Sunday, March 26, 2006

Really? That one too? Surprising.

Watching hockey games on TV can be excruciating. And I'm a big hockey fan. The new rules this season have been great and the battle for the playoffs is tight. The recent Canucks-Oilers mini-series was fantastic.

The problem? The commentators. I have many pet peeves about the commentators, but one tops the list. After a goal, there is a very good chance that you will hear the following words: "That is a goal that [the beaten goaltender] will want to have back." It may be right away, or it may be after a replay or two, but it is said far too often. Yes, we get it, the primary job of all goaltenders is to not let in any goals, so, of course, they would like to have all goals they let in back. How about during your pregame keys of the game segment, you make a blanket statement: "Now, for this entire game, you can be sure that all goals let in will be wanted back by the guilty goaltender."

Last night. Canucks vs. Oilers. Naslund takes a rare slapshot from the point and Morrison backhands in what appears to be a rebound. However, we see several replays from different angles, and it is very clear, very obvious, that Morrison stopped the puck before it reached the goaltender, pulled it to his backhand and scored. That doesn't stop one of the all-talk no-substance talking heads from remarking, right after the several replays, "now that is a rebound that Roloson will want to have back".


A few years ago, the french CBC station had labor issues and workers went on strike. The only result of this that was relevant to me was the airing of the Canadiens games with absolutely no commentating. You could hear the iceskates of the players as they carved up the ice, players talking on the bench during play, the sound level of the fans slowly increasing as a play develops. If you try hard enough, you can hear this stuff during regular CBC games, but you have to try really hard; the commentators are trying their best to drown it all out.

The ratings for the commentator-less games went way up. I'm a regular reader of Sports Illustrated, the major american sports magazine, and they wrote about the increased ratings. At the time, I had faint hope that networks, or just Sportsnet, CBC and TSN, would dump all their commentators. Why not, it would save the networks money right? The dumped commentators could find jobs on the radio, where commentating is necessary. Alas, several years later, it doesn't seem likely.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Two Videos

Both are very entertaining in their own way.

I saw them both here:

Easy Money

Read this somewhere, can't remember where. Probably on someone else's blog. Lots of blogs out there.

The writer was walking through Oakridge Mall many years ago with their father. Ahead of them was one of those lottery ticket booths. At the booth, several people were holding tickets and watching the screens spit up random numbers, or waiting in line to have their tickets scanned. As they passed by the booth, the father turned to his offspring and said, "hey, I just won two bucks".

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

In BC's Future?

Washington state, along with other states, are setting a good example.

Click the pic.

Questions are raised though. "Smoking is now prohibited in all public places and all workplaces." Is it actually all public places, or is it all indoor public places? The headline says "expanded indoor smoking law", but it should be more clear throughout.

Especially because it says, and all workplaces. Clearly stated: "workplace" means any area which employees are required to pass through during the course of employment. Well then, what about park board employees? Their job requires passing through parks. Therefore, shouldn't the parks be smoke-free? There is a chance that parks are included, but I highly doubt it. I don't believe Initiative 901 would have been "overwhelmingly approved" if they are. I could be wrong, maybe I'm underestimating Washingtononians.

Park board employees are but one such example. There are others that, during the course of employment, pass through outside areas. Canada Post employees, landscapers, and dogwalkers are among them.

This is good:
"Is it true that there is no smoking 25 feet in front of any door or window?
Smoking is now restricted 25 feet from all doorways, windows and air intakes of any protected space mentioned above."

There have been so many times when I've exited a building and have had no choice but to walk through a thick cloud of smoke. Not only has my health been compromised but now I, and my clothes, smell as though I've been smoking.

Let's have a BC vote eh.

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Pics of Peeps

The first two pics were taken in September of 2005 in Seattle. Biscotti and I traveled down there for the weekend to catch a Mariners game at beautiful Safeco field.

Biscotti and I on the Seattle monorail.

Accompanying us on the Seattle trip were K & K, who can be spotted in this pic, a unique shot on an elevator. Probably the coolest elevator picture you will ever see. If you ever see a cooler one, let me know.

This next pic was taken almost exactly a year ago at the Troller in Horseshoe Bay, the premiere stop on The Crawl with Spirit of the West. Look at my hair! Biscotti is gorgeous as usual. Click to enlarge.

And this one is a family shot, taken sometime around the first of May, 2005. Definitely no later than that. From l-r: G, G, G, B, R. It's a good looking bunch, eh. Click to enlarge.

Can anyone out there help me get the right sidebar back to its normal position? I'll be your best friend....

Saturday, March 18, 2006

Plog Broblems

I'm having difficulty viewing my own blog and no difficulty viewing other people's blogs and I'm wondering if it has anything to do with the recent emerson post. I did see reports that blogger was doing maintenance and stuff so maybe I'm just being paranoid. Has anyone else experienced problems viewing my blog? I've also tinkered with the right sidebar and looked at getting google ads on here.. hope I didn't muck anything up.

Edited a short while later:
Okay, seems to be working normal now. And the blog looks good, except for the fact that the right sidebar begins when the central part ends. I've tried several times to correct it, and each time is more disastrous than the last. Please help. PLEASE! How do I get the sidebar to elevate itself back to normal?

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Monday at Lynn Valley

On Monday Biscotti and I took the dogs up to Lynn Valley for some snow-play time. We had them off-leash most of the time and they were very well-behaved and responsive.

Click to enlarge.

Monday, March 13, 2006

Word of the Day

To understand profoundly through intuition or empathy.

Go on mate, use it in a sentence today.
Or tomorrow. Or someday soon.

Saturday, March 11, 2006

Savage (doesn't) Love: Emerson

This post contains very raunchy language. Seriously.
Continue reading at your own risk. Seriously.

From wikipedia:

Savage Love is a syndicated sex-advice column by Dan Savage, appearing weekly in several dozen newspapers, mainly free city papers in the U.S. and Canada, but also newspapers in Europe and Asia.

The openly gay author uses the column as a forum for his strong opinions that often flout "family values"; he often encourages advice-seekers to pursue their fetishes. The tone of the column is humorous, and Savage does not shy away from using profanity.

Savage reacted strongly to United States Senator Rick Santorum's statements about homosexuality in an interview with the Associated Press published April 20, 2003. In the interview, Santorum describes homosexual acts as part of a class of deviant sexual behavior, including incest, polygamy, and bestiality, which he said threaten society and the family. Furthermore Santorum stated that he believed consenting adults do not have a Constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts.

Savage was outraged by these statements. At the suggestion of a reader, Savage challenged his audience to come up with a sex-related definition for the word santorum as a satirical form of political protest for the express purpose of "memorializ[ing] the Santorum scandal […] by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head".

After Savage published several definitions suggested by readers, a vote was taken among the readers of his column. The winning definition: "the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" was announced in the June 12, 2003 column.

Fans of Savage (among others) have made a concerted effort to make the newly coined term a part of the English language, setting up a web site for the purpose and employing Google bombing to drive that site to the first result slot for a Google search on "santorum".

At its annual meeting in January 2005, the American Dialect Society selected "santorum" as the "Most Outrageous" word of the year 2004. The Economist magazine referenced "santorum" in a January 5, 2006 blurb about Rick Santorum.

From this week's Georgia Straight:

You promised to "santorumize" a Canadian politician, Dan. It has to be David Emerson, the newly elected Liberal MP from Vancouver who crossed the floor and became a Tory in order to grab a plum cabinet job. Emerson – who campaigned vigorously against the Tories – happily screwed the voters who elected him when the opportunity to satisfy himself was presented. Therefore, I nominate "emerson" as the Canadian "santorum," and propose this meaning: a friend who, while comforting you about your breakup, is screwing your ex behind your back. Or if that isn't gross enough, an "emerson" could be an inner-rectal boil that makes it especially painful to be fucked.
Michael In Toronto

[Savage's response:]

We may have a contender in Emerson – he got more nominations than anyone else – although I do have some reservations.

While his actions merit the santorum treatment, neither of your suggested definitions quite work, MIT. Unlike santorum the substance – something every buttfucker, gay or straight, occasionally encounters – few people are betrayed by their friends in quite the manner you describe and fewer still have inner-rectal boils. Unless people have cause to use the new definition of emerson, MIT, it wouldn't stick. Also, MIT, unlike santorum, which sounds like a medical/Latin name for a substance, "emerson" only sounds like, well, someone's name. That doesn't mean it would be impossible to santorumize his name, just a bit harder.

Folks should feel free to send in other definitions for emerson.

jblue here.. whatever definition is chosen for emerson, here's hoping it becomes as well-known as santorum.

Saturday, March 04, 2006

Return to Sender

When you mail a letter or parcel and don't affix enough postage, what happens? It gets returned to the sender's address, correct? I am assuming that the same thing happens when no postage is affixed; the postal office assuming you forgot to affix it.

Having done an abnormally large number of local mailings lately, I've gotten to thinking: What would happen if I put my address in the centre to area, and the receiver's address in the top left from area, and did not affix any postage? Understand my question? To make sure you do, if I'm sending a letter to you, as long as you're local, I would put your name and address in the sender's address field, and my name and address in the receiver's address field. Would the postal worker who handles the letter see that there isn't sufficient postage and have it sorted to be delivered back to the sender, thereby unwittingly sending it to you as I had hoped they would, at no postage cost to me?

Would that work? Maybe I'm missing something..

(Confidential to the Canada Post: I'm not saying I would do this, I'm just curious if it would work or not. If it would work, you can thank me for giving you the heads-up. I accept all forms of payment.)

Now the theme song for this post.

Here's Return to Sender by Elvis...

Return to sender, return to sender.
I gave a letter to the postman,
He put it his sack.
Bright in early next morning,
He brought my letter back.
She wrote upon it:
Return to sender,

address unknown.
No such number,
no such zone.
We had a quarrel,

a lover’s spat
I write I’m sorry but my letter keeps coming back.
So then I dropped it in the mailbox
And sent it special d.
Bright in early next morning
It came right back to me.
She wrote upon it:
Return to sender,

address unknown.
No such person, no such so.
This time I’m gonna take it myself
And put it right in her hand.
And if it comes back the very next day
Then I’ll understand - the writing on it.
Return to sender, address unknown.
No such number, no such zone.
Return to sender, return to sender...