Why does every Zellers smell EXACTLY the same? I swear, it's like they have the scent bottled and every night, before going home, the employees are required to spray a fresh batch.
I really can't think of any other department store that has its own unique scent...
Explanations, theories and hypothoses -- practical or otherwise -- are welcome.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Christmas Shopping
*deep breath in*
I am about to venture into the evil abyss of consumerism that is the local mall. I long for the day when I can dump this 'tradition' altogether, but for the time, it remains a necessary evil. Lately, I've been working on having a more generous attitude towards other people (even the moronic imbeciles, of which there are many) and trying to ward off my creeping cynicism and general antipathy - so, I have developed a little bit of a strategy to aid me in this descent to the underworld:
First of all, I'm going to take my MP3 player and listen to my own, chilled out soundtrack (so as to avoid the inevitable, incessant Christmas carols and general crowd noise). I also plan to walk deliberately slowly -- after all, I'm not actually in a rush, so there's no need to get caught up in the crowd. That's all I got really...walk slowly, listen to some good tunes, but hopefully it will help. Wish me luck!
*submerges self into holiday consumerism*
I am about to venture into the evil abyss of consumerism that is the local mall. I long for the day when I can dump this 'tradition' altogether, but for the time, it remains a necessary evil. Lately, I've been working on having a more generous attitude towards other people (even the moronic imbeciles, of which there are many) and trying to ward off my creeping cynicism and general antipathy - so, I have developed a little bit of a strategy to aid me in this descent to the underworld:
First of all, I'm going to take my MP3 player and listen to my own, chilled out soundtrack (so as to avoid the inevitable, incessant Christmas carols and general crowd noise). I also plan to walk deliberately slowly -- after all, I'm not actually in a rush, so there's no need to get caught up in the crowd. That's all I got really...walk slowly, listen to some good tunes, but hopefully it will help. Wish me luck!
*submerges self into holiday consumerism*
Monday, December 18, 2006
Eh?
Can someone explain this to me? I mean, I guess it has to be more complicated than pulling down the pants to check, but I just have no concept of what that is. What decides a gender, scientifically?
EDIT: Nevermind, I googled "gender test" and came across this. It's actually quite informative!
EDIT: Nevermind, I googled "gender test" and came across this. It's actually quite informative!
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Christmas Spectacular
Exactly one year ago today, I posted the audio from a Family Guy episode -- well, that was before youtube took off, so this year, you get the audio AND video. What can I say? I'm a generous guy...
Holiday Cheer
You all know I'm not a huge fan of Conservatives, but it's nice to see that even they have a good heart around Christmas time. Bravo!
Friday, December 08, 2006
Story comparison
Again, because I like this sort of thing, let's compare some stories in the media today:
I first noticed that the BBC had an article entitled "Ex-Iraq hostages forgive their captors" The first two paragraphs of the online article read:
Three peace campaigners who were taken hostage say they "unconditionally" forgive their Iraqi captors.
The article also quotes the men as requesting "all possible leniency" for their captors, and that they have "no desire for retribution." Finally, it ends with "A fourth captive, American Tom Fox, was found shot dead in Baghdad in March."
Now, the BBC is a state-owned corporation which is the largest broadcasting corporation in the world, and generally thought to be somewhat left-leaning. The BBC website also has links to articles from other news agencies on the same story. Let's compare to the one by Sky News (sister channel of Fox News in the US) which is owned by Rupert Murdoch and considered to be more right-leaning.
The first thing I would like to draw your attention to in
Now, I am a biased commentator, and make no claims to hide this fact. I strongly agree with the position of the captives, and I much prefer the BBC's style of reporting to Sky News. My argument -- which you are free to agree or disagree with -- is that by framing the event in the way that they have, Sky News is appealing to xenophobia within the UK, while at the same time arranging quotes in such a way that the position of the captives looks foolish. To be fair, this is never stated outright, and it could very well just be me projecting my own preconceptions onto the story. Let's take that closing line as an example though: "He faced criticism for his apparently dismissive attitude towards the troops who had risked their own lives to save him."
While there is nothing wrong with including criticism in a journalistic article, by ending with it, the critics are given the 'last word,' quite literally. Also, while there is nothing factually wrong with the statement about the troops risking their own lives, it plays into that "patriotic, you-must-support-the-troops" mentality. It suggests that he OUGHT to be thankful they risked their lives to save him. But then, why do you think he was dismissive (not even dismissive, apparently dismissive)? Perhaps because he was a PEACEMAKER whose goal in Iraq was to LESSEN violence. He was prepared to become a martyr for his cause. It's not surprising then, that he wasn't thrilled to be saved by people using guns.
Like I've said, these are just my opinions and you are free to disagree with them. In fact, I would love to hear comments from people who DO disagree.
Finally, the story in the Daily Mail (arguably the most right-wing paper/tabloid in the UK) doesn't even MENTION that the captives forgive their kidnappers. In fact, the story is titled "Kember in first reunion with fellow hostages" Not once does the article mention forgiveness, only that "they are understood to be very concerned the accused may face the death penalty for the kidnapping." In some ways this version of the story sits better with me than the Sky News one, because it doesn't come off as demonizing the subjects. On the other hand, it's even more frustrating because it ignores their message completely! They choose to simply not report forgiveness. Such dissent towards the modern implementation of the Military-Industrial Complex is effectively censored by this publication. Thankfully we live in a free society where we have access to other various versions of the same news.
I first noticed that the BBC had an article entitled "Ex-Iraq hostages forgive their captors" The first two paragraphs of the online article read:
Three peace campaigners who were taken hostage say they "unconditionally" forgive their Iraqi captors.
Briton Norman Kember and Canadians James Loney and Harmeet Singh Sooden said they opposed the death penalty for the hostage-takers.
The article also quotes the men as requesting "all possible leniency" for their captors, and that they have "no desire for retribution." Finally, it ends with "A fourth captive, American Tom Fox, was found shot dead in Baghdad in March."
Now, the BBC is a state-owned corporation which is the largest broadcasting corporation in the world, and generally thought to be somewhat left-leaning. The BBC website also has links to articles from other news agencies on the same story. Let's compare to the one by Sky News (sister channel of Fox News in the US) which is owned by Rupert Murdoch and considered to be more right-leaning.
The first thing I would like to draw your attention to in
Now, I am a biased commentator, and make no claims to hide this fact. I strongly agree with the position of the captives, and I much prefer the BBC's style of reporting to Sky News. My argument -- which you are free to agree or disagree with -- is that by framing the event in the way that they have, Sky News is appealing to xenophobia within the UK, while at the same time arranging quotes in such a way that the position of the captives looks foolish. To be fair, this is never stated outright, and it could very well just be me projecting my own preconceptions onto the story. Let's take that closing line as an example though: "He faced criticism for his apparently dismissive attitude towards the troops who had risked their own lives to save him."
While there is nothing wrong with including criticism in a journalistic article, by ending with it, the critics are given the 'last word,' quite literally. Also, while there is nothing factually wrong with the statement about the troops risking their own lives, it plays into that "patriotic, you-must-support-the-troops" mentality. It suggests that he OUGHT to be thankful they risked their lives to save him. But then, why do you think he was dismissive (not even dismissive, apparently dismissive)? Perhaps because he was a PEACEMAKER whose goal in Iraq was to LESSEN violence. He was prepared to become a martyr for his cause. It's not surprising then, that he wasn't thrilled to be saved by people using guns.
Like I've said, these are just my opinions and you are free to disagree with them. In fact, I would love to hear comments from people who DO disagree.
Finally, the story in the Daily Mail (arguably the most right-wing paper/tabloid in the UK) doesn't even MENTION that the captives forgive their kidnappers. In fact, the story is titled "Kember in first reunion with fellow hostages" Not once does the article mention forgiveness, only that "they are understood to be very concerned the accused may face the death penalty for the kidnapping." In some ways this version of the story sits better with me than the Sky News one, because it doesn't come off as demonizing the subjects. On the other hand, it's even more frustrating because it ignores their message completely! They choose to simply not report forgiveness. Such dissent towards the modern implementation of the Military-Industrial Complex is effectively censored by this publication. Thankfully we live in a free society where we have access to other various versions of the same news.
$1,000,000,000 For Peace
I'm not saying I am for or against this, but I certainly find it very interesting...
Take a few minutes and watch (or go here to see the original page)
Take a few minutes and watch (or go here to see the original page)
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Nuclear Suffering
I was very disappointed to hear about Tony Blair's plans to spend £20,000,000 on upgrading Britain's nuclear arsenal (despite cutting the stock by 20%). However I was somewhat buoyed by the Archbishop of Canterbury's response.
I have already shared my own responses to the Peace Memorial Museum in Hiroshima, however I would like to amend that I think that ANY leader making ANY decision regarding the funding or improvement of a nuclear program should be made to walk through said museum and consider the real, practical implications of not just using, but owning nuclear weapons. I understand the whole deterrence argument (which I'm not even sure I agree with), but in this specific case, Britain already has the deterrent -- Blair just wants to pump money into making sure they work properly in case Kim Jong-Il (or some other nutjob) goes off the deep-end. However, Kim Jong-Il has clearly proved that he doesn't care about his people, so he probably wouldn't care if a few hundred-thousand died a slow, painful death. Hell, it is likely that they already are at this very moment! In my mind it is so, SO hypocritical for developed nations to decry terrorism while simultaneously owning a weapon which kills civilians indiscriminantly. But enough preaching from me, the real purpose of this entry was to share pictures that I couldn't upload before.
Diorama of city immediately before bombing
I have already shared my own responses to the Peace Memorial Museum in Hiroshima, however I would like to amend that I think that ANY leader making ANY decision regarding the funding or improvement of a nuclear program should be made to walk through said museum and consider the real, practical implications of not just using, but owning nuclear weapons. I understand the whole deterrence argument (which I'm not even sure I agree with), but in this specific case, Britain already has the deterrent -- Blair just wants to pump money into making sure they work properly in case Kim Jong-Il (or some other nutjob) goes off the deep-end. However, Kim Jong-Il has clearly proved that he doesn't care about his people, so he probably wouldn't care if a few hundred-thousand died a slow, painful death. Hell, it is likely that they already are at this very moment! In my mind it is so, SO hypocritical for developed nations to decry terrorism while simultaneously owning a weapon which kills civilians indiscriminantly. But enough preaching from me, the real purpose of this entry was to share pictures that I couldn't upload before.
Diorama of city immediately before bombing
Diorama of city immediately after bombing
I just found out that you can take a virtual tour of the museum here. It doesn't have nearly the same impact as seeing it in person, but it'll give you an idea. Here are some of the more powerful images from their site:
Sculptures of children with melting skin
Actual uniform of a female student who lived for the rest of the day then died that evening
The steps of a bank where someone was sitting when the bomb exploded. All that's left is their shadow.
I am loathe to do this because I think some people might not watch, however I really believe these are important images to see....but anyway, the next slideshow contains really graphic pictures. Now that you've been warned, please don't take the easy way out.
That about says it all.
Sculptures of children with melting skin
Actual uniform of a female student who lived for the rest of the day then died that evening
The steps of a bank where someone was sitting when the bomb exploded. All that's left is their shadow.
I am loathe to do this because I think some people might not watch, however I really believe these are important images to see....but anyway, the next slideshow contains really graphic pictures. Now that you've been warned, please don't take the easy way out.
That about says it all.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Musical Origins
Left to my own devices, I always seem to put myself onto weird sleep patterns - hence why it is now 3am and I'm not feeling tired.
Anyway, I was laying in bed with the lights off, listening to some relaxing instrumentals by various Icelandic bands when it struck me what a disproportionate amount of Icelandic music I have on my MP3 player. Or at least, what I assumed was a disproportionate amount. So, not being able to sleep, I decided to go through my MP3 player and document where each band was from, and then compare the data. Before we get to that though, a little info about my (extremely simple) methods: I only counted each artist once, regardless of how many or few albums I had by them and I only included artists of whom I have full albums - mixed albums and singles weren't included (not that I have very many of those on there anyways). Also, in cases where the band was from various countries I referred to Wikipedia or just went with where ever they were most prominently based. Finally, I fancy myself to be pretty clever and know a whole lot of things, but it is quite possible that I simply assumed an artist or band to be from some place when in fact they are from another place entirely. Basically what I'm trying to say is that this data isn't very accurate and that I wouldn't draw any serious conclusions from it (plus I switch stuff up on there all the time, so this will be correct for, y'know, the next 12 hours or so). I'm not trying to 'prove' anything about my musical tastes either - in fact you'll see from the results that they are fairly homogenous. Pretty much I was just bored and trying to kill time in order to get to sleep.
Ok, so here are the numbers, in descending order:
American - 45
Canadian - 23
British - 23
Icelandic - 5
Swedish - 2
Australian - 2
Norwegian - 1
Irish - 1
Jamaican - 1
I did think it was kinda neat, however, that if you combine the brits and canadians, you eke the americans out by 1 ;)
You can probably guess the Irish and Jamaican bands, but anyone wanna take a stab at the Norwegian(s)?
Anyway, I was laying in bed with the lights off, listening to some relaxing instrumentals by various Icelandic bands when it struck me what a disproportionate amount of Icelandic music I have on my MP3 player. Or at least, what I assumed was a disproportionate amount. So, not being able to sleep, I decided to go through my MP3 player and document where each band was from, and then compare the data. Before we get to that though, a little info about my (extremely simple) methods: I only counted each artist once, regardless of how many or few albums I had by them and I only included artists of whom I have full albums - mixed albums and singles weren't included (not that I have very many of those on there anyways). Also, in cases where the band was from various countries I referred to Wikipedia or just went with where ever they were most prominently based. Finally, I fancy myself to be pretty clever and know a whole lot of things, but it is quite possible that I simply assumed an artist or band to be from some place when in fact they are from another place entirely. Basically what I'm trying to say is that this data isn't very accurate and that I wouldn't draw any serious conclusions from it (plus I switch stuff up on there all the time, so this will be correct for, y'know, the next 12 hours or so). I'm not trying to 'prove' anything about my musical tastes either - in fact you'll see from the results that they are fairly homogenous. Pretty much I was just bored and trying to kill time in order to get to sleep.
Ok, so here are the numbers, in descending order:
American - 45
Canadian - 23
British - 23
Icelandic - 5
Swedish - 2
Australian - 2
Norwegian - 1
Irish - 1
Jamaican - 1
I did think it was kinda neat, however, that if you combine the brits and canadians, you eke the americans out by 1 ;)
You can probably guess the Irish and Jamaican bands, but anyone wanna take a stab at the Norwegian(s)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
