Were Eight-Track Tapes a Joke?

I am pretty sure that some time in my past, I have come into contact with an actual 8-track stereo system from back in the sixties. But I can't remember it. No, my generation remembers the 8-track tape as a joke, as a metaphor for for all obsolete technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-track_tape

The competing system, that eventually won out over 8-track tapes, was the compact cassette format.  They lasted into the 1990's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassette_tape

Now you may notice another theme here, as part of the 8-track saga. It is the American 8-Track vs. the European Compact Cassette technology. Often, we here in North America assume American stuff is better, more advanced than European stuff, but I am not convinced at all. In so many cases, Europeans have machines that are better. I'm sure somebody could explain why, but I have no idea. But I know for sure that the 8-Track tapes were so bad that I wonder how anyone would think they could push them on an unsuspecting American consumer. Those must have been the days when it was thought that marketing muscle was all you needed, and that the actual technology could be utter crap, people would still buy them. Those days are over (I think).

Anyway, I'm getting off "track". My generation thinks of the 8-track tape as the joke. But I'm not sure my kids get the joke, as they sometimes get mixed up: 8-track or cassette, which one is the joke again? Both are pretty much obsolete, so to the next generation, both are funny. The actual joke was that 8-Tracks did not really work from day one, and the entire concept seems ludicrous in hindsight, while the Cassettes were far more functional and reliable. (and smaller, another European thing!)

I was thinking about this last week when I took a ride in my son's 1990 Audi Quattro. This car has a definite eighties "vibe" to it. The one thing my son was worried about when buying that car was not the age, nor the mileage, but the obsolete stereo system, which he quickly replaced with a modern one so that he could stick his MP3 player in and get some music. The generation gap is large for me, because my current car, a 2005, does not have any of this modern techno-wizardry. I still have more vinyl albums than CD's, Although my turntable has been on the fritz for over five years. Oddly, my son has a functioning turntable and vinyl CD's at home, but he considers them not as a basic music source, but as an art form, or a historical collector's item. The generation gap is so bad, that I don't even understand how he uses the twin vinyl DJ turntables, let alone the MP3 player. Several years ago he gave me an MP3 player for Father's day, and I have to confess I never figured out how to use it for music, but was happily suprised when he informed me it would also work as an 8 gig memory stick.

Just getting back to the Audi, I want to remark on something about his purchase, which involved trading in a two passenger Smart car for a five seater Quattro. I have always thought of two-passenger cars as "sports" cars, and four or more passenger cars as being "regular" cars, regardless of its horsepower, no matter how good handling. But this Audi Quattro, I would say comes about as close as you can be to a sports car while having more than two seats, and the Smart Car is about as far from being a sports car you can get, while still being a 2 seater. Here is a discussion on Jalopnik, on the topic of the 4-seater sports car. (and American sports cars vs. European)

Picture: This is the picture I took of the 1990 Audi in front of our house

Ice Road Truckers TV Show Review

Here, finally may be a form of transportation where the drivers are more exposed to the weather and to accidents than motorcyclists are. I had a chance to watch one of these shows the other night at my mother's house (I don't get the History Channel, and I also don't get why this is on the History Channel). My first thought was that these were not actually "Ice Roads". In Canada, a paved or gravel road covered with ice is an "icy road". To be an ice road, there must be nothing but ice, with water underneath. But then I started thinking about the types of roads where we have a layer of gravel or pavement over permafrost, with a layer of ice over that. Kind of like an "Ice sandwich road". But none of this quibbling really matters. The real issue is the driving, and the fact that people understand that their lives depend on their ability and their attention to the job.

There are many good previews and short segments on Youtube, but also a few spoofs that should not be mistaken for the real show. In the episode I watched, the road was the Dalton Highway from Fairbanks to Prudhoe Bay. There is a similar road in Canada I always get confused with, called the Dempster Highway.

During the show, an oversized load was being transported accompanied by two "pusher" trucks. Going up the steep hills, the two pusher trucks get behind the load and with nothing more than bumper to bumper contact, help the big load up the hill, at what appears to be a fairly high speed. I would guess about 80 kph. Typically in steep mountain areas, without pushers, trucks may slow down to first gear to get up steep hills, and crawl up the hill at walking speed. It was not explained in this episode why the two pusher trucks were being used, as it looked like they were not carrying a payload, and trucking companies are not used to wasting money like that. There was one other use for the pusher trucks, and it was coming down the hills. One pusher truck would get in front of the load carrying truck, and help it slow down coming down the hill. I'm not even sure it's legal on most public roads. But it certainly makes for great entertainment, for anyone who has an interest in roads and driving.

[Update Oct 28, 2010: I was speaking to a truck driver on this subject and apparently the pushers are needed because even with chains, the wheels will lose traction when you gear down to climb the grade, with an oversized load like that.]

At a few times during the show, the producers inserted animated clips to illustrate the dangers of these operations. For example, how a truck may tip over if the load shifts or what could happen when the load falls off. The animations were fairly realistic, and each time my mother saw a truck go off the road or crash, she gasped. I had to tell her "It's just an animation". She would reply,"But I'm surprised nobody got killed anyway." ""Mom, an animation is a cartoon drawing like "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs", but this is just more realistic."

I kind of suspect the dangers are somewhat dramatised. Because if you wanted to, you could certainly make a TV show of a normal commuter's drive to work in Toronto, and make it seem like death is just around every corner. But it is a fact that there is a much higher death rate among these truckers than among normal commuters. Probably about the same as the rate for motorcycles. And it is good to see people at least paying attention to their driving instead of sending text messages.

One of the clips on Youtube is about a truck driver hitting a moose. Just to help keep you car drivers more alert, note that although the driver was not injured, the truck had to be towed away. Those moose can get big.

Apparently, the first season was actually done on ice roads. But the trucking companies were not very impressed with the overall attitude of the show, and made so many new safety rules that the producers moved the show somewhere else, and that's when they started getting away from the "Ice Roads", but still kept the same name as most people don't know the difference between northern mountain roads and ice roads. The next season they will be going to the Himalaya Passes, which could make the Dalton Highway look as safe as the Blue Ridge Parkway.

Doris Wiedemann and Sjaak Lucassen, have recently done the Dalton Highway in winter, on two wheel motorcycles. (I need to specify two wheels because sidecars and trikes might have made the trip much less intense). They were Germans, if that helps explain anything.
http://www.bmwmoa.org/news/ride_stories/arctic_circle_beckons_for_doris_wiedemann

Picture: It's a picture I took myself, in February 2007 on the road to Labrador. It was an icy road, but not an "ice road"..

Thinking about "Idiots Abroad"

I found a series of videos on Youtube produced by comedian Ricky Gervais, where he sends his friend, and possible moron, Karl Pilkington around the world to see if travel really can broaden the mind. I find it a little bit funny, but I'm not sure why. Karl is not an idiot. He is actually way better than many travellers and tourists I have seen. He does make a few funny remarks on the strange things he sees. Ricky really puts Karl through the mill, experiencing all the "native" stuff like eating cockroaches, and getting massaged by flaming gloves. It only proves that all humans have their limits as to what they can tolerate. What is normal in one society can seem disgusting, gross, cruel, evil or whatever in another society. Once you learn that lesson, move on. It is not really necessary to make yourself sick eating scorpions just to get a laugh from your home TV audience.

Pt 1 of wall of china
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4ZyNGLFMP0

Best bits Wall of China
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPA6-E0b15k
Jordan: The Best Bits
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1AqPrscLEA

Karl Pilkington's Seven Wonders Preview.wmv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp46UUrtfts

Karl meets Jesus Christ in Jerusalem. Jesus rides a motorbike somewhat disguised as a donkey. I don't know why this was in "deleted scenes" except maybe pressure from religious extremists to keep it off the air.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhrgwUNpVQk

Yes there is an expression "travel broadens the mind". But as far as I'm concerned, you do not broaden the mind by plunging yourself into a completely foreign culture. In many cases that would simply be too much, it messes your head up, as Karl rightly remarks. If there is something about a foreign culture that you find appealing, that's great. If you think it's sickening, or repulsive, well don't do it. You probably need to be raised from birth in a given society to appreciate many things.

There is another expression "to see things through the eyes of another". You are not seeing things through the eyes of another just by doing the same things. While one person may see something appealing, you are seeing something horrifying.

Yes it may be broadminded to try some of the food, or accommodations. But more realistically, you should be able to at least talk to people from other cultures. Many of them speak your language even if you do not speak theirs. That is where I think travel is most likely to broaden the mind, not in doing things that make you throw up. That's just for the benefit of TV audiences, and I don't think it does anything to broaden their minds either.

At one point, Karl is watching a Chinese woman devouring several scorpions for a snack. She is eyeing the rest of her scorpions hungrily as she gobbles down the first. Karl is obviously disgusted, and would never be able to enjoy eating those scorpions. But it takes a lifetime of living in that environment to develop the love for eating scorpions, Karl obviously will never achieve that. He may eat one, but because of his culture, he will likely throw up. But is there anything we do that Chinese people may look at with equal disgust? What sickening stuff do we eat? I don't know. But I do know I have a 10 year old grandson who hates almost any food as if it was live scorpions. Over the years he has had virtual barfing fits over cherries, pizza, any kind of vegetable or fruit, bread crusts, and almost all meats. When I take him out for lunch he only wants caffeine and sugar, so Tim Hortons is obviously the place to go. Apparently those are the only things that are universally loved and need no cultural acclimatization.

I think no traveller is successful in broadening their mind until they begin to question all the chauvinist propaganda that they absorbed in a lifetime at home. Many American love watching "Fox News" and listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. I can do that too, but to me it is much like swallowing live cockroaches. I don't even know why I do it. Maybe it is broadening my mind, maybe it is making me more narrow minded in my disgust for right wing propaganda. I suppose I would have to have been raised in a right wing racist southern family to really love that stuff.

Many of my blogs deal with motorcycles, with travel or with breaking down prejudices. I think it is worth while to be able to travel by motorcycle, and not to think, act or talk like an idiot while doing it. How does a traveller go about not being an idiot? Well it starts with clearing your mind of a lot garbage. You should at least know that just because people speak a different language does not mean it is gibberish. Just because they worship a different God does not mean they are going to hell. Just because people are not rich does not mean they are lazy bums who need to get a job.

Picture: This is a book apparently: http://textpublishing.com.au/books-and-authors/book/an-idiot-abroad/

Quebec Bashing from MacLean's Magazine

MacLean's Magazine recently ran a front page titled "The Most Corrupt Province in Canada", with the picture of Quebec's Carnaval Snowman mascot carrying a briefcase bulging with cash. At this point I have lived about half my life in Quebec, and half in the province of Ontario, (plus a few years in Sierra Leone), and I would like to share my perspectives on corruption.

There is an article about it in the Globe and Mail here.

I do not subscribe to MacLean's because of all their hate propaganda. I happened to read part of it when I saw it at a coffee shop. Apparently MacLean's is taking time off from bashing Moslems and the Canadian Human Rights Commission to have another go at the bad, bad province of Quebec and French Canadians.

I have never been able to find a reference to confirm this, but I remember many years ago reading an opinion piece by Barbara Amiel in MacLean's, which was then owned by Conrad Black, her husband. In this article, she claimed (I'm paraphrasing) that French Canadians were genetically unsuited to democracy. Of course, Conrad Black is the same one who recently got sent to jail in the USA for fraud worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and obstruction of justice. He no longer owns MacLean's, but I still see Barbara's opinions in there occasionally, along with articles by one of Conrad's supporters, Mark Steyn.

Now getting back to corruption in Quebec, and the inference that it is much much worse than Ontario, and as Andrew Coyne (National Editor MacLean's) has said it has something to do with "political culture rooted in nationalism and state interventionism."

My one and only experience with corruption, growing up in Baie Comeau, an isolated paper mill town in Northern Quebec was this. My father, a French Canadian, had an English speaking boss of Scots background. He hated his boss, let's call the boss MacLeanson, just to avoid any lawsuits against me, and to incidentally reinforce the ethnic stereotype of the magazine. The company would hire outside contractors to perform many functions including cutting wood, and maintaining the logging roads. All contracts were awarded by MacLeanson. All the contractors were independent French Canadian businessmen. My father noticed a few things going wrong in the woods department. One was that the roads were not being maintained, which annoyed him because of the pounding he took driving a pickup truck from camp to camp. Second he noticed Macleanson had a brand new luxury car every year. My father claimed that Mcleanson was totally corrupt and taking bribes to enrich himself, but my mother argued to not make any accusations down at the company offices, because she assumed this was a simple case of my father not liking his boss and inventing this whole conspiracy. After all, he could have been fired, and with a grade four education in northern Quebec, there were no other places to work. I personally heard about these stories as a young teenager, and tended to side with my English mother, as she was by far the most level headed of the two.

About 12 years after, I was back in Baie Comeau, as a teacher at the English high school. At one parent-teacher meeting, I happened to get into a conversation with the father of one of my students. He was telling me how he ended up living in Baie Comeau. The company had sent him up to Baie Comeau to investigate the books. It seems that the head office could hardly believe that the Baie Comeau division was losing money every year, and wanted to send an independent auditor to figure it out. This parent said that he had uncovered a huge amount of corruption in the woods department at Baie Comeau, enough to explain the lack of profits of the entire division. And one man had singlehandedly taken the company into the red. It was Macleanson. Following his "forced retirement", profits picked up again.

I never encountered any other corruption in either Quebec or Ontario that in any way personally affected me. All I know is what I get in the news and from various official inquiries. I assume that there might be a fair amount going on that is not being investigated, and I do not equate amount of corruption being investigated with amount taking place. In fact it might even be the inverse, as far as I know.

I do not want to be bashing other ethnic groups, like MacLean's does, but I have a question. Given that MacLean's is pushing the idea that this is a French Canadian/left wing thing, are they forgetting that the Mafia, even in Quebec, is from a background of Italian and Sicilian immigrants, whether they speak French or not?

Last night on TV I happened to tune in to the Michael Coren show on the Christian channel (another one I don't subscribe to). They were discussing the MacLean's Magazine article, and it was not long before one opinion was put forth that "all French Canadians supporting the Bloc Quebecois party should be hung for treason". As I recall, no one in the panel felt it necessary to belabour the point or to rebut it.

One more issue is the use of the Bonhomme Carnaval, the mascot of the Quebec Carnaval on the cover. Apparently MacLean's was given written permission by the Quebec Caranaval, although obviously MacLean's was negotiating in bad faith. I suppose French Canadians could be forgiven for thinking that any dealings with English Canadians would involve bad faith negotiations. But they don't. They see this as being just one small group of people at one magazine with questionable ethics, that resulted from the negative influence of convicted felon Conrad Black.

About Heather Mallick's Article on Fox News North

Heather Mallick wrote a commentary in the Toronto Sun "Fox News North is a Rancid Idea". In it she slams Quebecor's project of starting a Canadian right wing 24 hour news channel, and in the article she mentions the one time she was invited to appear on Fox News.

Bill O'Reilly has a popular US TV show where he often invites liberal guests and then "crushes" them in a debate. I don't think I have ever seen any liberal hold their own against Bill O'Reilly (maybe Richard Dawkins was close even though Bill called him a fascist). Conservatives love to watch the dismemberment, but to me it illustrates why we do not need a news channel like that in Canada. The tactics Bill uses include making up facts and statistics (otherwise sometimes called "lying"), and famously cutting off the microphone of the interviewee. Basically the interviewee has no chance. But Bill continues to attract new liberal guests, who naively hope to convince Bill he is wrong and present an alternative point of view to the rabid Fox viewers.

Here is a small part of Heather's interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbX-2X7_h-M

My blog on O'Reilly-Dawkins debate on teaching evolution:

On the one hand, the argument for why we need a Fox North (a Canadian version of Fox News), is based on freedom of speech. In other words, to have freedom of speech, we must have an outlet for right wing views. That's because the mainstream media like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and CTV, are both allegedly biased and show only the left wing point of view.

I don't think we need Fox News in Canada, because Canadian mainstream media is not propaganda. And it is not right that Fox News is demanding special status where it must be included in popular packages on cable TV. Third, that Fox News is in the business of propaganda, not presenting news, and they get caught lying so often to support their right wing point of view, that independent fact checkers are suffering from shell shock. And finally, Fox News has an agenda that is not good for the country, an agenda of promoting racism, hatred, anger, anti-science, war and violence.

In the post 9/11 atmosphere in the USA, Fox News has done remarkably well, but the USA as a country is worse off for it, in my opinion anyway.

Yesterday, the face in front of the Fox News North push, Kory Teneycke, resigned. Kory has a bombastic style that would be well suited to Fox News South. Maybe it is a sign that this type of over the top hate propaganda is not welcome in Canada, I can only hope. Because if we do ever get a Fox News North, freedom of speech wins, but freedom of truth and decency loses. It's really too bad that we even have to make such a decision.

Globe and Mail article: "10 things you need to know about Fox News North" by John Doyle

Here is a "Canadian" conservative blog, a taste of what a "Canadian" Fox News could be like. Actually, you can Google Barack the Barbarian, and take a look at some of the pages from the comic book if you are interested.

http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2009/04/not-another-obama-superhero-comic-book.html

The Cannonball Run, Real and Imagined

Cannonball runs are best left to car drivers, not motorcycles. That's because a cannonball run is too long for one driver to finish without sleeping. With a car or truck you are allowed to bring along a spare driver to go through the night. Of course this is allowed on a motorcycle too, but it is impractical for a second driver to sleep on a motorcycle. Although no doubt it's been done by somebody.

November 15, 1971, was the start of the first real Cannonball Run, a technically illegal coast-to-coast race dreamed up and made into reality by Brock Yates, the editor of Car and Driver Magazine. Brock and Dan Gurney (a race driver) won the first race in Ferrari Daytona with a time of 35 hours and 54 minutes, averaging 130 kph, and as Dan Gurney said "At no time did we exceed 175 mph."

There were several movies made based on the Cannonball Run. The first ones were "Cannonball!" in 1976 starring David Carradine, "Gumball Rally" with Gary Busey also in '76, and probably the best, which was "Cannonball Run" 1981 with Burt Reynolds.

In his August 1976 review of "Cannonball!", Roger Ebert made the comment that "If we can get Burt Reynolds into a Trans-Am with the devil in the back seat, we've got a winner on our hands." Although he probably knew that "Smokey and the Bandit" was coming out the next year, he could not have known that Burt Reynolds would star in the 1981 movie "Cannonball Run". But it made sense.

To me, the appeal of these movies is simply this: I have done 8 cross country one way runs by motorcycle, 7 more by car, 2 by motor home, and that's how I would want to drive if there were no cops on the road, and no family in the car. I am not condoning driving at illegal speeds, or driving until you fall asleep. But if there were no speed limits, I would often drive faster than what the current limits are. And at times, when I was on my own, and younger, I have driven over a thousand miles without stopping for a motel, just sleeping on rocks and picnic tables.

I can relate personally to one aspect of the Cannonball run. One of my favourite motorcycle trips roughly followed the Cannonball run, but not on purpose. A friend of mine had a friend who had moved to Redondo Beach California, and was living aboard his yacht in the marina. Unknown to us at the time, this marina was the location of the Portofino Inn, which was the actual finish line of the Cannonball Run. We made the trip there and back on two motorcycles in 9 days. The distance of the Cannonball Run was 4,608 km., starting in New York. Kitchener to Redondo Beach, California is 4166 km, which is not much less. We also came back, which I suppose, to be fair, a lot of Cannonballers did too.

We were both riding "six bangers", a 6 cylinder Kawasaki Touring bike, and I was riding a Honda CBX. He brought along a radar detector, as I guess he expected we may be exceeding the 55 mph speed limit from time to time. I'm not sure the radar detector was any real use, but we didn't actually get a speeding ticket. On the other hand, once we drove for about 50 kilometers in the middle of a desert, at a painfully slow 55 mph because the radar detector was buzzing like crazy. Finally I saw what was causing the detector to go insane. The road went right through the VLA radio telescopes 80 km west of Socorro, New Mexico.

http://www.vla.nrao.edu/

During the planning stage of the trip, I just happened to see the movie "Earth Girls Are Easy", a parody of Southern California culture. In the movie was a rendition of the old song "Route 66". This song inspired me to change our route a little to look for the old Route 66, which used to be the first paved cross country road. On our trip, as we struggled to look for signs of the old Route 66, several locals told us that there were people trying to revive the old highway as a historical road. I guess by the mid nineties, this had been accomplished, and now you can find signs all over the place leading you to sections of old Route 66 that are now being preserved.

Here is part 9 of the movie Earth Girls are Easy. "Route 66" by Depeche Mode, starts at 7:24.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpAFCF-v-jI&feature=related

By way of explanation for the strange behaviour in this clip, Jim Carrey is playing the role of a shaved Martian. If you are curious, the rest of the movie is on youtube.

Picture 1: Poster of the movie
Picture 2: The Very Large Array (VLA) telescopes.

A Survey of the Press: James Lee and Environmentalism

Last night, after I posted my previous blog, my site briefly rated higher on Google than Fox News. I captured it in a screen grab (see picture left).

Today I have done a survey of attitudes and propaganda about James Lee, by going to some Canadian news source websites and seeing what each had to say. First the headline, second, how a reference in the text to environment was handled, and a quick look at some comments posted at the bottom of the page.

The main Canadian websites all managed to keep "environmentalism" out of the headline. To me, this is the right way to go to avoid spreading right wing propaganda.



CBC News: Discovery Channel Hostage Taker Shot Dead
..."The concerns appear to be of an environmental nature."...


CTV News:Police kill gunman who held 3 at U.S. Discovery Channel
..."He said he was inspired by "Ishmael," a novel by environmentalist Daniel Quinn and by former Vice-President Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth.""...

Radio Canada: Prise d'otages au Maryland Le ravisseur est abattu
..."Des médias ont identifié le suspect comme étant James Lee, un Américain d'origine asiatique qui menait une lutte acharnée contre le réchauffement climatique."...
(Google Translation plus correction) "Media reports identified the suspect as James Lee, an American of Asian descent who led a [fierce] struggle against global warming."...
(acharnée=fierce, which I had to insert because the translator inexplicably missed it. And I might also change "led a fierce struggle" to "conducted a fierce struggle", because "led" might imply he had followers in English, while "menait" does not necessarily imply any followers.)

The National Post: Man who held hostages at U.S. Discovery Channel shot and killed
..."The gunman, who apparently objected to the TV channel’s environmental coverage, died,"...

The National Post web site did not call James Lee an environmentalist, but the commenters to the article certainly did. They seem to be mostly right wing - anti environment, pro war etc. By comparison, the CBC website comments I would say are far more balanced, I saw only one poster on the CBC site assert that Lee was some kind of eco terrorist.


Fox News: Gunman's Environmental Grudges Well Known Before Discovery Channel Standoff

..."Lee, a 43 year old Californian with a seemingly religious fervour for his environmental causes,"...

Of all the unsolicited comments I saw, this one below takes the prize for most obnoxiously right wing, and was posted on the Fox website. This Fox News reader makes James Lee seem almost rational.

LIBTARDHATER67 Sept 2, 9:28 AM
"This guy was a worthless libtard! Too bad he is dead, I would have wanted him to know the last time I went hunting I took my last 4 oil changes from my pickup and my last 2 from my ATV and dumped them in the stream where I was. I was visualizing some crying libtard's face when he saw it. Then I killed two more bucks than I had tags, kept the largest and left the other two to rot. Take that, libtards! I hate the "environment"! We humans have the right to do anything we want to the environment."

(I don't understand why, but the previous comment only came up on my Opera browser and not Firefox.)

Will Potters Blog on Radical Environmentalism
"Calling the Discovery Channel Hostage Taker a “Radical Environmentalist” is Irresponsible and Inaccurate"

The Propaganda of "Red Dawn"

The movie Red Dawn, from 1984, was on TV last night and this movie has many of the answers to why right wing conservatives exist. National Review Online has named the film #15 in its list of 'The Best Conservative Movies'

If no followup questions are allowed, "Red Dawn" gives a plausible explanation of

1. Why the survivalist movement is so important
2. Why Americans must keep their guns until they are pried from their cold, dead hands.
3. Why hunting is a fundamental skill that must be taught to all children
4. Why teenagers must have pickup trucks, and why four wheel drive could be important.
5. The importance of high school spirit, and the need for football teams.
6. What is wrong with communism
7. What is wrong with the Green Party
8. What is wrong with NATO
9. Why America is great and always will remain great
10. Why liberals are so easy to brainwash
11. Why Nicaragua needs to be destroyed

This movie was made long before the Iraq and Afghan war, so I will forgive the filmmakers for glorifying terrorism, and insurgency when the shoe is on the other foot.

One particular event in the movie got me thinking. A young American teenage girl, after an attack where she is wounded, managed to kill one of the attackers with a hand grenade. For an almost exact mirror image of this situation, check out the case of Omar Khadr, currently being tried at Guantanamo. Apparently, back in the eighties, was not illegal for a teenager to kill an invading enemy soldier with a hand grenade.  Today it is.

In another scene, one of the the teenage insurgents is explaining why they have to kill the Communist troops. The answer is an emotional "Because we live here". Oooops. Isn't that the same reason why the Iraqi and Taliban are fighting the American Marines? And the Indians of the old west fought the cowboys? But you almost have to be a liberal to figure that out.

http://www.pluckyoutoo.com/2009/03/red-dawn.html

Another review from a bad speller, but still he makes a good point. "this soviet army that kicked our armies ass is somehow defeated by a small gang of poorly armed children who have no combat skill whatsoever"

The conservatives have not given up their philosophy after watching this movie twenty years later. Here is a conservative website "Dirty Harry's Place" in 2008, frustrated with the liberal attitude to Red Dawn:

"Using guerrilla tactics to wage a war against military targets versus using them to kill civilians… that’s the difference between a military unit(the Wolverines), and terrorists(Iraqi “insurgents”). And it’s a big difference, liberals."

This observation, I would say is about the best argument presented on this conservative web page. The only unfairness I can see would be that it is a comparison between a fictional unit (Wolverines) and a real world insurgency (Iraq.)

But if we compare real world to real world situation, we have to take the example of the US military in Iraq. We all know that the US has been unable to avoid killing civilians in a real insurgency, but still claims to not be targeting civilians. What does that mean?

1. The civilians may have been killed because they were in the wrong place when a nearby bomb was dropped

2. The US thought the civilians might have been insurgents, and had to kill them for fear of their own safety.

Why do the terrorists target civilians in real life situations?

1. Military targets are often too well defended (by a competent military, unlike a fictional but incompetent military)

2. They may kill civilians who are collaborating with the occupation

3. They may kill civilians of a different race than themselves, in self defence or in a pre-emptive strike

4. Sometimes what is called "deliberate targeting" is actually an accident, poor aim, or mistaken identity

5. Some of what we call "civilians" are actually mercenaries, for example, the US refers to Blackwater as "contractors"

6. Civilians thought to be feeding information to the US military for air strikes.

7. The civilian settlers, brought in to take land away from the original people.

I am not arguing for the killing of civilians. But obviously, in a fictional situation where you are trying to make one side look good, you will not deliberately show the "good guys" killing innocent people. (see "The Hurt Locker" for example). That's the difference between a propaganda war movie and real war.

Sons of Anarchy TV Show

In our culture, we have criminal "Biker gangs", and somehow the blame for this is placed on the motorcycles themselves. What is overlooked is the influence that war and war veterans have had on creating this culture.

Last week, while riding around I noticed a biker go by with a large patch on the back of his jacket with the words "Sons of Anarchy". I wondered briefly if this was either a new motorcycle gang, or maybe the anarchists were getting into the hobby of motorcycling. But then this morning I came across another mention of "Sons of Anarchy" in the news, in a story where the SOA had apparently been snubbed by the Emmy Awards. Now my interest was piqued, so I started Googling and found out that "Sons of Anarchy" is a regular weekly show on the FX Cable Channel. I don't have this channel, so I didn't know anything about the show, even though it has been on for a couple of years at least.

I was disappointed to find out that is is a show about a classical "Hell's Angels" type biker gang. As if we need to perpetuate these criminal stereotypes even more than they have been in the past fifty years. Furthermore, it does appear to be a product placement opportunity for the Harley Davidson Motor Company. This type of PR does not make me want to buy a Harley Davidson, in fact the very opposite. But then I wasn't shopping for a Harley anyway, so my puny boycott isn't going to hurt them one bit.

Katy Segal has one of the starring roles. She previously had the role of "Peg Bundy" in "Married With Children". Peg was a big-haired, not too bright, lazy wife of the even crazier shoe salesman and ex-high school football star, Al Bundy. Now I guess Katy is starting to find roles that are breaking away from that stereotype, which is good for her. But not so good for motorcycling.

From a basic rundown on the plot that I was reading on the Internet, it almost seems like a soap opera crossed with a '60s biker movie. It takes place in a small and fictitious northern California town named Charming. But in spite of the small town setting, the Real IRA are involved, so are white supremacists, and a rival motorcycle gang. Drugs, porn, crime, rape, guns, prison terms abound of course. But so do good family values such as loyalty, helping one another, and I can't think of any others.

So this show joins a list of TV shows such as "The Sopranos" and "24" that I also dislike, because they portray violence as the norm, not the exception. They also promote violence as necessary. Too bad we can't ever go back to the "Lone Ranger" who only shot the gun out of bad guy's hands without killing or injuring him.

Speaking of Biker movies, this is the fortieth anniversary of "Easy Rider", a movie that you could argue was also about biker gangs and violence. But I did like Easy Rider, and I don't think it was the same as "Sons of Anarchy". Easy Rider's main characters might have made money selling or smuggling drugs, but this was done either before the movie, or in the first minute of the movie, and it was not portrayed as a violent crime. In the entire movie, I don't think they engaged in a single act of violence. Maybe a little crime, if you consider smoking a joint a crime. The only violence in the movie was actually committed against them not by them. I consider Easy Rider to be a "liberal" biker movie.

Now we apparently have people riding motorcycles with the names of fictitious TV motorcycle gangs on the backs of their jackets. I suppose next we can expect bikers to start getting tattoos of TV shows.

http://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/originals/soa/
http://www.entertainmentopia.com/scripts/displayTV.php?id=51

The Subliminal Message of "To Kill a Mockingbird"

Several news programs mentioned the 50th anniversary of the book "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee, on July 11. I was pretty sure I had read the book and seen the movie, and from what I remembered it was a liberal point of view, pushing tolerance and justice.


I did a little research, and found out some interesting facts that I did not know when I first saw the movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_kill_a_mockingbird

Surprisingly, British librarians ranked the book ahead of the Bible as one "every adult should read before they die". Apparently American librarians are not so sure, in fact there have been many campaigns to get the book banned. I assume the campaigns are mounted by conservatives.

We are fed a steady diet of slick conservative propaganda today. For example "The Hurt Locker" won the Oscar for best picture. So I wanted to dredge up some old liberal propaganda to counteract it. I reread most of the book, which is available in .pdf here. I had to rent the movie (because it is not on youtube).

My own observation about the movie is that Gregory Peck seemed perfect for it, and later I found out from the DVD that he personally pushed the movie into production, the studios considered it too controversial. To see what I mean about Gregory Peck himself being a "liberal", check out "The Big Country" (1958) on youtube where he stars as an eastern sea captain visiting cowboy country and refuses to carry a gun.

The timing of "To Kill a Mockingbird" was just before the peak of the Civil Rights movement, and you could argue that this book had a propaganda influence similar to the book "Uncle Tom's Cabin" in its time before the end of slavery.

The author, Harper Lee, wrote the book based on her personal experiences. For example, her father was a lawyer who in real life defended a black man, and this incident is the basis for the centre piece of the plot. Harper Lee, as a child, was Scout Finch, who narrates, and is in the centre of the story. Scout is a young tomboy despite the criticism of relatives and neighbours. This give the opportunity for some discussion of gender roles in the book.

Her little friend, Dill, from the book and movie, in real life was Truman Capote, who later on also became a famous author.

What makes this book propaganda? There are a lot of subliminal ideas in here, that you may not even notice until pointed out. Atticus Finch (the father and lawyer) is obviously a liberal. He is educated, kind, tolerant, polite and wise. He always seems to do the right thing, which sometimes takes a lot of courage. You may notice in the movie that his kids call him "Atticus" instead of father, which is shocking to a lot of people, especially conservatives. You may not notice that he never beats his kids. His kids respect him, but at times they also defy him, another shock to conservative parents. Basically, the kids grow up fine (though liberal) in the end, and you may be tempted to believe that it is not necessary to beat your children. All radical liberal ideas.

But the biggest part of the book is propaganda about white people vs. black people. In the book (even more in the movie), all the black people are kind, modest, generous, polite, intelligent, hard working, sympathetic. While some of the white people are mean, nasty, stupid, ignorant, violent, lying, and in need of a bath. Of course it would be more realistic to have a little balance here, but the point of the story is to destroy some of the racist attitudes that still prevailed in the nineteen fifties, and still exist today. That's where propaganda like this was actually needed and useful. (and still is needed today).

Although I call this story propaganda, you should remember that there is good propaganda, and bad propaganda. In this story, good propaganda helps people become more racially tolerant, less fearful of black people, and more understanding of their problems. The other type of propaganda is bad, the type that increases fear of minorities, increases hatred, and by spreading lies, make it harder to understand the problems of oppressed people. The Nazis used bad propaganda against Jews. Gregory Peck and Harper Lee use good propaganda to spread tolerance and justice for African Americans.

Picture: Atticus Finch and Scout (Gregory Peck and Mary Badham), with Scout in boys' overalls and wearing a sort of boyish moptop before the Beatles made it famous in America, but after they started wearing it in Britain.

The Long Way Round, Compared to What?

On Sunday, I was talking about the movies "The Long Way Round" and "The Long Way Down". A friend of mine, who has given up motorcycling as his years advanced, said to me that he thought "The Long Way Round" was actually quite easy, with the support vehicles and crew, and all the money. And that he was more impressed with a trip I made back in 2004, where I went alone on my motorcycle, leaving in late February, and going to Loreto, on the Baja Peninsula in Mexico, and back.

In "The Long Way Round", a couple of movie actors, Charley Boorman and Ewan McGregor, travel from the U.K. across Europe and Asia through Mongolia, and Siberia to Alaska, Canada, and then across America to return home to the UK. And they made a documentary film of their adventure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Way_Round

And one of several bits on Youtube: Mongolia


I myself was pretty impressed with Ewan and Charley's trip. And although I really enjoyed my own trip to Baja, it was very unstressful compared to Mongolia and Siberia.

The significant differences would be in the amount of experience I had, and in the difficulty of the trip. In my opinion, the amount of money and presence of a support crew and planning staff do not make the trip that much easier. I had experience doing the coast-to-coast North American trip, and all the money I really needed for comfort, and I never missed having a support crew. Ewan and Charley had practically no experience at all travelling long distances by motorcycle, they didn't even have experience in riding motorcycles, and their bikes were also new and unfamiliar.

I was on paved roads virtually all the time. They were in entire countries where they hardly saw a paved road, and often no roads at all. I was in only three countries, and all three were very motorcycle friendly. Ewan and Charley were in Mongolia, and Russia, and a lot of other places where they do not try to make it easy for tourists. And their trip went entirely round the world, while mine stayed on one continent.

I was amazed by the sheer audacity, or recklessness, of just heading out there on motorcycles and going around the world, with their level of experience. (basically none, at the start) It was a few years since I saw it, and honestly I could not remember whether they took support vehicles or not. Must be my memory going on me.

Ewan and Charley ran into a lot of difficulties on their trip, but kept going regardless. Ewan kept falling down, because he was riding a very heavy bike off road. Roads were blocked by rivers. Bad weather. Accidents.

My own trip was like a stroll in the park. I had all good weather, and that was not just dumb luck. I took full advantage of accurate weather tracking, now available to anyone with a TV, all over North America. I was riding with fully tested gear and equipment, including the motorcycle and the clothes. I took advantage of excellent roads, and good facilities all the way down, even in Mexico. I slept comfortably in motels every night, and ate at friendly restaurants with familiar food. My trip required minimal planning, actually none at all, other than an attempt to learn a little Spanish, and reseaching requirements on crossing the Mexican border.

I suppose with enough bad luck, I could have been faced with even worse difficulties than Ewan and Charley. I could have had an accident, I could have frozen in a blizzard, or been robbed at knifepoint, or even killed. Yes, every trip has the potential of turning into a nightmare. But on the other hand, when you have done similar trips dozens of times, you mostly eliminate those random chance problems. There were very few times on the trip when I doing something new that I had no experience at all in.

In one place, half of the road in Mexico had collapsed, washed away, and there were no warning signs posted, or cones or flares. Nothing. A couple of hundred metres of road (again in Mexico) were under water. I avoided both those obstacles by luck or experience. I never got the runs (Montezuma's Revenge) for eating local tacos. I never got hassled by corrupt cops. Only one person even asked for money, I see more panhandling than that in Kitchener.

I encountered a couple of other motorcyclists from Texas whose bikes had both broken down. My bike did not break down, and maybe I can take credit for that, maybe it was just a really good bike (1992 BMW K1100LT) that I had already driven for 90,000 km basically with no reliability issues, or accidents. Another motorcyclist, on a bike similar to mine died in an accident the day I was there and I met some of his companions after the accident. I suppose that could as easily have been me.

Some of the most difficults moments for Ewan and Charley are not only with the obstacles and dangers, but with each other. I never had that problem on the Baja trip, as I was alone, or I was free to leave anytime the other people's agenda didn't suit me. And I didn't have to worry about somebody else crashing and ending the trip for me.

Actually, what Ewan and Charley did was so monumental, that my own trip is kind of unworthy in comparison.

Pics: From My Baja trip. Also in this album, with precise GPS locations if you care to check them out.

http://picasaweb.google.ca/rbezeau/Baja#

Trash Journalism, Mixing Gossip and Propaganda

There has always been trash journalism. The difference is that today, there is more opportunity than ever before in human history, to spread false or misleading stories. This is done for a variety of reasons, and to make money is not the only one. Many people take delight in spreading fear, hysteria, or crackpot theories without any hope for compensation. The motivations can be many and varied. Sometimes just the desire to ruin someone else's life is enough motivation.

Just today, three stories I came across help illustrate that trash journalism is much more than just the Fox News Network. Perhaps I should refer to it as "gossip journalism", as "trash journalism" sounds so negative. And in some cases I am not totally negative about it. Here is the first example. Rolling Stone magazine published an article called "Runaway General" that got General Stanley McChrystal fired. In one sense, I would call this trash journalism because on a very basic level, it was trap set by a reporter, to gain the confidence of the staff. Later, he created a report that made them look disrespectful of their Commander in Chief and lots of other people. Whether they were disrespectful or not is not the question for me. They allowed the reporter to talk to them, and apparently approved the article, and were fired because of the tone of the article. In the final analysis, the story was the story. Like I said, not necessarily trash, not necessarily false or misleading, but not really great journalism either. Just banter that was put into print.

The second example is out of The National Enquirer. A 55 year old masseuse, employed (or contracted) by a hotel Al Gore stayed at four years ago, and reported Al had sexually harassed her. National Enquirer printed the story with a front page picture.

National Enquirer is one of those magazines you see at the grocery store checkout. The others are Star, Globe, OK, "Weekly World News" and many other titles. Quite honestly, I group these grocery store papers in one of two categories. Those that are true, but gossipy and unimportant, and the others that would be of colossal importance, if they were true. The National Inquirer was the first I know of to report on Charles and Diana breaking up. And of several similar personal and or sexual stories, like Canadian motorcycle racer Mike Duff wanting a sex change operation. A surprising number of these stories ended up being scoops for the National Enquirer, and later were proven to be based on fact.

The other stories would be of monumental importance if true, but have never panned out. Most of the other magazines specialize in that other type of story, such as "Obama appoints extra terrestrial alien to be Secretary of Space". Or "Pet Dog born with head of Elvis", showing the obviously photoshopped picture of Elvis Presley's face on a puppy. Yes, if it was true it would be of great scientific importance, but these stories never yet have proven true.

In reading about "The National Enquirer" in Wikipedia, I came across this interesting allegation I have never heard before:

"Founded in 1926 as The New York Evening Enquirer, Sunday afternoon newspaper distributed throughout the city. It was founded by anti-Semite William Griffin in 1926 and became a voice for isolationism and fascist propaganda in the 1930s and 1940s.[2]"

Obviously, the National Enquirer has changed hands since then, and is not in the business of Nazi propaganda any more (I don't think).

The third and last, for now, is from a website on the internet. I'm not sure how current that link will stay, due to the design of the website, but here is how the article starts off with this unfounded and probably false statement:

"EXTREME ALERT-MOVE YOUR FAMILIES NOW!: Inside sources have informed me that Full scale Gulf Coast evacuations are expected to begin in next couple of weeks--With Methane now surfacing and Bubbling in Florida waters the potential for a Methane Explosion of unimaginable devastation now comes into focus Further Law Enforcement Sources are being Advised of "ESCALATING VENT DETERIORATION" Two Definitions were provided to me--First "VENT" DEFINITION-"The opening in a volcano from which gas and molten rock erupt" and "ESCALATES"- DEFINITION GIVEN-"To expand step by step as from a limited or local conflict into a General NUCLEAR WAR"--to become unmanageable--You don't need a rocket science degree to read between the lines. Ten Years ago after the Papua New Guinea Earthquake in which "Burnt to a Crisp" bodies were pulled from the Fiery Seas-Stan Deyo and I did multiple Radio programs together over the years, warning of the Methane Hydrate Problems off our Coasts that could turn into "Seas Of Fire". "

Two links are provided in this section, I suppose to provide background scientific information.

It just happens that I have a sister in law living in Sarasota Florida, and so somehow one of Mary Ann's cousins came across this website and asked her if she thought it was the real thing, in which case a warning might be in order.

As far as I'm concerned, it's quite one thing to believe Al Gore sexually harassed a masseuse, and quite another to tell your sister in law to pack her bags and flee her home, based on a website story with no reputation of credibility.

By the way, if you do actually follow either of those links in the website, you will find that the first one is about a carbon dioxide explosion, not a methane explosion, and you should not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out those two are different. The second link, you can decide for yourself whether it is relevant.

Apparently it is true that there are localized high concentrations of methane gas dissolved in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, presumably due to the oil spill. Another link was provided here: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65L6IA20100622 In case you do not know, Reuters is more credible than SteveQuayle.com. Knowing how credible a source is comes with much experience, I guess.

What do we do about this spread of gossipy trash journalism? It seems that it is getting worse instead of getting better. I might as well admit that I don't have a clue yet, except to (1) search various reputable sources, including Snopes.com (2) stay in school when you have the chance and do your homework (3) Don't evacuate your house until you email another family member or friend for a second opinion. (4) try actually reading the whole thing, sometimes it's a joke or there is some context to consider.

Quebecor Readies "Fox News North"

Apparently we can soon expect to have a new channel available to Canadians that will promote a right wing agenda, similar to what Fox News does in the USA.

Jacksnewswatch

MacLean's

If this is going to happen, I certainly hope they do not descend to the depths that Fox News in the USA has, which is a level of journalism barely above infomercials and grocery store tabloids. I'm not sure that type of TV would attract the huge audience in Canada that it has in the USA. After all, only about 35% of Canadians vote conservative. But that could gradually increase I suppose, if this channel caught on.

For the last 12 years we have had the right wing newspaper equivalent, the "National Post". It has never been able to make money, and has softened its hard line right wing stance over the years, as ownership changed and new owners tried to turn a profit and build market share.

I read an opinion piece in the National Post just this morning that gives a great idea of what we can look forward to on TV if this deal goes ahead.


It's called "Destroy the Liberal party--for its own good" by Jonathan Kay, who writes many columns for the National Post.

The article itself is based on an idea that is not so bad, to destroy the Liberal Party. I could even get behind that idea if it was promoted as a way to oust the conservatives and return to a government that values the environment and peace. But there is a whiny tone to the article, extreme rhetoric, and the lack of any  substantial ideas.

I guess that when your stated goal is to push one point of view, it is very hard to focus on a search for the truth.  Although propaganda can sometimes be good, the the lowest common denominator of all propaganda end up in finding scapegoats to blame for our real or imaginary misfortunes, and to falling back on war as a means of recruiting people to a sponsor's cause.

Other than pure greed, one of the most basic conservative ideas is that liberals are ruining the the country, and eliminating them will benefit the "good people". This article fits right in with that theme, in the destroying the Liberal Party is assumed to pave the way for an unchallenged reign of the Conservatives. My own assumption would be that it would actually strengthen and improve the NDP and Green parties, and the Conservatives could be defeated.

But from the look of some of the passages in this article, this is low brow conservative propaganda.

"The Liberals could run a monkey draped with a Liberal sash, apparently, and he would get the Grafstein vote, too -- so long as the monkey endorsed monkey bilingualism and monkey equalization."

"This Liberal fetish for quasi-religious self-veneration has been around so long in this country that we have lost track of how weird it is."

"The most common is the one about the Liberals being "the party of Laurier" -- as if the party affiliation of someone who's been dead for a century should have the slightest bearing on how anyone today should vote."

"the selection of Michael Ignatieff -- a nominal Canadian who hadn't lived in this country since 1978, the era of the Bee Gees and Grease-- was an act of stunning arrogance that would be unimaginable for any other major Western political party."

"young Liberals already internalize their party's trademark self-regard as God's Chosen Party"

"just make sure that, at the end of the day, something called the "Liberal party" no longer exists as a vessel for vapid self-hagiography."

Well there is the mix of propaganda you can expect from "Fox North", if they are anything like Fox News or National Post. And of course references to the CBC and CTV as the delusional left wing  "Mainstream media" while "Fox North" will be the only "fair and balanced" network. (if they can get permission from Fox to use the trademarked term)

The strange but original argument about liberals who think they should rule because they are the party of Laurier. I never heard that one before, although I have heard many other straw man arguments..

Fancy words to make you think this is intelligent stuff - I didn't even bother to look up self-hagiography.

Reference to the arrogance of the Liberals, even though they are no longer in power. Usually the ruling party is the one accused of arrogance, but I guess name-calling habits are hard to break. Actually, not just arrogance, it was "Stunning" arrogance.

Another thing about hard core propaganda that gets on my nerves is the trick of turning reality upside down. (also calling black white, and white is black. War is peace, etc.) In this article, it is inferred that the Liberals are religious fanatics. The liberals are apparently "a quasi-religion" and "God's chosen party". Closer to the truth is that the Liberals believe in freedom of religion, while it is the Conservatives under Harper are quietly supported by religious conservatives, who are one step away from wanting to join the USA and Israel in a holy war against Muslims.  In the USA, Evangelical support for the conservatives is out in the open, but in Canada it is kept quiet as we are nowhere near ready for a theocracy yet.

Our country, Canada, used to be admired around the world for peace and tolerance. Not just under the Liberals, but under the Progressive Conservatives, too. Under the new [non progressive] Conservatives we are starting to be seen as the last holdouts of the Bush era. With our own Fox North, if it broadcasts in the tone of Jonathan Kay's article, that negative world perception of Canada could become permanent.

Picture: http://www.caglecartoons.com/