I'm sad to admit but things have been a bit crazy lately so I haven't really been keeping up on my shows this week. Just now I'm trying to catch up on The Hour and still haven't touched Being Erica or Defying Gravity yet. It's a good thing that I have some extra time this week so that I can catch up on everything and not fall further behind.
I'm excited since today is another episode of Battle of the Blades and the competition is starting to heat up because now the hockey players are taking it much more seriously and getting more competitive which is great! Plus Strombo will be a guest judge tonight which is more of an incentive to watch. But watching the interview on The Hour with Glenn Anderson and Isabelle Brasseur, I learned something that makes me reconsider the competition. So we all saw how Glenn fell last week and it made me very sad. That damned toe pick! Originally, I was impressed since Domi was the only one still wearing hockey skates as the rest of them all switched to figure skates which is quite the adjustment for them. Then in this interview, Glenn revealed that the majority of them (excluding him and I believe he said Craig Simpson) has filed the toe pick off their skates! That seems unfair! I mean, even though Glenn fell, at least he had the decency to man up and face the toe pick. The rest just seem like cowards now. I think that they should all have to use regulartion figure skates with the toe picks. It's part of the sport. And if you fall, that's part of the sport too. Suck it up men, it's to put on the real figure skates.
p\s I just want to give a shout out to my brother. As I'm sure you all watch the Hour, remember when Stephen Lewis was on? And in his bio, there was a clip of a public service announcement with K-OS working at the Bay? Yeah, that was done by my brother's company, The Corner Store (http://www.thecornerstore.tv/ check out the Fast Food link). I don't mean my brother owns the company, he works for them so it's not "his" in the sense he owns it...this is going on too long. Anyway, good job bro!
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
If I had a million dollars
At my work, we have a lottery pool and like to discuss what we'll do when we win. What I found funny was yesterday, somehow this turned into a discussion of whether when we were rich, whether we would get coffee from Starbucks or Tim Horton's. Their conversation was actually about the type and quality of the coffee but seeing as I don't drink coffee, it didn't mean much to me. At first, I agreed that I would go to Starbucks since I love the green tea fraps and recently addicted to chai lattes. But then I realized that nothing would ever really replace a iced cap or sour cream glazed donut in my heart. And I have a feeling that no matter how rich we are, we would still go to Tim Horton's. I mean, of course we would, we would just go more.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Final 4
So it's official: SYTYCD-C is down to four. I'm happy with all but 1 of the 4. I dislike Jayme Rae and would be kinda upset if she won. And I think she should have gone home tonight and that Melanie should still be here. But here's what I find funny. Out of the 5 people I originally said I liked, 4 of them made it to the top 10 and 2 of them are still in the running to become Canada's favourite dancer (...okay, I still think that's a bit of a lame title. I think they should have gone with something like "Supreme Dancer of Canada"). And that's why you should always pick people based on their looks. I'm just surprised since usually Canada and I are on different sides. This was how it usually worked with Canadian Idol (except for Brian Melo, we all agreed on him). But here, I have pretty much agreed with each elimination (except for Melanie. See above).
My pick to win? Either Vincent or Tara-Jean. I just love his hips so much! Mesmorizing really. Even though I do love Everett a lot, I would probably pick Vincent. And I think Tara-Jean has really been awesome the past couple of weeks and really shown that she wants and deserve it.
But will I vote at all next week to have my say in who should be Canada's favourite dancer? No. It's a proud Canadian tradition to be apathetic. I'll just save my votes for when Harper tries for a majority.
My pick to win? Either Vincent or Tara-Jean. I just love his hips so much! Mesmorizing really. Even though I do love Everett a lot, I would probably pick Vincent. And I think Tara-Jean has really been awesome the past couple of weeks and really shown that she wants and deserve it.
But will I vote at all next week to have my say in who should be Canada's favourite dancer? No. It's a proud Canadian tradition to be apathetic. I'll just save my votes for when Harper tries for a majority.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The Listener
I spent most of yesterday doing absolutely nothing. It was wonderful. But I was also catching up on CTV's The Listener. And it wasn't as terrible as I thought it was.
I will admit. I unfairly judged the show. Mostly because of SNL. They did a skit once mocking The Closer, by having a man dressed as Penny Marshall starring as The Looker (really terrible quality but here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ljinko1KCA&feature=PlayList&p=E750B66F70A0BC37&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=6_). And whenever I heard "The Listener," that's what I think of.
Overall, I'm impressed with the show but we all know that's not the interesting part so here are the problems I have with it:
As much as I love a man in uniform (especially when it's Craig Olejnik), Toby completely oversteps the boundaries of being a paramedic. I'm pretty sure the police would have been much more violent towards him than just the distain Charlie shows towards him. And as a character, he seems kinda one dimensional. I dig the dark, mysterious and brooding man but I find him kinda flat at times. I would just like to see him happy every once and a while.
What I do like? That his best friend Oz is Turkish and his love interest Olivia is Asian. How Canadian. And Toby's apartment. And that in the one shot, you could see the spot where I used to wait for the bus all the time. It was good times. Generally I'm not a fan of cop shows (you notice the lack of Flashpoint and The Border in this blog) but I do like the twist that he is a telepath. That keeps me interested. And how did I get this far without mentioning Colm Feore? I love that man.
I will admit. I unfairly judged the show. Mostly because of SNL. They did a skit once mocking The Closer, by having a man dressed as Penny Marshall starring as The Looker (really terrible quality but here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ljinko1KCA&feature=PlayList&p=E750B66F70A0BC37&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=6_). And whenever I heard "The Listener," that's what I think of.
Overall, I'm impressed with the show but we all know that's not the interesting part so here are the problems I have with it:
As much as I love a man in uniform (especially when it's Craig Olejnik), Toby completely oversteps the boundaries of being a paramedic. I'm pretty sure the police would have been much more violent towards him than just the distain Charlie shows towards him. And as a character, he seems kinda one dimensional. I dig the dark, mysterious and brooding man but I find him kinda flat at times. I would just like to see him happy every once and a while.
What I do like? That his best friend Oz is Turkish and his love interest Olivia is Asian. How Canadian. And Toby's apartment. And that in the one shot, you could see the spot where I used to wait for the bus all the time. It was good times. Generally I'm not a fan of cop shows (you notice the lack of Flashpoint and The Border in this blog) but I do like the twist that he is a telepath. That keeps me interested. And how did I get this far without mentioning Colm Feore? I love that man.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Giving Thanks
It seems appropriate that on this Thanksgiving weekend, we take time to appreciate things in our lives. Besides all the family, friends and all that jazz, I think we should all give thanks for local TV. Hopefully by now, you've all seen the commercials for Local TV Matters. These revolve around the fee-for-carriage issue. Now originally, it took me a long time wrap my head around this idea (and I don't really know why, apparently I'm just slow). But essentially, the traditional broadcasters (CBC, CTV, Global) want the cable and satellite companies to have to pay to carry their signal. These companies have to pay to carry American stations like CNN and HBO etc but the traditional Canadian broadcasters don't get anything. And what is the response from the cable companies? "If we have to start paying to carry these signals, we're going to pass the cost onto the customers!"
When I first heard about this issue, I assumed the cable companies would win and the networks would get screwed. But now I'm not thinking it will end like this. This commercial campaign is first of all, going to (hopefully) get the public on their side. Everyone already hates most cable companies already (personally, I'm already not a fan of Rogers...) and the possibility of having to pay more for cable. But the truth is, with all the different local stations that have had to close over this year, I think people are actually paying attention this time around. Especially since even during times of economic crisis, people aren't canceling their cable since that's their escape from the real world. So while the networks growing through a crisis because of the economy and lack of ad revenue (damn you internet!), the cable companies are still in a good place.
What I find most awesome about these commercials? Most people are watching these commercials on their cable! The cable companies have to carry these networks and so in fact, the cable companies have to air these commercials against themselves. Frankly, if I didn't have cable, I wouldn't have seen these commercials at all.
Plus the networks have a catchy song: http://localtvmatters.ca/. What have the cable companies got?
When I first heard about this issue, I assumed the cable companies would win and the networks would get screwed. But now I'm not thinking it will end like this. This commercial campaign is first of all, going to (hopefully) get the public on their side. Everyone already hates most cable companies already (personally, I'm already not a fan of Rogers...) and the possibility of having to pay more for cable. But the truth is, with all the different local stations that have had to close over this year, I think people are actually paying attention this time around. Especially since even during times of economic crisis, people aren't canceling their cable since that's their escape from the real world. So while the networks growing through a crisis because of the economy and lack of ad revenue (damn you internet!), the cable companies are still in a good place.
What I find most awesome about these commercials? Most people are watching these commercials on their cable! The cable companies have to carry these networks and so in fact, the cable companies have to air these commercials against themselves. Frankly, if I didn't have cable, I wouldn't have seen these commercials at all.
Plus the networks have a catchy song: http://localtvmatters.ca/. What have the cable companies got?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Who killed JR? (Er, I mean Canadian History)
For this Thanksgiving weekend, since I doubt there is much Canadian programming going on (I have chosen to listen to music and clean instead of watching TV), what is better than to take a look at Canadian history?
I just finished reading J.L. Granatstein's "Who Killed Canadian History?" and it is a really interesting read. For the most part, I find myself agreeing with him though at times, I feel dirty about it since he can go further and ends up sounding like my father or grandfather. Basically, the argument is that Canadian history is not being taught in schools as much as it should be and that when it is taught, it's not done properly. Mostly it's now through the many social, politically correct lens that permate academia. So we don't learn so much about the different battles of WWI but the roles of women and minorities during the war. Who needs to learn about a bunch of old dead white men anyway?
The problem with this? Most of the history is made by old dead white men and it's hard to ignore that. Yes, we need to learn about those who didn't have any power and what they still managed to accomplish that but I don't think we need to throw out all the facts that those old men did too. It needs to be taught in context, to understand why there were no 'mothers' of confederation but still teach who the fathers of confederation were too.
The other really interesting point that he raises and I agree with him on the most part (I'm hesitant with how far he goes with some of the examples sometimes...) is that Canadians have a habit of painting our history with the darkest brush. We never commited any sort of genocide. We didn't start any major wars. We fought when we needed to fight but we didn't go killing sprees all the time. Yes, there are blemishes on our record and these need to taught. But there is no way that the fact that we turned away Jewish immigrants during WWII makes us as bad as the Nazis. We should be proud of our history when compared with those of other nations, instead of trying to bring ourselves down to their levels. It's like being the smartest kid in school but not wanting to draw attention to it so we downplay our marks. That A doesn't really mean anything. Yes, the treatment of the Natives was terrible. But did we try to turn it into a genocide? No (well, not actively anyway. The diseases the Europeans brought weren't exactly a great welcoming present). There just needs to be a better perspective on our history.
I think the best way to put is, in Granatstein's words, we have "a generally usuable past" and we need to utilize it properly.
I just finished reading J.L. Granatstein's "Who Killed Canadian History?" and it is a really interesting read. For the most part, I find myself agreeing with him though at times, I feel dirty about it since he can go further and ends up sounding like my father or grandfather. Basically, the argument is that Canadian history is not being taught in schools as much as it should be and that when it is taught, it's not done properly. Mostly it's now through the many social, politically correct lens that permate academia. So we don't learn so much about the different battles of WWI but the roles of women and minorities during the war. Who needs to learn about a bunch of old dead white men anyway?
The problem with this? Most of the history is made by old dead white men and it's hard to ignore that. Yes, we need to learn about those who didn't have any power and what they still managed to accomplish that but I don't think we need to throw out all the facts that those old men did too. It needs to be taught in context, to understand why there were no 'mothers' of confederation but still teach who the fathers of confederation were too.
The other really interesting point that he raises and I agree with him on the most part (I'm hesitant with how far he goes with some of the examples sometimes...) is that Canadians have a habit of painting our history with the darkest brush. We never commited any sort of genocide. We didn't start any major wars. We fought when we needed to fight but we didn't go killing sprees all the time. Yes, there are blemishes on our record and these need to taught. But there is no way that the fact that we turned away Jewish immigrants during WWII makes us as bad as the Nazis. We should be proud of our history when compared with those of other nations, instead of trying to bring ourselves down to their levels. It's like being the smartest kid in school but not wanting to draw attention to it so we downplay our marks. That A doesn't really mean anything. Yes, the treatment of the Natives was terrible. But did we try to turn it into a genocide? No (well, not actively anyway. The diseases the Europeans brought weren't exactly a great welcoming present). There just needs to be a better perspective on our history.
I think the best way to put is, in Granatstein's words, we have "a generally usuable past" and we need to utilize it properly.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
TD CBC?
You know, if the CBC wasn't the public broadcaster, I would think it had been bought by TD. Seriously?
(1) As previously mentioned, the whole Little Mosque - TD scene.
(2) TD now sponsors "The World of Good News" for The Hour.
(3) On Being Erica, Judith's husband not only works for TD but had to give a speech with large TD banners behind him. And the large green chair. And the point of the speech? "Promoting diversity in the TD Canada workplace."
...And all of this was just in one week. I mean, I know that neither of the two scripted shows revolved around TD and it would have been easy to slip in references to the bank into the shows. But I find that once shows actually start inserting the names of products in the shows (without the type of ironic self-awareness as in shows like 30 Rock) it becomes too much. It's a dangerous road, CBC. Please be careful.
I really wonder what kind of deal the CBC struck with TD.
(1) As previously mentioned, the whole Little Mosque - TD scene.
(2) TD now sponsors "The World of Good News" for The Hour.
(3) On Being Erica, Judith's husband not only works for TD but had to give a speech with large TD banners behind him. And the large green chair. And the point of the speech? "Promoting diversity in the TD Canada workplace."
...And all of this was just in one week. I mean, I know that neither of the two scripted shows revolved around TD and it would have been easy to slip in references to the bank into the shows. But I find that once shows actually start inserting the names of products in the shows (without the type of ironic self-awareness as in shows like 30 Rock) it becomes too much. It's a dangerous road, CBC. Please be careful.
I really wonder what kind of deal the CBC struck with TD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
