So, we all know full well because of media saturation what has happened in Haiti and out of the woodwork comes those with metaphysical explanations of what has happened.
Notably a televangelist in the United States declaring that the Haitians sold there souls to the devil many moons ago and the disastrous earthquake that struck Haiti is punishment for their sins.
Aside from the obvious geological reasons as to why the earthquake occurred, to many people who are not so wound up in finding divine reasons for disasters, such testimonials about why natural disasters happen sound, at least to me, uneducated, ignorant, and down right absurd.
That televangelist has a lot in common with individuals or groups of individuals who would use interpretations of religious texts to condone acts of violence against others who don't think or believe as they do; a blindness to obvious facts and a narrow point of view on the world.
The world is small. So small in the grand scheme of things. Still, it seems we have the desire to weather divine meaning out of events like natural disasters and even to use such divine meanings for our own purposes and propaganda.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Heart Disease Anyone?
I overheard last night on the news that there is supposed to be a new wave of heart disease in the age group which includes people in their 20's to 30's.
In addition to this fun medical fact, is the apparent need to exercise everyday for 60 to 90 minutes vigorously.
Now, the last I heard on the subject of how much physical activity was desirable was the recommendation that you get your heart rate up and keep it there for about 20 minutes and that you should endeavour to achieve this cardiovascular goal three times a week.
Does the aforementioned disparity ring any bells?
The Canadian Food Guide called for, and only as an adult did I realize how non-sensible the serving numbers were, an awfully high daily number of servings of meat, grains, dairy, and fruits and vegetables.
Three square meals a day was considered the norm and now some wisdom is saying six smaller meals a day is ideal for digestion.
And it turns out you really don't need eight glasses of water a day; especially for men as apparently the extra pressure on a males bladder is not good for the prostate.
I am not saying that we shouldn't be exercising or being mindful of what we eat, to the contrary, we have become one of the least physically active generations in human history with access not only to an abundance of relatively healthy foods in the industrialized world, but an equally abundant amount of relatively unhealthy foods as well.
The recent Canadian cardiovascular update just made me think about how conventional wisdom when it comes to our health which persists can be so easily dismissed, ignored, and/or proven inaccurate in the future.
In addition to this fun medical fact, is the apparent need to exercise everyday for 60 to 90 minutes vigorously.
Now, the last I heard on the subject of how much physical activity was desirable was the recommendation that you get your heart rate up and keep it there for about 20 minutes and that you should endeavour to achieve this cardiovascular goal three times a week.
Does the aforementioned disparity ring any bells?
The Canadian Food Guide called for, and only as an adult did I realize how non-sensible the serving numbers were, an awfully high daily number of servings of meat, grains, dairy, and fruits and vegetables.
Three square meals a day was considered the norm and now some wisdom is saying six smaller meals a day is ideal for digestion.
And it turns out you really don't need eight glasses of water a day; especially for men as apparently the extra pressure on a males bladder is not good for the prostate.
I am not saying that we shouldn't be exercising or being mindful of what we eat, to the contrary, we have become one of the least physically active generations in human history with access not only to an abundance of relatively healthy foods in the industrialized world, but an equally abundant amount of relatively unhealthy foods as well.
The recent Canadian cardiovascular update just made me think about how conventional wisdom when it comes to our health which persists can be so easily dismissed, ignored, and/or proven inaccurate in the future.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Attention International Monetary Fund, World Bank, & Heritage Foundation ...
People who are caught in disaster zones are still people!
Sunday, January 17, 2010
In The Chamber 2010: Last Men - Play Review
The seats were comfortable for the near hour and a half of the play (the start time was 15 minutes late as they were cramming as many audience members in as they could) In The Chamber 2010: Last Men, a Theatre Projects Manitoba production.
The play consisted of two parts - Part One: Last Man in Krakendorf, written and performed by Gordon Tanner, and Part Two: Last Man in Puntarenas, written and performed by Steven Ratzlaff. Both of whom are local actors/playwrights.
I found the beginning or 'overture' as it is aptly named, a little confusing in terms of what it was supposed to symbolize. It seemed to focus metaphorically on the concepts of self and chaos which are elements of the two part play that was to come later.
Part One sees Gordon Tanner playing a somewhat disheveled and disillusioned analyst who works for a large agriculture company, who is video taping a rant in a hotel bedroom which he plans to send to Warren Buffet about hog farm safety. Part One is laced with plenty of political, satirical, and sometimes self-deprecating humor about agribusiness and individual choices, while keeping up a pretty consistent continuity and flow. There were a few times were I felt the continuity and flow got bogged down, but overall I did enjoy Part One and Gordon Tanner's performance was well acted.
Part Two sees Steven Ratzlaff playing a somewhat, wait for it, disheveled and disillusioned ex-teacher and former medical consultant for patient safety, who just quit because he is so mired with cynicism and pessimism about his former occupation and how it relates to the death of his mentally challenged son, who underwent a complicated but unsuccessful heart surgery. Phew! That is quite a mouthful as I found Part Two was much more detailed to the point that it did seem to drag out as the balance between the humor, political, and satirical, which was pretty well balanced in Part One, got lost as Part Two went on and seemed to be only serious and lamenting come the end of the play. Ratzlaff plays his character well, and has a little more to work with then Tanner as Ratzlaff's character is at a restaurant with work colleagues who he addresses but are not actually there. The imaginary characters are portrayed by balloons tied to chairs which I thought was clever. Over time, a waiter, played by Tanner, takes the balloons away one by one till there is no one left to listen to Ratzlaff's character rant about the medical system and the inquiry into his son's death.
What tied the two plays together in a rough sense was the concept of 'human error with the new view' and something called 'human factor analysis'. Those themes are in both plays, though more so I thought in Part One, and both parts entail a tragedy of sorts, whether it be a hog barn fire or a botched surgical procedure, and how the characters are coping with said tragedies and the cold way the 'system' investigates and treats such tragedies.
Was the overall theme about the treatment of animals or socialized medicine? Was it more about individual choice or coming to terms with the consequences of ones actions? These were themes prevalent in both parts of the play and it seemed to me that there was no one main theme which made the play overall, a little convoluted.
There was a fifteen minute intermission where you could get water to quench your thirst from the first hour and a bit of the play, with music to keep everyone entertained while they stretched their legs and chatted with other audience members. At the end of the play there was a snack table with little bits to eat which was a nice touch, and I found the aesthetics of the theater itself to be simple and effective with the stage not really a stage, but part of the floor which gives the theater an intimate quality.
Overall, the play was great, though I found that continuity and theme development were a little scattered, particularly in Part Two, which left me not sure what the main gist or theme of the play was.
The play consisted of two parts - Part One: Last Man in Krakendorf, written and performed by Gordon Tanner, and Part Two: Last Man in Puntarenas, written and performed by Steven Ratzlaff. Both of whom are local actors/playwrights.
I found the beginning or 'overture' as it is aptly named, a little confusing in terms of what it was supposed to symbolize. It seemed to focus metaphorically on the concepts of self and chaos which are elements of the two part play that was to come later.
Part One sees Gordon Tanner playing a somewhat disheveled and disillusioned analyst who works for a large agriculture company, who is video taping a rant in a hotel bedroom which he plans to send to Warren Buffet about hog farm safety. Part One is laced with plenty of political, satirical, and sometimes self-deprecating humor about agribusiness and individual choices, while keeping up a pretty consistent continuity and flow. There were a few times were I felt the continuity and flow got bogged down, but overall I did enjoy Part One and Gordon Tanner's performance was well acted.
Part Two sees Steven Ratzlaff playing a somewhat, wait for it, disheveled and disillusioned ex-teacher and former medical consultant for patient safety, who just quit because he is so mired with cynicism and pessimism about his former occupation and how it relates to the death of his mentally challenged son, who underwent a complicated but unsuccessful heart surgery. Phew! That is quite a mouthful as I found Part Two was much more detailed to the point that it did seem to drag out as the balance between the humor, political, and satirical, which was pretty well balanced in Part One, got lost as Part Two went on and seemed to be only serious and lamenting come the end of the play. Ratzlaff plays his character well, and has a little more to work with then Tanner as Ratzlaff's character is at a restaurant with work colleagues who he addresses but are not actually there. The imaginary characters are portrayed by balloons tied to chairs which I thought was clever. Over time, a waiter, played by Tanner, takes the balloons away one by one till there is no one left to listen to Ratzlaff's character rant about the medical system and the inquiry into his son's death.
What tied the two plays together in a rough sense was the concept of 'human error with the new view' and something called 'human factor analysis'. Those themes are in both plays, though more so I thought in Part One, and both parts entail a tragedy of sorts, whether it be a hog barn fire or a botched surgical procedure, and how the characters are coping with said tragedies and the cold way the 'system' investigates and treats such tragedies.
Was the overall theme about the treatment of animals or socialized medicine? Was it more about individual choice or coming to terms with the consequences of ones actions? These were themes prevalent in both parts of the play and it seemed to me that there was no one main theme which made the play overall, a little convoluted.
There was a fifteen minute intermission where you could get water to quench your thirst from the first hour and a bit of the play, with music to keep everyone entertained while they stretched their legs and chatted with other audience members. At the end of the play there was a snack table with little bits to eat which was a nice touch, and I found the aesthetics of the theater itself to be simple and effective with the stage not really a stage, but part of the floor which gives the theater an intimate quality.
Overall, the play was great, though I found that continuity and theme development were a little scattered, particularly in Part Two, which left me not sure what the main gist or theme of the play was.
Friday, January 8, 2010
PR pseudoevent
Well, Balloon Boy was a hoax and we all know that the father of that family was motivated to get a reality TV show.
You might think other families would not dare pull any sort of stunt to land a reality TV show after the Balloon Boy hoax, but the Dunn family from Vancouver did it right.
In late December of 2009 the Dunn family lit themselves on fire and danced around a pile of wood holding sticks with big marshmallows.
The Dunn family are stunt enthusiasts with Jim having appeared in several movies as a stunt double. His wife Celia and their kids Connor, 15, Ali, 12, and Austin, 9 are also stunt doubles themselves and are Canada's only full on stunt family.
What makes this an excellent example of a positive pseudo event is that Jim Dunn was meticulous in the planning and execution of the stunt, and the stunt itself was innovative and eye catching.
Compared to the Balloon Boy family, the Dunn's were clear in their motives and were not deceptive to the media. All members of the family were willing and able to be interviewed to help give the stunt positive publicity and credibility.
Some say there is no such thing as bad press or bad publicity, but in the realm of pseudo events and publicity stunts you better not mislead the public; especially when public safety and the life of a child is at stake!
Rainbow Six: Vegas video game review
What can I say, it was just under 20 dollars when I bought Rainbow Six: Vegas new. It is an older game and having played a couple of the original Xbox titles bearing the same name, I felt it was a bargain coupled with the fact that I am in school and not making money.
Platform: Xbox 360
Publisher: UBI Soft Montreal (Oh Canada!)
Release date: 2006
The hallmark of all previous incarnations of the Rainbow Six series is squad based anti-terrorism missions in first person perspective. In a nutshell, Rainbow is an international force from many countries called into situations where negotiations have failed and action is required to resolve unstable and violent situations involving terrorists.
With that in mind, you don't get an in depth narrative with many unique or inventive plot twists, but rather an overall narrative that more or less links the individual missions together.
Graphics: This Rainbow Six title got really good overall reviews for it's look and feel and I would have to say I agree overall. The environments you find yourself immersed in from Mexico to Las Vegas are wide open with a lot of superb overall detail. I found that just in terms of the minute details the graphics are a little flat; especially in comparison to the Ghost Recon: Advanced War fighter title I have played previously, another Clancy licensed and UBI soft developed series. The characters are realistically designed and move fluently but not on the same level as the characters in the Call of Duty series. You get some nice touches like clothes fluttering in the breeze on a clothes line and vehicles that react to being shot, but overall I thought the fine details lacked a little bit of punch.
Sound: The sound of gunfire, grenades, and explosions are staples for this genre of game and said effects are rendered nicely. You will hear menacing yells and curses from your opponents (there are f-bombs in the dialogue during the game) as you take cover and try to take them down. There is a musical score that serves as ambiance in mission and then becomes a little more prevalent during cut scenes to heighten drama and compliments what is happening onscreen nicely. If you have surround sound you will hear the aforementioned effects and yells of opponents come through your speakers with good overall clarity.
Play Control: Whether it be Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon, or Rainbow Six, which all are under the umbrella of UBI Soft in terms of development, the play control scheme is different for each title and for the most part the play control in Rainbow Six: Vegas is pretty tight. I only found the peaking around corners and shooting a little bit cumbersome to get used to because you have to hold one button and then use the analog stick to lean out.
Go Rainbow!
Graphics: 4.3 out of 5.
Sound: 4.5 out of 5.
Play Control: 4.5 out of 5.
Oh, just before the new year begins here is a prorogie!
I want to go on the record and say I don't agree with Stephen Harper's decision to prorogue parliament till essentially the end of winter.
About a year ago, the word prorogue was on the lips of many Canadians and I was curious and intrigued by what proroguing parliament meant.
That was then and this is now. Stephen Harper's claim that he and his government need to 'recalibrate' as justification for proroguing parliament is not acceptable to me.
Why can't re calibration happen when parliament is sitting in the house of commons?
No debates, no legislation being passed, no federal government 'working' in the sense that most Canadians probably think when they envision elected officials working.
At minimum, every time parliament is prorogued, then all elected officials should forfeit a sum of their pay for the time they are not in parliament; especially the Conservatives since Canada now has a multi billion dollar debt to pay down.
Government cannot work if one person can decide to make it stop working whenever they 'feel' it is in their best interests or even when it is necessarily right!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)