Moral of the story: Never buy a car from a Tory.
If I bought a "new" car from Stephen Harper, it might have 38,700 kilometres on the odometer — not too new, if you ask me. It probably wouldn’t be all that fuel-efficient, either, but that’s besides the point (Kyoto is “socialist scheme,” remember?) and it’d probably smell like cheeseburgers.
But I digress... Since we live in a wired world (and this is appearing on a blog) I visited dictionary.com to see what the experts say ”new” really is. “Of recent origin, production, purchase, etc.; having but lately come or been brought into being: a new book,” reads the first definition.
Perhaps dictionary.com’s fourth definition (“unfamiliar or strange,”) or sixth one (“unaccustomed“) is more appropriate for the Conservatives.
I think Mr. Harper is choosing the 11th (and second-last) interpretation of the word when it comes to his government’s newness: “being the later or latest of two or more things of the same kind: the New Testament; a new edition of Shakespeare.” In this light, we could have this same new government for the rest of time, if no other party is elected.
God help us.
I also find it ironic that this definition seems to be exclusive to the great and prolific, the Bible and Shakespeare. Have the Conservatives achieved holy status? Was Othello a Tory?
It’s clear that Stephen Harper’s interpretation of “new” is not in line with the majority of Canadians. I know, I know, I, too, am shocked.
Here’s another thought: following the PM’s trusty model, my brother could sell his text books from last year as “new,” instead of “used.” This is great news! Or does it get even better? Does it mean he can return the textbooks to the college bookstore where he bought them at the beginning of the semester? I’m sure he still has the receipts, so there shouldn’t be a problem! After all, they’re still new, not used! Just ask the PM!
Do you remember the good old days, when Clinton was president and the only definition being debated was “sex?” Oh, those were the days. It opened up a lively international dialogue, spicing up dinner conversations (and bedrooms?) coast to coast. But those days are long gone, my friends.
And here we are, it’s February 2007, and we’re enduring our 55th week of newness.
Let me say it here and say it now: I am tired of my new government, no matter how old they really are.
If something is new after 387 days, that means....
- A new baby could be walking. And talking.
- You could hear he following during an episode of the Price is Right: “... A NEW CAR! This 2006 Ford Focus comes complete with 38,700 kilometres on the odometer, over a year’s worth of wear and tear, and one flat tire! Its oil needs a change and the fluids should be topped up, but you’ll be right at home behind the wheel of this broken in beauty, if the price is right... “
- you can return your new spring wardrobe in July, cash in your tank tops in September, and enjoy a winter coat for a few months before getting a full refund.
- the Liberals are still to blame for everything, apparently.
Sunday
Recycling 101: Make it user-friendly. Dammit.
Tomorrow my fair city gets a new wine bottle recycling program. Hip hip hurray, we’re all going to be greener: we’ll be enviro-friendly AND richer for it, too. When we return our wine bottles to the Beer Store locations, they’ll give us $.50 per bottle in cold hard cash.
But wait a second, you say. WINE bottles to the BEER Store? Isn’t that a contradiction?
You bet it is. And only a province like Ontario can do such a thing with a straight face.
Now I’m all for recycling. I’m anxiously awaiting urban brown boxes (compost/organic waste collection) and I recycle everything that I can (and will carry plastic bottles for hours in order to find an appropriate receptacle instead of sending yet another product to the landfill). But this new wine bottle recovery system is seriously flawed. And dare I say, stupid.
First, the obvious: Why would I, a self-confessed wino, take my bottles to the beer store? I hate that place, and it is totally out of my way.
The green-aspect of the program is totally lost, unless you walk there (carrying a box of wine bottles… um yeah right) or take the bus (you’d look like an alcoholic, but in your own defense, you’ll fit right in on the mid-morning rides).
The extra gas a person would burn in their own car while making the special trip to the Beer Store will cancel out any carbon emission saving the recycling effort could possibly represent. In fact, I think my carbon footprint will grow if I participate in this program.
So here’s my simple, lazy-yet-practical solution: I’m going to do what I’ve been doing for years. Keep your lousy 50 cents, Ontario; my bottles are going into my blue box, and if someone wants to rifle through it as it awaits pick-up, it’s fair game. My laziness is their gain. Or something.
If the province was serious about getting more people to recycle their wine bottles, they’d get the stores that actually sell wine, the LCBOs, to collect the darn things. And they’d offer a better incentive, too. A measly 50 cents per bottle really is pocket change. While running into the Beer Store, you could reasonably plunk that much into the meter in order to avoid a parking ticket (yeah, most Beer Stores have parking lots, but that’s beside the point. And the lot at the Bank Street location is almost always full whenever I go… well, the two times I’ve been).
A case of beer is worth a few bucks in refunds; why is a wine bottle any different? If they put a $1 enviro levy on wine bottles, THEN you’d see the returns. But at .50, all we’ll see is frustrated wine drinkers and even more blue box rummaging than we already do.
It is a well-intended program, but it needs a realistic, worthwhile incentive in order to be effective. Bottles should go back to where they came from, and the penalties for non-compliance need to be higher. The return depots should be moved to LCBO locations, and each bottle should carry a minimum $1 levy. And while we’re revamping the program, let’s include all liquor bottles, too, while we’re at it.
I’m serious about recycling, but it’s hard to be dedicated when the province takes such a scatterbrained and impractical approach.
I think Ontario has followed the Feds with this latest enviro policy: all talk and very little action – and what action we do see is ridiculously limited, user-prohibitive, and ass-backwards. Yes, this is just one of many great initiatives brought to you by the overpaid bureaucrats at Queen's Park. Roll your eyes, throw up your arms, and enjoy.
But wait a second, you say. WINE bottles to the BEER Store? Isn’t that a contradiction?
You bet it is. And only a province like Ontario can do such a thing with a straight face.
Now I’m all for recycling. I’m anxiously awaiting urban brown boxes (compost/organic waste collection) and I recycle everything that I can (and will carry plastic bottles for hours in order to find an appropriate receptacle instead of sending yet another product to the landfill). But this new wine bottle recovery system is seriously flawed. And dare I say, stupid.
First, the obvious: Why would I, a self-confessed wino, take my bottles to the beer store? I hate that place, and it is totally out of my way.
The green-aspect of the program is totally lost, unless you walk there (carrying a box of wine bottles… um yeah right) or take the bus (you’d look like an alcoholic, but in your own defense, you’ll fit right in on the mid-morning rides).
The extra gas a person would burn in their own car while making the special trip to the Beer Store will cancel out any carbon emission saving the recycling effort could possibly represent. In fact, I think my carbon footprint will grow if I participate in this program.
So here’s my simple, lazy-yet-practical solution: I’m going to do what I’ve been doing for years. Keep your lousy 50 cents, Ontario; my bottles are going into my blue box, and if someone wants to rifle through it as it awaits pick-up, it’s fair game. My laziness is their gain. Or something.
If the province was serious about getting more people to recycle their wine bottles, they’d get the stores that actually sell wine, the LCBOs, to collect the darn things. And they’d offer a better incentive, too. A measly 50 cents per bottle really is pocket change. While running into the Beer Store, you could reasonably plunk that much into the meter in order to avoid a parking ticket (yeah, most Beer Stores have parking lots, but that’s beside the point. And the lot at the Bank Street location is almost always full whenever I go… well, the two times I’ve been).
A case of beer is worth a few bucks in refunds; why is a wine bottle any different? If they put a $1 enviro levy on wine bottles, THEN you’d see the returns. But at .50, all we’ll see is frustrated wine drinkers and even more blue box rummaging than we already do.
It is a well-intended program, but it needs a realistic, worthwhile incentive in order to be effective. Bottles should go back to where they came from, and the penalties for non-compliance need to be higher. The return depots should be moved to LCBO locations, and each bottle should carry a minimum $1 levy. And while we’re revamping the program, let’s include all liquor bottles, too, while we’re at it.
I’m serious about recycling, but it’s hard to be dedicated when the province takes such a scatterbrained and impractical approach.
I think Ontario has followed the Feds with this latest enviro policy: all talk and very little action – and what action we do see is ridiculously limited, user-prohibitive, and ass-backwards. Yes, this is just one of many great initiatives brought to you by the overpaid bureaucrats at Queen's Park. Roll your eyes, throw up your arms, and enjoy.
Fighting ATM Fees
All this talk about ATMs and fees has me shaking my head.
There was Jack Layton, standing on a frigid Toronto street corner last week, condemning the nation's banks for charging customers for using their ATMs.
Layton was damning the banks for charging customers who didn't have accounts with them – the competition's clientele – for using their ATMs. During his demonstration, he was using his Scotiabank Interac card to get funds out of a CIBC ATM.
Now, I'm no fan of the big banks. And I hate being ripped off. But even frugal old me can see why banks charge "outsiders" to use their ATMs.
If you take more than two minutes to think about it, it's obvious. It is in the banks’ best interest to make sure their customers are the ones who use their services. When a financial institution installs an ATM, it costs money – and every month they spend more to maintain that machine and rent the space it occupies.
Banks do not go through the trouble an expense of operating an ATM in order to serve the competition's customers. They do it for the convenience of their own clients (who finance the ATM by paying monthly banking fees, taking out loans, etc.).
This is big business, people. I have no idea how much it cost CIBC to grease their way into 7-11 stores (and a lot of gas stations, too!) but I know this much: it wasn't cheap. But it was all in the name of marketing.
Banks scatter ATMs throughout the urban areas in effort to get Canadians to bank with them. If there were 20 Caisse ATMs compared to 3 RBC ATMs in my neighbourhood, I would likely want to bank with Caisse. Why? Because as an active consumer, I know that if I'm a RBC customer and I keep on having to go to Caisse ATMs, those “convenience fees,” or 'non-resident service charges' as I prefer to call them, would soon add up.
When selecting a bank – and to a lesser extent, an ATM – we as consumers should take the time to weigh the options.
Many banks charge customers $20 or $25 a month just to have an account with them. Some charge nothing. And that's why it's important to shop around.
The bank I use doesn't charge me anything to have an account with them – and I have three accounts. I also get free cheques, unlimited use of their affiliated ATMs and can make as many debit card purchases as I want.
But in exchange, I do not get a lot of the premium services offered by other financial institutions.
I didn't read my service agreement thoroughly, and once deposited a U.S. cheque for a few thousand dollars into my account. As a result, I had the deposit, along with the equivalent amount that had already been in my account (ie: twice the deposited amount) frozen for 60 days. It was terrible, but I brought it on myself. Since my account had essentially been frozen, I borrowed money from a friend to pay my bills and learned my lesson.
If banks were forced into providing free ATM services to all customers, mark my words, we'd see a decrease in the number of bank machines.
And when the big banks move out, you know who'd move in? Those annoying privately owned and operated cash machines that charge everyone anywhere between $1.25 and up per transaction. You’ve surely seen them in bars and restaurants, or a shopping centre. The financial industry calls them “white label” machines, and apparently they already make up about three quarters of all ATMs in Canada, (bank-owned ATMs constitute 31 per cent of the
I don't think there's anything wrong with banks charging other banks' clientele to use their ATMs.
Instead of targeting these fees, we should be looking at banks who charge their customers to use their debit or Interac cards to make purchases.
When you pay by debit, the funds are transferred directly from your account to the store's account. If you don't have the cash, the machine says so and your transaction is declined. There's no credit involved; a debit transaction is essentially a cash transaction.
That's why it's silly for some banks to charge their customers for using their debit cards to make purchases. (Though is mildly effective at encouraging us to spend less or not make that impulse buy).
Depending on what sort of account you hold with what bank, all of your debit transactions might be free, or you might have a certain number of free transactions allowed per month, then be subject to a set fee for every transaction above that limit. Or, you might have to pay each and every time you use the card.
And that, my friends, is crap.
But is it up to Mr. Layton or Jim Flaherty to enforce? Perhaps... but before that, the onus is on us, the lazy public, to do our homework, and literally put our money where our mouths are.
If your bank charges you ridiculous fees, or doesn't have convenient ATM locations, take your business elsewhere.
There was Jack Layton, standing on a frigid Toronto street corner last week, condemning the nation's banks for charging customers for using their ATMs.
Layton was damning the banks for charging customers who didn't have accounts with them – the competition's clientele – for using their ATMs. During his demonstration, he was using his Scotiabank Interac card to get funds out of a CIBC ATM.
Now, I'm no fan of the big banks. And I hate being ripped off. But even frugal old me can see why banks charge "outsiders" to use their ATMs.
If you take more than two minutes to think about it, it's obvious. It is in the banks’ best interest to make sure their customers are the ones who use their services. When a financial institution installs an ATM, it costs money – and every month they spend more to maintain that machine and rent the space it occupies.
Banks do not go through the trouble an expense of operating an ATM in order to serve the competition's customers. They do it for the convenience of their own clients (who finance the ATM by paying monthly banking fees, taking out loans, etc.).
This is big business, people. I have no idea how much it cost CIBC to grease their way into 7-11 stores (and a lot of gas stations, too!) but I know this much: it wasn't cheap. But it was all in the name of marketing.
Banks scatter ATMs throughout the urban areas in effort to get Canadians to bank with them. If there were 20 Caisse ATMs compared to 3 RBC ATMs in my neighbourhood, I would likely want to bank with Caisse. Why? Because as an active consumer, I know that if I'm a RBC customer and I keep on having to go to Caisse ATMs, those “convenience fees,” or 'non-resident service charges' as I prefer to call them, would soon add up.
When selecting a bank – and to a lesser extent, an ATM – we as consumers should take the time to weigh the options.
Many banks charge customers $20 or $25 a month just to have an account with them. Some charge nothing. And that's why it's important to shop around.
The bank I use doesn't charge me anything to have an account with them – and I have three accounts. I also get free cheques, unlimited use of their affiliated ATMs and can make as many debit card purchases as I want.
But in exchange, I do not get a lot of the premium services offered by other financial institutions.
I didn't read my service agreement thoroughly, and once deposited a U.S. cheque for a few thousand dollars into my account. As a result, I had the deposit, along with the equivalent amount that had already been in my account (ie: twice the deposited amount) frozen for 60 days. It was terrible, but I brought it on myself. Since my account had essentially been frozen, I borrowed money from a friend to pay my bills and learned my lesson.
If banks were forced into providing free ATM services to all customers, mark my words, we'd see a decrease in the number of bank machines.
And when the big banks move out, you know who'd move in? Those annoying privately owned and operated cash machines that charge everyone anywhere between $1.25 and up per transaction. You’ve surely seen them in bars and restaurants, or a shopping centre. The financial industry calls them “white label” machines, and apparently they already make up about three quarters of all ATMs in Canada, (bank-owned ATMs constitute 31 per cent of the
I don't think there's anything wrong with banks charging other banks' clientele to use their ATMs.
Instead of targeting these fees, we should be looking at banks who charge their customers to use their debit or Interac cards to make purchases.
When you pay by debit, the funds are transferred directly from your account to the store's account. If you don't have the cash, the machine says so and your transaction is declined. There's no credit involved; a debit transaction is essentially a cash transaction.
That's why it's silly for some banks to charge their customers for using their debit cards to make purchases. (Though is mildly effective at encouraging us to spend less or not make that impulse buy).
Depending on what sort of account you hold with what bank, all of your debit transactions might be free, or you might have a certain number of free transactions allowed per month, then be subject to a set fee for every transaction above that limit. Or, you might have to pay each and every time you use the card.
And that, my friends, is crap.
But is it up to Mr. Layton or Jim Flaherty to enforce? Perhaps... but before that, the onus is on us, the lazy public, to do our homework, and literally put our money where our mouths are.
If your bank charges you ridiculous fees, or doesn't have convenient ATM locations, take your business elsewhere.
Thursday
Gone, but not forgotten
Our good friend Donny Rummy may have left the U.S. administration, but his linguistic legacy lives on, thanks to the BBC.
Here's a link to their audio library of quotations Donald has graced us with over the years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/bh/rumsfeld.shtml
I can't help but see the parallels between his verbal mess concerning "knowns" and Chretien's explanation of "the proof" (how could we ever forget that?!):
Rummy: "As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."
(this quote won the "Foot in Mouth" award from the British Plain English Campaign in 2003)
JC: "No, a proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."
Here's a link to their audio library of quotations Donald has graced us with over the years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/bh/rumsfeld.shtml
I can't help but see the parallels between his verbal mess concerning "knowns" and Chretien's explanation of "the proof" (how could we ever forget that?!):
Rummy: "As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."
(this quote won the "Foot in Mouth" award from the British Plain English Campaign in 2003)
JC: "No, a proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."
Saturday
A word on the current Best Buy television ad campaign:
(originally posted Dec. 12, 2006)
Yes, the ads are really annoying - that goes without saying. But just in case you men out there haven't clued in to the fact that advertising doesn't always tell the truth, listen up. This just might save your relationship
One of Best Buy's holiday commercials shows a husband shopping for his wife. He asks the male sales rep for suggestions, and they go from big, to bigger, to biggest tv. The last one, the rep assures the man, would prompt the man's wife to repeatedly exclaim "I love you," do a happy dance, and give her husband a big bear hug.
Gents, do not be fooled. Instead of the good books, I can pretty much guarantee buying your wife a big screen tv will secure your gullible self a place in the dog house.
Unless you're far more financially secure than the rest of us, chances are you don't have $5000+ floating around your bank account, patiently waiting to be spent on something.
Let's face the facts: when you live together, your money is "our" money. So that $5000 tv you just bought her was really the kitchen renovation she was hoping for. Or vacation to the tropics.
And we lassies aren't stupid; she'll know the tv isn't for her. Remember that episode of the Simpsons when Homer buys Marge a bowling ball, complete with "Homer" engraved in it? Yeah, that's what you'd be doing here. (Another thing worth remembering: the bowling ball prompted Marge to take bowling lessons, and she nearly had an affair with her bowling instructor...).
The bottom line: If you give your wife a gigantic tv for Christmas, you might as well pick up some divorce papers, too. You just might need 'em.
Yes, the ads are really annoying - that goes without saying. But just in case you men out there haven't clued in to the fact that advertising doesn't always tell the truth, listen up. This just might save your relationship
One of Best Buy's holiday commercials shows a husband shopping for his wife. He asks the male sales rep for suggestions, and they go from big, to bigger, to biggest tv. The last one, the rep assures the man, would prompt the man's wife to repeatedly exclaim "I love you," do a happy dance, and give her husband a big bear hug.
Gents, do not be fooled. Instead of the good books, I can pretty much guarantee buying your wife a big screen tv will secure your gullible self a place in the dog house.
Unless you're far more financially secure than the rest of us, chances are you don't have $5000+ floating around your bank account, patiently waiting to be spent on something.
Let's face the facts: when you live together, your money is "our" money. So that $5000 tv you just bought her was really the kitchen renovation she was hoping for. Or vacation to the tropics.
And we lassies aren't stupid; she'll know the tv isn't for her. Remember that episode of the Simpsons when Homer buys Marge a bowling ball, complete with "Homer" engraved in it? Yeah, that's what you'd be doing here. (Another thing worth remembering: the bowling ball prompted Marge to take bowling lessons, and she nearly had an affair with her bowling instructor...).
The bottom line: If you give your wife a gigantic tv for Christmas, you might as well pick up some divorce papers, too. You just might need 'em.
Political conventions are funny things…
(originally posted Dec 6, 2006)
The Liberal leadership race took place this past weekend in Montreal. Now, as a self-confessed political junkie, I can’t help but comment on the shenanigans.
First off, it all sounded like a lot of fun. I wish I could’ve been there – not as a card-carrying, ballot-voting Liberal, but just as a fly on the wall. Why? Well, the Liberals, it seems, know how to party. At least at their convention, where all the ingredients for a scandal-ridden, cocktail-driven few days of insanity were present: long hours with little sleep= irrational decisions; skipping meals but sipping drinks= lowered inhibitions; “I’m Liberal” thongs and red “liberal” condoms a plenty; and, of course, Belinda Stronach. It was a potentially toxic combination.
+ 
+ 
= trouble!
(I tried to find a pic of the famed Liberal thong, but failed. Sorry, folks).
I wish I was there to see it all, but I wasn’t. But maybe if I was there, I’d understand how it all happened. Ok, Iggy was on top, Rae was #2 and Kennedy and Dion were virtually tied for 3rd place. But how did thousands of apparently educated, politically savvy people end up choosing Dion? Quebecers don’t like him, and he can hardly speak English. I’d like to see him go door to door in Alberta. Rick Mercer should accompany him; now THAT would be award-winning comedy (well, at least good enough for a Gemeni)
I feel bad for Dion, really. He looks like a rodent and political cartoonists have been portraying him as such for years already. Sadly, nobody likes a rat. He’s got some great ideas, especially about the environment – if he can deliver them is a different story altogether, but I digress – but I would’ve liked to see Kennedy win. Canada having a PM named Kennedy would do a lot for American relations (Plus, he’s from the West, is relatively popular in Quebec, and would’ve been the most voter-friendly across the board). I’m glad Ignatieff (aka Ignoramus) didn’t win. He’s too inexperienced and isn’t ready. And Rae, man, where to start? The guy won’t even say if he’ll stick around since he didn‘t win the party leadership. What kind of “leader” is that, if he wants to be #1 or nothing at all? Come on.
I’m comforted knowing Kennedy, or GK as some call him, will play a large role in Dion’s government – regardless of whether it is a minority or majority government. And I think considering all options, Dion isn’t too bad. He was my #2 choice, when I think about it, and it could’ve been worse.
But did anyone listen to the speeches on Friday night? I did, but I’m not sure if the commentators on CBC radio were. I only tuned in as Dion was getting cut off my the music at the end, so I’m not sure what, exactly, he had said. But I head GK, Rae, and Iggy speak, and the former blew the latter two out of the water. I think it was obvious Rae’s speechwriter stayed up all night partying and forgot to write his address until moments before he took the stage. It wouldn’t surprise me if his speech notes were scribbled on cocktail napkins. It was so general, so politically vague, and just went on and on without saying a word. The way Rae continuously repeated himself was annoying beyond belief, and by the end I wasn’t sure if it was an overused literary device or if he actually has some sort of stutter. In short, it was ridiculous. Ignatieff followed, and it was the first time I’ve ever really heard him speak. Turns out he sounds like Dr. Evil from Austin Powers. His slow, robotic delivery was creepy and condescending. He as if he was addressing a room full of three year olds. He was a Harvard professor, they say, and his speech made me wonder what his university lectures must’ve been like – and made me want to talk to his former students and ask how many of them managed to stay awake. I gave him an A for Awful.
But the next day Dion was crowned the winner, so really, who cares? They also sold out of size medium Liberal thongs. The party is over, my friends.
The Liberal leadership race took place this past weekend in Montreal. Now, as a self-confessed political junkie, I can’t help but comment on the shenanigans.
First off, it all sounded like a lot of fun. I wish I could’ve been there – not as a card-carrying, ballot-voting Liberal, but just as a fly on the wall. Why? Well, the Liberals, it seems, know how to party. At least at their convention, where all the ingredients for a scandal-ridden, cocktail-driven few days of insanity were present: long hours with little sleep= irrational decisions; skipping meals but sipping drinks= lowered inhibitions; “I’m Liberal” thongs and red “liberal” condoms a plenty; and, of course, Belinda Stronach. It was a potentially toxic combination.
+ 
+ 
= trouble!(I tried to find a pic of the famed Liberal thong, but failed. Sorry, folks).
I wish I was there to see it all, but I wasn’t. But maybe if I was there, I’d understand how it all happened. Ok, Iggy was on top, Rae was #2 and Kennedy and Dion were virtually tied for 3rd place. But how did thousands of apparently educated, politically savvy people end up choosing Dion? Quebecers don’t like him, and he can hardly speak English. I’d like to see him go door to door in Alberta. Rick Mercer should accompany him; now THAT would be award-winning comedy (well, at least good enough for a Gemeni)
I feel bad for Dion, really. He looks like a rodent and political cartoonists have been portraying him as such for years already. Sadly, nobody likes a rat. He’s got some great ideas, especially about the environment – if he can deliver them is a different story altogether, but I digress – but I would’ve liked to see Kennedy win. Canada having a PM named Kennedy would do a lot for American relations (Plus, he’s from the West, is relatively popular in Quebec, and would’ve been the most voter-friendly across the board). I’m glad Ignatieff (aka Ignoramus) didn’t win. He’s too inexperienced and isn’t ready. And Rae, man, where to start? The guy won’t even say if he’ll stick around since he didn‘t win the party leadership. What kind of “leader” is that, if he wants to be #1 or nothing at all? Come on.
I’m comforted knowing Kennedy, or GK as some call him, will play a large role in Dion’s government – regardless of whether it is a minority or majority government. And I think considering all options, Dion isn’t too bad. He was my #2 choice, when I think about it, and it could’ve been worse.
But did anyone listen to the speeches on Friday night? I did, but I’m not sure if the commentators on CBC radio were. I only tuned in as Dion was getting cut off my the music at the end, so I’m not sure what, exactly, he had said. But I head GK, Rae, and Iggy speak, and the former blew the latter two out of the water. I think it was obvious Rae’s speechwriter stayed up all night partying and forgot to write his address until moments before he took the stage. It wouldn’t surprise me if his speech notes were scribbled on cocktail napkins. It was so general, so politically vague, and just went on and on without saying a word. The way Rae continuously repeated himself was annoying beyond belief, and by the end I wasn’t sure if it was an overused literary device or if he actually has some sort of stutter. In short, it was ridiculous. Ignatieff followed, and it was the first time I’ve ever really heard him speak. Turns out he sounds like Dr. Evil from Austin Powers. His slow, robotic delivery was creepy and condescending. He as if he was addressing a room full of three year olds. He was a Harvard professor, they say, and his speech made me wonder what his university lectures must’ve been like – and made me want to talk to his former students and ask how many of them managed to stay awake. I gave him an A for Awful.
But the next day Dion was crowned the winner, so really, who cares? They also sold out of size medium Liberal thongs. The party is over, my friends.
Monday
vroom vroom... or not
Seriously, now: what possesses people to buy yellow Chevy Cavaliers? I mean, it's a wonder in itself that people choose to drive Cavaliers in the first place... but... yellow ones?!
I admit I don't drive the nicest car. It’s 4 years old now and it's painted a color that I hate, as well: silver. But it could be worse; it could be yellow. And I didn't choose the color of my car. I bought it used, and in a pinch. But I digress...
Yellow family cars should be banned. Worldwide. They are ugly, scream “desperate loser,” and make people look stupid. And it's not like we need help looking moronic---the 80s leftover mullets and WWF t-shirts do enough for society.
Come on, now, people! There is nothing cool about a Chevy Cavalier. Painting it yellow doesn't make it cooler. In fact, I contend that painting it yellow makes it more uncool. And no, those cheesy vinyl decals don’t help, either. That's right, mister: you're not fooling anyone. Not anymore.
I find it peculiar that Chevy has churned out yellow Cavaliers, but you don’t see Ford rolling out yellow Falcons or Tempos. Hmmm.
Now I understand that some people (myself included) don't have the cash to go out and buy a sweet, pimped-out car. Or truck, for that matter. But that's okay. I---unlike Mr. Yellow Cavalier Driver---know my place. Perhaps Mr. YCD should take notes.
Yellow is a color that should be reserved for impressive, and dare I say, exclusive cars. High-end, top-shelf sports cars, like vipers. Vipers are special cars, and they can be yellow if they want to be. But there's nothing impressive, exclusive, or special about a Chevy Cavalier.
You're 34 years old, you have a baby's car seat in the back seat. Give it up, buddy: the dream is still alive, but you, my friend, are not living that dream.
I admit I don't drive the nicest car. It’s 4 years old now and it's painted a color that I hate, as well: silver. But it could be worse; it could be yellow. And I didn't choose the color of my car. I bought it used, and in a pinch. But I digress...
Yellow family cars should be banned. Worldwide. They are ugly, scream “desperate loser,” and make people look stupid. And it's not like we need help looking moronic---the 80s leftover mullets and WWF t-shirts do enough for society.
Come on, now, people! There is nothing cool about a Chevy Cavalier. Painting it yellow doesn't make it cooler. In fact, I contend that painting it yellow makes it more uncool. And no, those cheesy vinyl decals don’t help, either. That's right, mister: you're not fooling anyone. Not anymore.
I find it peculiar that Chevy has churned out yellow Cavaliers, but you don’t see Ford rolling out yellow Falcons or Tempos. Hmmm.
Now I understand that some people (myself included) don't have the cash to go out and buy a sweet, pimped-out car. Or truck, for that matter. But that's okay. I---unlike Mr. Yellow Cavalier Driver---know my place. Perhaps Mr. YCD should take notes.
Yellow is a color that should be reserved for impressive, and dare I say, exclusive cars. High-end, top-shelf sports cars, like vipers. Vipers are special cars, and they can be yellow if they want to be. But there's nothing impressive, exclusive, or special about a Chevy Cavalier.
You're 34 years old, you have a baby's car seat in the back seat. Give it up, buddy: the dream is still alive, but you, my friend, are not living that dream.
the increasingly strange world of NHL hockey
HOCKEY... the best game I can name
I understand why Americans don't get into hockey as much as Canadians do. Televised hockey in the U.S. is pretty terrible. I watch it cuz it's all I got, but I still pine for the CBC. You can't tell me that "The Heineken Premium Light Intermission Report" has the same ring to it as "Coach's Corner." And while Eddie Olczyk does have one of the best names a hockey player could ever ask for, he's no Ron MacLean (nor is Bill Clement). In game 5, the NBC intermission report contained more chitter chatter about GOLF than it did about hockey. Game 6 was about 50% gold. Thankfully---finally---in game 7, they managed to concentrate on (gasp) hockey for the entire break. I don't know how they did it, but... yeah, it was amazing.
Ok, next tangent: the trusty playoff beard. Let me say it once and for all, I am glad these things only rear their ugly heads (faces?) once a year. I contend that they're just as nasty as three-week-old undies, but unlike the sight and stench of the grotty gotch, the hideous playoff beard is out there for all to see. And while I'm all for personal hygiene, I'm not one for hockey players that look like hutterites. Guys should keep their facial hair in check, no matter what time of the season it is. I've had my own not-so-nice encounters with playoff beards, and I think the ball players do it right: if you lose a game, you lose the beard. Or at least part of it. Try the playoff goatee, the playoff fu-man-chu, or my personal favorite, the playoff sideburns. I would not recommend the playoff chest hair, however... that, my friends, is just plain wrong.
Ok, the game's on... game on!
I understand why Americans don't get into hockey as much as Canadians do. Televised hockey in the U.S. is pretty terrible. I watch it cuz it's all I got, but I still pine for the CBC. You can't tell me that "The Heineken Premium Light Intermission Report" has the same ring to it as "Coach's Corner." And while Eddie Olczyk does have one of the best names a hockey player could ever ask for, he's no Ron MacLean (nor is Bill Clement). In game 5, the NBC intermission report contained more chitter chatter about GOLF than it did about hockey. Game 6 was about 50% gold. Thankfully---finally---in game 7, they managed to concentrate on (gasp) hockey for the entire break. I don't know how they did it, but... yeah, it was amazing.
Ok, next tangent: the trusty playoff beard. Let me say it once and for all, I am glad these things only rear their ugly heads (faces?) once a year. I contend that they're just as nasty as three-week-old undies, but unlike the sight and stench of the grotty gotch, the hideous playoff beard is out there for all to see. And while I'm all for personal hygiene, I'm not one for hockey players that look like hutterites. Guys should keep their facial hair in check, no matter what time of the season it is. I've had my own not-so-nice encounters with playoff beards, and I think the ball players do it right: if you lose a game, you lose the beard. Or at least part of it. Try the playoff goatee, the playoff fu-man-chu, or my personal favorite, the playoff sideburns. I would not recommend the playoff chest hair, however... that, my friends, is just plain wrong.
Ok, the game's on... game on!
Introducing...
Welcome to The Crazy Train of Thought, the archive for my random rants and ramblings about anything and everything that comes to mind and makes me think. Anything is fair game here, from politics to penguins---so consider yourself warned.
I can't guarantee regular updates, meaningful topics, or non-partisan views... but I can promise you authentic, passionate, and ridiculous writing courtesy of yours truly. And I hope you enjoy it.
M
I can't guarantee regular updates, meaningful topics, or non-partisan views... but I can promise you authentic, passionate, and ridiculous writing courtesy of yours truly. And I hope you enjoy it.
M
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)