I wish I'd thought of that

...more for the infamy than the mark, of course.

--Ryan

Back to the future

(On a completely irrelevant note, this is the 152nd post in the history of this blog. We now outnumber the original batch of Pokemon. Unless you count Missingno.)

The Toronto Blue Jays, who have allegedly been underachieving for the past month, made a surprise move on Friday. They fired manager John Gibbons, and replaced him with Cito Gaston, who managed the team from 1989 to 1997. Moreover, he brought back former early-90s Jays coaches Gene Tenace and Nick Leyva with him.

To say this was surreal would be an understatement. Looking at the reactions from Batter's Box, I find it hilarious to see how many of them mirrored my own. "Gibbons fired? About time. Cito's back? That's weird. Leyva and Tenace? It must be April Fools' Day in some part of the world."

All in all, I suppose I'm in favour of this move. The team wasn't playing well, and whether it's Gibbons' fault or not, conventional wisdom is that the manager is the first to go. This is especially true in cases where the team is doing much worse than expectations (despite generally being predicted to finish the year in second or third, they were in last place).

As for using Cito as the replacement - well, why not? The other obvious candidate was coach Brian Butterfield, and the outside perception of him is that he wouldn't be much different from Gibbons. Cito has plenty of upside - the two biggest parts being the obvious PR boost, and the fact that he's done this before. When he took over from Jimy Williams in 1989, the team was underachieving quite a bit - players clashing with the manager, and nobody able to explain why they weren't winning more. Sound familiar?

The really interesting thing here is this: there is no way JP Ricciardi decided to replace John Gibbons with Cito Gaston. Ricciardi has shown that he likes managers he can control, managers who will generally do whatever he tells them. Cito is not such a manager. This means two things - JP is feeling enough pressure on *his* job that he's willing to do what his superiors tell him, and Paul Godfrey is feeling like HE needs to start doing something.

Although the JP Ricciardi era in Toronto started with promise ("I can replace half your roster with guys you've never heard of, and get the same level of performance for half the cost"), the last few years have been more like Gord Ash: The Sequel. Overpaying for average free agents, poor trades, and the emergence of the "if you throw enough at the wall, something will stick" philosophy. It didn't work for DHs in the late 90s (Geronimo Berroa? Ruben Sierra? Dave Hollins?), and it's not working for starting pitchers for JP. Despite the fact that he's signed several veteran pitchers in the last couple years (Burnett, Thomson, Ohka, Zambrano, Benitez, etc.), the Jays' best pitchers are the ones who have come up through the minor leagues - many of whom were around long before JP.

Changes are coming to the Toronto Blue Jays. It's about time. Until then, welcome back Cito.

--Ryan

P.S. I can't make a post about the Jays without including this. The video's not important, just the song.

It's a carbon tax; it's a tax on carbon

I could be writing about the economy. Or baseball. Or a behavioural analysis of people in 1974. (These are all forthcoming.) However, there's another issue dominating the news which I'd like to talk about - Stephane Dion's carbon tax proposal.

I have to say, it's actually a great idea. Dion proposes to put huge taxes on all fossil fuels, as well as - and this is the important part - cut income taxes to the extent that the average Canadian will actually be paying *fewer* taxes under the plan than they are now. The only people really getting screwed are the corporations, and Liberals like to screw corporations, so there's no problem there.

The best part? Unlike anything the Conservatives have been able to come up with, or any of the rhetoric flying around the public discourse, this plan will lead to actual changes in our energy-using habits. And by "us", I don't mean Canadians as some sort of abstract quantity (which is what it's been thus far), but rather you, me, your neighbours, my co-workers, and the people in the next car to drive by your house. We're actually going to have to change what we do. And we're going to make a difference.

(Of course, the Conservatives will fight the next election on "YOU'LL HAVE TO PAY TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS MORE TO HEAT YOUR HOUSE", conveniently ignore the income tax cuts, and win another minority. Such is life.)

--Ryan

Great comedians

When a comedian is asked to fill for time at a large music event, there are three possible outcomes...

A bad comedian will spend the time talking about how he was asked to fill for time and really isn't that good at it.

A good comedian will tell jokes.

A great comedian will get the crowd to sing 'Is This The Way To Amarillo?' and then introduce the wrong band.

--Ryan

Get Smart New Previews

Less than one week before the official release of Get Smart, upcoming spy comedy starring Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway. The promotion of the movie is in full gear.

That's why we have a new set of Get Smart preview clips:


Sorry about that, Chief!
When Control is attacked, Maxwell Smart (Steve Carell) and Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway) go on the offensive.



Swordfish
Max (Steve Carell) nearly gets the Chief (Alan Arkin) impaled.



Missed it.
Max (Steve Carell) and Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway) attempt to swing to safety.


Something Extra...
Maxwell Smart (Steve Carell) has a plan to get past the guards.


On the same page...
Maxwell Smart (Steve Carell) is misunderstood when he tries to get information.


Flame thrower.
Bruce (Masi Oka) and Lloyd (Nate Torrence) give Max (Steve Carell) a gift.


Makes sense.
Maxwell Smart (Steve Carell) tries to convince Siegfried (Terrence Stamp) he is not from Control.


Be right back.
99 (Anne Hathaway) discovers that Max (Steve Carell) is falling without a parachute.
Looks like Steve Carrel's has successfully revamped the 1960's show in this cinema adaptation of Get Smart. Must admit that some of the jokes made me laugh out loud, even if some are quite dumb.
:=))

Weighing in on the below...

Stephen Colbert has something to say about The Song Formerly Known As The Hockey Night In Canada Theme.

I still prefer Jon Stewart most of the time.

Dun da dun ba dun...

If nothing else, we Canadians are a compassionate people - at least when it comes to hockey.

It will surely come as a shock to any non-Canadians reading this that Monday's announcement of CTV/TSN purchasing the rights to "The Hockey Song", ending its forty-year association with CBC's Hockey Night in Canada, was literally front-page news across the country.

Perhaps this shock can be explained by the fact that no other country has such a significant portion of their national identity comprised of a commercial song (Sweden and anything by ABBA notwithstanding). In fact, in the book How To Be A Canadian, authors Will and Ian Ferguson note that "the theme song from Hockey Night In Canada has more resonance among Canadians than any other piece of music". However, they go on to explain that, due to worries of political incorrectness in words such as "native" and "sons", the opening lines to 'O Canada' were changed to "Louie Louie, whoa-oh-oh, we gotta go, yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah", so there might be a credibility issue here.

(I believe in full disclosure. I also believe that How To Be A Canadian is a very funny book; you should read it.)

On a more personal level, I was a high school band geek. In four years, I probably played hundreds of different pieces. However, I can only recall two Canadian ones (the 'Lord of the Rings' soundtrack, although composed by a Canadian, doesn't count) - Maple Leaf Rag, and 'Hockey Night In Canada Theme', which I guess will need to be retitled now. Guess which one was a favourite of the entire class?

This is literally nothing other than CTV/TSN spending $2.5-million to laugh in CBC's face. If you wanted more proof of that, turn on TSN - they seem to be playing it every time they get the chance. I'm amazed they don't just have a loop of it running in the background, really.

There is one other scenario here - if they offered a lot of money, CBC could theoretically still lease the song from CTV, the way they were with the original owners. However, since it'd be taxpayer money, I don't see that happening.

The best news? We don't have to hear TSN's hockey theme anymore.

--Ryan

I'm good at faking it

(Because if there's one thing this blog needs, it's double-entendres in the subject line.)

Most of the time, I'm not a soccer fan. I've tried several times to watch Toronto FC games, but I just can't get into them. Ditto for the Premiership, where I've randomly picked both Arsenal and Newcastle as teams to root for. And I'm not about to try watching Italian or German domestic soccer.

However, all that seems to go out the window when international play is involved. I have no problem watching a meaningful Canada game without falling asleep, and the same goes for the two major international competitions - the World Cup and the European Championships.

And those of you who follow soccer are now probably able to figure out what I'm talking about - the Euros start tomorrow.

I'm not going to even try and guess who will win - the last tournament, in 2004, was won by Greece. The pre-tournament odds of Greece winning the whole thing were 100-1, or longer than they are for ANY country this year.

My question is this - who do I root for? There's a really simple way to do it...process of elimination.

I don't want to cheer for any team that's easy to support, because they always do well. So there goes France, Italy, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands.

I also won't go for any team that does well in hockey, because I'd never cheer for them there. Sorry Sweden, Russia, and the Czech Republic - maybe next time.

Greece and Portugal are out due to their success in 2004, it'd be too easy to cheer for them now.

Austria and Romania are out because I really don't expect either of them to advance past the first round. I like the underdog, but not the overwhelming one.

So who am I left with? Switzerland, Turkey, Croatia, and Poland.

From there, I have no trouble picking two teams. In the 2006 World Cup, Switzerland was my team. They didn't make it as far as I'd hoped, but they were the team I was cheering for from the beginning. So they're in. And so is Poland, because I have Polish ancestry (my German ancestry does not trump my desire not to bandwagon, and Ireland didn't qualify).

Both countries definitely fulfill the underdog role - Switzerland has never advanced past the quarter-finals in the World Cup, and only qualified for two previous Euros (neither of which they got past the group stage). For their part, Poland did have a couple third-place World Cup finishes (1974 and 1982), but have been largely subpar ever since - and have never even made the Euros.

Is it cheating to cheer for two teams? I hope not. I'll probably narrow it down to one after watching a game of each anyhow.

--Ryan

Obama-rama

It's not *too* late to talk about Obama's big win on Tuesday, is it?

For those of you who stopped paying attention months ago, it's now official - Barack Obama against John McCain in November - winner gets to be President, loser gets to be irrelevant (as the Leader of the Opposition doesn't exist in the US the way it does here).

The good news for all of us is that American politics will simmer down for the bulk of the summer - they'll each name their VPs at some point, and then things'll pick back up around August.

If cynicism has taught me anything, the Republicans will spend the break looking for ways to tarnish Obama's image, while the Democrats will come up with policy ideas (something Obama needs to win the general election, he can't just coast on 'change' in November).

I should probably have more to say here, but I don't. Not sure whether it's my return to full-time work, or just the nomination process having gone on for so long, but I legitimately don't feel like writing any more about this subject. I'm really only doing this much because I didn't want it to pass unmentioned.

--Ryan

Get Smart New Trailer

Get Smart is a new comedy movie adapted on the famous TV show from the 1960's. It's a kind of spy movie spoof. The film is starring Steve Carell, Anne Hathaway and Dwayne Johnson aka The Rock.

A new trailer is available for Get Smart, here it is:

Some nice jokes in this Get Smart Trailer. A good comedy ahead then!

By the way in case you don't know:
Kim Jong-il is the current dictator at the head of North Korea. He inherited the job from his father. The guy is a real bastard who let the population starve to death while he drinks imported whisky... He's got an ugly soul matched by an even uglier fat face...
May the people of North Korea be able to crush him one day!

Just to see how careless he is about his country:

Many lights in South Kore at night, but almost none in Kim Jong-il's domain in the North. While South Korea has developped and embraced democracy, North Korea under the dictatorship has just fallen in a rut of poverty and starvation...
;-)

Get Smart Preview Clip

Get Smart, upcoming comedy starring Steve Carell and the sexy Anne Hathaway, is going to be released in June. It's a cinema adaptation of the famous TV show from the 1960's.

Here below the first Get Smart preview clip:


When Control is attacked, Agent 86 Maxwell Smart (Steve Carell) and Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway) go on the offensive.
I think about Murphy's law when I watch this stupid secret agent: if something can go wrong, then it will. Agent 86 (Steve Carrell) should adopt this law as his own motto!

A new clip with Dwayne Johnson, aka The Rock, has shown up:


Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson staples David Koechner's forehead.
Yeap, The Rock is the smartest guy in this movie! Unbelievable!
:)