Categories
In the News Toronto (a.k.a. Accordion City)

"Guess Who’s Back. Back Again. Russell’s Back. Tell a Friend…"

Photo: Poncey boy Russell Smith.

Poncey boy Russell Smith. The only time you’ll see a better-dressed cracker is on an hors d’oeuvres tray.

Russell Smith, whom I’ve described as “a well-dressed, well-coiffed, well-read cultural Pharisee

who badly needs a good solid punch to the mouth”, has for the most part

managed to not get up my nose with his “I’m not really an essential

member of society, but I play one at the Globe and Mail” scribblings. Chris “Planet Simpson” Turner, during a recent visit to Accordion City, mentioned Smith’s fruitless (hah!) defense of capri pants for men.

I like to think I have a rep for being a very open-minded guy, but upon

hearing about that, I remarked “You know what we call guy like Russell?

Chicks.” The man has less

macho than most of the salads I’ve eaten this week.

Perhaps we could

take a little of the tsunami relief goodwill and hold some kind of

local fund-raising concert to raise money to get him some testosterone

patches. I envision Danko Jones being one of the acts, just to show him dude-itude.

Warren Frey wrote to me yesterday, informing me that Russell’s back to his old tricks, having written his latest screed, titled The films stink more than the greasy audience. Since the Globe and Mail

is going to make you pay to read the article online and since I

generally say “I’ve seen better paper after wiping my ass” after

reading Smith’s stuff, I’ve copy-and-pasted the article for you below:

The films stink more than the greasy audience

By RUSSELL SMITH

It’s time someone came out and said that not only are movies terrible,

but that the whole experience of going to movies is highly unpleasant.

How is it possible that this sensory stressfest has become the most

popular entertainment of the contemporary age?

How can people possibly enjoy the lining up, the waiting with coats on

for tickets, then the shuffling with the heated herd toward a crowded,

windowless room? And when you get to that butter-scented trough, with

its seats piled high with coats and scarves, the representatives of

humanity who surround you are anxious: They are focused on their feed.

This focus is quite dramatic. Their eyes are glazed and dilated, their

shoulders are hunched over their cartons, they are stuffing themselves

with viscous oil products with orange cheeze whip on fried nachos, with

yellow “topping,” with gallon jugs of liquid sugar. They have the

concentration of chess players, of athletes before contests, of the

starving. Do you like this, the greedy scrabbling in greasy boxes, the

whole herd determinedly chomping and chewing and slurping . . . don’t

you feel even a little bit as if you’re in the pig barn, at exactly the

moment the big trough full of ground intestines slops over for all to

rush towards and snuffle in?

They will settle down, after 15 or 20 intense minutes. Once they have

had their fill of trans fats, they wipe the chemical film from their

faces and they start talking to each other. This is where my angst goes

up a whole notch on the hystero-meter. Because I have been trying to

distract myself from the nauseating smells and the comical cacophony of

crunching by watching the slides on the screen. These slides test your

knowledge of Hollywood stars. They are there to remind you of death, of

your inevitable subsumption into the great terrifying artistic void

that is movieland. They are there to remind you that you do actually

know all the stars’ names, even without wanting to: As soon as you see

the blurry visage and the clue “went postal” you murmur, automatically,

Kevin Costner, and then you are amazed at yourself. How do you know

every Hollywood star’s name? It has happened by osmosis; you are so

immersed in it every day, like a nacho chip in a tub of yellow goop,

that it has seeped into your pores.

Anyway. The slides are at least better than hearing your neighbours

begin to talk. The sociological lessons learned from overhearing

conversations in cinemas are even more depressing. One learns that most

people like to communicate by announcing what food they like to eat and

what food they don’t like to eat. This is an interactive discussion:

Each participant takes a turn. You may change the subject slightly in

the second or third rounds — you may, for example, announce how tired

you are today as compared to how tired you were yesterday or on

Saturday, and then everyone may follow suit with similar admissions.

This apparently amuses and interests most people, for it can go on for

some time.

You will think that there is a merciful God when the lights finally

dim, because the movie is about to start and save you from the insane

boredom of your surroundings. But you will be very, very sadly

mistaken. Because this is the beginning of the ads. These are ads you

must watch. When you are watching television, you can change the

channel during ads, you can get up and have a sherry. But here you are

trapped, and the ads are amplified. Everyone sits docilely munching and

slurping and watching extremely loud ads on a big screen for a

half-hour. And they pay to do so. They pay to have various cheery

jingles and swooshing automobiles blared at them for a half-hour. No

one seems remotely uncomfortable or bored.

Who can make it this far into the movie-watching experience without

being so agitated, so depressed, so foul-tempered that even the

greatest masterpiece would not provide anything, at this point,

remotely resembling pleasure? At this point I have wanted to leave for

half an hour, and that desire to leave will simply continue for the

length of the film.

I don’t even need to go into how disappointing that great payoff

invariably is. You’ve heard me on this before: It doesn’t help that 90

per cent of films shown here and discussed here are made by the great

schmaltz factories, the megastudios of southern California. So that the

great treat of this experience, the feature presentation that is the

point of all this suffering, is going to contain a lot of very

emotional music which lets you know when to feel sad or happy or

scared, and a lot of huge close-ups of the sad faces of famous actors,

and very probably a final scene with a sun-dappled forest with a deer

emerging to remind our characters of their natural wonder. . . . (I’m

thinking here of the film Kinsey, which I was persuaded to see because

otherwise intelligent critics, their minds numbed by exposure to

schmaltz of even more preposterous gooeyness, had proclaimed it

brilliant, and which turned out to be, of course, another Hollywood

weeper made according to the strictest rules of narrative convention.)

Honestly, why, why, why do we pay to have ads broadcast at us at insane

volume? Why do we pay to have productive hours of our lives removed and

replaced with the sameness, the predictability, the boredom of the

grave? Explain it to me: rssllsmth@yahoo.ca .

I have to agree with many of Russell’s points, but does he have to be

such a misanthropic Little Lord Fauntleroy about it? One iamgines he’s

going

to write an article about the horror of going to the men’s room

(“…and the guy in the stall beside me was pooping too! In such close proximity!”)

Russ better not commit any jailable offences. I figure some inmate

would churn his ass like so much creamy butter within 30 seconds of his

being put into his cell.

Warren pretty much sums up my own feeling when he writes:

While I’m forced to agree with him that the opening weekend movie

experience sometimes ain’t all that, he bitches in such a godawful,

pretentious, “I’m superior and did I mention I wrote a book about the Toronto art scene” way that you want to reach through the screen and strangle him by his immaculately knotted tie.

Part of the problem for me is that I love movies, and I love most of

the movie going experience. Yeah, you can run into some real idiots,

and the deluge of ads is a little ridiculous. But when things click,

and you see a really good move like Lord of the Rings on opening

weekend, with a crowd that’s just as hyped as you are to see a glorious

big screen spectacle, the movie theatre is almost magic. That’s

something ol’ Russ will never get, not that he’d bother trying.

Russell’s article was enough to get the notice of MetaFilter, who thus far have provided an impressive 84 comments.

Categories
Uncategorized

"Y’know What They Call a Quarter Pounder in Israel?" (Part 1 of the "Hamburgers" series)

Check out this funny McDonald’s ad from Israel for the McShawarma

[3.0 MB MPEG Video; enclosure]. The guy playing Travolta is quite good,

and the little elbow-jab at Israeli etiquette is priceless.

If any of you speak Hebrew, could you please tell me what the guy in the trunk at the end of the ad is saying?

Categories
Uncategorized

"You are in a series of small twisty passages, all alike."

On IndieGameDev (one of the blogs I’m paid to write): An in-depth article on Interactive Fiction

(a.k.a. “IF” or “text adventure games”), the Inform Programming

language, a lot of links to resources and a look at what advantages and

opportunities IF offers the indie game developer.

Even if you don’t care about programming games, there are links to fun IF games to try!

Categories
In the News It Happened to Me

"Couple Names Baby ‘Yahoo’"

From The Register:

A newborn baby boy has been named “Yahoo” by a Romanian couple – cos they met over the net.

Mum and Dad – Cornelia and Nonu Dragoman – courted online for three

months before finally tying the knot, reports a local paper by way of Reuters. Lucian Yahoo Dragoman was born last month.

“We named him Lucian Yahoo after my father and the net, the main beacon of my life,” said mum Cornelia.

Funny, that’s how I used to mentally refer to an old VP of R&D I used to work for. That man has the sense of vision that God gave oysters.

Categories
Uncategorized

An Incentive to Read the Blogs I’m Paid to Write

Hey, programmer-types! There’s lots of good stuff on The Farm

(Tucows’ programming-in-general blog) and IndieGameDev (Tucows’ blog

for indie game developers). They’re written by Yours Truly with the

same gusto and verve, but considerably less swearing.

(Actually, even on this blog, I try and save the swears for when they’re les mots justes.)

Once you’re done reading those, you can reward yourself with this TV ad for Dodge trucks that they decided not to air [1.3 MB WMV file included as an enclosure; Three’s Company-esque double-entendres].

A pity, because I think this ad fesses up — although in a roundabout

way — as to why men who don’t really need trucks buy them.

Categories
Uncategorized

It’s "Bling Bling" Dance Time Again

The investment service FindProfit.com announced its “Top Five Internet

Stock Picks for 2005”, which were featured in Sunday’s edition of the

New York Post. Among the five was Tucows:

PRINCETON, N.J., Jan. 10 /PRNewswire/ — FindProfit

(http://www.findprofit.com), an investment service that delivered a +19%

average return in 2004 and +67% audited return in 2004, announced today that

its Top Five Internet Stock Picks for 2005 were featured in the Sunday,

January 9, 2005 edition of The New York Post.

The article features FindProfit’s analysis and research of Autobytel

(Nasdaq: ABTLENews), Homestore (Nasdaq: HOMSNews), Intermix Media (Amex: MIXNews),

Priceline.com (Nasdaq: PCLNNews) and Tucows (OTC Bulletin Board: TCOWNews). All trial

and paid subscribers may access FindProfit.com’s full research and analysis on

these, and more than 50 other stocks.

FindProfit’s investment outlook examines a number of issues, including:

  • Why Tucows may be poised for a breakout in 2005.
  • How Intermix has turned from a has-been into the next big thing.
  • Why Homestore, Priceline.com and Autobytel are fundamentally strong and compelling acquisition bait.

And

with that news, Tucows’ stock price jumped up over 30 cents yesterday,

putting us at $1.17 per share at yesterday’s market close. As I write

this, we’re at $1.19, which is the highest it’s been since I joined the

company:

Graph: Tucows' climbing stock price for the past 2 years.

This doesn’t mean I’m buying drinks for everyone; it just means that I

have a little more money…”on paper”. However, all other things being

equal, it’s better to work for a company with a “buy this stock”

recommendation and a rising stock price than one without these goodies.

Perhaps a little bling bling dance is in order…

 Photo: Two 'Cows' from the cartoon series 'Cow and Chicken' dancing.

Categories
In the News

Who is John Galt, and Why is He Backpedalling Slightly?

The only moments when I channel Ayn Rand are those when I’m engaged in

fiction. A couple of nights ago, I was playing my new favourite game, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

In the game, you play the role of Carl “C.J.” Johnson, who brings about

the second coming of the once-feared Grove Street gang.

One important facet of the game is earning the respect of your fellow

gang members, and one of the most fun ways to earn that respect is to

ruthlessly kill members of rival gangs. I have a mean streak that I try

to keep under control in real life, but in the game world of San Andreas (a really large world comprised of three cities and the rural areas in between), I can indulge it all I want.

My housemate Rob watched in amazement as I “softened up” a half-dozen

members of a rival gang by running over them with a stolen car and then

delivered coups de grace using my submachinegun with a rhythm

that would’ve made Conlon Nancarrow proud.

Another feature of the game is that if you kill someone, you can take

their money. As I helped myself to the cash from their scattered

corpses, Rob said something along the lines of “Wow, that’s cold.”

“Hey, it’ll trickle down,” I reassured him with a smile.


If that was cold, the Ayn Rand Institute published a letter to the editor titled U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims

was sub-zero. It’s been excised from the site, but lives on in syndication and Google’s cache. Written by David “Civil engineer is a contradiction in terms” Holcberg (“You may remember me from such heart-warming letters to the editor as Death of Civilians Should Not Hinder War Effort“), here it is in its entirety:

As the death toll mounts in the areas hit by Sunday’s

tsunami in southern Asia, private organizations and individuals are

scrambling to send out money and goods to help the victims. Such help

may be entirely proper, especially considering that most of those

affected by this tragedy are suffering through no fault of their own.

The United States government, however, should not

give any money to help the tsunami victims. Why? Because the money is

not the government’s to give.

Every cent the government spends comes from taxation.

Every dollar the government hands out as foreign aid has to be extorted

from an American taxpayer first. Year after year, for decades, the

government has forced American taxpayers to provide foreign aid to

every type of natural or man-made disaster on the face of the earth:

from the Marshall Plan to reconstruct a war-ravaged Europe to the $15

billion recently promised to fight AIDS in Africa to the countless

amounts spent to help the victims of earthquakes, fires and

floods–from South America to Asia. Even the enemies of the United

States were given money extorted from American taxpayers: from the

billions given away by Clinton to help the starving North Koreans to

the billions given away by Bush to help the blood-thirsty Palestinians

under Arafat’s murderous regime.

The question no one asks about our politicians’

“generosity” towards the world’s needy is: By what right? By what right

do they take our hard-earned money and give it away?

The reason politicians can get away with doling out

money that they have no right to and that does not belong to them is

that they have the morality of altruism on their side. According to

altruism–the morality that most Americans accept and that politicians

exploit for all it’s worth–those who have more have the moral

obligation to help those who have less. This is why Americans–the

wealthiest people on earth–are expected to sacrifice (voluntarily or

by force) the wealth they have earned to provide for the needs of those

who did not earn it. It is Americans’ acceptance of altruism that

renders them morally impotent to protest against the confiscation and

distribution of their wealth. It is past time to question–and to

reject–such a vicious morality that demands that we sacrifice our

values instead of holding on to them.

Next time a politician gives away money taken from you

to show what a good, compassionate altruist he is, ask yourself: By

what right?

He should’ve finished it off with “Hey, it’ll trickle down.”


The Ayn Rand Institute must’ve caught some serious heat from outraged parties, as they published a press release which contains the ever-so-useful line, “We would like to clarify our position” (which should always set your B.S. detector abuzz). Here’s how it begins:

On December 30, 2004, the Ayn Rand Institute released as a letter to

the editor and as an op-ed a piece that condemned the U.S. government’s

use of taxpayers’ money to help victims of the recent tsunami (“U.S.

Should Not Help Tsunami Victims”). That piece was inappropriate and did

not accurately convey the Institute’s position. We would like to

clarify our position.

Obviously, the tsunami, with the thousands of innocent victims left

in its wake, is a horrible disaster. The first concern of survivors and

of those trying to help them is to provide basic necessities and then

to begin rebuilding. The American public’s predictably generous

response to assist these efforts is motivated by goodwill toward their

fellow man. In the face of the enormous and undeserved suffering,

American individuals and corporations have donated millions of dollars

in aid; they have done so by and large not out of some sense of

altruistic duty but in the name of the potential value that another

human being represents. This benevolence, which we share, is not the

same thing as altruism.

The emphasis in the paragraph above is mine. Had the line “potential value that another human being represents” been used by almost any other organization, I wouldn’t intrepret it as “consumer”. And by “consumer”, I mean “industrial age aphid who eats consumer goods and craps out cash“.

The release is standard PR “clarification fare” — get the non-apology

out of the way, and then direct the conversation elsewhere. Once the

piece gets that distasteful business about callousness in the face of

mass death out of the way, it spends its remaining half espousing the

Randroid party line and defending the right to not give a crap.

Hey, it’ll trickle down.