring. I can make exciting alphanumeric names: T-17, GF6, 538c. Call me, I've got dozens of these.

But also, I’m wondering at these prices. I figure there are three levels of sports car prices:

• you're upper-middle-class, and you can afford a fairly expensive car, so you buy a Corvette or a cheap Porsche.
• You're rich, money's no object, so you pay a quarter mil' for the best car available.
• You're rich, money's no object, and you're slightly unhinged, so you buy a race car for the street for a million dollars.

So why would they need those cars at other levels? Who is out there that can afford a $150,000 car, but not a $250,000 car? You can spend over a hundred thousand dollars on a car that has little practical value, but no, not two hundred thousand, that’s ridiculous? And who spends half-a-million dollars on a car, but not a million. If you’re spending that much, you want something that’s better than everything on the street, so why cheap out to get second-best?

Cold Olympics

It's too bad we never got to see a real U.S./USSR Olympics. There were only two summer games in the superpowers during the cold war. And both of them (Moscow 1980 & LA 1984) were boycotted by the other superpower. Yes, I know, the USA hosted the winter games a couple of times (Squaw Valley 1960 & Lake Placid 1980) but the winter games have a modesty that tends to defuse nationalism. It's hard to chest-thump over your superiority in events that are, to quote Seth Meyers, 48 different kinds of sliding.

I wish there had been a Cold War Olympics. It would have been entertaining to see each side pretending to play nice, taking subtle shots at each other, and trying to extend each success into a national victory. But more than anything, it would have been good for us. Because at a big event like this, no matter how well scripted it is, humanity will leak out, and the rivals will see each other in a better light.

The upcoming Sochi Olympics may be the closest we'll get to seeing major players at the games really angry at each other. I’m trying to be optimistic and see it as a good thing. Like a lot of people, I disagree strongly with Russia’s new anti-gay law, or their treatment of Pussy Riot and other dissidents. So I don’t like the idea of the country being “rewarded” by hosting the Olympics. But I don’t think it’s really going to benefit them much. In the modern world, a major event doesn’t allow a country to cover up its flaws, it puts them under the microscope.  It would be nice if everyone would figure this out, and only bid on Olympics or World Cups if they have nothing to hide.  Start building that Stadium, Reykjavik.

We're Cruisin' For A Nukin'

Canada hasn't had a good week on the public stage. First, Rob Ford reminded the world that he's still Rob Ford.  The good side of this is that he at least introduced the world to Toronto's multiculturalism by doing a Jamaican drunken rant. So maybe the Ford train-wreck could turn out positive for Toronto: council could make a deal that he can stay on as mayor as long as he agrees to have his stupors in places that reflect well on the city.  He could start flirting with the dancers at Caribana, throw up on a rollercoaster at the CNE, try riding one of the dinosaurs at the ROM.

Then there's Bieber.  He's deep into the Michael Jackson trajectory now: acting crazy, hanging out with whatever sycophants will tolerate him, all while cheered on by clueless fans. I could have had a tiny bit of sympathy for him if he at least showed some regret. But smiling for your mug shot after getting charged with  DUI? That was about the most punchable photo I've ever seen.

But the last straw, the thing that will finally get the rest of the world hating us, is something that has been under the radar so far. It's only getting media play in Britain, and predominantly for the remarkable headlines it generates. Those headlines are things along the lines of, Ghost Ship of Cannibal Rats Headed for Britain.

See, there was a Russian-owned ship that was abandoned in a Canadian port when the owners could no longer pay for its operation. The ship was going to be towed away to be dismantled for scrap, but it came loose in a storm, and an empty ship isn't worth risking anything to go after. It's believed to have made it most of the way across the Atlantic.  There are likely rats on board, and with no supply of food, they'll turn to cannibalism. The ship will eventually get to UK or Ireland and run aground.

One article I read tried to use the cannibal angle as reassurance, pointing out that there will be fewer rats left. True, but that means that only the strongest, champion rat will survive. Not just the usual rats you might find in the London sewers; this will be a giant rat, kicking open the ship's hatch, carrying the head of its rival, yelling, "There can be only one!" and ready to lead Britain's rats in an apocalyptic battle for revenge.  It will be a terrible mash-up of 28 Days Later and Watership Down, and whatever humans survive it are going to want to rescind confederation.

Facebook Outbreak

Today, The Guardian reported on a study suggesting that Facebook will lose most of its users over the next few years, and fade from relevance. A lot of it is based on esoteric statistical observations of social networks and their similarities to the spread of diseases. The biggest piece of evidence that's directly related to Facebook is that there's been a significant reduction in Google searches for Facebook.

So yes, a reduction in people's interest in Facebook is one explanation for that. But might I offer my own explanation, which is that EVERYONE ON THE %$@#& PLANET ALREADY KNOWS THE #@$&# URL.  Granted, lots of people Google a site, even if they know the site's name.  For instance, in looking up The Guardian, I typed "Guardian" in Google, rather type it in the URL bar and play Russian Porn Roulette. But if I read The Guardian daily, I'd know it is theguardian.com.  I memorized the URL of Facebook on about the second day I used it.  I also bookmarked it, which brings me to a second explanation for the reduced Googling of Facebook: People have figured out the "bookmark" feature on every browser in existence. I'll give the researchers credit that they did think up the third explanation I came up with, which is that more and more people are accessing Facebook through apps. 

So no, I'm not convinced that Facebook will be going the way of the Bubonic Plague.  I may have been critical of Facebook in the past, but I do admit that it does have a real purpose in allowing people to communicate and keep in touch, and that usefulness isn't going away just because the hype has died down.  So just as the people saying Facebook will take over the world were exaggerating, the predictions of its doom are just as inaccurate.