Hello hockey

Long time no see! If you're wondering where I've been...I guess I've been finding other ways to procrastinate for the last week or so. Ah well. Here's a little something anyhow!

So it's hockey season again. And for the first time in - well, in my life - I find myself starting the season without a team to cheer for.

A brief history lesson - for reasons that basically boil down to proximity, I spent my formative years as a fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Then a relative got a job with the Colorado Avalanche, who had just moved from Quebec, and I started following the Avalanche a little more closely (of course, it didn't hurt that they won the Stanley Cup their first year!).

The relative has since moved on, and I've spent the last few years half-heartedly cheering for the Leafs once again - but I just can't do it anymore. They're not good, they're not even CLOSE to being good, and they're not going to get good without some radical changes. Sundin is too old to carry a team on his back, Jason Blake is not the superstar saviour that the media is making him out to be, and anyone below the second line would be lucky to make the roster of any other club. The defence is horrible aside from McCabe and Kaberle, and all these great things I'm hearing about Toskala sure sound like what was said about Raycroft a year ago. How'd that work out?

But back to my original point - I'm in the market for a new team. Now, there are a few main criteria I had to set out before starting this search...

-No 'bandwagon factor'...it'd be easy to pick Anaheim or Ottawa simply because they've got a great shot at going all the way this year. Not interested. Ditto for Pittsbugh...not as good as the other teams I mentioned, but because of Crosby, everyone's jumping on that bandwagon anyhow.

-Along the same lines, I *do* want the team to have a realistic shot at at least making the playoffs this year. If mediocrity didn't bother me, I'd stick with the Leafs.

-I will never be able to bring myself to cheer for the Red Wings, Canadiens, or Rangers, so they're all out.

That still left me with probably about a dozen teams. So then I looked at some other things...are they going to be on TV often (thus allowing me to watch their games)? Are they a younger team that will likely only improve over the next few years? Do they have any players I really like?

After all that, I narrowed it down to three teams.

Buffalo: Geographically, if I refuse to cheer for the Leafs, this is the next-most logical choice. However, because of a large, undefended border, they seem further away than they really are. Plenty of games on TV, and if I try really hard, I can usually pick up Buffalo radio signals. A year ago, they'd have been a bandwagon team, but after losing Drury and Briere, people seem to have soured on them. I don't think those losses will hurt them as much as most seem to think. Bonus: Derek Roy, Andrew Peters, and Max Afinogenov - the Sabres lead the NHL in former Kitchener Rangers.

Philadelphia: Not as much TV coverage as Buffalo, and they don't have the same 'underdog' story going for them this year. However, they *are* poised for a breakout season, and do also have a former Kitchener Ranger in Mike Richards. On the other hand, I still have bad feelings towards their minor league team. Bonus: I've heard of virtually none of their lower line/bench guys. This means that there's a decent chance they haven't failed with other teams and been brought in regardless, like, say, Toronto.

Colorado: Yeah, there's a chance I could get back into them this year. They don't have the whole "Sakic/Forsberg/Bourque/Blake/Roy" thing going on that made them, along with any other team of all-stars, such an obvious choice back in 2000. They do still have Sakic, and picked up Ryan Smyth for a nice one-two punch, but beyond that...there's pretty much nothing. I think I've watched roughly half of this year's Avalanche play in the AHL. And yet, people are convinced that they'll somehow make the playoffs.

So who am I cheering for? I don't know yet. I'll watch as many games as I can of all these teams, and hopefully one will make a strong enough impression on me - and when I do make a decision, this blog will be the first to know.

--Ryan

Ain't technology something?

I can't decide what I like best about this ad. Maybe it's easier for you. Anyhow, here are some of my favourite features...

--Obviously, the fact that a cell phone once looked like that, and it was considered 'normal' is the first thing to jump out at me.

--The price of $1500 seems a little hefty, especially considering that my cell phone was free.

--The ad insinuates that, at the time, cell phones exised which did not fit into one's briefcase.

--28 ounces (almost two pounds) is considered 'lightweight'.

--Do you think anybody figured they wouldn't need the charging kit, and went back to Radio Shack a week later feeling very, very stupid?

--The one positive thing about this ad - I honestly wouldn't have guessed that something like this was available in 1988. If not for the 'New for 88' label, I'd have guessed that this was from 1993 or so.

--My favourite thing about the ad, though? Sometime, somewhere, the following conversation likely took place:

Man #1: So who do we advertise this to, anyhow?

Man #2: Everybody! There is going to come a time when everybody in the world will want one of these!

Man #3: No, no, I disagree.

Man #2: Then who would you target?

Man #3: People with boats!

Man #1: I like the way Man #3 thinks!

--Ryan

Pot calling the (Canadian) kettle black

According to the Winnipeg Free Press, Iran is distributing to all United Nations diplomats a 70-page book detailing alleged human rights violations by the Canadian government.

The most obvious point here is, as I said, obvious: what exactly is Iran hoping to accomplish by insulting the human rights record of Canada - which, while not perfect, is far, far ahead of Iran?

But is it even worth the time it would take us to argue that point? No, it's not. Why? For the answer, we must read a little deeper into the article...

"Routine unlawful strip and beatings by Canadian police has been a matter of concern for international community," notes the booklet, entitled Report on Human Rights Situation in Canada, adding that "the practice of police is alarming simply because I it is functioning as if there is no need to have judges."

Okay. Off the top of my head, I can think of the incident this summer where Toronto police clashed with a Peruvian soccer team. As a Canadian resident, I know that all reports of that incident are fairly controversial, but it was certainly an isolated incident - not an everyday occurence. Although I will admit, I can certainly conjure up a scenario in which an Iranian government official read an article on that clash and believed that to be the Canadian norm. So while this passage is obviously false, I can see where it came from. Let's move on.

"To the great dismay of the international community, it is a great concern that the rights of women are violated, and no serious attention has been paid in promotion and protection of women's rights in Canada."

Um, what? We might not have been paying much attention to womens' rights lately, but that's only because we've already more or less achieved equality. However, 'rights of women are violated'? In comparison to Iran? I don't think so! We've had a woman serve as Prime Minister! Women play various roles in all levels of business - including, albeit rarely, at the top! Women are also afforded complete equality through law, a process which I don't believe to have taken place yet in Iran. How do I know this? Well, I know a number of Canadian women who read this blog. No Iranian women read this blog. Therefore, Iranian women do not have the freedom to explore Blogspot on their own - and ergo, fewer freedoms than Canadian women.

See, Iran? I can do it too!

--Ryan

Why I love Brantford politics

I was all set to make a 'real' post this morning. Instead, I started reading the Brantford Expositor's recap of last night's all-candidates debate, and I came upon this gem.

But the event began with a little drama supplied by a sixth candidate, independent John Turmel, who was bounced from the room by two city police officers at moderator Tim Philp's request.

During candidate opening remarks, Turmel voiced his displeasure over Philp's ruling that candidates weren't allowed to sport campaign buttons or other paraphernalia, including some computer equipment the candidate wanted to use.

Turmel said he would reluctantly remove a button from his jacket, but after he made a caustic remark, Philp warned him he could be removed. After another remark, Philp summoned two constables.

"Fuhrer Philp!" Turmel shouted as the officers escorted him out.

Needless to say, I am very, very disappointed that I switched the TV from the debate to Scrubs right before this happened.

For those of you who don't know, John Turmel is the Guiness Book of World Records holder for 'most elections lost'. He ran here in last year's municipal election, and for reasons I'll never understand, withdrew his candidacy at the last minute.

That said, I think I will start referring to Philp in Hitler-like terms from now on. It seems like the right thing to do.

Better post later. Maybe.

--Ryan

Some Youtube goodness

Every once in a while, I'll be browsing around Youtube and find something too awesome not to share here. In this case, I present to you what surely must be the only time Elton John ever did a duet with Axl Rose.

Review - The Futurist

The Futurist, by James P. Othmer

Before I begin reviewing the book, I offer you a warning. I was told (by fellow blogger Dan) that this was not a good book, not even in the "so bad it's good" sense - just a plain bad book. I believed him to an extent, but I started reading it anyhow. And once I started, I just couldn't stop. I read it all the way through, and consider every moment of doing so to be wasted time. So I'm telling you the same thing - it's just simply not a good book. Please listen to the warning much more than I did.

Description of The Futurist, as found on back cover.

He once fired a man on Take Your Daughter to Work Day. He once was asked by the New York Times to write an Op-Ed piece on the death of literacy in America and had his assisstant ghostwrite it. He once began his week ringing the bell at the New York Stock Exchange and ended it giving a speech about the future of greed to a group of seminary students. He once took batting practice with the New York Mets, pretending not to notice the eight-year-old boy with leukemia from the Make-A-Wish Foundation whom the PR director let him cut in front of because he had a plane to catch. He once gave a rousing motivational talk at the base of a spouting fountain before the West Coast sales force of an erectile-dysfunction pharmaceutical maker.

Yates is a Futurist. Which is a fancy way of saying he flies around the world, lecturing various conferences, confabs, and conglomerates; dispensing prepackaged bullshit in an attempt to stay just ahead of the latest trend and claim he saw it first. But now Yates has lost faith in the very future that he's paid to sell and gives what should be a career-ending rant. Instead, a mysterious governmental group hires him to travel the globe and discover why the wotld seems to hate America.

From Middle Eastern war zones to Polynesian superluxe corporate retreats, James P. Othmer takes us on a mordantly hilarious journey through corporate double-speak and global unrest to find out the truth beneath the buzz.

Based solely on that description, it doesn't sound all that bad. Sure, Othmer is defying all conventional rules of grammar, but so am I. Obviously, "why the rest of the world hates America" should be at least fairly interesting to any Laurier Brantford student - but this is in fact an extremely minor point of the book. Furthermore, the book is actually set in the not-too-distant future (next Sunday A.D.), so it's not dealing with why the rest of the world hates America as much as it is why the rest of the world would hate America if certain scenarios played out.

Okay, well, how about the world travels? The Middle East, Polynesia, that doesn't sound too bad, right? Get an opporunity to read about some far-flung corners of the world? Well, what it doesn't tell you is that Yates (the protaganist) only visits three other locales - Iceland, Milan, and rural Pennsylvania.

Oh, what about that first paragraph? A man who is so hypocritical, so much of a sellout, that he will speak to any group of people for any occasion, and be well-received no matter what? That part of Yates never really comes up, except for more blurbs like the first paragraph there, which are contained at the beginning of every chapter.

It is not a book about the future. It is not a book about corporate evil, or governmental evil. It is not a love story. It is not a Tom Clancy-esque thriller. It is not a satire, at least not an effective one. However, it tries to contain all these elements and more - and fails miserably. To me, it seems as if Othmer had a great idea for a book (which, to be fair, it is), and didn't realize just how long a book has to be until it was far too late, so he fleshed it out as much as he could - losing any charm, wit, or intellect it might have had in the process.

One of the reviews quoted on the cover refers to The Futurist as a 'modern-day Candide'. Having read Candide, I can see three similarities:

1. The main character travels the globe.
2. Several characters, thought to be in distant places, far too isolated to play any further part in the story, make recurring appearances.
3. It does not hold up well when compared to modern books.

Candide can get away with this last point, because it remains a remarkable work by the standards of Voltaire's day. However, The Futurist was first published in 2006 - a time in which one can find far better corporate satire by simply watching an episode of The Office, for example.

Do not read this book.

--Ryan

honeygarlic.blogspot.com welcomes you!

Hello there!

Allow me to introduce myself. My name's Dan, and if you're reading this, you didn't need to be told that, because you don't really need to know who I am. What you might want to know, or at least might find vaguely humorous, is that I've decided to copy Ryan's opening paragraph to his first post. I don't really know why.

My contributions to this blog have the same hazy guidelines as any other posters'. I plan keep my posts limited to one topic per post, and not cover many tangents as my mind wanders. Such topics that I plan to post on include my insights to university life, opinions on products, thoughts on books, and perhaps (though I'll try to keep it brief) predictions for my cycle of soap operas. (Or whatever genre you would rather place "Battlestar", "Doctor Who" and "Heroes".)

We'll see how well this plays out.

I can only imagine flawlessly.

--
Dan

Welcome to honeygarlic.blogspot.com!

Hello there!

Allow me to introduce myself. My name's Ryan, and if you're reading this, you didn't need to be told that, because you know who I am. What you don't know, or at least didn't until five minutes ago, is that I've decided to start a blog. I don't really know why.

Regardless, I have a handful of ideas for things to write about, and I'm sure I'll come up with more over time. There's no strict topics I will or will not cover in this blog - music, news, politics, sports, reviews of movies/books, and general observations on life as a university student in Brantford.

It won't just be me, though - there'll be others blogging as well. Depending who you are, you might know some of them. They'll introduce themselves whenever they feel like it.

If you want to write for this blog, just drop me a line and I'll make it happen.

Thank you for making it to the end of the first post, and bon appetit!