Halcyon days

Slept for a good seven hours last night, then for some reason went back to sleep shortly after waking up just to tack on an extra five. Obviously, because the only thing better than seven hours sleep is 12 hours of sleep.

Now that things are looking much more chipper, I'm going to spend my dad fiddling with a brine and roasting a chicken for dinner. I've been playing with different ideas but I think for my first attempt at brining I'm going to keep it simple and see what the bird tastes like with a basic salt/sugar/water bath. Figure I can base all future decisions (including whether I like brine roasted chicken at all) off of today's experience.

Anybody have any tips? One hour until I submerge supper.

Some people get grumpy when they're hungry.

I get grumpy when I'm sleepy. Which, in theory, should be all the time.

But I define sleepy as the point most people whould likely call "exhausted". For some reason, when I sleep 4-5 hours straight I'm totally awake, but if I get disturbed and fall back to sleep at afterwards I am inevitably incredibly tired the next day. I assume it has to do with sleep patterns or circadian rhythms or some such thing, but I'm too lazy to even google it.

Taking the midnight train to anywhere

The hardest part in life is figuring out what you want.

Trying to get it is basically all life is -- but you gotta have a destination before you can have a journey.

Also, in segued television goodness:

- the Glee pilot was... essentially the 4-minute trailer, stretched into an hour. You knew what was coming, how, even what songs were going to be in the show. But it was still absurdly amusing. Hopefully they flesh out some of the characters more when it returns this fall. It could be a cult hit.

- Breaking Bad is slated for its second season finale this coming Sunday. I must say, unequivocally, this is the best show on television right now. And it's not even close. The first season was equal parts amusing and morally agile, but this second season has simply been perfect television. The show is beautiful in HD, the acting is award-worthy and the writing even moreso. This show should be watched by everyone, and Sunday's final episode can't come soon enough.

The Toronto Star is desperate.

As circulation numbers dwindle and advertising revenue plummets, our city's biggest daily is having to find new ways to stir up interest in itself.

From what I've seen of the website over the past month, apparently, that strategy is simple:

Print bullshit.

I used to like The Star. It was a Liberal rag, but at least it carried insightful and personal news that was relevant to the Torontonian. These days, the layoffs are showing.

From a cursory skim, almost half of the stories I read on The Star are based on a single source. This is leading to some tremendously biased and incredibly non-balanced pieces. This is basic journalism. One voice doesn't make a story.

What's even more frustrating is that they are using this half-assed approach with controversial issues seemingly on purpose; Tamil protests, sensationalizing Ruby Dhalla's situation, anything involving religion.

At the same time, they are barely covering world news or doing stories anymore that actually dig deep into the body of Toronto and teach us more about the city we live in.

They did an entire story and video where they left wallets lying around the city, then video surveyed the contraband to see if people returned them, took money, and generally were honest.

REALLY? That's what you're spending your money doing? Seeing if 20 people are willing to return a lost wallet?

I feel bad for the Star. In my opinion, their downfall came when they stopped printing Sunday comics. Hopefully, when the economy rebounds, so will this newspaper. But for now, it's little more than a joke.

When your sports section is the most serious part of a publication, you know there's some serious soul searching to do.

I respectfully disagree

This is actually a pretty tight matchup. They have a very different aesthetic, but I am inclined to say that Fringe girl is definitely more of the All-American girl. If that floats your boat, I suppose you might find her more attractive. But I like Maggie's edge. Which I understand is personal, and certainly not an objective trait.

But also, Fringe girl to me is the definition of "real world attractive."

If I saw her at a Starbucks, I'd linger, but not be particularly surprised or blown away.

For some reason, I feel like if I saw Maggie Gyllenhaal, I would immediately get that celebrity aura vibe from her. She's uniquely attractive.

Also, Cammie is always wrong. Thus, if Dave agrees with her, he is also wrong.

Ergo, I win.

Graduating from Asian Avenue

Can you imagine actually hanging out at a physical place called Asian Avenue? I shudder to think.

I've had a few conversations recently about social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter et al. It definitely seems that within the last two months, Twitter has absolutely exploded.

My question might be whether someone's internet promiscuity is actually proportional to that individual's real-life social activity?

Is a social networking butterfly (somebody with, say over 800 friends on Facebook) by definition also a social butterfly in real life? I suppose the more pertinent question however might rather be whether exceptions are possible.

What is the correlation between real personality and one's online presence?

Technological inclination surely has a role, but how is that connected to one's self-awareness and desire to blog, tweet or otherwise make your life more transparent to those around you (or at least, appear more transparent)? Can a personality profile be created for your online persona, and are there concrete connections to reality?

In my most rudimentary of observations, I think that people who embrace social networking openly are, generally, not necessarily more extroverted, but by-and-large more willing to make new connections.

In other words, someone who tweets constantly would probably be easier to become actual friends with than someone who doesn't have a Facebook account because they are think it's cool to be ironic.

Of course, this is even more convoluted because I think there are also plenty of cases where people are extremely promiscuous online because they are socially awkward in real life. So how does one account for that faction? Hmm...

It's all very curious. Academic studies haven't seemed to really start analyzing this relationship yet and how one affects the other, but I can honestly see the future of our communications being completely integrated into social media as "the new medium" of choice... if it isn't already, that is.

It's only a matter of time.

Literature and romance. But no Zombies.

This is the part of the movie where I laughed out loud in the theatre, and Irene slapped me.

There's this part in the movie Stranger Than Fiction where Dustan Hoffman is explaining the classical romance of literature, where the main protagonists usually start off hating each other before they slowly (or via an epiphany) fall in love.

I suppose in theory this makes sense. I mean, hate and love are, when distilled, just two variations (symptoms?) of intense passion. So perhaps it's rational that somebody you have strong enough feelings for to drive you insane, naturally might also be someone that has the ability to... well, drive you insane. In a good way.

This is an interesting theory. I don't currently subscribe to any such sort of axiom in real life, but for the most part because I haven't ever seen it happen, or even heard of it happening, in reality.

It's common in books, movies, television and theatre, but where did this idea come from anyways? How did the romantic ideal come to be that two individuals who hate each other might eventually (and fatefully) be meant to be together?

It just seems so practically implausible. Is that the whole point? Is the artistic idea of romance simply achieving what we perceive to be impossible?

Seriously, does anyone have an example they might be able to cite of this occurring in real life? I am very, very curious as to the frequency of this strange, rare (yet somehow cliched) happenstance.

Moreover, I've never hated anybody before. I'm not entirely sure I'm capable of hating someone, unless they were say, some sort of monstrous criminal who refused to apologize for his/her crimes.

But I am equally sure I wouldn't fall in love with them.

Technology in schools

Was listening to CBC Radio this weekend and they were having a show discussing the relative merits of technology in the classroom.

One side posits that an over saturation of "new media" has occurred, with phones, music players, games, computers, email and social networking, so ubiquitous that learning has become nearly impossible to focus on. Notice I used little quotes around new media, since technically social networking is not a new media, but... it just might be the next evolution. As Mark Cuban succinctly put it in his infamous tweet; "the medium is no longer the message. the network is."

The other argument of course, is that all this technology is a boon to education. It is easier to learn with computers, and programs, and podcasts and ways to connect, interact, visualize, conceptualize and analyze. All the reasons we love technology in the first place. It makes life easer, and makes what might otherwise have been impossible, very simple.

The callers were of varying usefulness, particularly one girl who said she was 25 years old, and that when she was in high school she "barely had any computers," and "used overhead projectors mostly." Also, she claimed technology was making kids today dumber, according to her completely scientific opinion. Nevermind the fact that I am 26, and distinctly recall programming in a huge computer lab in high school that also included a Mac lab. Oh, and we had a graphing/CAD lab too, which naturally used computers. Slide rules can be so cumbersome, you see. But I digress.

One question that was not discussed however is the only one I have been mulling over still on and off for a few days. Undoubtedly, today's younger generation are tech savvy. But are they technologically literate? These might be defined as different things.

Sure, kids can put up myspace or blogger websites, but whatever happened to Free Hosting? With no GeoCities or Tripod like service, very few kids are forced to look at a blank page and learn to code in HTML, CSS or Flash in order to get their creation on the net. All the steps have been simplified to one-click, and thus they never have to learn the fundamental building blocks.

Isn't this the equivalent of reading to a child his whole life, but never actually teaching that child to read? Can someone be conversationally intelligent but illiterate? I don't see why not, and to a limited extent I almost feel like that's what's happening with a lot of students these days.

They understand the end product, but are sheltered from the process.

If anything, I think that's the real issue with technology in the classroom -- it's too dated. You can't be teaching stuff like "this is a mouse" to kids. There needs to be some sort of plan to actually advance them knowledge that won't be irrelevant within a year's time. Education not only needs to embrace technology, it needs to essentially become it's main driver if both are to achieve something continually useful for students of all ages.

Now I feel like I should register for some continuing education classes or something.

To drive or not to drive

With everybody scampering around trying to book flights to Calgary, I find myself seriously considering the prospect of driving there. In my car.

I realize it would irreversibly devalue my baby. And I'd probably have to sleep in the car to save money.

But you know what? I feel like it'd be one of those neat, eye-opening trips that cause me to love Canada more afterwards. Like that movie with Joshua Jackson, except, probably less well lit.

Am I crazy? Is sleeping in my car at a prairie rest stop a recipe for beheading?

Discerning tastes

There's a great line by Chuck Klosterman when talking about pornography, where he wonders why it is attractive to see a girl get shot all over the face with sea-monkeys. He equates it to slapping her in the face with a fry pan.

Clearly, he is of the minority, since almost every pornographic film scene ends with the same money shot. Heck, even Kobe Bryant testified in his rape case that he enjoys it. "It's my thing," he told Colorado police officers when discussing details of his unfortunate affair. Right. And I patented the question mark.

I suppose pornography isn't a topic I discuss often, but I'm really intrigued by Steven Soderbergh's new movie "The Girlfriend Experience", which stars (in)famous porn starlet Sasha Grey.

For starters, it's a real life jump for a porn actor to legitimate acting. And, yes, I realize it's a stretch (no pun intended! eww....) to say a porn star is acting when her role is "call girl", but whatever. If Keanu Reeves is an actor, then we should at the very least acquiesce for Miss Grey as well. This is uncommon, and Soderbergh is a big time director. I'm sold.

Second, a quote from a recent Guardian article about the movie really got me thinking:

"With Sasha, you can within seconds see her do anything you can imagine with her clothes off," Soderbergh acknowledges. "What you can't see is what it's like to be her boyfriend, to hang out with her and be emotionally intimate with her. So my whole theory is that's the fantasy for those who've been double-clicking – that they want to spend 77 minutes being her boyfriend."

I find myself these days not particularly interested in pornography. Sure, send in the gay jokes, but through the years, I've found that whenever I see a porn scene or a television show about porn stars, I am more curious about the sociological commentary and semiotic relevance of the whole construct.

These women are an enigma, no? In this month's Rolling Stone, there is a feature on Sasha Grey. She is an intelligent girl, and argues that her actions are an empowering form of feminism. She points out that if equality, rights and freedom is manifested in the right to make choices, then shouldn't all choices be respected regardless of society's hollow moral pillars? Isn't telling her not to be a porn star actually an act of misogyny?

But really? Does Sodenbergh believe that internet porn surfers fantasize about emotionally connecting with Sasha Grey? That they want to argue about what movie to rent, where to eat dinner and whether it's time to move on to the next level?

Do consumers of porn consider actors to be real people?

I'm not sure. Frankly, I don't even fully believe as a whole, society extends that much empathy to normal celebrities. They are spectacles for our amusement and consumption, not vessels for our emotional plight.

So is porn really empowering then? If most of the people watching you being disrespected and degraded are willing to gloss over that fact to see you get hit in the face with a fry pan, does that really give a woman a sense of autonomy and self-respect?

I don't have answers. But I think the porn industry is one of those facets and products of our sexual behavior that has a lot to say about our society. We just never really think about it any deeper than the superficial.

Which is only fitting, I suppose, if not somewhat ironic in how absolutely non-ironic it is.

Of note: this movie isn't even about porn. But it deals with many of the same issues, in a more thought provoking way; which are all those issues we almost never want to deal with.

Here's the trailer.

Crotchless

*Warning, parentheses ahead

I have holes in my pants.

As someone who unabashedly enjoys shopping (in a completely masculine way), this usually means another excuse to go buy myself a couple new pairs of jeans.

In these trying economic times however (I like using that phrase, it's an excuse for pretty much everything. Kicked your neighbour's dog? Sorry, it's these trying economic times) I decided to minimize any costs spent on clothes and such.

See, whenever I have jeans, I tend to only wear them in rotations of one or two. And I basically only own those two pairs of pants at any given time. So sometimes, I wear one pair of pants for a month or two, then the other pair for a month, then mix it up and so forth. But really, how many permutations of two are there?

This is not a rhetorical question, sadly. I assume it's two, but I'm not completely confidant. Anyways, I know it's not a lot.

Instead, I managed to find this iron-on denim material (similar to iron-on tshirt adhesive, but it's made of denim, if that makes sense) and ironed it to the inside of my jeans. Now I'm just trying to see how many times I can type 'iron' in one paragraph. I know this is important information because next time you see me, and my crotchel area seems a little off, it's just me breaking in these patches. I swear.

As an additional wardrobe bonus, I bought another pair of sneakers yesterday. Vintage Nike waffle runners for just $30. I think I'm now up to 26 pairs of shoes. I have a sickness. Please help me.

Wow

He's just not that into you is a regrettable movie.

Is it unfortunate that it makes fun of female cliches then ends the movie by reenforcing them?

I like that in general, the males are accurately portrayed. But I find it hard to believe women are nearly as dumb as the movie makes them out to be. Who literally paces a room waiting for a dude to call her? Do sane human beings actually do this? Least yet 30 year old professionals?

Either the movie is borderline degrading and just set another generation up for unexpected teen pregnancy, or my parents did an amazing job in raising me to respect chicks.

Or both.

Another day another dollar

What a gorgeous day.

McDonalds is giving away free coffee all week long. But really, who goes to McDonalds in the morning and doesn't order breakfast? I mean, that'd just be crazy. I will order some hot cakes.

Middle Aged Teen Wolves

If that doesn't scare people on the court, I don't know what will.

Toaster Origins

I just watched the two-hour Caprica movie, a pilot/new spin-off series from the makers of Battlestar Galactica.

Not wanting to spoil anything, I will simply say that although it is much more drama than sci-fi, it certainly retains the pathos of BSG, down to the grittiness (sometimes a forced grittiness. I mean, it's filmed in Vancouver.) as well as heaps of spiritual and moral ambiguity. Also, there are some robots and science and yadda yadda, but these shows have never really been about that.

Suffice to say, it was entertaining, particularly because it really does delve deeply into the BSG backstory, and provides revealing and intriguing complexities to fans about the show's mythology. I know that somewhere the makers said it wasn't directly tied to BSG, and I suppose technically it isn't; but I am almost certain that the mere shared idiosyncrasies that go into making it an authentic prequel will attract many, many BSG fans. I'll probably end up watching it for mainly those reasons -- it's fairly interesting.

On an unrelated note, at one point in the movie, a question is asked in the middle of a conversation and the reply is preceded with a long-winded contextual story. I know this is a common narrative tool, but I am trying to figure out when (if?) any human being ever actually talks like this in real life.

For example, if somebody asked you "If you could have any super power, which would you choose?" I'd imagine the majority surveyed would pause, think, then simply say "[insert power] because [insert rationale]". This is how normal people think right?

But not in entertainment land.

In a script, that same question is answered like this:

Person 1: "What super power would you have?"

Person 2: "You know, once when I was eight years old, my parents used to have this old shotgun that they kept at the top of their closet -- you know, for protection and such. They must have figured that I couldn't reach that high, or didn't know about it, or hell, they might have even forgot they had it.

I was climbing up their bookshelf one day when they were outside gardening, and I saw the barrel just peeking out from across the room. I pushed a chair over and managed to get it down from the rack... it was the first time I ever held a gun. I could barely hold the thing straight... somehow, I managed to sneak it outside, and I started to just pretend shoot things, like I was the coolest kid in the world you know? Just pointing it at birds and... thinking bang. bang. bang. Cars flying by on the road. Eventually I couldn't help myself. The curiosity was killing me. I aimed straight at this bird perched on one of the fence posts near our house, it couldn't have been more than 10 feet away. And I pulled the trigger -- I remember it being so hard to pull.

That bird just exploded. It went up in a ball of feathers, and the blast kicked back and almost took my shoulder off. I remember my parents running around the corner of the house, their eyes so wide open screaming what was going on... I could see them, and their mouths were moving, but my ears were just ringing from the blast. It was so loud, I didn't even know where I was for a little bit... and I remember looking at the pile of feathers... in shock... I mean, I didn't know it was loaded. I mean, I might have. But I guess I didn't really think about what was going to happen. All I could think was... that I killed that bird. That something so gentle, that was just flying around minutes ago... and I turned it into nothing but a pile of blood and feathers. I did that. I took it off this earth forever.

Ever since then, I've wanted the ability to turn back time. Just... for the chance to make up for our sins. I know it's not logical, or rational but... that's just what I've always wanted.

Yea, I've never answered a question like that.

But think about it. In entertainment world, this type of answer occurs all the time. And for some reason, in Caprica, I noticed it very distinctly. And if you can't tell, it kind of annoyed me.

Man, that was a lot of writing to make a simple point. IRONY!

Perez Hilton thinks Miss California is... uncool

It's disappointing that in something as innocuous as a beauty pageant, an issue like this had to come up.

In this interview, Hilton states that the contestant isn't a politician, and as such shouldn't have answered according to her political beliefs. This confuses me. Did the dude ask a question (in competition) fully expecting her to lie, even if she didn't agree? In front of the nation? On television?

It's his own fault for asking a loaded question, and to be honest I kind of feel sorry for this chick. I mean, she's clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer (although she might be the hottest. damn.)

But if you listen to her answer, she actually does agrees. She implies that GLB's should have the right to marry (since she thinks they have that choice already, apparently). She simply doesn't believe that those unions fit her personal definition of marriage.

If you believe in equal rights regardless, what's wrong with having an opinion on a topic that is still so openly debated and controversial in today's society?

This topic is not analogous to racism in my book. It's not even close. It's a rights issue, not a hate issue. And although those two are often intertwined, they can also be examined impartially if you take a step back.

It's unfortunate that not everyone agrees.

Really, my entire thought process on the issue can be summed up pretty tidily I suppose:

Leave the hot girl alone, angry gay man.

NBA thoughts

Raptors first

• I'll admit, I'm curious what a team with Marion could do for a full season. He impressed me in this stretch run, and at the right price I'd not be disagreeable to his return.
• Bargnani might one day be a superstar. His potential is tantalizing, but he's still a huge defensive liability. The team, on average, is outscored by 6.4 points when he's on the floor. Hopefully he does develop more acute defensive instincts somehow this summer. Oh, and some more body definition. Professional athletes should never, ever look less in shape than the average dude at the gym.
• Bosh, in my mind, is still overrated. He's really really good. But to put him in the same class as Chris Paul and Dwight Howard (and Al Jefferson. What, do injuries discount a half season of work to Raptors TV staff?) is a little disingenuous, no? I mean, Bosh is good. But he's not special. He's penultimate tier talent in the NBA, which is nothing to sneeze at. But it's not the top.
• This team could be in the playoffs as early as next year if they get a real bench. Like, even just three guys to play the 1-3 spots for 15 minutes a night serviceably. That's really all it'll take. Simple. Honestly, did you watch Cleveland vs Philly tonight? The Cavs played with only bench guys and still almost won. Remember how Sasha Pavlovic used to START for that team? The dude barely plays now, he's like 10 on the depth chart. That is a team with depth. Instead, we started guys named Patrick O'Bryant, Jake Voshkul, Will Solomon, and Joey Graham this year. Ouch.
• With that in mind, I'm more excited for this off-season than I was about the entire second half of the year.

Playoff Predictions

Cleveland over Orlando in the Eastern finals.

LA over Dallas in the Western finals.

LA over Cleveland in the Finals.

Upsets

Miami over Atlanta (EC round 1)

NO over Denver (WC round 1)

Dallas over San Antonio (WC round 2)

Asides from that, I see the upper seeds wining all their matchups the rest of the way. I can barely contain myself. This is by far my favourite time of year for sports.

Cnet must have run out of news. I'm still amused though.

The 4:44am news update.

• Stratford Festival puts 30 performances 'on hold'. That kind of sucks. Does anybody want to go? I'm sad they cancelled West Side Story though, that's the one I'd most like to see. Yea, I said it -- I like West Side Story. What? What?
• Obama unveils presidential pooch. For some reason, at first I didn't feel this was newsworthy. Apparently, the BBC, the Guardian, The CBC, The Star, The Globe and the Times all did. Clearly I missed something.
• 'Twitter revolution' Moldovan activist goes into hiding after using tweets and text messages to organize a 20,000 strong government protest that eventually over ran the Moldovan Parliament building.
• Taliban execute eloping young lovers in Afghanistan. Well this is just depressing. Terrorists might bomb our buildings, and behead our journalists. But capping folks for being in love, well, you gotta be one coldheartedmuthfuckaifyaknowhwatimsayin.
• Education Standards Likely to See Toughening. You know, this might be the first Obama policy I fundamentally disagree with. Essentially he's just throwing more money at the problem, but personally I'm not a big proponent of standardized testing. It just doesn't seem to provide any inherent learning skills, if that makes any sense. Then again, I don't remember anything I learned in university, so maybe it's just me.
• Pirates attack second US vessel. Does nobody else find it kind of awesome that pirates are suddenly relevant news items again? Sure, they've upgraded from cannons and swords to RPG's and AK's, and instead of "Blue Beard", dudes is probably named !Xobli and all. But still. Also, why has nobody thought of sending in ninjas to free these ships and crews yet? It's so natural. Like, if I was fighting Cowboy Pirates, I'd send in a elite team of Native Indians. Easy. You just have to know your opponents weakness, y'know?
• Home births 'as safe as hospital'. This one's interesting. Apparently a huge study in the UK reveals low-risk mothers are essentially just as safe giving birth at home with a trained mid-wife as at a hospital. The reason it's kind of neat to me is because I didn't even realize being a midwife was still a proper and viable career choice. I mean, I noticed it when browsing McMaster's undergraduate programs, but I had to webcrawler (pre-google-era!) it just to figure out what the hell a midwife was. For some reason, it doesn't seem like a very happy job. I'd imagine it's a lot of yelling, crying and I guess some baby delivering. But, really, if you're the husband, do you ever want to sleep in that bed again after seeing child birth? I wouldn't. Ew.

Not functioning.

You know how if you have a laptop, and you leave it for a while, it falls into "Sleep mode" or "Energy Saver" mode or whatever? Then you have to jiggle the mouse, or press a key, and it'll take a few minutes for everything to blink back onto the screen?

I currently feel like I am stuck in a perpetual sleep mode. Unable to wake up, but unwilling to fully shut it down.

I blame Ivan. After telling him two sleeping pills and a double of bourbon put me out like a light, he said it was ok to take three really. And I suppose, in this regard, he was correct. I am alive.

But last night, in an attempt to fall asleep quickly at an already late hour, I popped three Life Brand sleeping pills, and when my alarm clock went off 8 hours later I was groggier than a date rape victim. Not that I would know.

Anyways, I had extreme difficulty getting out of bed, and even more of a difficult time getting the work done that I needed to for a client. And now that's it's 6pm, it's too late to nap since there's basketball later anyways.

Suffice to say, I think I'm going to stay away from taking multiple sleeping pills at a time from now on. When the box suggests one per day, I am now inclined to believe it.