skip to main |
skip to sidebar
It's enough to drive a man to drink, what's going on today - war and rumors of war, Rob Ford smashing the democratic process in Toronto, the rain that comes down so often in Metro Vancouver except when it doesn't. While I like to aim for what comes out of the microbreweries and the craft breweries, the fact is that the beer stores in downtown New Westminster don't exactly have a vast selection. Still, there are times when I go against the admonishment to drink good beer, times when I'm just looking for a six-pack of something to take the edge off. Most of the options I have over here are more or less unique to this end of the continent; I never saw so much as a discarded can of Olympia during all my time in Ontario.Olympia Beer has a long history in the Pacific Northwest, going back to the 1890s when it was first brewed in Tumwater, Washington - near Olympia, so perhaps hence the name. Despite regional popularity, the makers fell on hard times and were bought out thirty years ago, to the point that its main production point today is a SABMiller plant in California. The cans for sale in British Columbia claim to have been brewed by the "Oly Brewing Company" in Saskatoon, but I can't find any reference to this supposed brewery that isn't some other review. I wouldn't be very surprised if it was produced in the United States and just relabeled; certainly, the only French on this can is that which identifies it as "bière."That's enough of a history lesson, though - you can't drink history. You want to know how it is as a beer today, right? Well, the tagline for Olympia Beer is "it's the water," which I suspect derives from its use of water from artisanal wells back in the day. Today, though, "it's the water" is just plain honest; that's practically all that there is inside the can. It's the most accurate proof I've found yet of the "sex in a canoe" joke.
Remember to cut the plastic rings so turtles don't get their heads stuck in them and die!
After going through a six-pack of this stuff, I've had a good chance to reflect on the virtues of modern Olympia Beer - far more than when I review a craft beer based on a sole and solitary bottle - and I've come to the conclusion that there aren't really any. When it comes to taste, there isn't really any - the strongest element I can detect is the water. No bite, no kick, barely even a sharp reminder of the 5% alc./vol. that's supposedly in there. I find it not just bland, but offensively bland. Now that I've done my research, I'm not particularly surprised by this; it's made by a major multinational beer manufacturing conglomerate, so of course it's going to be shitty. In my experience, multinationals don't very much care about things like "taste" or "quality" or "inventiveness" - rather, they care about saturating the airwaves with advertisements for their product so that they can sell two-fours by the truckload.What makes it even more galling is that of the multinational-owned swill for sale at the local bottle-o, it's not even the best value for money. Rainier Beer is something like fifty cents cheaper. Still, if you're looking for something of low price with no kick or aftertaste or anything that, just a suggestion of beer to take the edge off... try something else. Seriously. Go look for something that you've never seen advertised with a label that you don't recognize, or a bottle that says it was brewed in Portland. Don't put down your dollars on inferior beer.ANDREW'S RATING: 0.5/5Previous Quaff Reviews
Work has been progressing on Westminster Pier Park along the New Westminster waterfront all through the winter, although the signs up on the parkade still give the previous completion date of fall 2011. In the time I've been watching, it's gone from piles driven down into the riverbank to the floating park taking shape. Now it's dominated by the metal skeleton of Lytton Square, a modern replication of New Westminster's original nineteenth-century public market. Apparently once it's done it'll house concessions and a gathering space; once it's done, though, I won't be able to take any more pictures quite like this, either.
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.This means that you are free to Share (to copy, distribute and transmit the work) and to Remix (to adapt the work) under the following conditions: Attribution (you must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor, but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work), Noncommercial (you may not use this work for commercial purposes), and Share Alike (if you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one).
In very rare and narrow circumstances, there's a certain advantage to ignorance. Every once in a while, we meet a roadblock in life that we feel like there's no choice but to climb, and only once we're on the other side do we find out just how damn dangerous it was to scuttle across. There are things that we would never do if we had a greater understanding of what it really meant in order to do it, things we do because they seem easy or convenient and the fact that we're playing the numbers every time we do it is hidden from our senses - like living in a seismic danger zone, for example, or on the flanks of a sleeping volcano. If people had known that, say, Mount Rainier was ready to blow its top, it's doubtful that cities would have been built where ancient lahars seared the earth.Things like this are understandable when it comes to the ground beneath our feet; it appears stable, and that appearance is deceiving. It's one thing to make achievements in ignorance when the natural danger not only looks safe, but has been that way for ten thousand years. It's another thing entirely to extend that ignorance to something new, and something human-made.That is, of course, if you consider the beings who write the bills that our parliaments and congresses foist on us to be human.
It could be that they are actually tricksy crows who have learned to hold pens in their beaks.
Remember Vic Toews, he of the mustache, who asserted that one either stood with the Conservatives in support of their internet surveillance bill, or with the child pornographers? That claim, in itself, was an achievement in ignorance; it was so ridiculous, so far beyond the pale that it galvanized a response in the form of the now-defunct @Vikileaks30 and the #TellVicEverything hashtag on Twitter. That response was quickly picked up by the media and spread well beyond that segment of the population that uses Twitter, spread far and wide.According to an interview with the CBC this past weekend, good ol' Vic was "surprised" at the content of the bill he's been so vociferously defending. "This is the first time that I'm hearing this somehow extends ordinary police emergency powers [to telecommunications]," he said. "In my opinion, it doesn't. And it shouldn't."Well, Vic, it's too bad that what your opinion of what the bill says is irrelevant; the only thing that matters are the words on the page. A page which, incidentally, was hastily and cynically retitled from the Lawful Access Act to the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. He does, however, deserve some measure of kudos for stating so forthrightly that he is not doing his goddamn job. Of course he wouldn't put that into words - that's where it comes down to folks like me to interpret.Realistically, though, this sort of ignorance is completely inexcusable. As Minister of Public Safety and the prime defender of this bill in the House of Commons, it is Vic Toews' responsibility and duty to understand this bill and what it represents. He has demonstrated through his words that he has failed in that responsibility, and has failed us.In the course of my own job, from time to time things with some measure of legal sensitivity cross my desk, and it's my responsibility to see that they're dealt with appropriately. If I didn't, and subsequently told my bosses something along the lines of "I didn't pay attention to what I was doing, but in my opinion it wasn't a problem," how much longer do you think they'd be my bosses for? There are some things where no second chances should be given, and I think that government is a good place to find them.Vic Toews has demonstrated through his actions that, in his mind, accusing the Opposition of standing alongside child pornographers is more important than understanding the bill he's defending. For that he no longer has any business being in the House of Commons, and the fact that he will doubtless remain there only goes to show how intellectually and morally bankrupt the Conservative Party has become.
I'd never been down to Kits Beach before yesterday; Kitsilano is far enough from New West, and enough of a hassle to get to by transit, that I've only rarely headed down that way. The rain that had been dominating the morning let up in the early afternoon, and as the sky blazed through cracks in the cloud cover, people and their dogs went out to pound the sands of English Bay. It almost seems more honest with this level of cloud cover out over the ocean - a more honest Vancouver day.
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.This means that you are free to Share (to copy, distribute and transmit the work) and to Remix (to adapt the work) under the following conditions: Attribution (you must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor, but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work), Noncommercial (you may not use this work for commercial purposes), and Share Alike (if you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one).
"Star Trek: When Planets Collide," author(s) unknown
Appeared in Gold Key's STAR TREK #6, December 1969"There are our space bogies--and still on collision course! Mr. Spock... what if they should hit...?""At their estimated point of contact, the results would be catastrophic, Scotty! The shock waves upon impact alone would pitch many of the Alpho planets out of orbit... to burn in space!"I know it should be obvious to everyone with even a whiff of familiarity with the subject matter, but it still bears repeating: if you're looking for actual science that makes sense, rather than buzzword particles invented by some writer because the plot needs to be resolved somehow and all that liquor isn't going to drink itself, you're not going to find it in Star Trek. While the franchise did act as a gateway for me and many others into the greater world of science fiction, the facile way in which it portrays scientific and physical phenomena can be stunting; it was only in the last couple of years that I began to understand and appreciate how spaceflight actually works.Compared to comic books, Star Trek flowed from the pen of Carl Sagan. This is particularly true when the comic books in question are Star Trek comic books. Beginning in the late 1960s, shortly after the cancellation of the original series and tapping into the groundswell of Star Trek fandom that arose with the show's syndication, Gold Key Comics published more than sixty issues of licensed Star Trek comics - and in those pages that hid behind covers made of photo collages that rarely had any relationship to the story within, Star Trek's casual disregard for scientific rigor collided with the completely out-there, ridiculous, anything-goes stuff that comics have been, and continue to be, known for. I mean, I've been told that the Flash's costume is made out of pure speed. Speed isn't even a thing.Nevertheless - Star Trek comics were made in the 1960s, and in part because they were crazy as hell they were, and remain, entertaining to some degree. Much of the rest of the entertainment value comes from the fact that they're so bad, they're good, in part because of the vast liberties taken by the comic writers and artists from Gene Roddenberry's source material. I mean, these are comics where the Enterprise is regularly depicted as a stereotypical rocketship with flame spewing from the warp nacelles, where Captain Kirk is given to exclamations like "great galloping galaxies" and "howling comets," and where the resolution of the very first story was of the Enterprise scouring a planet of life. Now that's the Starfleet way!
Those meteorites have punctured the bridge, and space air is leaking in! Goggles on, everyone! (Comic page TM & © 2008 CBS Studios. All rights reserved.)
Stardate 23:00.9 - the Enterprise is zooming around in the Alpho Galaxy when its "TV space scanner" picks up two planets on a collision course. I'm not sure what the writer of this particular story meant by "galaxy," whether it was just an issue of people back then tending not to distinguish between "galaxy" and "solar system" - roughly equivalent to not drawing a distinction between the neighborhood you live in and the continent you live on. (Not that it makes much sense either way. "Planets... in the galaxy and orbiting Alpho!" Spock says, incredulously.) For some reason that is not explored whatsoever, the collision of these planets wold be a Pretty Bad Thing and so the Enterprise blasts for the closer planet on full rocket thrust across the thousands of... *sigh* galaxy miles to investigate.When I say "investigate," of course, I mean "blow up." Because that's how Kirk rolls, you know. Kirk and Spock and Mr. Scott beam down to the planet from a room that bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to the transporter room shown in the television show, and are immediately attacked! The planet is inhabited, despite appearances - what a twist! Can Captain Kirk convince his captors that he's come to save them, not destroy them?Do you really need to ask that? I mean, as I write this I'm not even finished reading the thing, and it's still plenty obvious. This is Captain James T. Kirk we're talking about. Therefore, anticipating the plots of Armageddon and Deep Impact thirty years in advance, Kirk and Spock and a few others who I can't tell who they're supposed to be because only Kirk and Spock bear any resemblance whatsoever to their actors beam down to the second planet and start melting mountains in order to place the atomic charges at just the right places to avert disaster.But... as Spock says, in perhaps one of his most in-character moments ever, "Great Zounds!" The second planet is also inhabited! I bet you didn't see that one coming. I mean, what's a hamfisted adventure story without a wholly artificial conflict based on convenient coincidences, anyway? Not to worry! Spock knows about a supernova remnant that radiates "a repelling force of the tenth magnitude!" Can the Enterprise use this last chance to save the two inhabited worlds - when it's restricted to a speed of 110,000 miles per second while towing the fragment? Not bloody likely, but come on! These guys obviously know nothing about how space works. So just go with it!Does it work? Honestly, I wouldn't have been totally surprised if it hadn't. This is, after all, a comic series where the first solution was genocide. Does the comic work? That depends on how you approach it. It barely hews to the source material, it's insulting to the intelligence, and the conflict is purely artificial, engineered to make things as "exciting" as possible and failing miserably. So, it's as good as an average episode of Voyager. Heyoooooo!ANDREW'S RATING: 0.5/5. In general, these comics are best appreciated the same way that Joel, Mike, and the bots appreciated movies.Previous Short SF Reviews:
At a high enough zoom, the camera lens distorts the true picture of reality. The SkyTrain tracks don't really have anything in common with a roller coaster where they descend into the short subway between New Westminster and Columbia, but when the camera's bringing things closer to the eye some things inevitably get lost in the translation.This photo was taken in March 2011 - it'd look fairly different now, if only because the cold metal skeleton of Plaza 88 around New West Station is a bit more than a skeleton now.
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.This means that you are free to Share (to copy, distribute and transmit the work) and to Remix (to adapt the work) under the following conditions: Attribution (you must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor, but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work), Noncommercial (you may not use this work for commercial purposes), and Share Alike (if you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one).
Devices look the way they do for a reason. Maybe tests showed that it was the most ergonomic design for the function, maybe the designer was inspired by old science fiction, or maybe the manufacturer's just taking the opportunity to push as many spare parts as possible out of the warehouse. The point is that in many cases, design and device aesthetics are of paramount importance - I mean, would iPhones be as popular if they were bricks of aluminum with rivets as thick as your thumb? The way a device looks is a common shorthand for how advanced it is - the sleek lines of a modern smartphone just look more advanced than 1980s car phones.Nevertheless, if you're building a coherent and believable world - no matter what medium you're using - that sensibility should still be there. Sure, the VISOR worn by Geordi La Forge in Star Trek: The Next Generation was modelled off a plastic barrette, but for most people it was likely far enough removed from its original source that it didn't trip people up; that it would cause a reaction of "damn, look at that guy's freaky future glasses" rather than "damn, that guy's wearing a woman's hair clip on his face."There can be times, though, where this fails - and when it fails spectacularly, that's where it becomes interesting to folks like me, in the same sense that a train derailment can be interesting. I ran across such an example in GURPS Ultra-Tech, a supplement for the GURPS roleplaying system written in 1989 and updated in 1991, which details speculative equipment for future campaigns from a decidedly 1980s lens - not that such a lens is unwelcome, even today. One device in particular never ceased to raise the question of "what the hell were they thinking," both in the context of the book itself and whatever future world that would think it was a good idea.Newscam: This is a rifle-sized and -shaped camera used by news teams (and surveillance crews). It is identical to the digital camera described above... it looks so much like a rifle that it is dangerous to use around hair-triggered counter-sniper teams; cameramen are advised to wear armor. (GURPS Ultra-Tech, pg. 31.)There are so many things wrong with this concept, I can't even begin to address them all.
"Don't be ridiculous, of course this isn't a firearm! Now just let me point it at your face for that hostile interview we were talking about."
It seems like a prank, honestly. The idea of taking a professional video camera and making it look enough like a weapon that it can be easily confused for one seems like something the engineers at Panaphonics, Magnetbox, or Sorny would slam together after a few too many joints in the loading dock combined with a healthy disregard for the customer. Sure, a professional camera won't necessarily be as bulky once videotapes stop being used, but it's a fair bet they'll still be fairly bulky - the more mass something has, the easier it is to keep stable without the use of a tripod, and while the whole shakycam aesthetic may have worked on Battlestar Galactica, people don't look for that on the six o'clock news.Honestly, the only reason I can think of as to why someone would actively design professional video cameras to bear a close resemblance to military rifles is as part of some vast project to eventually allow a "news crew" to infiltrate a normally secure area, sort of like what happened in Air Force One except the attackers wouldn't have to raid the weapons lockers.When you're dealing with lines on a page, the only limits to the possibilities of design are what will fit on the page. With that sort of wide-open field, it behooves all creators to think things through.
There aren't many places in Toronto where you can forget that you're in the middle of Toronto. It's rather a different situation than what prevails in Metro Vancouver, where you can amble into the forests around Burnaby's Deer Lake or crunch into the preserved rainforest in Stanley Park or get off a bus in North Vancouver and find stargates and DHDs behind ancient trees in Lynn Canyon. In built-up Toronto, the only spots where the city gets held in abeyance are places like the thickly-forested Nordheimer Ravine, parts of the Humber Valley along the bicycle trail, and High Park. When it was first opened, High Park was on the absolute fringe of the city - by now, of course, the city has grown around it. I took this photo of a path leading out of it up to Bloor Street West back in 2008.
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.This means that you are free to Share (to copy, distribute and transmit the work) and to Remix (to adapt the work) under the following conditions: Attribution (you must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor, but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work), Noncommercial (you may not use this work for commercial purposes), and Share Alike (if you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one).
You know, it sure is thoughtful of the Conservatives - now that they've got a majority in the House of Commons and can thus do whatever the hell they want thanks to the wonderfully broken system we call Westminster-style parliament - to keep giving us reasons why it was such a bad idea to elect them into power in the first place, because they don't have to face the electorate for another three years and by then most people will have forgotten.The latest was a zinger of a punch delivered by Vic Toews, the Minister of Public Safety - a position, incidentally, that immediately brings to mind Revolutionary France - in response to an opposition MP who attacked the Conservatives for overstepping their bounds with their latest controversial law, which would substantially increase the ability of the police to conduct potentially invasive investigations into Canadians' digital lives without first obtaining a warrant to do so. Michael Geist provides a good look into the implications of this bill - I encourage everyone to check it out."He can either stand with us," Toews said of his critic, "or with the child pornographers."
Just don't think about that for a minute - here's a picture of a bunny.
It's rare that things are so utterly black-and-white in politics. Usually people have to dig a bit for things like this. As the Globe and Mail says, though, this is completely in-character for the Conservatives; eight years ago, when they were still trying to crack Liberal fortunes in the House, the party issued press releases claiming that the Liberals and the New Democratic Party supported child pornography. Now that they don't have to worry about the opposition or the electorate, why should we be surprised that this sort of talk is resurfacing?The way I see it, there are only two options here - Vic Toews is either a manipulator or a shithead. Either he's fully aware of what he's doing and is using the argument to marginalize opposition, or he honestly believes that an ordinary, law-abiding citizen would have no reason to oppose what the Conservatives are putting forward. I can't figure out which is worse.It's easy to realize why they actually use this charge: it's indefensible, horrific, political poison to touch and thus they toss these claims like grenades. The fact that the Conservatives do use it, and have used it consistently, likewise explains a lot about the way the party as a whole thinks. For the Conservatives, it seems, everything boils down to a binary choice - this or that, us or them, good or evil.That's no way to run a government. It's a cynical ploy to marginalize their opponents in the eyes of their core supporters, the people who will follow them solely because they are Conservatives - like, say, Alberta, which seems to have an inexplicable political reflex in that it consistently gives absolute majorities of its votes to the big blue machine. It's that kind of automatic support, support given without regard to whether the party acts in a manner to make it worthy of that support, that energizes things like this. If the Conservatives were still a minority government, Harper would likely have already thrown Toews under the bus by now. Here's hoping that this causes at least some of those automatic supporters to consider throwing the Conservatives under the bus instead come 2015.At its core, it's completely indefensible - equivalent to me saying that either one stands with the opposition or with the fascists. If an opposition MP stood up in the house and suggested that the Conservatives were supporters of fascism, I have no doubt that that MP would shortly find out what it felt like to be raked over the coals.The ideal of government is consensus, not dominance. Binary choices have no place there. Nevertheless, there are far too many people out there who can only think in terms of one or zero - good or evil.
Back when I was growing up, the buses always looked the same - they were all GM New Look buses from the late 1950s, made famous by the one in Speed with the bomb in it. Fifteen years ago they were ubiquitous, but as new models came into service the aging Fishbowls were gradually pulled out of service. Barrie Transit made heavy use of them in the 1990s, and in Toronto they puttered on until 2011, when the last of them were retired from service.Back in 2008, I caught Toronto's bus #2250 waiting for the light to change at University and Gerrard. It's probably in a scrapheap now.
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.This means that you are free to Share (to copy, distribute and transmit the work) and to Remix (to adapt the work) under the following conditions: Attribution (you must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor, but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work), Noncommercial (you may not use this work for commercial purposes), and Share Alike (if you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one).