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 effect 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 has 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.