get me some wiid

as of late, i've been campaigning my wife to buy a wii. i really think she'll like it as it isn't the video game system she knows and doesn't really dig. so i've had to find ways to finance the purchase in non-traditional ways. for instance, using the proceeds of a recent competition i won or selling off my junk. since it's been at the top of my mind, i've mentioned it to people saying "i'm trying to get some wii action". more than one person has interpreted this to mean 'scoring some weed.' responses i've got are "yeah, i've got a huge bag of it at home myself" or "i didn't take you for that type" or "i hear you, it's been a long week, i could use some myself."

the mind hears what it wants. i offer my new advertising campaign in light of this. a couple variations on the copy could be:
"wii would like to get high"
"wii would like to play stoned"
"wii would like to satisfy his munchies"
"wii would like to hit the bong"
"wii would like to roll a fatty"

i could go on, but won't. i do think the two can go hand-in-hand. they are certainly a compliment.

hello, i'm a mac and i'm a hipster wanker

finally someone has taken the piss out of the mac vs. pc tv spots. wait, i'm not british, nor do i particularly like them, why did i use that expression, or wanker in the title? back on topic, it's about time someone from the pc camp has shot back. and not in a hack way like some college-attending, so-hip-it-hurts, iMovie-making dweeb, who makes their own mac-fellating versions of these ads, but actually something quite clever.

don't get me wrong, i like the mac commercials. as a piece of advertising they deliver all a strong tv spot should these days. they are bang on strategically, they are low cost to produce so a whole library can be created, they drive home a competitive difference, they are made to the product's specific target effectively, they are interesting and have a viral element that every brand dreams of. no mac, i don't want to blow you.

i can appreciate what apple offers but i'm not one of their fan-boys. i don't want to give s. jobs a b-job like the other mac elitists. their products are sure stylish and have qualities that are maybe better than a pc. so what. they don't do everything, and nor does a pc. i'm not going to debate the finer points of either platform here, so back to the site.

what laurie mcguiness has done is something that microsoft has failed to do, defend themselves. and she makes some good points too in pc's favor. and not the simplistic 'i can make a movie better' claims apple does. but on the other hand, they probably don't need to. apple can spend all the money they want to fight for the few small fractions of percentage points in market share their selfish little one button mouses can grab each year. watch them and judge for yourself. they are interesting counterpoints why pc is still the most popular choice (maybe price is the first place to look on that) and mac can continue their petty attempts to convert pc users, or at least continue to speak to the already converted mac blowhards.

brady defends running up the score, or as i call it, playing the game

in an interview a couple days ago, tom brady (qb for the patriots and reigning golden boy of the nfl) made the following comments:
"We're still trying to make improvements and we're trying to play extremely well. We're not trying to win 42-28, we're trying to kill teams, we're trying to blow them out if we can. You want to build momentum for each week, you don't want to be up, 42-7 or 35-7, and all of a sudden you look up and it's 35-21. We don't want to be part of that, you don't want to go into next week realizing that for the last 18 minutes of the game your team didn't play well, or didn't play up to its capabilities. You gave other teams momentum for the next time they play you, or you gave another team a reason not to be intimidated."

it's about time an athlete addressed this. i commend him for his comments. they're the words of a winner, someone who doesn't lay down and take it easy when the road ahead looks smooth and easy. does that sound like i want to blow him? i hope not. i just think this is exactly the right attitude athletes should have. hell, anyone should have. why should you let up?

but there is no such thing as running up the score. not in any sport. if you are playing alone, then maybe. but you're always competing against someone and they have a role to play in how well you do. running up the score has less to do with a team's actual ability as it does the opposition's inability. the team allegedly running up the score is just continuing to compete at a high level. that should make the other team be more inclined to compete, not roll over.

there's no logical reason for a team to ever stop competing. i make this point for both the team supposedly running up the score and the team being trounced. the team who is running away with the game has no reason to stop playing as hard as they can. you never know when dropping your guard will let the other team back in and turn the tables. and the same goes for the team on the losing end, you never know what's going to happen and you could crawl back into contention.

writer's strike - another bullshit union move

now i'm not against what the writers are standing up against, i just despise unions. sadly all this hoopla surrounds something as superfluous as tv. oh my god, the masses can't be fed their culture! but back to the unions.

here's my main beefs with unions:
1) counter-productive
2) anti-progress
3) protectionist
4) self-serving
5) power grubbing

to extrapolate a little further:

1) movements like striking don't work for anyone. the writers don't get paid, they just get their union due payments which is their money anyway. but beyond the union workers' suffering, think off all the other non-unionized people who also suffer. when a union stops working, so does everyone else in the organization (ie. the actors, lighting people, gaffers, etc in the silly example of the writer's strike) and the general public suffers from being deprived of something.

2) i suppose that unions promote fairness and that's a good thing. but at what cost of progress? the unions are a huge part of why north american auto companies are struggling. when a company can't do what's best for itself because a union stands in the way, there's a problem. i'll illustrate this with the automaker's example. the union fights to keep as much human labor as possible on the lines when the process could be automated much more. do we need someone there getting paid $30/hr to screw in lug-nuts (i say this without knowing if that job is in-fact automated, but it's for illustration only)? surely that money could be better spent in say cheaper transportation, or perhaps r&d to develop alternate fuel sources, or other environmental concerns. it's sad if lots of people lose their jobs, but that's life. as technology progresses, we shouldn't be held back. those people need to adapt. but they can't because they've gone to long with what they know and the union has coddled them throughout so they can't develop other skill sets.

3) unions are a great place for underachievers and constant fuck-ups. they protect their own regardless of what they do. i could crash my ttc bus with 20 people on it and i won't lose my job, i'll just be moved to another one within the organization. there's something wrong there. back to point #2, what do people care about progress when they can continue on without fear of losing their job and work as shoddily as they want?

4) the unions ultimately only serve themselves. they fight for above market fair wages only to collect those wages back in union dues. that's convenient. and what for? i guess power. but really, they collect dues to run an organization that doesn't need to be there, for the purpose of maybe making a power-play (ie. strike) and to pay out members in the event of said strike. otherwise, where does the money go? i'm asking, i don't know. maybe there is something more, but i don't see it. really, it just exists to create an imposing force that stands in opposition to a company moving forward, and you're paying to create that facade.

5) i think i covered most of their power-grubbing nature in point #4.


every worker faces hardship, everyone has struggles, everyone feels they aren't getting paid enough. does that mean the world should be unionized? no, it just means people deal with it because it's the norm. that's what companies do, get the most out of their employees. i'd like to work out the differences, but there's productive ways of doing that. why can't they work out their differences while still working like the rest of us? because they're just as greedy as the people they're striking against. and unfortunately they have a power position and make a big stink about it in public. they exploit the workers no different.

here's a scenario with the most powerful union in north america, the UAW. they constantly fight to save a human workforce and have them paid ridiculous wages. all this does is put more nails in the auto companies coffins as they can't compete because they have to pass on their labor force costs to the consumer. when they can't compete, the companies go tits-up and everyone loses their jobs. the workers and the people whose sole function is in the union, whom without the workers, are nothing. how's that working for you?

phil jackson's brokeback mountain

in a postgame interview, laker's coach phil jackson offered the following commentary: "We call this a 'Brokeback Mountain' game, because there's so much penetration and kickouts." where he came up with it and why he decided to use it is besides the point, it's goddam funny. i'm not sure what he meant by kickouts, especially as it pertains to brokeback mountain or gay sex. maybe phil knows something that urban dictionary doesn't, because they don't have a definition for what a kickout could mean. maybe he can fill that in for us. back on point, he could have easily called it a 'porno game' or an 'orgy game' but would that have been as newsworthy? nope, not until you disparage the gays.

it didn't stop there though. his heartfelt apology read as such: "If I've offended any horses, texans, cowboys or gays, I apologize." yes, it was the horses that took the most offense. it think he just wanted to crack a brokeback joke, but probably could have done a better job. he tried though and it was still funny.

so here's to more 'Brokeback Mountain' games for the lakers. filled with even more penetrations, kickouts, dribblers, bricks, reaching fouls, lay-ups, give-and-go's, pump fakes, dunking, stuffing, rims, reaching in, and back-doors.

two from henry rollins

henry rollins takes us on a quick diatribe on electronic music and the state of rock. i don't have anything to add here as mr. black flagg sums up my feelings quite eloquently. i am in complete agreement on all accounts. and i too just want to fuck on the floor and break shit.

i was so impressed, i thought i would give you one more of rollins. i don't know if he does stand-up or if it's just some kind of public speaking, but it's entertaining. he's like the musical dennis miller.

time's inventions of the year

in this coming week's time, the featured article is their picks for the inventions of the year. their choice is the iPhone from Apple. Their claim is based on five principles:
1) it's pretty (take time for aesthetics other companies don't)
2) it's touchy-feely (the touchscreen interface)
3) it will make other phones better (self explanatory)
4) it's not a phone, it's a platform (a true handheld computer)
5) it is but the ghost of iPhones to come

i don't particularly agree with their choice or their reasons for it. they're too flaky (for lack of a better word) in my opinion. granted, it is a really novel device, truly innovative and a great gadget. maybe that's enough, but maybe i prefer something that has substance. the iPhone just seems superficial. no one actually needs it.

browsing through the other inventions they cover, there are a many really compelling and thought-provoking inventions. i think what separates these from the iPhone comes down to marketing and adoption. the iPhone was an easy selection because everyone can relate to it or has heard about it and it isn't out of reach for many people. it's multi-purpose and fits with a widely accepted lifestyle.

many of the other inventions just won't gain that much traction or be as in your face as the iPhone but many could make real differences in the world were they to reach the awareness and mass adoption the iPhone has/can. there are numerous inventions that could help curb the current environmental crisis but this small blip in the media is probably all the awareness they'll get. they'll just remain unheralded.

a few of my personal favorites were the glo pillow (huge fan of waking up naturally), erasable paper, the city car, fly-ash bricks, and the flexible displays.

new look facebook

today at around 3pm, mark zuckerberg finished unveiling his plans for the next phase in facebook's life, and in his words, the next phase in communication. to much anticipation, the ceo of facebook made three key announcements that will change how people and companies will interact and communicate on the site with themselves and each other.

the three big changes are: social ads, project beacon, and insight marketing. i won't go into detail on what each entails, but in essence, it is the maturation of facebook and their big foray into leveraging the vast amounts of incredibly powerful data inherent to the site and intimate relationship users have with it.

there will be a lot of people crying foul on this as it really pushes the boundaries of privacy. but i for one welcome it, both as a consumer, and a marketer. as a consumer, i have longed to eliminate unnecessary messages and information from my life because there are just too many that are not relevant to me in the least. so, naturally, ignore them. now there is a way that i might only see something that i'm interested in (because i've put it on my profile), well i just might be more likely to pay attention because you're catering to me. and as a marketer, well this is surely xanadu. to only have to pay for the people i actually want to speak to and not be paying for all the other people i don't care about, it's a no-brainer.

there's probably also the concern that facebook has sold out with these moves. that they're becoming myspace. i'll disagree with that too. mark z is smarter than that. he knows what he's got and isn't going to ruin that. he's seen what happened with myspace and if he couldn't learn that simple lesson, then he deserves to fail. i do believe him in his belief that he wants to keep the site very pure and consumer focused. he's calculated in what he brings to life on the site and these moves i think are for the betterment of the site and the people who use it. oh and let's not forget the companies who now have an exciting, new playground with which to play where they can be very smart and effective with their efforts.

pavor nocturnus

i thought it was time to explain why my online handle is night terror. well i suffer from night terrors. before you gasp and feel sorrow/pity/concern, don't. i actually think it's funny. mind you, my wife does not. i write this as i had one just last night, so it's fresh in my memory.

so to give you a brief synopsis of night terrors, it is an episode that happens prior to r.e.m. sleep whereby the person feels a pervasive sense of panic, anxiety, and/or fear accompanied by screaming, moaning, or gasping. other effects include an extremely high heart rate and movement, be it thrashing, shaking or a seizure.

now i don't have nearly that severe of night terrors, but they're disconcerting nonetheless. typically (so i'm told), i moan loudly (once i moaned/mumbled 'help me'), become very restless, and my heart races like a mofo. like everyone else, i can't be woken up at this time - or rescued as it were, and am vaguely aware that it is happening, but helpless to stop it. the only time i was ever able to influence a night terror is when i had a dream that i was having a night terror and i could lucidly confront and change the outcome. yes, i dream about night terrors, as if it isn't enough to just have them.

i'll leave this entry on one of the more humorous night terrors i have ever had. i guess the only really humorous one. and it happens to be the first i can recall. going back over 10 years now, when i was first courting my now wife, i brought her home one night and saw her to bed. we were lying there together, on her bed, talking as we both drifted off to sleep. not long in, i began to scream and thrash about. needless to say, holly freaked out and began yelling at me. mind you, it was in the wee hours of the morning, in her bed, with her parents in their room, directly next door, and i'd only known her a couple of months, so she probably had just cause. i didn't know then that these episodes would be an ongoing event, but i guess logic states that i have her to blame.

adios sideburns

in memoriam of the loss of my sideburns, i offer this retrospective:


i can't say how i stack up against these fine facial follicles, but i liked my burns. they distinguished me. they kept a small part of my face warm in the winter. they helped me not look like a 12 year old when i had short hair. but most importantly, they were my link to 70's porn, where my moustache just wouldn't cut it.