Seeing Red...

Seeing as though we've only been updating this blog every couple of months, it is my sincere hope that the following image will remain on the main page for at least an entire year. It's clear to me that the Italian player took a dive on this one (or at least I can only infer this conclusion based on the play by Italy throughout the tournament).

The Johnny Depp Theory of the Universe

I was having a conversation with one of my friends (Victoria) the other day and came up with a theory. A theory... OF THE UNIVERSE!!! Actually, to put things a tad more accurately, this is a theory of why so many women appear to have fallen in love with Johnny Depp.

Now personally, I could never really figure it out. Is it the anorexic body? The skin that looks like it's never touched the sun? The greasy, long black hair? The pubic hair moustache? Clearly not.

At that point, Vic started telling me that the first time he caught her eye was when she first saw the movie, Chocolat. And suddenly, the entire theory fell into place.

***

There is a certain hilarious episode of Seinfeld where George attempts to combine his two sensual addictions: sex, and food. His crazy plan is to hide a foot long Italian sub under his bed. Then, while having sex, he sneaks away from his woman and takes a large bite of the sandwich. The next day, he has lunch with Jerry and orders yet another sub. After making exaggerated comments of "ohhhhh, this sandwich is sooo good", George suddenly feels the urge to go to sleep upon finishing his meal. Immediately, Jerry devises a theory that after combining his two favourite experiences, George no longer has the capacity to distinguish between them.

***

As such, the theory is obvious. All you have to do is ask any girl the question, "is chocolate is better than sex?" Everybody knows what the answer to that is. So, Ladies... let me be the first to tell you:

JOHNNY DEPP IS NOT A CHOCOLATE BAR!

Thank you.

The media sucks their own Cox

When did the media start serving their own interests rather than that of the public? Anybody that's taken a journalism course knows that the articles that appear in the paper are there because they are considered "newsworthy". Newsworthiness is normally based on such criteria as locality, subject matter, and public opinion. Despite this, we've been bombarded with stories on the "Wayne Gretzky Scandal", or as the New Jersey Police have called it, "Operation Slap Shot". The problem? Nobody seems to care, and I completely agree with this sentiment.

I've watched countless news reports regarding the public opinion of this scandal, and 90% of the people being polled seem to be annoyed that they are tarnishing the reputation of a public hero, and all hockey players asked to comment have held the opinion that the whole investigation has been blown out of proportion. I guess the whole "public opinion" thing has been thrown out of the window.

Personally, I don't see any story here at all. Wayne Gretzky's wife (which, contrary to what the media would have you believe, is not Wayne Gretzky) bet on football. Whoa... wait... somebody with disposable income bet on a football game? I don't know about you guys, but I'm thinking "firing squad" right off the bat. Beyond that fact, Wayne Gretzky is a co-owner of the Phoenix Coyotes, so even if it were him that was betting... and even if he was betting on hockey... and even if betting wasn't as common as driving 120 km/h on the 401... ah hem... then why would he do anything to sacrifice the income of his investment?

To make matters worse, the betting ring is still being investigated, and no evidence has been presented to the media whatsoever. Suspiciously, New Jersey police are claiming that there is a large amount of people involved in the ring, yet they've only released the names of those people involved in the NHL, and they've done so within a week of the Winter Olympics starting up. The fact that they have released these names along with a media-friendly catch phrase ("Operation Slap Shot") should further raise eyebrows.

In this new age of CNN beating out the major networks in the ratings, the public seems to perceive anything and everything reported by these news organizations as the golden rule. I have tremendous respect for Wayne Gretzky, as he's probably the only leader of his sport that has conducted himself with the utmost dignity. Compared to other athletes such as Michael Jordan--who pretty much invented the well-established wave of selling himself out in order to market to children--he's a saint.

It seems as though the sports pages have become the final frontier for the tabloid-style gossip that has been plaguing the other sections of the paper. The leader of this wave appears to be the Toronto Star's Damien Cox, who seems to think that drawing juicy conclusions based on zero evidence is the norm for a respected newspaper. You might remember his piece on the Toronto Blue Jays being "racist" simply because of the fact that they had the highest number of white players in the league. Although this story earned him a prominent spot on the front page of The Star, I always found it funny that the black players on the team never shared his opinion. The Wayne Gretzky scandal is no different, except this time virtually every major Canadian publication has picked up the story. It's a shame that the Canadian media has stopped catering to the general public, and instead, is catering to the National Enquirer audience.

Smells like onions to me

This just in: theonion.com has finally shed its primitive image of being a satirical webzine. Yes, that's right; theonion.com has finally made the move to being a full-fledged psychic publication. Observe the following article from 2004:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33930

Is this move bad for society, good for The Onion, or both? You be the judge.

Speaking of which, before you fool yourself into thinking $9.99 for the world’s most “advanced” razor is a good deal, always note the price of the replacement cartridges. In this case, 8 new blades will cost you a whopping $37.99. But it’s a small price to pay for tearing the skin cleanly off of your face, and then having four more blades further work their way deeper and deeper into your grotesquely bleeding flesh.

Pirating my own digital content...

Seeing as though this blog seems to resolve around political and technology issues, I figured I'd post an answer to my ethics assignment:

Q: What are your views on (a) software piracy and (b) downloading music?

A: Ever since the sudden rise of a little software program known as "Napster" in the mid-90s, internet-based piracy has made headlines across the globe. Unlike conventional theft, which is generally viewed as illegal, digital piracy is generally regarded in student circles as an activity that is both acceptable and beneficial. This discrepancy raises the obvious question as to whether or not a difference exists between a physical object and digital data. To put things mildly, there is no difference—theft is still theft. Stealing and copying the data composed in software and mp3s is no different than stealing a BMW from a mall parking lot. In both cases, a bystander is likely to lose money because of it.

If we assume that, in fact, there is no difference between digital and physical property, then further questions need to be raised as to why the former is more prevalent. After all, if physical theft were to ever reach the extreme levels of internet piracy, then it would be safe to say that any object that we'd be lucky enough to have in our possession wouldn’t last for long. The difference, then, lies in how the two activities are enforced. On one hand, stealing a BMW from a mall parking lot is bound to attract the attention of local law enforcement. Conversely, the millions of songs being downloaded off of the internet each day aren’t likely to result in any punishment at all. Even if internet piracy was to start being seriously punished, then it is safe to say that most of the McMaster student body would end up with criminal records—not a likely scenario. The fact of the matter is, both the copying of proprietary software and the downloading of music have both become "acceptable" in the eyes of the public, even though the debate continues to rage on as to whether or not it is ethical.

If stemming the tide of digital piracy via enforcement is out of the question, then the perceptions of the public need to be changed instead. A high level of apathy currently exists towards both the music industry and major software companies among university-aged students. It is perceived that much of the content released by these industries is of a low quality, and pirating these products is therefore justified. In the case of software, many companies are selling products, such as Microsoft's Windows XP, for hundreds of dollars. Instead of paying for the software, many students copy the operating system illegally, only to find that the product is filled with bugs and security flaws, which further reinforces their original perception. The music industry is currently experiencing a similar phenomenon, whereby it is perceived that many of the artists being signed to record labels are of mediocre talent. As such, a general trend among the university crowd has emerged whereby the digital content is first downloaded or copied illegally, and then purchased if it meets a specified “quality benchmark”. Therefore, if piracy were to be completely eliminated, it is unlikely that the software and record industry would see any major sales gains, as the apathy against these industries would continue to flourish.

As such, even though digital piracy is certainly an unethical activity, it is very difficult to feel any sympathy towards those industries being victimized. While products released in the "physical" world can be scrutinized first-hand, the quality of digital content and software is based on a blind trust towards the brand and product. If the perceptions towards digital piracy are to be changed, then this trust between producer and consumer needs to be restored.

Note to self: never eat caviar again

The new slogan for Always maxi pads claims, "have a happy period". Now, although some of my friends would claim otherwise, I'm no woman. But still, if pissing out a rotten and bloody human egg into a diaper is your idea of "happy", please get some psychiatric help.

Thank you.

Politics can be fun, right?

The IncomeTrustProbeOfFun!

I'm not usually one to start breaking out conspiracy theories (in fact, I’m a sceptic if anything), but one has to question the timing of the latest leak of another Liberal party “scandal”. Dubbed the IncomeTrustProbe (I’ve taken out the spaces for originality and dramatic effect), it is alleged that information about increases in taxes was leaked to traders before the announcement. While I am by no means trying to find excuses for the Liberals, the public has not been presented with any evidence implicating the party at all, and we have been told that the RCMP is “investigating” the matter and it therefore cannot be discussed.

Can’t be discussed? Has somebody informed the RCMP that there’s a federal election coming up in two weeks? The mere mention of a second Liberal scandal has suddenly made a Conservative majority government possible, and the public needs to know the evidence behind this case now. At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Conservatives win the election, only for the Mounties to set up a press conference a couple of days later completely clearing the Liberals of any wrongdoing.

While it’s completely possible that the Liberals were indeed responsible, I question the motives of the RCMP as they conduct their “investigation”. This is starting to look like shades of Bush’s win over Gore in 2000.

The Debate: Another Two Hours Wasted

I just wanted to thank Mr. Harper, Mr. Layton, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Duceppe for wasting two hours of my time last night. You know, I could have been doing something more constructive like smoking weed or looking at Internet porn, but instead, I was treated to listening to the same one minute speech from each candidate on repeat for two hours straight. Fun!

But seriously, something needs to be done about these debates. I and one of my housemates made the suggestion that every question should first be answered with a “yes” or a “no”, and then each leader should be allowed to give their one minute speech. If the first word coming out of their mouth isn’t “yes” or “no”, then they should promptly have their microphone cut off. Seriously. This way, if the leaders still insist on bullshitting their way out of every question, at least it’ll save the viewers some time.

In a particularly hilarious exchange, the candidates were asked about what needs to be done to encourage a higher voter turnout, and once again, the shit began to flow. I was anxiously waiting for one of the camera men to walk on the stage and point at the leaders saying, “THIS is why people don’t vote!”