Pripsters, Hipsters and Hippies.

Hiatusisms

2008-03-14T08:47:00.003-05:00

For no one that will read this (as I'm sure you've all gotten very bored of looking at Mexican Nikes)...I seem to have lost that extra edge that makes me so frustrated everyday. Perhaps this blog really has been cathartic, or perhaps I'm just tired. Either way, we'll see if I'm inspired anytime soon to write. But for now, check back in about 3 months.

Good day.

Check out these kicks.....

2008-02-07T09:21:00.000-05:00

Edition especial!

another question of definition?

2007-12-14T09:56:00.000-05:00

What makes good music? Or, for that matter, what makes a good movie?

Sure, sure, it sounds like a fluffy, mundane and cliche question, but think about it. In topics of personal choice and preference, can a universal criteria be applied to what makes something 'good'?

Of course, the word 'good' in itself is rather ambiguous, but I think you get the gist.

I was thinking about my taste is music, and how polarized it is from two of my other friends. Folk versus Funk. Blues versus Alt Country. Or, for example, how someone I know is a die hard Neil Young fan, one of those plaid wearing Northern Ontario kinda guys, but I don't breath his music. I like it, love it even, but don't fit into the category of Younghead.

So why not? I think most people would say that Neil Young is considered 'good' music, but why? does he reach a larger audience? So does shitty Pop music? But perhaps he reaches a larger audience because each aspect of his music is able to speak to different people. Some might like his lyrics, others his melody, some his harmony and some his rhythm. The same applies to movies.

Could this be the answer?

Another lesson learned.

2007-12-07T14:23:00.001-05:00

When you wear your heart on your sleeve, its bound to get a little bruised sometimes.

It's no secret, I am outspoken, stubborn and passionate about most things in life. I also have a short fuse, which is easily lit. I also love to argue. This makes for a lethal combination apparently.

I guess this entry is a reflection on a life lesson learned. Just be prepared that when you put yourself out there, self-indulgent and self-absorbed individuals will take advantage of that for their own malicious pleasure. And that bothers me. Nothing else to say about it.

Envy and Ego

2007-11-15T09:59:00.000-05:00

There is a new topic chapping my ass these days, and it encompasses two concepts: People's ability to lie to themselves about a particular motivation to do something, and their envious response to their lack of participation in another task of the same nature.

This might be confusing. Let me explain. Often, I run into people who claim they want to become a doctor to "help society", and that money/power/prestige has nothing to do with their true motivations. I run into people who join some benign, useless and utterly pretentious society for no other reason than to slap it on their CV to impress some other idiot cut from the same cloth who will determine their future on some application to become that doctor. And yet they will fight to the death to argue they do it for some morally proper reason.

It could be something as simple as when I show surprise that I'm not into work before they are. But they have convinced themselves they have always been the first to work, so they take offense when you are surprised. It makes them feel better about themselves, and massages that ego that has been stifled, but is begging to come out and play. Why is our world so full of fucking idiots? They either actively suppress their "immoral" motivation, or they subconsciously do it. The end result is the same: they fucking lie to themselves. And it fucking pisses me off.

Call me judgmental, but the difference is I don't talk about it behind their backs. If I hear it out of their mouth, I challenge them on it. And it pisses them off, because it forces them realize the truth they worked so hard to suppress.

And finally, when you yourself do something "moral" (irrespective of your motivations for doing so) and these dingbats are jealous that they can't be a part of it, that they can't put THAT on their precious CV, their envious little devil rears his ugly face. They put you down, call you a suckup, or find some other way to justify it to themselves that they didn't do it for the right reasons.

You want to call me a hypocrite don't you? Tell me that this whole rant is nothing more than my own envious devil rearing his ugly head? You couldn't be more wrong.

Sure I want to be a doctor to "help people". And I love science and medicine and their interaction with human emotions. But I don't want to be a nurse (who does the same thing) because they don't make enough money, and I don't want to be bossed around by some fuckhead who thinks he's a doctor to help people, but really just enjoys bossing me around and getting me to clean the bedpans. And I volunteer to help me get into med school. I enjoy it now that I do it, teaching is fun, but I only signed up in the first place for the CV.

So stop lying to yourself. Its OK to want to make money and be called 'Dr' and to have your decision as final. You get the perks of helping people and all of that at the same time. But just fucking admit it to yourself, and our world will be so much more honest.

That being said, I love Maker's Mark Bourbon for both the taste AND the red drippy wax all over their sexy bottle.

And that's OK.

A Little "Heavy"

2007-10-25T08:15:00.000-05:00

Perhaps the discussion topics have been too "heavy" these past few weeks, so readership is down. Players Poll:

How many fat chicks would be hot if they actually weren't fat? I want percentages here.

New Perspectives on Argument

2007-10-19T09:48:00.000-05:00

So I was given a new perspective on discussions. In fact, I am learning a very new thing about other people's perspective these days. Apparently, I approach an argument in a very "empirical" way. That is to say that I read someone's argument, dissect it point by point and respond accordingly, ensuring to address the others' points in my response. Then I may present a new argument, if one is appropriate.

However, I learned that this is not the only approach people take to engaging in a discussion. I am told that some choose to read an argument, and respond on their own, but it may not relate to, or directly address the points made in my argument to them. It may simply stay within the thread of the theme. I think this is perhaps why people find my argumentative style frustrating, in that I restrict the argument to my point alone and leave no room for breathing. But I believe we move down this path because I am trying to get people to at least directly acknowledge what I have said.

Let me just say this: I do not feel this is an effective way to have a discussion (i.e. no to directly address the others' point of view). It is as if two people are talking "at" each other, without acknowledging what the other has said. Is this not inordinately frustrating?

To engage in a discussion is to listen and respond. You are not arguing if you simply present your own point of view. You are just talking out loud.

This has shed an important light on my arguments with many of my friends. I often feel as if no one has listened to, or read what I have presented to them. And this curtails into an out of control spiral into trying to get them to acknowledge (note: this does NOT mean to agree) with what I have said. And I often charge them with a lack of respect for considering my point of view.

But perhaps they have read my argument, they simply choose not to address it in their response: it is not their argumentative style. So what to do?

I can't fault someone for having a different style of argument, but I can argue that it is an ineffective style to adopt. Which I have done here.

If anyone still reads this, how do I bridge this frustrating gap?

Gore! Gore! Gore! Gore!

2007-10-12T16:40:00.000-05:00

Let's Go Blue Jays Let's Go! Al Gore!

Sweet Mother Jesus! Al Gore won the Nobel Prize. I can't even remember if I knew he was nominated a while ago or not. But I am so fucking pissed off right now I can't believe it. I DO remember writing a blog entry with people calling for him to win the prize AND re-run for El Presidente (Monday April 30th - "we know only one ism.....goreism!").....but I can't believe we are that fucking dumb to actually have given him our top scientific award!

It just goes to show that Marketing works. Start a trend and God will follow. Another reason why I hate marketers.

Mother fucker I am in disbelief. Will someone who knows something about the criteria for the Nobel Prize please speak up and put this ranting idiot to bed? I stand by my original comment: Kudos to you Mr. Gore for finally getting people (including myself) to recognize we have a problem, but REAL nobel prize winners find the problem and fix it. Only then will I vote for you for president.

simple courtesy

2007-09-29T12:30:00.001-05:00

Has anyone ever noticed that people are just generally discourteous and rude in your daily travels?

What's more, infuriatingly, they don't even do it intentionally! At least if they did, I could write them off as just another pink assholed mother fucker. But these people are just so oblivious and unaware of the people around them, that they diddle doddle about, cut you off, step on your feet, block your way and your view and don't even notice.

Take an example today. I am reading the store directory in the mall. Along comes a guy and his daughters, and one of the little girls walks in front of me. That's expected. She was 10 or something. Soon enough, she moves off chasing a butterfly or whatever, but the Dad then budges his way in there and peers up close to the map. I'm clearly there reading the thing, but he doesn't even notice. So I think, he can't see without his glasses, so he's taking a quick peer. Show a little tolerance. But no! He stands there ho humming over it for a few minutes until I kick him in the balls, fuming at the mouth and beat the shit out of him in front of his daughters.

Of course, I just politely said "excuse me".

And then we walk away, coincidentally together, and he zig zags back and forth all over the place and I can't get around him. Just fast enough that its impossible to walk around him or time it right to cut through, but just slow enough to really fucking piss me off.

Sometimes I just think everyone is all fucked up. And then I remember writing a blog about accosting a man in front of his 10 year old girl.

Existentialism, Arguments, Philosophy, Tolstoy, Grass, and Kundera

2007-09-28T09:12:00.000-05:00

Aha! Its a trap....Steve K. Where are you?

steve k.....where are you?!!

2007-09-21T09:48:00.000-05:00

Hey Steve K.,

I don't know how you find this blog, but I presume you surf the bloggosphere with search terms like "philosophy, existentialism, dualism, mind-body dualistic conundrum, Dante, Tolstoy, Calvin or Gunter Grass".

I have posted a special reply to your comment on Tuesday August 17th. I apologize profusely for not having noticed it when you wrote it.

Much Love,

klq.

predictable existentialism?

2007-09-14T12:00:00.000-05:00

Steve K, if you read this....I am not trying to argue philosophy....this is nothing more than a discussive rant attempting to work out ideas. Please post your thoughts (everyone):

Ben: You're head will explode unless you learn to just sit back and be content with what you like/dislike (whether that be predictable or unpredictable). Even if what causes that contentment changes on a daily basis, stays constant or subtly changes....as long as it is recognized (which I think is a VERY difficult thing to do) then enjoy.

Have you noticed how many people feel a certain shame at complete amercement in enjoyment (I think me included)....like it's not a natural state....this, if anything, is mental.

Me: ...if I am to "just sit back and be content with what you like/dislike", what if those likes/dislikes is to be predictable or unpredictable......or predictably unpredictable.

Furthermore, to accept is to become stagnant. In other words, if I am to be content with my likes/dislikes, then how am I to strive for something different? I strive to be different, and that requires change, especially when "being different" becomes "not different".

Ben: You realize that we're talking about apples and oranges?

If you were content with happiness then it wouldn't make a difference whether you were becoming stagnant or whether it was predictable. You would be happy that you were happy.

I am not talking about staying "fresh" or "hip"....how are these relevant to the conversation?

All I'm saying is go with the flow...if something makes you happy then enjoy that for what it is...it requires no further analysis.

Don't wear a scarf and bandanna inside because you see that guy wearing a scarf inside. Wear a scarf and bandanna inside because you are happy with the way it looks.....

Me: No Ben....it is you who is missing the point. I understand what you are saying. You are saying to simply be happy. Be happy to exist as you are. If one day you wake up black and the next white....be happy on both days as either.

To be honest, there is no real concrete argument against existentialism because it applies to everything ambiguously equal (which is what you are striving for with your "be happy to exist anyway you are" theory).

But I am trying to argue against that statement. My argument follows as an extension of the logic used in yours. The trouble comes when you say to be content with happiness. But what is happiness? Happiness is no more descriptive than the word "nice". This is where I interject. MY happiness is derived from being different, or unpredictable each day. When that cycle breaks, or becomes repetitive, I am no longer happy. To tell me to be content with a day where I am not unpredictable violates that principle. So for me to be content with being happy is conditional upon an unpredictability day to day. When that unpredictability becomes predictable, I cannot be content with that (and thereby happy) because I have violated the condition on my happiness.

The question I am posing to your theory is how can you be happy with a state of existence when that state of existence is in direct contrast to what makes me happiest?

To simply say just "be" and "be happy with that" really means nothing because it tells you nothing of what that "being" is.

Eggs Again.

2007-09-14T11:34:00.000-05:00

Perhaps if my breakfast is cyclical in nature, then so are my rants. Regardless, this shit really chaps my ass, fucking social equalitists, and I am uncertain as to how to deal with it.

1) Elections Canada's recent decision to allow covered faces ("veils") for Muslim women at the poles, despite the law to the contrary regarding proper identification of the voting individual.

2) The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to stand for the Canadian National Anthem, despite their residence and citizenship in this country, because it contains the word "God".

So here it is: Why is it that these people's point of view is "more correct"? At least that's how the proponents of social equality portray it. What really fires me up is that these types of people often forget that there are two sides to an equation. So guess what? If you feel it's your God given right to remain seated for Canada's national anthem, then don't fucking live here. And if you can't show your face to identify yourself at the voting pole, to ensure that our democratic process is fair and EQUAL, then don't fucking vote!

But no. Their individual views and beliefs are more important than anything else. Even more so than the fundamental principles and beliefs of this country. So can it be my god given right to be a racist? Of course not. Our constitution, our fundamental principles protect against that. To be free from prosecution based on race or religion. Guess what else in there? The fact that you have to identify yourself properly at the voting poles. It seems to me pretty fucking difficult to do so if you don't have to show your face. And until we get fingerprint ID etc, then you'll just have to deal with it or abstain from voting.

It also seems that the two stipulations discussed above (i.e. voting identity and freedom of religion) of the Constitution are contradictory. So who chooses the right one?

I can't. But I can say this: just because your side deals with social and moral issues, doesn't make it any more right than another issue that deals with money or power.

And in the case of the anthem....show some fucking respect for the country you live in and provides you with so much. Try living in North Korea. That'll be a blast.

predictably unpredictable

2007-08-24T12:11:00.001-05:00

Ain't nothing like putting on some funky jazz, getting ripped on codeine and sitting down for a little write.
Just for reference, today it's Ramsey Lewis "The 'In' Crowd".

Oh, and codeine appears to mellow me out, so today is more of a reflection, than a rant. Fuck.

So, groovin'.

In my last year, I have realized that my attempts to be different from those around me, whether that be in music, fashion, choice of venues, attitudes or whateverthefuck has earned me the reputation for being an anti-establishmentarianist. I can't believe I spelled that on the first go. It has also fuelled a lot of my blog entries to date, when I find out some fucking indie-rock-alt-country-loving-brown corduroy jacket-wearing-pink-assed-mother-fucker whose favourite song on the radio is "Jealous of your cigarette" 'cause Hawksley is his favourite band (at least for this week) tries to take that away from me. Anyway, I have come to the very sad realization that in that behaviour, designed to be unpredictable, I have reverted back to being predictable. Full circle to the title of the entry.

In desperately trying to be unpredictable, I have become, predictably unpredictable. So much so, that people around me will expect a certain response (so called 'normal' human response to a given situation) and then know that I will respond in an entirely different way, such that they can predict how that will be.

So how to break the predictability? For the record, I fucking hate predictability. I find it about as exciting as eating newspaper bread, everyday of my life. So here's what I do. I eat a boiled egg for breakfast. Cereal and toast another day. Then change the type of cereal. Sugar, whole wheat, granola. Perhaps a bacon meal in there somewhere. Then marmite and tomato and cottage cheese on a bagel. Maybe get creative and throw in a danish or a croissant. Finally, a breakfast sandwich. So I'm happy. No repetition.

But then, it starts to repeat itself. And the cycle simply gets bigger. The period grows from a day, to three days, maybe a week or two, but eventually, I'm boiling fucking eggs again. There is no escaping it. Repetition. REPETITION!

So....I'll take it a step further. And go from being predictably unpredictable to changing that and becoming ever more unpredictable by becoming more predictable. Or something fucked like that.

But I will never escape it. Never. My circle, my cycle, simply grows one step larger. Boiled eggs, toast and cereal. Add another one on there and take a ride.

Go back to the beginning and read it again. And again. And again. Until your mind explodes and you go fuck yourself. Help?

I love science.

2007-08-23T14:31:00.000-05:00

Graphs. Science=Graphs.

The "York" Report

2007-08-22T11:01:00.000-05:00

For any of you who read the Toronto Metro, and are unfortunate enough to come across the York Report....I had this to say to him. See tommorow for the article that broke the camels back (they haven't posted it online yet).

Written 22-08-07:

Marty,

I have a question of purpose:

Do you feel it necessary to consistently use melodramatic and overstated adjectives to describe sports figures in the hopes that you will receive exactly the type of email I am sending you now (i.e. one of "scathing" criticism)? Or do you simply attempt it in the hopes of being profound (much like the dreaded Bob McGowan)?

To allow you the context, I am directly referring to today's (22-08-07) "York" report regarding Michael Vick as the "scum" of the earth, the use of the word "yech", the reference to him as a "sicko", and the claim that this is, "the most lamentable, most disgusting sports story of our lifetimes".

But I'm also referring to the innumerable amount of "filth" you have putout over the last year as well.

Do you think you would have written the same for a cock-fighting ring? Ever been to Korea and eaten dog? Do you think they are the "scum" of the Earth?

Best,

Kieran

rant fuck

2007-08-17T09:46:00.001-05:00

Mother fucking people. Fuck shit cock pink-assed mother fucker.

I still get angry every goddamn day about people's behavior on the TTC. Move to the middle of the fucking subway car! Yeah I know you got to get off at the next stop, or maybe even 5 stops, but you know what? I'll fucking move. Or the 15 other people who could have gotten on after me will move too. I know your precious shopping trip, or cranky morning commute is uber-important, but have some fucking courtesy for others for fuck's sake.

It's a goddamn vicious circle. Each and everyday I am more soured by it, and now, when I'm really fucking tired, I say to myself, 'Why the fuck should I move to the back or center of the car? No one else fucking does. So fuck them. They can huff and puff like me everyday and move to the back and go fuck themselves.' And most days I catch myself thinking this, feel bad or fear spending years in purgatory, so I move to the back. But its getting harder to do so.

Fucking Pascal's Wager.

maybe it's just common sense

2007-08-17T08:24:00.000-05:00

My pleasantly common-sensed friend provided me some insight into the answer to the "argument" argument.

When faced with a difference of subjective opinion, it no longer becomes a discussion of topic, but rather a battle to "win" the argument. People are set in their ways, have made up their mind. So they are uninterested in listening to the other side and internalizing their ideas, but merely are waiting their turn (if that) to drop their idea.

Which is also the reason that people get caught up in semantics....they are no longer arguing the idea, so there is only one thing left: definition.

I am a prime offender. Shit.

on an argumentative note

2007-08-16T13:38:00.001-05:00

To summarize my rather fractured statement from Tuesday:

I find it infuriating that most often it is not the topic that is argued, but rather the method of argumentative strategy that is debated in a discussion, and used to attack the arguer.

Why is this so?

on anger and argument

2007-08-14T15:44:00.001-05:00

I'm back. Mainly because I'm pissed off. The best time to write.

I have been recently involved in several altercations with various people along my way. I have also noted the various argument strategies arising from continued email and blog arguments. Finally, I have been privy on rare occasions to be an observer, and not a participator, in a few live arguments. And here is what I have come to realize:

No one listens to one another. Not a word. It's as if two people are talking to themselves with no one around.

Why? People are self-centered. They are primarily concerned with letting the world know of their position, or their grief. How many times can you recall having someone yell at you and walk away? Or simply continue to talk over you, and just as you begin to speak your piece, they are charged up with some new idea and blast over yours again.

Oh sure, its one hell of an argument technique. Drown the other out so your point of view can't be contested. But it fucking sucks. And t makes you look stupid. There are others. Tons. An infuriating abyss of them. Here are some I've noticed:

1. People are more concerned with stating their position than listening at all.
2. People will try to drown out the other person so their position cannot be
contested.
3. People will try to call you a hipocrit and charge you with the same behavior you
are ranting about. This is entirely irrelevant to the argument.
4. People will try to say that your argument isn't clear, despite many attempts to
clarify. If they had simply listened carefully in the first place, it would be.
5. People will try to state that your argument is too narrow and they can't
participate in your discussion (but ultimately they realize that they are wrong,
and so try to steer the conversation in their direction to favor their point of
view)
6. When someone is flat out wrong, they turn their argument to more desperate
measures, rather than trying to defeat your argument directly (i.e. point 3, 4, 5)
7. People will try to dismiss the argument as not worth their time when they realize
they are wrong. They try to make you feel small and petty for arguing.

What have you got?

hiatus

2007-07-24T09:46:00.002-05:00

for anyone who reads my rants:

I am taking a hiatus from bloggosphering, to reflect upon recent developments and dive deep into the depths of a bourbon dream. hopefully I will emerge with a healthy liver and a clean mind

good day.

yes, the masses are stupid

2007-07-24T09:46:00.001-05:00

Recently, my good friend BK charged me the following, "how can you be right when everyone else says otherwise? How can they all be wrong and you right?"

Indeed, a very powerful question, driven principally by the forceful yet maniacal mob known only as the masses. On the one hand, it makes intuitive sense that if a majority of people believe one thing to be true, then generally it is the case. But are there not several instances in history which indicate otherwise? Coming to mind is the classical example that the world was not flat. And while the argument I was engaged in was insignificant in the grand scheme of things (afterall, we were arguing about syntax - digression...it is unresolved who was right and wrong in that discussion), the underlying message still holds true: there are situations in which one person can be right, and everyone else wrong.

If one actually considers this idea of the masses, why should they be any more right than one individual? A thousand idiots can band together and make things happen, but one individual can have the clarity to be right.

Afterall, I can admit that I am wrong, when I am wrong. The problem is that I am rarely wrong.

hip-hop ditto.

2007-07-20T09:24:00.000-05:00

I am definitely no hip-hop expert. Just someone who loves good fucking music. But I had a titillating conversation on Saturday regarding said music, and it got me thinking; What is the greatest hip-hop album? Artist?

To be sure, this is not a unique question, nor is it one that can be definitively answered. But it is goddamn interesting.

As far as I see it (as in from my limited experience) I have noticed two camps: Tupac will be one. The other side, which I fall on, favours jazzier hip-hop and covers the likes of Gangstarr, Tribe, De La Soul, The Pharcyde and Common.

Of course there is also the new wave Talib lovers and Kanye folks, but to me, they are an extension of the tried tested and true.

Me? I have always stood by Labcabincalifornia - The Pharcyde; as the greatest hip-hop album. But not the artist. De La Soul and Tribe have always topped the charts, and now, especially with the consistency of quality, Common is quickly summiting.

I'm probing. Criteria? Suggestions?

on onus and ownership

2007-07-16T10:51:00.000-05:00

It is the onus of the writer to convey a clear message. An incorrect interpretation by the reader thus can be the fault of the writer for not conveying a focussed message.

A common problem arises when we are arguing similar points that can be misconstrued as the same. Thus, it appears to you as if I am trying to change the question asked, when really I have been asking a different question from the start.

Either you asked the question first, and you didn't ask it clear enough (after all, you are the writer) and therefore you are at fault for not conveying a clear question to me. So I have not be able to address it properly.

But if I asked the question first, then you are refusing to answer my question and are instead arguing your own idea, without addressing mine. This is a common symptom of many arguments. But then I am also at fault for not making my question clear enough to you.

Either I didn't ask it clear enough, or you are refusing to answer the question and instead argue your own point. It is a circular argument that can go nowhere. The only way out is to analyze the question asked to determine if it was sufficiently clear enough. This is where the writer-onus argument breaks down. If the question was clear enough, then the reader can be at fault for not answering the question asked. If not, then the writer is at fault.

I am not, however, trying to redefine the question asked. We are both demanding acknowledgment of our respective arguments, and with time, they have proven to be different from one another, whereas once they had appeared to be the same. This underlines the importance of defining arguments clearly, and on a personal note, explains my obsession with definition. Without clear definitions, arguments are lost in ambiguity. So whose fault is that?

Nonetheless, the onus is always on the writer first, unless the readership refuses to answer the specific question being asked, or can't make logical connections between seemingly ambiguous terms used in a very particular context. Function and form are both integral components of the English language, and without both, it is just a series of interesting little symbols on paper.

it always comes down to the dictionary

2007-07-08T12:08:00.000-05:00

Here's the topic:

"The more people rely on computers, the more people become alienated from one another."

The Globe and Mail recently reported the results from a survey of Canadian homes stating that over 70% of homes contained computers. What social effect may this have on our population? Computers are inherently an antisocial device, used in isolation and only by one individual at a time. Hence, our frequency of daily direct human-to-human interactions has substantially decreased. Despite the availability and use of email, SMS and text messaging, no form of communication will suffice to involve the complex interaction than a direct one between two individuals. Therefore, people lose the ability to properly interact with one another in a "normal" fashion, and thus they cease to do so; all stemming from the advent of the computer. The New York Times has reported that citizens of New York City have begun to end relationships over email, fire employees through the use of text messaging, and other such alienated forms of communication. It has removed the human element from all forms of communication in even the most primitive and intimate forms of interaction, such as a relationship between a man and woman.

Yet email and other electronic forms of communication using the computer has removed the borders of our geographical limitations. Global communication is a phenomenon encouraged by the computer, where it failed to commonly exist prior to our reliance on the device. Video chat, cheap phone calls through the internet, and the frequency of email use has allowed people to communicate with the world, to reach people they never would have before. Furthermore, the ability to write many emails in a short period of time, and the utilization of group emails and conference calls, has allowed people to expand the number of communications they have with people. It takes less time to write an email to a friend than it does to go out and meet them face to face. This is even more pronounced when it comes to people living large distances apart. Despite a lack of direct individual contact, computers have allowed for many more forms of communication to exist between individuals, and this has expanded our interaction with one another, not limited it.

I have presented two seemingly similar arguments, yet with opposite results. Where is the discrepancy between the two? The answer lies in the definition of the word "alienation". In the first instance, the most basic form of human interaction, that is a face to face discussion, has been lost as a result of the use of computers. If alienation from one another is to be thought of as a loss of direct human-to-human contact, then computers have served to pronounce this effect. However, if one defines alienation in terms of a reduced amount of contact, albeit in different forms, then computers have done just the opposite. They have served to exponentially increase our ability to communicate more frequently with those around us, and entirely with those living abroad. The computer plays a constant role in our use of communication; it is only the way in which we define alienation that separates its effect on our interactions.

corporate green

2007-07-04T20:36:00.000-05:00

I just saw a PC (president's choice) commercial about buying a reusable grocery bag and reducing the total number of bags used by 1 billion. Of course it finished off with "making the right switch to the right company". And I thought about the Diesel Clothing Print ads I was recently complaining about. For a quick refresher, I was pissed that the usual corporate hump on was occurring much like it did with the AIDS fad of 2005. But then I thought, what is wrong with that? Even if corporations jump on the Green bandwagon and try to make a buck from it, what does it matter? Why does something supposedly morally pure have to be free from any profit generating activity? In fact, for a plan like turning our world more green, profit margins are essential in convincing the reluctant industries to change over.

Chew on that for a little bit and let me know what you think.

shop talk

2007-07-03T14:05:00.000-05:00

Let's talk hockey. Leafs hockey of course. What does everyone think of the Blake signing? A 33-year old for 5 years? How many "good" seasons can we expect from a guy who has only ever excelled in a contract year?

But here's the thing: you must understand the pressure that the MLSE are under to sign a big name man come free agent day. If we sign no one.....shit hits the fan. And you could have bet your house that I would have had some angry rant about how we sat by idly once again. Nevertheless, the Leafs sign up a guy with a contract that will take him past the twilight of his career for a rather hefty price all things considered. Honestly, I would have preferred Paul Kariya as a setup man for Mats, and there's a guy who has truly earned his $6 million. But yet again, we're locked up with a risk for the next few years.

That's the brass tacks of the situation, and could easily warrant pages of text any other day.

So be prepared: Leafs Nation has to sit by idly until Mats dies out, McCabe gets lynched, Kubina runs away and we find some decent goaltending for once. THEN we'll get a new front man, build around him and hopefully start fresh with a much better team.

correction

2007-06-26T12:35:00.000-05:00

For those who have endured countless emails employing the phrase, "brass tax", please note it should be corrected to "brass tacks".

An interesting origin and a new style of language you might witness me obnoxiously adopt:

"Brass tacks" first appeared in the late 1800's, but there are a number of theories as to where it came from and what role, if any, real brass tacks played in its origin.

Probably the most popular theory about "brass tacks" traces the phrase back to old general stores, where fabric was sold by the yard. It is said that brass tacks were driven into the counters of such stores exactly one yard apart to aid in measuring the fabric, supposedly leading to the saying "Don't guess, get down to brass tacks."

Another theory traces the phrase to the brass tacks used in 19th century furniture manufacture. In this scenario, "getting down to brass tacks" would mean judging the basic soundness of a chair, for instance, rather than its upholstery.

While neither of those theories is implausible, I, in my psychic wisdom, lean toward a third explanation. "Brass tacks," many authorities believe, began as Cockney rhyming slang for "facts." Rhyming slang, which sprang from the 19th century London underworld, substitutes one or two rhyming words for the concealed "real" word ("trouble and strife" for "wife" being the standard example).

brilliant (squared?)

2007-06-26T12:33:00.000-05:00

This time its Bill Simmons. But his American slant makes it even funnier and more enjoyable. You be the judge.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070625

Highlight line:

5:37: Farhan Lalji interviews my new favorite hockey player -- Angelo Esposito -- who has slicked-back, wavy black hair, a hairy upper lip and one of those "Whadda YOU lookin' at, huh?" looks on his face. He's missing only a thick gold chain and two tomato sauce stains on his dress shirt. I love this guy. (Note: I'm half-Italian, I can make these jokes.) If the Bruins had grabbed him, I would have seriously considered jumping back on the bandwagon. Does he make his own sauce? You're not a true Italian unless you can make your own sauce. Why didn't Farhan ask him this?

inordinately interested.

2007-06-21T20:37:00.000-05:00

I am never one to do something like this. In fact, I generally mock those that do. And even still, I am cowarding out of actually doing it and merely writing it in my blog. Nevertheless, I still feel it important. And no, this isn't really a sarcastic or begrudging entry regarding something trivial.

Enough disclaiming for god's sake. I am addressing the recent airing of Shell's Ferrari add chronicling the evolution of their formula 1 racing cars flying around the streets of the world showing just how dope they are. But, this comes at a time where 6 deaths have occurred over the past two weeks as a result of street racing. In all sensitivity and sensibility, Shell should pull the add until this hype surrounding street racing subsides. The last thing we need right now is more idealizing of cars racing on streets. So pull it. Am I turning into an old woman who complains about a little bit of skin being showed in an ad?

Check out the ad: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mxl6ontcpyQ

brilliant

2007-05-31T11:17:00.000-05:00

check this out:

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/onrait/?id=209388

onrait you dog.

a question of honesty; or an honest question?

2007-05-22T13:10:00.000-05:00

I hate to disclaim, but this post pertains to the latter. No predisposed hidden agenda or traps set to launch into a tirade against your supposed tight logical argument. I just really want to know what the opinion of those who know about this sort of thing.

Is the United States staunchly rejecting the Kyoto Agreement because it doesn't financially suit them, or is it because they truly believe it is the wrong course of action for solving our climate crisis?

don't give up!

2007-05-22T07:48:00.000-05:00

To any who may read this rag, I haven't begun another 2 month hiatus from posting. Just a couple of busy weeks is all. But please, if you do read it, and are fired up in any way, please post a comment in response to the blog post. Show some backbone! Grow a beard! Shave your legs! Whatever it is, Dave Macnee and the occasional Rob Anton aren't the only two people with good ideas...and those two really piss me off anyway.

hard to hate toronto

2007-05-09T08:47:00.000-05:00

Whenever I think about sports, I can always hear that jackass Bob McCowan trying to spout some profound shit in his usual arrogant way, telling me, "Watching professional sports is nothing more than a release. Any of you idiots who take it otherwise are just plain losers."

But it does raise a good point (as much as I hate to admit to anything that chicken fucker says): it can be heartbreaking to be a sports fan, especially when your team loses. Think about it, each year you are desperately hoping for a team that has an average of a 1:30 chance of winning the big one. And we all know Toronto has defied those odds; looking at a championship rate across their entire sports franchises of 0 in the last 14 years. When your team loses, we all get cranky. Otherwise roudy and raucus nights out can turn into a depressive hate-on for Bryan McCabe.

It really begs the question, 'why do we keep coming back to Toronto as faithful idiots in the face of mediocrity?'

Its hard to be a Leafs fan. Everyone knows it, and yet we still bleed the blue and white annually in the slimmest of hopes that the Cup will be ours. The Raptors at least have the excuse of being a comparable infant franchise, so a first round knockout is still a triumph. The Jays are the only team that have kept our champion status above the 40 year mark, but after last night's 9-2 loss to the BoSox and running a 7-game losing streak, (nevermind the fact that we haven't made the playoffs since the lockout), our future is still bleak.

So why is it so hard to hate Toronto, when by all logic we should? Is it simply a release for our over stressed lives, or are we brainwashed by some inherent social conditioning passed on through the generations?

amendment

2007-05-07T10:53:00.000-05:00

I should have said this, "I guess I just wish that marketers... would give me the best fucking quality they are provided with.

(Yet) another reason why i hate marketers...

2007-05-04T10:26:00.000-05:00

My beloved Apple fucked me in the ass yesterday, and here's why. Our society is so hung up on quantity instead of quality, that marketers exist to make you buy as much as possible (quantity)...thus maximizing the profits for the client (quantity).

But if I were to run a company, I'd make the best damn product I could. That would sell a shit load, but My God! I would not be diversifying my profit making capability. Cardinal sin #1 in the business world.

I don't need to bore you with the details most of you could give fuck-shit about, so I'll just give you the gist of it. Apple released a new product that could have been an all-in-one. Amazing, well priced and perfect for its function. Instead, they deliberately left one specific (yet simple and cheap) aspect out, so that you would be forced to buy the other product they also offer. Apple makes more money. Fucking great. They could have released the best possible product instead and it would have been much more respectful.

I don't even have a fucking point here. There is no grand statement. I guess I just wish that marketers would stop balancing quantity versus quality and give me just the best fucking quality they can think of.

facebook

2007-05-04T10:13:00.000-05:00

There need no fancy introduction or witty subject line to introduce this damned page. But let's get right to the brass tax: Facebook is a shitty waste of time.

Now, the purpose of this purported blog entry is to discuss Facebook's use in the business world. I have had a few arguments regarding whether it is appropriate for companies to use Facebook as a hiring tool. Let me put it out there to start: it sure as hell is not.

The contrary arguments mainly are as follows: you voluntarily put up your Facebook profile, therefore anyone can access it. Companies need more than a 10-minute interview to decide who to hire, so they use whatever resources are necessary.

But here's the rub: SHOULD a company ethically access Facebook to make these decisions? No. Nope. Noway.

A person's private life is none of the company's business, regardless if it is made voluntarily public. If I drink excessively every night, but am able to get it together the next day so that I do my job to the company's satisfaction, then fuck off. What I do outside is my own business, so long as its not illegal, or affects my ability to perform my job the way my company wants me to.

Here is the coup de gras and the new item on the menu...since most of you have heard this rant before and it really got nowhere. It comes from today's paper and a quote Daniel Lublin, and employment law expert, "employers are wasting time on Facebook, given the popularity of the site and the reality that most use it exclusively for non-business purposes, such as chatting with friends."

Well.....if a company deems it to inappropriate work material such that the OPS has banned the website from their offices, then companies sure as shit shouldn't be using it for hiring purposes...'cause it ain't a business purpose.

lacking action creates action.

2007-05-03T09:45:00.000-05:00

Bicycle update:

We discussed the bike problem this morning in the lab. We had three bike enthusiasts including one Oscar Penuelas who had the ol' parked car door opened on him yesterday so he flew James Bond style over the open door (before pulling out his M1 and making it explode with the driver inside). We also had a couple serial car enthusiasts who have a deeply rooted hate for bikers who take the best of both worlds; that being the most advantageous rules from cars and also those from the pedestrian world. I have come to the realization that the blame falls squarely on th city.

Now usually I find that to be a cop out. Blame the big guy, afterall, He is rather faceless and can't directly defend Himself in the conversation so its easy. But this time, He has actually made two real shortfalls. Bikers also need to start behaving properly, and people (drivers or pedestrians) need to start recognizing them appropriately. Its a matter of respecting one another.

Here's the concept: Bikers are not pedestrians, and bikes are not motor vehicles. They are bikes, each with their own set of problems and exceptions, and so they must be treated differently. There is no way you can lump them as either. They must be treated and recognized, as, well, bikes.

First, the city lacks the proper infrastructure to accommodate bikes. They can't simply ride with the flow of cars (they can't even make a proper left had turn like cars do) and they sure as hell can't ride on the sidewalk. So bike lanes or some system to allow bikes transport (just like roads and sidewalks) are needed.

Second, a clear set of guidelines and laws outlining the behavior of bikes must be created. Presently, it boils down to, "if you're riding, you're a vehicle; if you get off and walk your bike, you're a pedestrian." This is where the entire pedestrian-vehicle confusion stems, and creates the problems we have today.

Create laws and start ticketing accordingly. I will not go so far as to say that we should have our own police force, but our current police should start punishing bikes for misbehavior, just as you get a ticket for peeing on the sidewalk, or speeding on the road. As the number of bikers increase in response to our "Green" world, the need for these guidelines only becomes more apparent.

Oh, and don't worry, Diesel clothing and every other corporation will be there "Global Warming Ready" so you can look nothing but awesome while riding your million dollar Gucci Bike.

Bicycles are Vehicles Too!

2007-05-01T13:55:00.000-05:00

How's that for an ironic T-shirt?

Bicyclists are like cranky pregnant mothers....they want everything done for them and get to behave however the hell they want. Where does this frustration come from you ask? It comes from two attitudes that I have witnessed, and almost hit by, while traversing the streets of Toronto.

First, bicyclists refuse to stop for streetcar doors as vehicles are mandated to do by law. There is some notion in the head of a cyclist that tells them they can bob and weave through cars just because they can fit. And because they can weave through people getting off the streetcar, they do.

Second, many cyclists still ride on the sidewalk. And they are not toddlers on tricycles with little pink tinsel running off the handlebars. They are fully grown asian men peddling down the sidewalk and ringing their little bell in frustration because a pedestrian is in their way!

So guess what? If you want to be a pedestrian then stop bitching about how you're treated on the road. People can't walk on the street either. And if you want to be a vehicle, start behaving like one. And that means you can't ride on the sidewalk. Just because you don't pump out fumes and you therefore get to sit on your high moral horse, doesn't mean you don't have to follow the rules of the road.

I know your response, whomever will write back. Build them more bicycle lanes. I couldn't agree more, but in a city that is damn near bankrupt and with a long list of social activists breathing down their necks about everything from burritos to public blasphemy, it slides somewhere in the middle. Quick fix: cordone off the parking lanes on downtown streets for bicycle lanes. Nothing new needs to be built, and less people will drive cause there ain't any damn parking. But for God's sake, be patient, and don't take out your frustrations on pedestrians.

Its the fucking double standards in this world that really fire me up, and too often goddamn social activists are at the forefront.

we know only one ism.....goreism!

2007-04-30T08:20:00.000-05:00

I am touched to hear that people actually read this electronic rag and wanted more....if only as an opportunity to take pot shots and fire me up. No matter, I will happily oblige. Vanity is a bitch.

Here's what I got today.

"When you've had the big job and then you're on the sidelines, it's easy to complain."
This comes from Federal Environment Minister John Baird in response to Gore's attacks on the Conservative climate strategy. He was referring to when U.S. greenhouse gas emissions rose when Gore was vice-president.

So for all you Gore-loving, he-should-win-the-nobel-prize-and-run-for-president enthusiasts out there, put it in perspective. Yes, it has taken too long for governments to embrace climate change. But look around you now. You've created a monster. Every goddamn corporation and public spotlight company out there has jumped on the green train. Diesel clothing is "Global warming ready" - meaning that they can still look montreal-cool with the penguins when all the ice is gone. Awesome. How enviroconscious are these guys? Or are they just exploiting people's idiocy and misguided ideas about how to save the planet.

Remember the AIDS problem we used to have? And before that it was World Hunger I think. But now we got a new dance. How long will this trend last?

And doesn't it fire you up to hear someone who apparently loves trends hating on this one? I don't blame the media either...they just give us what we want to hear. They forget cause we forget.

Back to the point: Baird and his boys in blue are trying. Every Conservative hating voter out there should at least recognize that. Maybe Gore disagrees with the direction, but who is he to have the only and correct answer? Unfortunately, Gore has propped up a pill bigger than he can swallow. He generated awareness for a huge problem without providing any real and palpitable solutions. And looks what happens when you let the public run with their own ideas. So kudos to you Mr. Gore for finally getting people (including myself) to recognize we have a problem, but only REAL nobel prize winners find the problem and fix it. Only then will I vote for you for president.

an encore of ovations

2007-02-15T13:50:00.000-05:00

All it took was one simple night out with none other than the one and only BK to remind me that I was a disgruntled goat at other such absurdities in this world besides my big 3. I simply had been too occupied with the others to remember the chicks beneath the hen.

standing ovations
musical encores
taxis
TTC

Today, I feel like discussing only the first two, as it was such an event two nights ago which reminded me of my eggs. why is it that standing ovations for any performance given is now the status quo? I went to see my little cousin sing in the La Jeunesse choir over christmas, and two nights ago I saw Dr. James Orbinski from MSF speak. Both standing O's. What the hell? Was it not that standing O's were reserved for strictly mind-blowing performances? Perhaps the first time Bach performed his 5th there was uproarious applause and standing O's being thrown about left and right with no regard whatsoever...but that was an event in history. Neither of these two events will be remembered by anyone. And who knows? Maybe no one even stood up for Bach. I'm sure our whole world would have simultaneously jumped to their feet, but somehow I am suspect of the audience then.

Similarily, encores at music concerts are now no longer reserved for those artists who put on a truly entertaining piece for which the crowd can bear to be in silence no more. So they cheer and cheer to get them back out, and if the band is in the mood, they just might. Now, it seems as if it is included in the outrageous ticket price, and people want an encore to make them feel like they got their money's worth. That or it gives them enough time to buy their date another beer to seal the deal.

Either way, I am sick of it. I don't want to be the only guy at a show not standing, but if people weren't so foolish, then I wouldn't have to be. And I don't want to hear the encore of an uninspiring, melodramatic indie-pop shitty band.

until tomorrow.

oscar the grouch

2007-02-08T08:51:00.000-05:00

It seems as if I wasn't as disgruntled with the world as I first thought -considering I really had only 3 angers:

1) Marketing (still sours my blood)
2) Judgementalism (same)
3) Global Warming

And now that I was wrong in its entirety regarding the big GW, I really only despise 2 things. Thus, I have writer's block.

Now, I considered writing about "convenient vegans", "volunteer tourists" or simply my hate for the TTC and Jarvis Collegiate kids, but they all seem rather boring and mundane. And rather tired.

So, I would like to hear some of your real frustrations....those things which you are faced with each day that really fire you up, but aren't of real consequence (not to say that GW isn't important, but I am rather unconnected to it so to speak).

And in an effort to get pissed off about something, I will dive into the depths of a Maker's Mark-induced bourban dream on Saturday and report back. If anyone wishes to join me, I'll be at Ted's playing pinball.

Saturday night is alright for fighting. Saturday.

Deja Vu?

2007-01-25T13:47:00.001-05:00

It seems we will not be replaced by a million monkeys typing at a million typewriters, but rather by a simple website with an algorithm that mashes up company slogans and matches them with random images from flickr. They don’t always workout, but it’s surprising how well some of them do.

The Ad Generator: http://www.theadgenerator.org/

Is this really the Power of Suggestion?

is that the red or the white?

2007-01-23T09:01:00.000-05:00

So? What's it gonna be? Straight up, forget this Vegas Baby betting line. Indy or the Windy?
I pick the Bears. Grossman didn't fail like everyone expected he did; he played mediocre. Come super bowl, he's gwine be sharp.

question period

2007-01-19T13:28:00.000-05:00

It seems as if we have arrived at a standstill on the marketing debate, and rightfully so, as I feel we have exhausted our arguments and agreed upon a fundamental difference of opinions - or perspectives - of the question posed. Either way, not much more can be said.

But I have an interesting point to bring up independent of the marketing fiasco, which perhaps applies to the criticism (deserved I believe) on a few of my argumentative strategies:

An answer is only correct to the question posed - there is no universal answer. Perhaps the only acceptable answers are those that respond to a "digital" question: that which the answer can be yes/no, up/down, black/white - as in Binary Code 0 or 1. Thus, the question, "what is 2+2" equaling 4 is definitive, but a question "what is marketing" perhaps can never be answered.

So, when I argue in tightly defined terms, and refuse to expand to outer ideas, I suppose it is only because I look to have the specific question answered - and further discussion can ensue when properly done so.

But then, can my question be answered if it not definitive? How does one know when they are posing a digital question?

stupid, null and pointless

2007-01-16T09:40:00.000-05:00

I decided to post this to ensure it was not lost admist the comments section.

Isn't it interesting that when the prey suddenly finds itself backed into a corner, it drastically changes tactics and attacks. Such is the case with marketers. Read the last few comments on both the "define" column and the "everything is everything" column and you will see that the strategy has changed from confidence in their original argument to two distinctly different tactics:
1) Tell klq he is angry, scientific, stupid, null and pointless (more literally arguing with him is), which quite frankly isn't a successful tactic in getting a rise out of me anymore, it simply shows your desperation - OR,
2) Back peddle on your original statement that "marketing is everything" (including science, design, architecture and everything in between) and state that it was actually the "CONCEPT" of marketing that was such; but without actually conceding any sort of defeat.

Well, if these "marketers" had originally said this to me in the first place, I wouldn't have gotten into this whole damn thing. Sadly, that is not the case.

And don't try to tell me that I simply wasn't listening to them, because I have had hours of arguments with many individuals on separate occasions where we went on and on about exactly this. In no way was it ever mentioned or implied that they were simply discussing the "concept" of marketing. It was unarguably their definitive point. Why else would I care then?

Finally, to state that I am too literal is confusing. I built upon the definition of marketing as stated in the English dictionaries. Am I supposed to use words loosely in this world such that we never have a distinct definition of anything?

judgementalism

2007-01-14T12:56:00.000-05:00

***remember, throughout this entire article, everything is to relate back to the question: is judgementalism acceptable?***

there is a stark contrast between what it is to be judgmental, and what it is to have an opinion. to judge someone is to make a comment on their character without strong evidence. this is not a scientific proof. it is merely common sense. in order to make a fair statement about someone's character, it is only right that you have enough knowledge about that person and how it directly relates to your statement about them. otherwise i find it to be offensive.

now this raises an interesting point. i am not arguing against judgments you may make against people in order to protect yourself, or decide whether you would like to be friends with that person etc etc. i am directly arguing against the inconsequential statements people make about other people. for example, a girl walks into a bar scantily clad. My friend next to me utters "what a slut". why? for what good reason? what do they know about whether that person is a slut or not? perhaps they are a virgin. perhaps they are not a slut. they merely dress what people view as being a slut.

conversley, it is acceptable to "judge" whether a girl is attractive to you or not. you are, in fact, forming an "opinion". the "evidence" is right in front of you that being the girl herself), and you are qualified to make your own opinion on it. that begs the question as to why you would feel the need to lean over to your friend and make such a statement, but perhaps you are girl watching and looking for a girlfrind yourself. that brings you into the world of self-protection (mentioned above), and we are not discussing that here. The important point is that you expressed your opinion regarding the girl, and did not make an unfair judgment.

it may be instinctual or human nature (as some have argued) to make judgments, (take the case of our slutty girl) but does that make it acceptable? i think not. humans do a lot of things that are instinctual or human nature that are unnacceptable. an extreme example is that of our propensity to be dirty and to pollute our world. but does it make it acceptable and should we carry on? certainly not.

this raises another interesting point: people's adversity to extreme examples as a tool to clarify the grey area. clearly, some of my analogies are extreme examples and if i were using them to prove a point directly, then the classic argument is applicable (that being they are extreme and do not apply to reality). however, i use extreme examples not as a direct argumetn, but as a tool to clarify a principle. i simply expect people to be able to integrate the example into reality, and draw on how its principles apply to reality, and not the specifics of the statement itself.

most often (and perhaps why I am known for explosive behavior), people do not really answer the question asked. they propose an argument of their own, that includes the topic of the original question. example: the answer to the acceptable/not acceptable question is that it is instinctual. does that really answer the question? sort of (if i am to draw inference from the fact that is does make it acceptable because it is human nature), but that seemed to derail into the argumetn of whether judgmentalism was human nature or not. no one ever explicitly answered the question originally posed.

the construct of a discussion is as follows: question raised - answered directly - supported with opinion/evidence - (and the generally the other person will bring up their own discussion point) - and things carry on. i find too often that people skip the step of answering the question directly and pose their own argument.

as a final note, never have I claimed to be perfectly non-judgmental. Too often a desperate arguer turns to the technique of accusing the person of being a hypocrite. Well, I am a hypocrite in this instance, because i undoubtedly make judgments daily. However, I strive to reduce the number of judgments I make. I find them offensive coming from other people, and I believe that people are too willing to accept judgmentalism because it is harder not to be judgmental. so people find ways to justify it to themselves.

define

2007-01-12T14:36:00.000-05:00

mar·ket·ing [mahr-ki-ting]

the total of activities involved in the transfer of goods from the producer or seller to the consumer or buyer, including advertising, shipping, storing, and selling.

NYC

2007-01-12T14:33:00.001-05:00

This is one of those rare circumstances. If you have the time, read the article written below, or pickup a copy of this week's NOW. Elegantly written and bang on the mark. Gotta love NYC.

I wanna be NYC
Big Apple's boundless building frenzy shames our paranoid NIMBYism
By MIKE SMITH

New York City – Crowds that move like fish; towers not so much scraping the sky as announcing it; cafés below homes, like warm bellies in brick bodies. A war between beauty and ugliness in which neither gains ground and which demands both become strange new things.

The relaxed frenzy, the casual hurricane, the continual, negotiated accident of old New York. It's not for no reason, after all, that the place is one of the few cities that actually has the word "city" right there in its name.

I'm here with a friend and former New Yorker. The plan is to wander. That won't be hard – it's not necessary to have a destination here, and the contrast with Toronto is clear.

In New York, the journey truly can be the destination. This city is never finished. Construction workers are everywhere – often, I think, disassembling things so they can be transported five blocks and reassembled in time to be disassembled tomorrow. Construction hoardings cover Victorian buildings like facial masks. The city is vintage, the city is ad hoc.

My friend advised me that I'd be getting a snapshot at best; she didn't tell me I wouldn't even get to hold the camera still. Stepping off a side street tributary into the whitewater of midday Manhattan, I find it's best to just turn the burner of the mind low.

If I stay flexible, then the constant motion becomes almost meditative. Just move your legs, and the city maps you.

Of course, in a place where one step quickly becomes a hundred, communication becomes blunter; in contrast to the quiltwork of Toronto, I see hardly any posters (maybe a bit of business-district puritanism there, too).

But there are massive, monotonous billboards, a constant shout. "Hey! You! Wanna buy something?" What? Oh, maybe, but I can't stop here.

Toronto a "Megacity?" No, not really. Sure, we're big (in fact, upon returning I'll be surprised to learn that New York is only one and a third times bigger). But looking up at the Flatiron Building (theirs, not ours, though Toronto's was first) from the edge of Madison Square Park (Madison Square Garden nowhere in sight), the place feels large enough to hold Saturn.

Maybe it's the casual Saturnalia of a place housing an average of a million in every 38 square miles (2.48 million live within Toronto's 247). New York may not actually be a hundred times larger than Hogtown, but it walks like it is.

Dense? Like a pound cake. "You live in New York, you live in an apartment building. It's just part of the culture,'' said Anthony Borelli of NYC's Community Board 4 last fall, at Toronto's Higher Learning symposium on how to build densely and humanely.

Community boards are comparable to our community councils – with the exception that they are planning bodies in practice, not just pretense. They have offices and employees, not just spots on City Hall's calendar.

Is this why density seems to work in NYC? New Yorkers might laugh, but there are no "dead zones'' like the ones that pepper T.O., long stretches with nothing but houses. Shops and cafés are everywhere, electrifying sidewalks and fed by the density of which half of Toronto has a deathly fear. What I've long believed was prudence is starting to seem priggish.

Of course, it's hard to separate NIMBYism from genuine caution. NYC has an unfair advantage, and that's age. Nearly two centuries older, its density isn't just physical, but historical, economical, emotional. It's grown in layers, while our nascent and often adolescently demonstrative muddle is erupting in blocks. New York feels comfortable being what it is.

This has given it a scale both staggering and human; at its core, New York is a gigantic agglomeration of little things. The facade is massive, but the material is manageable, malleable, tactile.

Of course, New York may be locked in motion – rezonings are usually dispensed within seven months, a brief chat compared to Toronto's endless conversation. Our caution seems more democratic. Yet density done right could mean democracy doesn't need imposition, just permission.

Diverse density permits personal ownership of a city in a singular way. So much of New York is public space, and with physical density comes emotional complexity. Borelli memorably remarked that New York's high rises are the most engaged communities; my friend sagely remarks that people in New York (mostly) get along because they have to – there are so many of them.

But mostly I thank the parks. What many lack in verdure, they make up for in placement. Andre Aciman once wrote of Straus Park being an accidental "oasis of the soul,'' a "place that had at least four addresses.''

In a city pressing up against itself, where the melting pot seems more like a pressure cooker, the parks are buffers, beautiful airlocks between neighbourhoods, places to allow transition in yourself before transition in your surroundings. Not necessarily destinations, but not just scenery. Awash in transience and history.

Our last day here, I'm standing in front of the 5 Pointz building (not affiliated with the 5 Points neighbourhood) in Long Island City (not on Long Island), a warehouse-complex-turned- artists'-studio covered in graffiti murals.

It's nothing short of erotic. I find I'm crying. It's not just the beauty; it's not even the proud display, outshining the tenuous hate-the-sin, love-the-sinner relationship Toronto has with street art. It's the fact that it's both New York's blessing and blind eye that means this can exist. It's like the first time I made love, losing youth and taking final ownership of my body. I see the admission written on every inch: we are citizens, this is our home, this is our second skin, this is where we are, this is what we are. I feel a sense of mourning as well. Love for a city may be a doomed love. Anything that seeks to turn earth into concrete may truly not be long for this world. But this is what we are right now, right here.

New York has never claimed to be anything but a metropolis – huge, filthy, stinking and loud. I think, with sadness and hope, of home, still deciding whether or not it's going to come out and be, really be, a city.
Of course, we really have no choice. But then let us make the choice, and not have it made for us. Let's own the accident.

Markters. (or everything is everything)

2007-01-11T15:24:00.000-05:00

ok. there are two cardinal pillars of truth in my life right now: Apple is a company of geniuses who have me by the balls, and i hate marketers.

this isn't a techy blog, so i am going to avoid the love for apple.

onto the real brass tax: marketers. some of you who will never read this know my usual friday night rant is one slighting marketers for their ridiculous ideas at what makes a good commercial. this aside, (just watch the fucking Tim Horton's commercial with garlic bread as a gift....some fucking asshole got a promotion for that one too!) the real beef comes down to the marketer's favourite catch phrase:

marketing is everything.

the funny thing is that many of my marketing adversaries have said this to me independently of one another. i don't know what fucking hippie school of marketing they went to, but there is surely piss in their water and brainwashing food in their shit. unbelievable.

such a shitty, washy, slimy oatmeal-like consistency statement is no better than reading somone's palm and making some outlandish claim about their future or how their day is going to have some challenges in it. everything is everything.

see? that doesn't make any fucking sense either, which is why your goddamn claims are ass fucking retarded.

let's slip back into the apple world: the iPhone. so who came up with this thing? who designed it? how many people were involved in its production?

i have been told it was all marketers. of course, some chinese engineer soldered all the little metal pieces together, but no, some marketer concieved the idea
clearly. they told the scientist, the designer, the plants, what to make for them.
just as the car was invented because some marketer said we need something stronger than a horse that can move faster and carry more things. i call it - a droodle.

well guess what? an interior designer doesn't market a house - they design it. and an architect doesn't follow the words of some marketer telling him he needs something you can wash your ass in....he creates the fucking bidea himself, cause that is his job, and he's an architect.

get off your high horses, "marketing" is either the relaying of the ideas generated by anybody, or just a sophisticated term for fortune teller. go fuck yourselves.

Global Warming

2007-01-04T14:39:00.000-05:00

what better way to concede defeat than from the shield of a faceless blog. perhaps i could learn to love this beast, if only it caresses me in the proper way.

nonetheless, i must. so for no one who will ever read this, i now believe i was wrong in arguing against it in any way. scientifically, i stand by my original credo (the beginnings of the argument). for those of you who will never hear it; it goes epically like this:

the issue of global warming is an interesting one indeed. the mere existence of it could be put into debate. but before you jump off your moral dune and land a flying elbow on me, hear me out. it is difficult i know, but worth the time.

i do believe that global warming can exist. (it deserved a line of its own)

now, my problem lies in the theory of its cause. Greenhouse Gasses.

Enter Sir Bradford Hill and his Criteria for Causation:

Strength of the association. How large is the effect?

The consistency of the association. Has the same association been observed by others, in different populations, using a different method?

Specificity. Does altering only the cause alter the effect?

Temporal relationship. Does the cause precede the effect?

Biological gradient. Is there a dose response?

Biological plausibility. Does it make sense?

Coherence. Does the evidence fit with what is known regarding the natural history and biology of the outcome?

Experimental evidence. Are there any studies supporting the association?

Reasoning by analogy. Is the observed association supported by similar associations

Such a list is widely accepted as a means to agree with something as being scientifically true.
now i know you probably don't give a shit. but you should. that is precisely the problem with the moral socialists; this a rant for another day.

the question then lies: does the greenhouse gas effect satisfy all of the above?
for many, it does, but for some, it may never. Specificity for example.

so. i only worry that people's willingness to accept the greenhouse gas effect as the cause of global warming as the cardinal truth...perhaps there are other causes? acceptance of one shuts another out. even magical scientists can be bias in their research.

but i do not believe dumping millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere can do it any good, so i digress, we should stop this habit.

and i have seen some fucked up things happen this year including hurricanes where there shouldn't be, and a cabin that could be driven into. wow. but we still had shinny. oh glorious shinny.

that's all for now.

Anger Management

2007-01-04T14:23:00.000-05:00

i have no fucking clue how to spell the word 'inaugoration' but it will do.

i also have no fucking experience when it comes to the black depths of a blog, but i am aiming to change that habit as well - as any good pripster should.

thus i have started to decide to begin to write down various rant, raves and deleterious intricacies in the hopes they shan't befall some other poor soul amidst the depths of a bourbon dream.

call it anger management.