2008-08-31
New Writer
For those of you looking to support new writers here's a link to MySpace to author Eric R. Payne and his novel "Along the Lines of Causerie."
Cutting The Arts
I know I was hard on artists complaining about the government's decision to cut funding so in fairness here's a link to the Writer's Union of Canada and their position and thoughts.
Blog Post Of Interest: Illegal Immigration
This is an original post from Bumpy Path that considers who the real culprits are concerning illegal immigrants in the United States.
Amazon Warriors
Who says women can't fight? A good old cat fight is not something to sneer at, eh?
Whenever we say "Amazon" we think of sexy, beautiful Brazilian warriors deep within the Amazon ready to rip heads off their enemies. Nice. Growl.
But the Amazons, who attacked European explorers - particularly the Portuguese - in the 16th century - along the Amazon river - weren't the only warrior band of women to grace history.
A few of these tribes, as far as I can tell, were connected with Atlantis and Greek mythology. Here's a quick overview:
Caucasians: Lived around 8000 B.C. between the Caspian and Black seas along the Thermidon River (also spelled Termodon). By the age of eight, girls had their right breast seared with an iron so as to not disrupt the use of a bow and arrow. They meant business.
Libyans: Lived in the Altas Mountains in Morocco. Wore red leather armour into battle. Wait. Getting a mental picture. I'm sure many a men lost a head (excuse the pun) staring at the Libyans as they attacked. They were caught with the proverbial "dick in their hands" I assume.
Gagans: Existed in North Africa and routinely killed baby boys prior to their conversion to Christianity.
Hamitics: Lived between the Nile and the Red Sea.
Sauromatians: Lived along the Don River in Russia.
Euryple's Amazons: Captured Babylon in 1760 B.C.
I would like to add one more:
Oprah's Maniacs: Convene within a tastefully decorated studio with comfy couches in Chicago.
Source: Essential Militaria. Nicholas Hobbes.
Whenever we say "Amazon" we think of sexy, beautiful Brazilian warriors deep within the Amazon ready to rip heads off their enemies. Nice. Growl.
But the Amazons, who attacked European explorers - particularly the Portuguese - in the 16th century - along the Amazon river - weren't the only warrior band of women to grace history.
A few of these tribes, as far as I can tell, were connected with Atlantis and Greek mythology. Here's a quick overview:
Caucasians: Lived around 8000 B.C. between the Caspian and Black seas along the Thermidon River (also spelled Termodon). By the age of eight, girls had their right breast seared with an iron so as to not disrupt the use of a bow and arrow. They meant business.
Libyans: Lived in the Altas Mountains in Morocco. Wore red leather armour into battle. Wait. Getting a mental picture. I'm sure many a men lost a head (excuse the pun) staring at the Libyans as they attacked. They were caught with the proverbial "dick in their hands" I assume.
Gagans: Existed in North Africa and routinely killed baby boys prior to their conversion to Christianity.
Hamitics: Lived between the Nile and the Red Sea.
Sauromatians: Lived along the Don River in Russia.
Euryple's Amazons: Captured Babylon in 1760 B.C.
I would like to add one more:
Oprah's Maniacs: Convene within a tastefully decorated studio with comfy couches in Chicago.
Source: Essential Militaria. Nicholas Hobbes.
2008-08-29
Blog Link: Learning More About Cyber Con Artists
Con Man's Blog is a great blog I recently became connected with on Blog Catalog. There's a lot of criminal activity out there in cyberspace. Cover yourself and stay informed.
Time For Great Artists To Step Up On Their Own Two Feet
Harper is cutting $45 million in arts funding. Call me crazy and callous but I'm ok with it. I'm not sure I buy "we need the funding or else we whither culturally" angle. I agree that arts and culture are the conscience of a society. The bloodlines of who were are. I will always respect artists for their contributions to society and in some cases funding and grants are perfectly reasonable. But...
Arts shouldn't be given free cash. Let's not overdo it either.
Too many mediocre "artists" are getting their hands on public funds that are better off, I don't know, being used to feed kids, help repair public health and education and the military.
The whining is odd to me. They can say all they want about conservatives but this is a fiscally prudent move. Maybe artists are upset they have to go out and get real jobs now. Nothing in life comes for free - not even Paul McCartney - and all these cultural organizations like SOCAN and the CBC are a drain on public money. Go private and see what you're really worth.
Here in Quebec there are so many cultural organizations that it's impossible to keep track of them. Yet, there they are, being fed by the public. I'm pretty sure most of these have little impact on the cultural landscape. And don't get me going on the L'Office.
Why should the rest of us subsidize others? We all have to work hard for what we get without government help so why should the arts get the free pass? In any event, when you choke off cash to deadbeats the best, if Canada truly has artistic talent, tend to rise.
Let's see how this goes. Maybe we'll see world class stuff come out of it.
For those of you who are hooked on the free ride there's always La Ronde. Or find a private patron like artists used to do in the Renaissance. Artists were independent contractors once upon a time. Not dependents of the state.
I'm surprised bloggers haven't begun to seek grants under the guise of furthering Canadian culture.
Arts shouldn't be given free cash. Let's not overdo it either.
Too many mediocre "artists" are getting their hands on public funds that are better off, I don't know, being used to feed kids, help repair public health and education and the military.
The whining is odd to me. They can say all they want about conservatives but this is a fiscally prudent move. Maybe artists are upset they have to go out and get real jobs now. Nothing in life comes for free - not even Paul McCartney - and all these cultural organizations like SOCAN and the CBC are a drain on public money. Go private and see what you're really worth.
Here in Quebec there are so many cultural organizations that it's impossible to keep track of them. Yet, there they are, being fed by the public. I'm pretty sure most of these have little impact on the cultural landscape. And don't get me going on the L'Office.
Why should the rest of us subsidize others? We all have to work hard for what we get without government help so why should the arts get the free pass? In any event, when you choke off cash to deadbeats the best, if Canada truly has artistic talent, tend to rise.
Let's see how this goes. Maybe we'll see world class stuff come out of it.
For those of you who are hooked on the free ride there's always La Ronde. Or find a private patron like artists used to do in the Renaissance. Artists were independent contractors once upon a time. Not dependents of the state.
I'm surprised bloggers haven't begun to seek grants under the guise of furthering Canadian culture.
The Arctic: "Use It Or Lose It"
When I was in University the popular chorus to repeat was that Canada didn't need a military. The thinking went sort of like "No one wants to hurt Canada and besides with the Soviet Union dead there's no need for one."
My buddy and I (and a few others) argued in class that the military wasn't something to be used in times of war. It can be used for many things like, I don't know, protect the Arctic?
The military is a way to prove we exist. That our national sovereignty wasn't up for grabs. I know this is tough for some to comprehend but this is reality.
Of course, one can argue to what degree Canada is "sovereign" but that's for another matter. But for those who harp about Harper being a puppet of U.S. interests best to recall our history: Canada sold its cultural nationalism down the river way, way before Stephen. I mean decades before.
To me, the Arctic has always been proof of Canada's naive approach to power politics. World powers have always laid claim to our seas at different points during our short history. A basic axiom of laying claim to land is by simply maintaining a presence in the region you lay claim to. This simple but effective concept has eluded Canadians - especially the Liberals.
Under the Liberals in the 1990s the military was left in a deplorable state of probable disrepair. Their oblivious attitude towards the military basically meant foregoing exerting national influence on not just the Arctic but on the world stage as well.
Canadians believe that somehow no one would ever want "to hurt" us. This is true. No one says "let's get those people for being Canadian." But they could say, "Those Canadians are very nice but they have something we need. So..." Fill in the blanks.
That something is blue and black gold. If resources and the environment key components of national policy then it stands to reason that we need a strong military to preserve our interests. Arctic Inuit Rangers aren't enough.
Like I said. Naive.
The Liberals and NDP have taken the insane position that the Northwest Passage was opened up because of global warming and this is the reason why foreign nations are coming with their flags.
To think this way is not only ridiculous but utterly irresponsible. Have any of these people been reading Canadian history? This issue has been simmering for a couple of centuries now and it's not because of friggen global warming. Just on this alone neither of these parties should get any votes.
At least Harper is having none of it. He understands, being a student of history, that Canada needs to act like a real country if it's to have any chance of protecting the Arctic. "Use it or lose it" is the perfect phrase to apply to this particular situation.
For a few of us in school, our position was simple: your word is only as good as the hardware to back it up. Ironically, for a country that claims ad nauseam to be independent from America we may end up needing American protection in the Arctic.
That's the price to pay for a parochial approach to national issues where international interests are present. The EU, Denmark, Russia, Norway and the United States all have a presence (or ready to exert one) on the North now . In each case, Canada is powerless militarily to do anything about it. Wagging fingers and talking tough can only go so far. Last I checked, nations don't defend interests with the letters "a,b,c" but with guns, tanks and planes.
We may very well find ourselves in the position of choosing the lesser of all evils and letting the Americans in.
Last, the situation in Georgia may seem like something that has nothing to do with us but if we ponder it a little, the disturbing thought that perhaps it's not all that far away does seep in the mind. That Russia is positioning itself to grab its piece of the oil market after the Americans already had a jump start should make Canadians wonder about how capable we are of protecting our resources.
For his or her part, a hardcore realist already has concluded that since Canada is essentially a branch plant society the decisions has already been made - even if we're unaware of it.
Now tell me we don't need a military.
My buddy and I (and a few others) argued in class that the military wasn't something to be used in times of war. It can be used for many things like, I don't know, protect the Arctic?
The military is a way to prove we exist. That our national sovereignty wasn't up for grabs. I know this is tough for some to comprehend but this is reality.
Of course, one can argue to what degree Canada is "sovereign" but that's for another matter. But for those who harp about Harper being a puppet of U.S. interests best to recall our history: Canada sold its cultural nationalism down the river way, way before Stephen. I mean decades before.
To me, the Arctic has always been proof of Canada's naive approach to power politics. World powers have always laid claim to our seas at different points during our short history. A basic axiom of laying claim to land is by simply maintaining a presence in the region you lay claim to. This simple but effective concept has eluded Canadians - especially the Liberals.
Under the Liberals in the 1990s the military was left in a deplorable state of probable disrepair. Their oblivious attitude towards the military basically meant foregoing exerting national influence on not just the Arctic but on the world stage as well.
Canadians believe that somehow no one would ever want "to hurt" us. This is true. No one says "let's get those people for being Canadian." But they could say, "Those Canadians are very nice but they have something we need. So..." Fill in the blanks.
That something is blue and black gold. If resources and the environment key components of national policy then it stands to reason that we need a strong military to preserve our interests. Arctic Inuit Rangers aren't enough.
Like I said. Naive.
The Liberals and NDP have taken the insane position that the Northwest Passage was opened up because of global warming and this is the reason why foreign nations are coming with their flags.
To think this way is not only ridiculous but utterly irresponsible. Have any of these people been reading Canadian history? This issue has been simmering for a couple of centuries now and it's not because of friggen global warming. Just on this alone neither of these parties should get any votes.
At least Harper is having none of it. He understands, being a student of history, that Canada needs to act like a real country if it's to have any chance of protecting the Arctic. "Use it or lose it" is the perfect phrase to apply to this particular situation.
For a few of us in school, our position was simple: your word is only as good as the hardware to back it up. Ironically, for a country that claims ad nauseam to be independent from America we may end up needing American protection in the Arctic.
That's the price to pay for a parochial approach to national issues where international interests are present. The EU, Denmark, Russia, Norway and the United States all have a presence (or ready to exert one) on the North now . In each case, Canada is powerless militarily to do anything about it. Wagging fingers and talking tough can only go so far. Last I checked, nations don't defend interests with the letters "a,b,c" but with guns, tanks and planes.
We may very well find ourselves in the position of choosing the lesser of all evils and letting the Americans in.
Last, the situation in Georgia may seem like something that has nothing to do with us but if we ponder it a little, the disturbing thought that perhaps it's not all that far away does seep in the mind. That Russia is positioning itself to grab its piece of the oil market after the Americans already had a jump start should make Canadians wonder about how capable we are of protecting our resources.
For his or her part, a hardcore realist already has concluded that since Canada is essentially a branch plant society the decisions has already been made - even if we're unaware of it.
Now tell me we don't need a military.
Tim Runs Out Of Maple
Ran into a Tim Horton's - yes, I always run into places screaming -craving a maple dough nut. I eat dough nuts once every three or four months. Anyway, they had run out of maple dough nuts. How does an establishment that specializes in dough nuts run out of maple dough nuts? It's all you need to worry about. The least I ask as a consumer is that a dough nut shop has the staples stocked.
It's like walking into Wendy's and being told there's no chili left.
No?
It's like walking into Wendy's and being told there's no chili left.
No?
Obama A Marketers Dream
Good question and one asked by my apolitical gal pal.
Girl: "It'll be a shock if he doesn't win."
Boy: "Apparently they're neck and neck."
Girl: "What? How can that be? I don't think so."
Boy: "You don't even follow politics. How can you conclude that?"
Girl: "Still. Why would the media only focus on him?"
Ah, yes. The media. Why would the media, assuming this happens, take sides?
Interesting that she noticed this. Bias is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.
Implied - to me anyway - is that Obama is the "better" or "smarter" candidate among casual observers of politics. He certainly looks and speaks the part very well.
But is talking smooth and dressing the part a sign of intelligence?
Isn't the phrase "smooth talking salesman" a negative? I'm not suggesting that Obama is one. He may very well suck at it for all I know. I'm just answering my own question. Yes, I know. It's possible to be well-dressed AND be smart. Just look at me. Well, you'll just have to believe me.
When I was in high school a kid went around campaigning to get elected as school President. The whole campaign thing never did sit well with me. Call it a character flaw or quirk. Anyway, one day he came and explained his policies and plans. One of his many long-winded nutty ideas was to raise the roofs in the classroooms. As impractical (and foolish) as the idea sounded he was extremely articulate (and passionate for some reason) about it.
Smart?
Right until this day my buddies and I always reply, "yeah, raise the roof buddy" whenever we hear bull shit.
I don't know why Obama gets most of the coverage. He does deserve credit for plastering himself all over the internet and he does seem to be able to reach the young. But how much of this is reliable come voting time?
About the media bias - something SNL felt it was strong enough to merit a sketch about it during the Democratic nomination race - it really depends where you sit. It's all relative. Liberals feel under attack. In traditional Liberal/Democratic regions, states, provinces and what have you, this assertion is ridiculous. But if you're a liberal living in a region where the Christian power base holds sway then I can see why they feel under attack.
Today, politicians are good at saying the right things and pulling out big words but can they really do anything about what they say? Can they really convey their values and beliefs without empty rhetoric as well as convert them into concrete policy easily recognizable by all?
Well?
Girl: "It'll be a shock if he doesn't win."
Boy: "Apparently they're neck and neck."
Girl: "What? How can that be? I don't think so."
Boy: "You don't even follow politics. How can you conclude that?"
Girl: "Still. Why would the media only focus on him?"
Ah, yes. The media. Why would the media, assuming this happens, take sides?
Interesting that she noticed this. Bias is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.
Implied - to me anyway - is that Obama is the "better" or "smarter" candidate among casual observers of politics. He certainly looks and speaks the part very well.
But is talking smooth and dressing the part a sign of intelligence?
Isn't the phrase "smooth talking salesman" a negative? I'm not suggesting that Obama is one. He may very well suck at it for all I know. I'm just answering my own question. Yes, I know. It's possible to be well-dressed AND be smart. Just look at me. Well, you'll just have to believe me.
When I was in high school a kid went around campaigning to get elected as school President. The whole campaign thing never did sit well with me. Call it a character flaw or quirk. Anyway, one day he came and explained his policies and plans. One of his many long-winded nutty ideas was to raise the roofs in the classroooms. As impractical (and foolish) as the idea sounded he was extremely articulate (and passionate for some reason) about it.
Smart?
Right until this day my buddies and I always reply, "yeah, raise the roof buddy" whenever we hear bull shit.
I don't know why Obama gets most of the coverage. He does deserve credit for plastering himself all over the internet and he does seem to be able to reach the young. But how much of this is reliable come voting time?
About the media bias - something SNL felt it was strong enough to merit a sketch about it during the Democratic nomination race - it really depends where you sit. It's all relative. Liberals feel under attack. In traditional Liberal/Democratic regions, states, provinces and what have you, this assertion is ridiculous. But if you're a liberal living in a region where the Christian power base holds sway then I can see why they feel under attack.
Today, politicians are good at saying the right things and pulling out big words but can they really do anything about what they say? Can they really convey their values and beliefs without empty rhetoric as well as convert them into concrete policy easily recognizable by all?
Well?
2008-08-27
If All Bogs Are Glogs and No Blogs Are Bogs...
This is a fine example of good political writing and critical thinking by James Taranto at Opinion Journal. Now compare this to a Neil Young song or Madonna. It is when things seem so logical to the point of taken as truth is when we fall in the trap of to us
Enough said.
Thanks to Contratimes for this one.
Enough said.
Thanks to Contratimes for this one.
Montreal's Construction Scene Is Insane
I've been helping out a friend doing some courier work and let me tell you my suspicion of Montreal being an urban planning backwater have been confirmed.
If you're from out of town be forewarned: the entire city is under construction. No matter where you turn you're screwed. What used to be a 20 minute drive into and out of the city from and to my house is now a 45 minute journey. It's so scary I have to carry a map of the city and wear army gear.
Now before you go off and say that I'm just another one of those citizens who demands better services on our roads but not willing to put up with the inconvenience of getting that perk there's something that needs to be said.
It's not that the decision of Transport Quebec to fix our roads is a bad one. Rather, it's the way they handled the whole thing. Instead of doing things slowly and strategically, TQ decides they will cover the entire city in orange signs in one gigantic swoop. This has translated into a nightmare on the roads.
To be a courier you need to be resourceful. If one street is blocked off you look for alternatives. The problem is that the alternatives and the alternatives to the alternatives have been cut off. So what you get is grid lock and one frustrated bunch of drivers.
It amazes me at how many streets have been closed, detour signs without warning and exits blocked.
It's abnormal really.
Clearly they did this without the citizen in mind.
TQ is now appealing to drivers to have patience. I think we've been more than patient. Canada as a whole is a nation of patience. However, according to people in construction the reality is that we now use inferior materials to build our roads and that's why our roads are in perpetual decadence. There should be a public outcry for the way this has been handled.
Another thing they've been asking is for people to leave early in the morning. Even that is not a guarantee of getting to work on time. One friend of mine gets up at 5:30 just to get to work at 8am and even then it's tight.
We're getting up with the roosters now. What more does TQ want from us?
Add to this that the police have decided in their infinite wisdom to lynch people by nailing them on all sorts of infractions. All designed, of course, to meet new quotas to make more money off our backs. And they're doing this in jeans because - surprise - they're in a dispute with the government.
Sit in traffic for one hour, cross on a solid line because you have to go pick up the kids on time from the daycare and get a ticket.
Nice.
The people are caught in a web at this time. We have to put up both with a government apparatus with no vision and with a police force with extreme vigilance.
Something has to give. In the streets of Montreal I see the face of our society and our government - and it's not a pretty one.
If you're from out of town be forewarned: the entire city is under construction. No matter where you turn you're screwed. What used to be a 20 minute drive into and out of the city from and to my house is now a 45 minute journey. It's so scary I have to carry a map of the city and wear army gear.
Now before you go off and say that I'm just another one of those citizens who demands better services on our roads but not willing to put up with the inconvenience of getting that perk there's something that needs to be said.
It's not that the decision of Transport Quebec to fix our roads is a bad one. Rather, it's the way they handled the whole thing. Instead of doing things slowly and strategically, TQ decides they will cover the entire city in orange signs in one gigantic swoop. This has translated into a nightmare on the roads.
To be a courier you need to be resourceful. If one street is blocked off you look for alternatives. The problem is that the alternatives and the alternatives to the alternatives have been cut off. So what you get is grid lock and one frustrated bunch of drivers.
It amazes me at how many streets have been closed, detour signs without warning and exits blocked.
It's abnormal really.
Clearly they did this without the citizen in mind.
TQ is now appealing to drivers to have patience. I think we've been more than patient. Canada as a whole is a nation of patience. However, according to people in construction the reality is that we now use inferior materials to build our roads and that's why our roads are in perpetual decadence. There should be a public outcry for the way this has been handled.
Another thing they've been asking is for people to leave early in the morning. Even that is not a guarantee of getting to work on time. One friend of mine gets up at 5:30 just to get to work at 8am and even then it's tight.
We're getting up with the roosters now. What more does TQ want from us?
Add to this that the police have decided in their infinite wisdom to lynch people by nailing them on all sorts of infractions. All designed, of course, to meet new quotas to make more money off our backs. And they're doing this in jeans because - surprise - they're in a dispute with the government.
Sit in traffic for one hour, cross on a solid line because you have to go pick up the kids on time from the daycare and get a ticket.
Nice.
The people are caught in a web at this time. We have to put up both with a government apparatus with no vision and with a police force with extreme vigilance.
Something has to give. In the streets of Montreal I see the face of our society and our government - and it's not a pretty one.
Madonna Compares McCain To Hitler And Mugabe On Her Tour
And the guy is not even elected!
The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze.
She should be made to explain exactly what McCain has done to earn this comparison. To me this adds up to blatant libel. This is not freedom of speech or "artists being artists." This is just another example of the destruction of critical thinking. Looks like the Kabbalah did little to enhance and enlighten her discotheque mind.
Ignorance is bliss indeed.
Madonna is 50 years old.
Grow up.
The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze.
She should be made to explain exactly what McCain has done to earn this comparison. To me this adds up to blatant libel. This is not freedom of speech or "artists being artists." This is just another example of the destruction of critical thinking. Looks like the Kabbalah did little to enhance and enlighten her discotheque mind.
Ignorance is bliss indeed.
Madonna is 50 years old.
Grow up.
2008-08-26
A Few Words On "A Few Words In A Defense Of Our Country" By Randy Newman
I'm on record as saying that the American coming to an end is over stated. I could be wrong I know but it's a hunch I got based on my own personal experiences with life and knowledge of history.
No doubt America is on a down cycle but is this to be taken as the decline of an empire? Assuming it is an empire of course.
One of America's true great singer/songwriter Randy Newman thinks otherwise. It seems that the decline is already underway and a forgone conclusion for Newman.
I simply love the songs and lyrics of Randy Newman. His latest album 'Harps and Angels' has already been acclaimed and here are the lyrics to one song relating to the topic at hand in this post.
To be honest I have no idea what he's driving at about "a couple of young Italian fellas" alluding to Scalia and Alito on the Supreme Court. Scalia is conservative but one who holds principles closely aligned with Alexander Hamilton - which makes him a strong Federalist I suppose. Alito is considered a moderate conservative. Do they deserve the "tight ass" moniker? The "brother" he refers to is obviously Clarence Thomas. Is Newman taking issue with their conservative values?
A Few Words In Defense Of Our Country lyrics
I’d like to say a few words
In defense of our country
Whose people aren’t bad nor are they mean
Now the leaders we have
While they’re the worst that we’ve had
Are hardly the worst this poor world has seen
Let’s turn history’s pages, shall we?
Take the Caesars for example
Why within the first few of them
They were sleeping with their sister
Stashing little boys in swimming pools
And burning down the City
And one of ‘em, one of 'em
Appointed his own horse Consul of the Empire
That’s like vice president or something
That’s not a very good example, is it?
But wait, here’s one, the Spanish Inquisition
They put people in a terrible position
I don’t even like to think about it
Well, sometimes I like to think about it
Just a few words in defense of our country
Whose time at the top
Could be coming to an end
Now we don’t want their love
And respect at this point is pretty much out of the question
But in times like these
We sure could use a friend
Hitler. Stalin.
Men who need no introduction
King Leopold of Belgium. That’s right.
Everyone thinks he’s so great
Well he owned The Congo
He tore it up too
He took the diamonds, he took the gold
He took the silver
Know what he left them with?
Malaria
A President once said,
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"
Now it seems like we’re supposed to be afraid
It’s patriotic in fact and color coded
And what are we supposed to be afraid of?
Why, of being afraid
That’s what terror means, doesn’t it?
That’s what it used to mean
[To the first eight bars of "Columbia The Gem Of The Ocean"]
You know it pisses me off a little
That this Supreme Court is gonna outlive me
A couple of young Italian fellas and a brother on the Court now too
But I defy you, anywhere in the world
To find me two Italians as tightass as the two Italians we got
And as for the brother
Well, Pluto’s not a planet anymore either
The end of an empire is messy at best
And this empire is ending
Like all the rest
Like the Spanish Armada adrift on the sea
We’re adrift in the land of the brave
And the home of the free
Goodbye. Goodbye. Goodbye.
No doubt America is on a down cycle but is this to be taken as the decline of an empire? Assuming it is an empire of course.
One of America's true great singer/songwriter Randy Newman thinks otherwise. It seems that the decline is already underway and a forgone conclusion for Newman.
I simply love the songs and lyrics of Randy Newman. His latest album 'Harps and Angels' has already been acclaimed and here are the lyrics to one song relating to the topic at hand in this post.
To be honest I have no idea what he's driving at about "a couple of young Italian fellas" alluding to Scalia and Alito on the Supreme Court. Scalia is conservative but one who holds principles closely aligned with Alexander Hamilton - which makes him a strong Federalist I suppose. Alito is considered a moderate conservative. Do they deserve the "tight ass" moniker? The "brother" he refers to is obviously Clarence Thomas. Is Newman taking issue with their conservative values?
A Few Words In Defense Of Our Country lyrics
I’d like to say a few words
In defense of our country
Whose people aren’t bad nor are they mean
Now the leaders we have
While they’re the worst that we’ve had
Are hardly the worst this poor world has seen
Let’s turn history’s pages, shall we?
Take the Caesars for example
Why within the first few of them
They were sleeping with their sister
Stashing little boys in swimming pools
And burning down the City
And one of ‘em, one of 'em
Appointed his own horse Consul of the Empire
That’s like vice president or something
That’s not a very good example, is it?
But wait, here’s one, the Spanish Inquisition
They put people in a terrible position
I don’t even like to think about it
Well, sometimes I like to think about it
Just a few words in defense of our country
Whose time at the top
Could be coming to an end
Now we don’t want their love
And respect at this point is pretty much out of the question
But in times like these
We sure could use a friend
Hitler. Stalin.
Men who need no introduction
King Leopold of Belgium. That’s right.
Everyone thinks he’s so great
Well he owned The Congo
He tore it up too
He took the diamonds, he took the gold
He took the silver
Know what he left them with?
Malaria
A President once said,
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"
Now it seems like we’re supposed to be afraid
It’s patriotic in fact and color coded
And what are we supposed to be afraid of?
Why, of being afraid
That’s what terror means, doesn’t it?
That’s what it used to mean
[To the first eight bars of "Columbia The Gem Of The Ocean"]
You know it pisses me off a little
That this Supreme Court is gonna outlive me
A couple of young Italian fellas and a brother on the Court now too
But I defy you, anywhere in the world
To find me two Italians as tightass as the two Italians we got
And as for the brother
Well, Pluto’s not a planet anymore either
The end of an empire is messy at best
And this empire is ending
Like all the rest
Like the Spanish Armada adrift on the sea
We’re adrift in the land of the brave
And the home of the free
Goodbye. Goodbye. Goodbye.
The American South And Quebec
Rock aficionado's know the story of how "Sweet Home Alabama" by Southern rock legends Lynyrd Skynyrd was born. It was a response to Neil Young's "Southern Man" and "Alabama."
Well I heard mister Young sing about her
Well, I heard ole Neil put her down
Well, I hope Neil Young will remember
A Southern man don't need him around anyhow
I saw cotton
and I saw black
Tall white mansions
and little shacks.
Southern man
when will you
pay them back?
I heard screamin'
and bullwhips cracking
How long? How long?
I can see why Southerners would take offense to this. Young essentially painted an entire region with one brush - something some Northern liberals are unwittingly good at.
I don't know much about the South except for that I've visited Georgia, North/South Carolina and Florida. However, I do see similarities between the American South and Quebec.
The South has its share of assholes and bigots just like Quebec does - hello Pierre Felardeau - but it's also a place with rich traditions and history different from other parts of the United States. Both have a segregationist angle to it and both thrive on a strong distinct identity.
That being said, writing about it like Young done did is a little like having an artist from California call all Quebecers parochial separatists.
Then again, if it could produce two great songs Young and Skynyrd produced music fans would stand to gain.
Well I heard mister Young sing about her
Well, I heard ole Neil put her down
Well, I hope Neil Young will remember
A Southern man don't need him around anyhow
I saw cotton
and I saw black
Tall white mansions
and little shacks.
Southern man
when will you
pay them back?
I heard screamin'
and bullwhips cracking
How long? How long?
I can see why Southerners would take offense to this. Young essentially painted an entire region with one brush - something some Northern liberals are unwittingly good at.
I don't know much about the South except for that I've visited Georgia, North/South Carolina and Florida. However, I do see similarities between the American South and Quebec.
The South has its share of assholes and bigots just like Quebec does - hello Pierre Felardeau - but it's also a place with rich traditions and history different from other parts of the United States. Both have a segregationist angle to it and both thrive on a strong distinct identity.
That being said, writing about it like Young done did is a little like having an artist from California call all Quebecers parochial separatists.
Then again, if it could produce two great songs Young and Skynyrd produced music fans would stand to gain.
Montreal's Best And Brightest Miss Olympic Mark
The staff over at The Gazette and Team 990 are either bored or lack any imagination these days. I was thoroughly disappointed with the rationalization of Canada's Olympic performance.
Personally, I think Canada did well. Here's why: they don't get enough public, government and private support. Simple as that. Anyone who doesn't think money = medals is deluding themselves. In this way, it's amazing we win any medals at all.
The question is how far do we want to go? Obviously, I doubt we'd go the Chinese route. On the other hand, setting some standards and striving for excellence is not a bad thing.
Let's review some writers who left me scratching my head:
Stu Cowan - Sports Editor: I once emailed Stu a few years ago and he was kind enough to respond in a professional manner so by all accounts he's a decent guy. But...no free pass here.
He asked if it changes anyone's life if we win medals. He prefaced this notion to build his argument that more funding isn't needed. That public money should go into other stuff. Of course there's some truth to this but the reality is that we participate at the Olympics and many nations take it damn seriously. Not committing and giving our full support makes a mockery of the spirit of competition and our athletes. Why do we have to do something at the expense of another? I disagree with Stu. Funding is key. Perhaps we should spend the money better? Cut the 600 member COA a little and send less but more efficient athletes?
Canada won 18 medals despite operating in an apathetic society obsessed with finding smug excuses rather than doing the hard work of rolling up the sleeves, pumping the cash and designing a true program of excellence to attain the full potential of our athletes. Imagine what we could do with more! I firmly believe we should do more.
Jack Todd - the wannabe sports writer who won't go away. Once again proving his limited skills in understanding sports. Why must he always try and belittle and begrudge with pointless cynicism? In his attempt to dismiss an athlete's accomplishment (Michael Phelps) he tried to somehow posit the notion that swimming is easy. Why is this guy still around? Writing that Phelps earned "McMedals" is beyond shocking even for a "Mcwriter" like Todd.
Norman Webster. As far as I know he was a former editor. Dunno if he's a sports junkie but his attempt to somehow assuage Canada's mediocre performance by linking it to population and the Americans is ludicrous. What did he do? His logic led him to claim that since America is ten times the population of Canada they should have won ten times the medals. Since they didn't, that is taken to mean Canada did better.
We really should make stats class a prerequisite in our schools. I suck at math but even I understand that this method has drawbacks. I presume that people who use it like the fact that America always looks bad. No kidding! There are a limited amount of medals given out. Do the math. Big countries will always look bad. Medium sized countries will always look average and small countries will always look great. Even if the U.S. wins double the medals they would still look worse than Togo, Jamaica and Barbados. Does anyone truly believe these countries are "more athletic" than the States? I certainly don't.
Here's a simple example: Canada won 18 medals with a population of 33 million giving you a .6 ratio. In order for the U.S. to match that they need to win close to 200 medals (out of 956). Now, let's assume Canada wins 25 medals next time - or .76. The U.S. would have to win 250 medals to match this. In other words, for Canada's seven medals the U.S. has to win an additional 50. Does this make sense? The "margin of error" is tighter for the U.S. in this way.
If one wants to spin things this way then you have to look at it from another angle as well. For example, Canada is ten times the population of New Zealand. By Webster's (and he's not alone) calculations that means given New Zealand's nine medals (three gold) Canada should have won 90 medals and 30 gold vis-a-vis New Zealand. Notice how we tied with gold medals It doesn't stop there. Holland has 20 million people. So, Canada should win 1 1/2/ times the medals. Instead, it finished 18 t0 16 and with the Dutch earning more than double the gold medals at seven to three. Cuba is a third of our population. Ergo three times the spoils for Canada, right? Cuba won 24 medals with one less gold. Australia is around 20 million people. They won 44 medals!
Population to medals ratio is misguided and doesn't prove anything. There are so many factors and variables that come into play when designing, funding and training a national program. It's asinine to reduce it to such a simplistic calculation. If one really wants to "equalize" the playing field then delegations of athletes sent to medals won is a better (though far from perfect) ratio to use I suppose. If we do this, we find that the U.S. beats Canada by a WIDE margin. In fact, Canada's ratio is not impressive. 344 athletes to 18 medals is not a good ratio.
One last note, people go off about the Americans winning most of their medals in the pool. So what? Here's a thought: how about we stop whining and actually try and get some for ourselves like the Aussie's did? If we don't want to then the least we can do is not squeeze our sour grapes and turn them into acidic vinegar. Oh by the way, the swimming medals accounted for 31% of America's production. It reached 45% for Australia. Yet no one seems to bring this up.
No matter how you dice it, Canada's three gold medals is too low for a country with our talent and resources.
Elliott Price. Price falls too easily into the hysterical typical anti-Toronto/America thing we often read at the Gazette and hear on Team 990. He went off about Sports Illustrated about how upset he was that they picked Canada to win 14 medals. They weren't that far off as it turned out and the rhetoric used was parochial at best. Who cares what SI thinks? To my knowledge he harped about it a few times.
The Americans are not out to get us. Fret not friend. "The don't know we exist" is a popular phrase uttered by sensitive nationalists. Advice time: How about we force them to acknowledge us by, I don't know, actually doing something? And then they go on to talk about, well, American sports.
PJ Stock. See Webster. But Stock, likable as he is, really needs to concentrate on getting his thoughts together better. One question he posed caught my ear. He asked a listener what he was prepared to do to support Canadian athletes. He's absolutely right. Put your money where your mouth is. Nonetheless, I thought this was unfair. Here's why: This is Canada. We are experts at all talk no action. Funding for the amateur program already comes from taxpayers. Asking a citizen to dip into his pocket again in a society that does not a) have much disposable income and b) is not private oriented simply went against the grain of Canadian culture. Stock was mixing American sensibilities with Canadian ones. In America, they say "I should" when faced with a problem. In Canada we say "the government should" in two official languages.
The Team 990 has a bit of a "public radio" feel to it now as one savvy sports friend of mine put it.
One last thought. China won 51 gold medals and 100 total. The U.S. won 36 and 110. How each nation reached the objective couldn't have been any different. The LA Times report was not propaganda "attempting to make excuses for the Americans" as some have oddly claimed. Rather, it is a fact. China destroys families. They completely miss the point of what sports are supposed to be. It couldn't be any different in America. Besides, they did win: last I checked silver and bronze matters at the Olympics and rankings should ALWAYS be compiled with that in mind. Or else just give gold medals, right?
For me, the manner in which some of the aforementioned attempted to rationalize Canada's performance (often falling to typical and tired comparisons to the Americans) left me feeling that they could have presented their cases better.
I do expect better perspectives from people in positions to form and inform minds.
Personally, I think Canada did well. Here's why: they don't get enough public, government and private support. Simple as that. Anyone who doesn't think money = medals is deluding themselves. In this way, it's amazing we win any medals at all.
The question is how far do we want to go? Obviously, I doubt we'd go the Chinese route. On the other hand, setting some standards and striving for excellence is not a bad thing.
Let's review some writers who left me scratching my head:
Stu Cowan - Sports Editor: I once emailed Stu a few years ago and he was kind enough to respond in a professional manner so by all accounts he's a decent guy. But...no free pass here.
He asked if it changes anyone's life if we win medals. He prefaced this notion to build his argument that more funding isn't needed. That public money should go into other stuff. Of course there's some truth to this but the reality is that we participate at the Olympics and many nations take it damn seriously. Not committing and giving our full support makes a mockery of the spirit of competition and our athletes. Why do we have to do something at the expense of another? I disagree with Stu. Funding is key. Perhaps we should spend the money better? Cut the 600 member COA a little and send less but more efficient athletes?
Canada won 18 medals despite operating in an apathetic society obsessed with finding smug excuses rather than doing the hard work of rolling up the sleeves, pumping the cash and designing a true program of excellence to attain the full potential of our athletes. Imagine what we could do with more! I firmly believe we should do more.
Jack Todd - the wannabe sports writer who won't go away. Once again proving his limited skills in understanding sports. Why must he always try and belittle and begrudge with pointless cynicism? In his attempt to dismiss an athlete's accomplishment (Michael Phelps) he tried to somehow posit the notion that swimming is easy. Why is this guy still around? Writing that Phelps earned "McMedals" is beyond shocking even for a "Mcwriter" like Todd.
Norman Webster. As far as I know he was a former editor. Dunno if he's a sports junkie but his attempt to somehow assuage Canada's mediocre performance by linking it to population and the Americans is ludicrous. What did he do? His logic led him to claim that since America is ten times the population of Canada they should have won ten times the medals. Since they didn't, that is taken to mean Canada did better.
We really should make stats class a prerequisite in our schools. I suck at math but even I understand that this method has drawbacks. I presume that people who use it like the fact that America always looks bad. No kidding! There are a limited amount of medals given out. Do the math. Big countries will always look bad. Medium sized countries will always look average and small countries will always look great. Even if the U.S. wins double the medals they would still look worse than Togo, Jamaica and Barbados. Does anyone truly believe these countries are "more athletic" than the States? I certainly don't.
Here's a simple example: Canada won 18 medals with a population of 33 million giving you a .6 ratio. In order for the U.S. to match that they need to win close to 200 medals (out of 956). Now, let's assume Canada wins 25 medals next time - or .76. The U.S. would have to win 250 medals to match this. In other words, for Canada's seven medals the U.S. has to win an additional 50. Does this make sense? The "margin of error" is tighter for the U.S. in this way.
If one wants to spin things this way then you have to look at it from another angle as well. For example, Canada is ten times the population of New Zealand. By Webster's (and he's not alone) calculations that means given New Zealand's nine medals (three gold) Canada should have won 90 medals and 30 gold vis-a-vis New Zealand. Notice how we tied with gold medals It doesn't stop there. Holland has 20 million people. So, Canada should win 1 1/2/ times the medals. Instead, it finished 18 t0 16 and with the Dutch earning more than double the gold medals at seven to three. Cuba is a third of our population. Ergo three times the spoils for Canada, right? Cuba won 24 medals with one less gold. Australia is around 20 million people. They won 44 medals!
Population to medals ratio is misguided and doesn't prove anything. There are so many factors and variables that come into play when designing, funding and training a national program. It's asinine to reduce it to such a simplistic calculation. If one really wants to "equalize" the playing field then delegations of athletes sent to medals won is a better (though far from perfect) ratio to use I suppose. If we do this, we find that the U.S. beats Canada by a WIDE margin. In fact, Canada's ratio is not impressive. 344 athletes to 18 medals is not a good ratio.
One last note, people go off about the Americans winning most of their medals in the pool. So what? Here's a thought: how about we stop whining and actually try and get some for ourselves like the Aussie's did? If we don't want to then the least we can do is not squeeze our sour grapes and turn them into acidic vinegar. Oh by the way, the swimming medals accounted for 31% of America's production. It reached 45% for Australia. Yet no one seems to bring this up.
No matter how you dice it, Canada's three gold medals is too low for a country with our talent and resources.
Elliott Price. Price falls too easily into the hysterical typical anti-Toronto/America thing we often read at the Gazette and hear on Team 990. He went off about Sports Illustrated about how upset he was that they picked Canada to win 14 medals. They weren't that far off as it turned out and the rhetoric used was parochial at best. Who cares what SI thinks? To my knowledge he harped about it a few times.
The Americans are not out to get us. Fret not friend. "The don't know we exist" is a popular phrase uttered by sensitive nationalists. Advice time: How about we force them to acknowledge us by, I don't know, actually doing something? And then they go on to talk about, well, American sports.
PJ Stock. See Webster. But Stock, likable as he is, really needs to concentrate on getting his thoughts together better. One question he posed caught my ear. He asked a listener what he was prepared to do to support Canadian athletes. He's absolutely right. Put your money where your mouth is. Nonetheless, I thought this was unfair. Here's why: This is Canada. We are experts at all talk no action. Funding for the amateur program already comes from taxpayers. Asking a citizen to dip into his pocket again in a society that does not a) have much disposable income and b) is not private oriented simply went against the grain of Canadian culture. Stock was mixing American sensibilities with Canadian ones. In America, they say "I should" when faced with a problem. In Canada we say "the government should" in two official languages.
The Team 990 has a bit of a "public radio" feel to it now as one savvy sports friend of mine put it.
One last thought. China won 51 gold medals and 100 total. The U.S. won 36 and 110. How each nation reached the objective couldn't have been any different. The LA Times report was not propaganda "attempting to make excuses for the Americans" as some have oddly claimed. Rather, it is a fact. China destroys families. They completely miss the point of what sports are supposed to be. It couldn't be any different in America. Besides, they did win: last I checked silver and bronze matters at the Olympics and rankings should ALWAYS be compiled with that in mind. Or else just give gold medals, right?
For me, the manner in which some of the aforementioned attempted to rationalize Canada's performance (often falling to typical and tired comparisons to the Americans) left me feeling that they could have presented their cases better.
I do expect better perspectives from people in positions to form and inform minds.
Introducing A New History Blog
I try to keep up and plug every history blog I run into. The latest is History's Mysteries.
2008-08-25
Inspiration For Lorenzo's Oil Passes Away
The story of Lorenzo Odone was made famous in the 1992 film Lorenzo's Oil.
2008-08-24
Bunny Berigan's Swingin' Trumpet
The Swing era is best known by Tommy Dorsey, Benny Goodman, Louis Armstrong, Count Basie, Duke Ellington and a few others like Earl Hines, Artie Shaw, Cab Calloway, Erskine Hawkins, Lionel Hampton and Gil Evans. Lesser known legends included Chick Webb and Bix Beiderbeck. An even more obscure and forgotten trumpeter of the big band era was Bunny Berigan.
Berigan was a true original and helped to launch swing.
When Will These Prop Sticks Break?
When I was a broker part of my routine was to read financial reports and analyst documents of companies. This was during the period of "when stocks could do no wrong" earlier this decade. One company who was the darling (and remains so) of everyone was the basket case known as Bombardier. Once a proud, innovative business the company languishes as a corporate beggar.
While Canadian analysts fell over themselves selling the stock to investors, American firms were more sober. One company, Credit Suisse First Boston, never bought the hype as I recall it.
It turns out they were right.
There's no true investment value to Bombardier. How can there be one when a company relies on corporate government hand outs to bail it out?
Ah yes, the corporate hand out for losing industries. A classic Canadian business trait.
For the record, Bombardier is not the only one.
I recently had a conversation with an investment banker and we discussed how here in Quebec it feels as though behind every company there's a government stick propping it behind the scenes. The province is littered with unprofitable businesses who get to continue operations because they provide jobs. When people say Canadians are not productive this is one component of the argument. Of course, the owners of these "businesses" that churn loss after loss drive around in Land Rovers.
I love reading these "top 500 companies list" in Canada and Quebec. Aside from the fact that already the quality and depth of the 300 companies in the TSX is thin, it's strange that we actually have 500 companies of note to rank. Of course we don't. When you look at the companies many are far from "best managed" or innovative. Many are public companies and others are private companies connected with the government.
But hey, as long as "we're not American" that's all that matters.
While Canadian analysts fell over themselves selling the stock to investors, American firms were more sober. One company, Credit Suisse First Boston, never bought the hype as I recall it.
It turns out they were right.
There's no true investment value to Bombardier. How can there be one when a company relies on corporate government hand outs to bail it out?
Ah yes, the corporate hand out for losing industries. A classic Canadian business trait.
For the record, Bombardier is not the only one.
I recently had a conversation with an investment banker and we discussed how here in Quebec it feels as though behind every company there's a government stick propping it behind the scenes. The province is littered with unprofitable businesses who get to continue operations because they provide jobs. When people say Canadians are not productive this is one component of the argument. Of course, the owners of these "businesses" that churn loss after loss drive around in Land Rovers.
I love reading these "top 500 companies list" in Canada and Quebec. Aside from the fact that already the quality and depth of the 300 companies in the TSX is thin, it's strange that we actually have 500 companies of note to rank. Of course we don't. When you look at the companies many are far from "best managed" or innovative. Many are public companies and others are private companies connected with the government.
But hey, as long as "we're not American" that's all that matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)