Delusions of Grammar

Pretty soon, they’ll want to vote, too…

Scott L. — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:40:07 +0000

So, Team Canada’s women hockey players celebrated their gold medal win with champagne, beer and cigars on the ice, after everyone else cleared out. That seems like a pretty tame celebration by Vancouver standards. Still, the photos caused some pearl-clutching south of the border and hit the headlines of almost every major news organization. And the IOC isn’t happy.

“If that’s the case, that is not good. It is not what we want to see,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a good promotion of sport values. If they celebrate in the changing room, that’s one thing, but not in public.”

Now, some people are a bit confused, wondering what the big deal is. So, I’ve compiled a helpful guide to clearly illustrate why this is such a problem.

GOOD:Time-honoured sports tradition:

BAD: Irresponsible degenerates ruining sport forever:

See, the women’s team forgot two vital things when it comes to surviving the wrath of the IOC and the dedicated finger-waggling sectors of the media.

Number one: Don’t act like men. If you feel the need to celebrate, please do so by drinking wine coolers. Or knitting. Or, how about walking five paces behind the men’s team with your gaze on the ground? ALWAYS ON THE GROUND.

Number two: Don’t act like “normal people.” Don’t you know that you’re athletes, and so everything you do must be squeaky clean. If you’re a college student superstar swimmer, don’t do what college kids do. If you’re a Canadian hockey player, don’t do what other Canadian hockey players do.

Yes, yes…I know that Marie-Philip Poulin, the 18-year-old forward who scored both of Canada’s goals (and seems to deserve a bit of celebration) was one month shy of being legal in B.C. So I admit that the beer that she had on the ice there probably corrupted her for life (far more than any that she might of consumed previously in Quebec, where she’s been above the drinking age for 11 months.)

Therefore, in fairness, I say we punish Poulin in the traditional Canadian manner for drinking underage: we give her a stern talking to about not getting caught next time.

Note: The National Post has some pretty good photos of the celebration. Check them out and weep for the children.

Haiti: On Roads and Recovery

Scott L. — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 04:07:46 +0000

It’s been almost a month since the earthquake that hit Haiti threw that country into chaos. It’s natural to take a look back, take stock of the response to the disaster and what lessons are to be learned.

Some say that Haiti shows that we need an international relief agency that can coordinate these kinds of massive responses.

There must be a better way to coordinate international relief efforts when a natural disaster strikes, some lead agency to ensure the airport is open, the roads are clear and that medical supplies and food are distributed based on need. We need to establish mission control in advance — not to dictate rescue and recovery efforts, but to organize and keep track of them.

The talk about infrastructure was what really got me thinking.

Haiti didn’t have a ton of infrastructure in the first place, and what little there was ended up getting largely destroyed by the quake. That posed a real problem in the weeks after the earthquake – a lot of aid was being sent from the rest of the world, but it wasn’t getting to the people who need it. You can have all the food and clothing in the world sent, but if you don’t have ports and airfields to bring it in, all you’ve got is a cargo plane full of perishable doorstops.

My question is, does all of the focus have to be on preparing what we’re going to do after a disaster. Are there some steps that the international community can do before something like this happens? I’d like to see solid infrastructure become the next issue of global concern targeted by groups like the U.N.. I assume since I haven’t heard near as much about climate change since Copenhagen wrapped up, it means that they got that whole thing sorted out – so, it would be something to keep them busy.

I’m not saying that you can prepare for every earthquake or tsunami that might hit a country – these things are destructive by their very nature. But, surely there are things that we can do – ports can be reinforced and important roads can be mapped out and strengthened. Increasing the odds that something will survive enough that it can be used when bad things do go down. Or, at the very least, reducing the time that it would take to get those facilities back up and running.

The hours that volunteers, aid workers and militaries had to spend repairing airports and clearing roads were hours that victims remained trapped under rubble and lacking medical treatment. No matter how much help the international community does to aid disaster infrastructure, that’s work that is always going to need to be done.

I just think that if we worked together and helped less fortunate places build up this kinds of strong, basic foundation, there will be less cleaning up and more actual rebuilding.

(Photo: United Nations Development Programme via Flickr.)

An Open Letter to Tony Caterina

Scott L. — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:13:19 +0000

Hey there Tony,

It has been a couple months since I’ve lived in Edmonton. Actually, I moved from the city shortly after the vote to close the City Centre Airport.

I know you remember that vote.

You see, despite the fact that I don’t live there anymore, I like keeping up on what’s going on back home. That’s how I know that you remember the airport vote. Because you keep bringing it up, Tony.

These grapes! They are sour!

Now, I usually like to deliver my criticism with a bit of humour. A few jokes. A healthy helping of sarcasm. Maybe a little bit of a dance. It makes it fun for all of us. (Or maybe, just me.)

But not tonight. No jokes. Because I am honestly disgusted.

Tony Caterina, you are acting like a child.
You are an Edmonton city councillor . Your job is to do your best for your constituents. The future of the LRT in Edmonton is an important subject. And you should give it the consideration it deserves. If you’re against the plan, be against the plan. But if you vote the plan down, it should be because you think it’s not the right move. Not because Council made a decision months ago that made you sad.

Your performance tonight was the municipal equivalent of one seven-year-old telling another that “you can’t come to my birthday because you didn’t invite me to yours.” Which is perfectly understandable. For a kindergarten student.

You are a city councillor.

Look, sometimes we don’t get our way. Happens to everyone. But you don’t throw your hands up in the air and hold your breath. You do your job. And your job is to represent your ward. A ward full of other people. People who probably care about public transit it some way. At least, more than they care about the list of “things that mean people did that hurt Tony Caterina’s feelings.”

A lot of the reaction I’m seeing to your closing arguments have been along the lines of “oh, that Tony…” People will pass it off as you just being, well, difficult. It’s a reputation you seem to have gotten along the way.

I’m sorry, but it’s not some charming quirk. It’s unacceptable. It’s childish. It’s embarrassing.

Look. Next year, there will be elections. If you’re not interested in doing the job you were elected to do, you just shouldn’t seek re-election. Please. Leave it to someone who will actually vote on the issues based on the actual issues.

There are better things you can do if you want to rail hysterically and hold grudges until they fester into vendettas. Have you tried blogging? I hear it’s good for that kind of thing.

Oh. Well, maybe you can build model ships or something.

Update: As is the norm in the cases where Dave Cournoyer and I post the same topic, his post is more concise, far more reasonable and gives greater context. What are you still doing here? Read it.

Meet Rossy

Scott L. — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:41:29 +0000

My friend Ross needs a bio written for him because he’s…well….when Ross starts saying something, I usually tune out. Anyway, rest assured, he needs a bio.

Like any other project I work on, I thought the best way would be just to check on Wikipedia. But, nothing came up when I searched for “Ross Prusakowski.” So, I just clicked on the first link that Wikipedia recommended, and I changed a few things to make it fit:

In GATEWAY mythology, a ROSS PRUSAKOWSKI was a SNUGGLEBUM, water nymph, CUP DINOSAUR or mermaid-like ECONOMIST that dwelled in a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA. ROSS was considered a being of evil force. The ghostly version is the soul of a young COOKIE who had died ON or near THE INTERNET (many of these ROSS PRUSAKOWSKI had been murdered by SPORTS EDITORS) and came to haunt NASH; this ROSS PRUSAKOWSKI is not invariably malevolent, and will be allowed to DRINK in peace if HIS PINT is DELIVERED SWIFTLY . In most versions, the ROSS PRUSAKOWSKI is an unquiet dead FIRE TRUCK.

You’re welcome, Ross. My invoice is in the mail.

Malcolm Gladwell Fumbles on the Goal line

Scott L. — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:53:12 +0000

Malcolm Gladwell’s article about football in the New Yorker is a thought-provoking piece – albeit one that had me throwing a couple orange flags.

The meat of the article is pretty solid – there’s an epidemic of dementia and other brain injuries among professional football players. The research that Gladwell is looking at shows that it isn’t the one-time hard hits that may be the most danger: it’s the constant knocks to the head that players take as part of the game.

But what could be a pretty straightforward article is sidelined by a misplaced hook. Gladwell likes a little sensationalism in his science. He asks that, with the dangers of football possibly inherent to the sport, how different is it from the damage done by dogfighting?

L.G. willingly submitted his dog to a contest that culminated in her suffering and destruction. And why? For the entertainment of an audience and the chance of a payday. In the nineteenth century, dogfighting was widely accepted by the American public. But we no longer find that kind of transaction morally acceptable in a sport. “I was not aware of dogfighting and the terrible things that happen around dogfighting,” Goodell said, explaining why he responded so sternly in the Vick case. One wonders whether, had he spent as much time talking to Kyle Turley as he did to Michael Vick, he’d start to have similar doubts about his own sport.

Consent, Malcolm.

Dogs don’t understand dogfighting. It’s cruel because they are animals – they are maimed and killed for entertainment value while having no ideas of the potential risks, nor do they have any alternative.

Gladwell really weakens his argument by trying to make the sensational connection between a violent and dangerous sport like football with a morally-repugnant one like dogfighting. And, for a very smart man (who I am a big fan of), he seems to miss the pretty obvious point.

When an person joins up as a linebacker in the NFL, they know that there is the chance to get injured. If they aren’t willing to accept that risk, they can say no. They can go off and become car salesmen, or airline pilots or anything else. Dogs don’t know the risks of dogfighting, nor do they have a choice to be fighting dogs or not. They are abused and forced into the ring with their owners.

Choice and consent. By ignoring those two variables, Gladwell might as well be arguing that two teenagers having sex is on par with bestiality.

It’s not. Because we all know that the average human can consent to sex with another human, while an animal can never fully give that consent.

It’s a shame, because other than that ridiculous bit of emotional nonsense, Gladwell brings up some good points. Gladwell argues players may not be sufficiently warned of the risk, or cared for by the league, and that more can be done to minimize those risks – all good points, all of which I strongly agree with.

But they’re overshadowed by this weak connection. Not to mention that he says football may be closer to dogfighting, where injury is inherent in the game, than it is to stock-car races, which are dangerous but can have that danger minimized – and then goes into how football has done the very same thing as racing by making the sport safer over the years.

But the main objection at the time was to a style of play—densely and dangerously packed offensive strategies—that, it turns out, could be largely corrected with rule changes, like the legalization of the forward pass and the doubling of the first-down distance from five yards to ten. Today, when we consider subtler and more insidious forms of injury, it’s far from clear whether the problem is the style of play or the play itself.

But there’s not much to back up that last thought – football equitment is forever being designed to be safer, and rules are always being changed to protect players. (The banning of horse collar tackles in recent years being one.) What makes Gladwell thing we’ve reached the limit of how safe the sport can be while innovations continue?

Gladwell has some good stuff here, stuff that’s worth wading through the dogfighting mess. Next time, he should really just take a timeout before gambling on sensationalism like this.

We must stop Google: A ScreenShot Essay

Scott L. — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:37:04 +0000

Ah. Thanksgiving. A day of relaxation, of visiting with family. After eight maddening weeks of introduction to J-school, it’s a weekend where I can lean back and reflect on how when I get my degree, there probably won’t be a journalism industry left. Just Google, sending News Spiders to our homes with the day’s events. For free.

Still in beta

Luckily, not everyone is going to lay down and wait for a future full of terrifying, super-convenient news-delivering spiders. Not media hero Rupert Murdoch, who gave a fiery speech to Bejing last week, letting it be known that he’s not going to stand for any more shenigans by news aggregators.

Murdoch’s basic point is that new aggregators and search engines are stealing content from those news organizations that make it. (He goes as far as to use the word ‘thief.’) While he doesn’t name Google, when he talks about search engines, you kind of get the picture.

I usually would just say that this is the grousing of someone too set in his ways and unwilling to embrace the future of news. But I thought, in the interest of fairness, I would look into this further. Besides, this comes from MURDOCH. If anyone is really concerned about the future of quality journalism, it must be him, right? Right? Who does Google think they are, picking on an old man?

Lovable.

So, I did some research. Booted up the old browser, and searches Google News for news on the biggest threat facing the Western world today.

I then proceeded to click the first link, and got ready to steal some content from the hard-working journos at Boston.com. I felt dirty, knowing that I would enjoy the fruits of their work, but all of the ad dollars would be going to Google! But still, it was for SCIENCE! So, I pressed on.

Dun-dun-DUN!

It was even worse than I thought. Google didn’t just steal all of Boston.com’s content. It stole the format and masthead as well! At first blush, it looks like Google simply linked to Boston.com’s website, sending the traffic (and advertising dollars) there. The uninformed person might think that Google is actually helping out these news sites. After all, Google is helping users get to their sites, meaning more readers, and better chances of getting advertisers.

But I know that’s not true. Because Rupert Mordoch told me so.

Just to make sure, I check to see if Google was also stealing the high-quality, hard-hitting journalism that Mordoch wants his people to be paid for.

News I can use…apparently

Son of a bitch.

Impoverished media moguls like Murdoch have been painted into a corner. Google has indexed their pages, and will continue doing it as they add more news.

Is there a way to keep Google from peeking into our sites? There might be, but who knows where to find it. If only there was some kind of easy way to scour the wild mess that is the Internet?

Oh. Right.

Sure, you can search for it. But Google would be a fool to let their engine direct you to an easy way to keep them away from your stuff…

…or they might just put it up on their help section.

What have we learned? I learned that if Google is trying to steal readers from the news sites, it’s doing a really crappy job of it. I learned that if Murdoch really thought the arrangement was unfair, he could keep Google away from his site with almost no work. And I learned Wordpress really loses its shit when you try to format a lot of pictures in a post.

SPECIAL BONUS MORAL

I also learned something unexpected. Check out the fourth headline from the top:

The Internet is crazy and dangerous. Dangerous like angry ghosts.

Right and Wrong on Roman

Scott L. — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 03:07:33 +0000

I’ve been formulating my thoughts on the whole Roman Polanski thing. It has been on my mind after all, it does intersect between two of my favourite subjects: film and the law. Hell, if we could somehow work delicious cookies into the mix, we’d have ourselves a trifecta.

I know there area lot of big egos in Hollywood, but I was honestly surprised that Harvey Weinstien had the gall to come out with an argument in Polanski’s favour that basically boiled down to “drugging and raping a 13-year-old, whatevs.”

I mean, talk about jumping headfirst without looking. He says that Polanski has already suffered for his “so-called crime.” (Child rape, Harv. If you’re going to try and convince people that that’s not immoral/illegal, I’d recommend using a stronger argument than just a smug hyphenate. )

Yes, while Roman might have suffered by not being able to pick up his Oscar (probably stings a bit) and having to live in France for 30 years (that one, not so much), I sincerely doubt most legal minds would consider that a sentence. Unless the US has switched from an incarceration model of justice to the less popular “exile to a beautiful and vibrant country” approach. (If that’s the case, I’m driving to the border tonight, knocking off a liquor store and hoping for Italy.)

Harvey doesn’t come out and say it, but everyone who wants the US to drop the case again Roman is doing it for one reason: he’s a good filmmaker. Really. I love his work, I’m not going to deny that. But at the same time, no matter how you and “Marty” Scoreses may wish otherwise, artistic minds are subject to the same laws as everyone else. Society as a right to punish those that harm other people. And to punish those who flee the law to avoid their sentence.

Even if, as a society, we agree that Chinatown was pretty sweet. The artist’s bad deeds should never be excused by the quality of their work.

Now, on the flip side of that, you’ve got Rex Murphy arguing in the Globe and Mail that Polanski’s child-raping ass should be stripped of the term artist. Murphy’s argument is just as misguided (though not as morally-reprehensible.) While the artist’s morals shouldn’t be judged on the quality of his work, it’s also not fair to assume the opposite: quality work can only come from the morally sound.

Murphy argues that the word artist has lost it’s meaning when applied to a “ill-co-ordinated puppet on stilts or the latest pop tart ululating her dream to be the next Madonna.” I don’t disagree with him there, but no objective observer would argue that Polanski falls into those categories. I’m sure that if Rex was asked if Polonski’s films were art BEFORE the crime was committed, there would be no disagreement. But he’s letting his knowledge of Polanski’s horrible, criminal deed colour his perception of the man’s work.

In pointing to “real artists,” Murphy mentions Beethoven and da Vinci. But Beethoven was a man who believed in the monarchist system, where the common person had no voice. And I doubt very strongly that Murphy would agree with da Vinci’s views on race relations, or women’s rights. The modern, sophisticated person would think them outdated, possibly barbaric. But we separate the person, and their flaws, to judge their work on the merits alone.

It’s a clarity that only comes when one looks at things objectively. The Mona Lisa is art. So is The Pianist. The latter was made by a criminal. And he should go to jail.

EDIT: Edited for some HTML errors that kept popping up. Also, my first go around, committed the faux pas of not linking to either Weinstien or Murphy. My bad.

Busker Festival

Scott L. — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:31:06 +0000

It’s been a hot weekend so far In Halifax, made worse by the humidity. I’m not a creature who does well in heat, and my first instinct is to make a made dash (fine, lethargic crawl) towards the first opportunity for shade/water. If it’s downhill from my current location, all the better.

It was that instinct that had me hitting the waterfront again yesterday. Can’t say I found much shade. And you’d have to be made to want to spent any time in the waters of the harbour. But, luckily enough, I was able to catch a few acts at the International Busker Festival, which more than made up for the deathly heat.

Up first was Bike Boy, a well known performer from Australia.

While he showed off some very impressive juggling, especially balanced on a bike 20 feet in the air, his comedy routine fell a little flat. Maybe it was the heat, a quiet crowd, or an off day – whatever the reason, his performance didn’t really grab me.

On the flip side of things, the English Gents, and acrobatic team also from Australia, did put on a fantastic show.

Great acrobatics, a dry wit and a bit of risque thrown into the mix.

If you ever get the chance to check these guys out, I highly recommend doing so. A fantastic show from two very funny guys.

Until you get that chance, you can check out my photos of the two shows. Or, check out this video another Haligonian took of their big finale.

Arts and Crafts Time!

Scott L. — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 23:03:32 +0000

I have a notebook that I like to keep on me. It’s homemade, little more than scraps of paper stapled together with a little stub of a pencil shoved between the pages. I carry it around in case I think of photo ideas, story ideas, need to write down a phone number or address or what not.

I love it. The only problem with this notebook that I have access to at all times is that I HAVE ACCESS TO IT AT ALL TIMES. Even when I have thoughts that should be immediately forgotten – like say, last night when I was stumbling home from trivia night at the campus pub.

See, now that Mr Hyde has access to my notebook, he can make demands, knowing full well that my sober, upstanding Dr Jekyll self will be forced to read them the next morning. (Or, sometimes, early afternoon.) Many of them are inchoerent and foolish, destined for the garbage bin. But sometimes they aren’t just random thoughts. Sometimes, they are demands.

I could sell these notebooks to hipsters for $5 a pop and make MILLIONS!

Now, when Mr Hyde uses too exclamation marks and underlines something, it’s the written equivalent of David Caruso putting on his sunglasses. It means things just got real, and someone is probably going to jail. It’s not something to be taken lightly, and it’s up to me to make sure it gets done.

YEEEEEEEAAAAHHHH!

As in everything I do, I tried to do this as cheaply and lazily as possible. Luckily, I was able to make a real simple lightbox out of four sheets of super glossy photo paper and some tape. Nothing complex, but I did like the outcome. I was going to take pictures of various things I had around my kitchen but…the only thing I really have in my kitchen at the moment is beer.

So, here are some pictures of beer:

A little playing around in Photoshop, and I like the outcome. This weekend, I play to come up with something a little more involved. One that will actually need supplies.

How about anyone else out there? Have you put something together similar?

Canada: The Remedial Class

Scott L. — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:56:35 +0000

It pains me that this is a discussion we even need to be having.

Honestly. Out comes another report from another committee that puts forth the ‘controversial’ position that “hey, maybe if the RCMP is accused of doing something wrong, we shouldn’t let the RCMP investigate it.

From the report:

“Can the current process of the RCMP investigating itself legitimately engender confidence in the transparency and integrity of the criminal investigation and its outcome?

“Based on the results of our research and analysis, the informed commission answer is that it cannot.”

Canada, this is Responsible Government 101, and we’re failing it badly.

When a police force is accused of wrongdoing, it should be investigated by an independent body. Not because the RCMP is inherently bad, or it’s members untrustworthy. Because RCMP officers are human beings and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. (Unless Harper has one hell of an election platform up his sleeve.)

Human beings with their own biases and loyalties and preconceptions and all sort of other baggage.This isn’t even an academic question: the RCMP have shown many times that their internal investigation policies, at the very least, suspect.

That’s why we have police forces, courts and the justice system in the first place – because we figured out long ago that is when it comes to criminal misconduct, you need to have an impartial investigator.

That’s the only answer that will be accepted. No partial marks.