TORONTO, ONTARIO - This week's radio pick again comes from the Age of Persuasion. One of the things that radio does all too infrequently is take one back to nostalgic moments. In this week's 27-minute episode of the Age of Persuasion, Terry O'Riley brings up almost too many past marketing failures to count in such a short program--worth listening to just to see how much can be packed into a half-hour show, never mind the memories.
Listen to streaming MP3 of The Age of Persuasion "Persuasion Fail"
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Travel: Fun with Foreign Place Names
TORONTO, ONTARIO - When traveling to Europe, I often would not be especially functional the first day because of jet lag. Often, I would use that day to travel by train to my actual destination, figuring I didn't need all my mental faculties to just ride a train. Such was the case in April 2002 as I took a Die Bahn train through Waldshut, Switzerland. In my less-than-alert state, and noting the valley in the area, I mused that the town must be "walled shut." Of course, that's not even how the town name is pronounced in German. When I later told a Swiss colleague about this joke, he mentioned that he would have never thought of that. Why would he; there was nothing in the etymology of the name or its pronunciation to lead one there--it was pure ignorance.
Having just updated my railfanning notebook index through the end of my European experiences, I decided to go back through the index and have some fun with German-language place names.
The following questions resulted:
Do people make friends easily in Chum, Switzerland?
Are the breakfasts good in Egghütti, Switzerland?
Do they skip generations in Grandson, Switzerland?
Do people often have bad hair days in Grossheringen, Germany?
Do only less attractive people live in Haag, Switzerland?
Do young lovers go to Kissing, Germany?
Do they ever buy anything in Liesing, Austria?
Do they build new houses in Neuhausen Bad, Switzerland?
Is it a good thing that Payerbach, Austria is not near Taxenbach, Austria?
Do they have good snacks in Pichl, Austria?
Do they overdose in Pill, Austria?
Do people have good manners in Rottenmann, Austria?
Do they have good alcohol in Rum, Austria?
Do people fall in love in Schmitten, Switzerland?
Are they early adopters in Tecknau, Switzerland?
Of course, after massacring all these place names, I would probably be sent to the Rathaus (city hall) for punishment. I've always thought that was a great name for a place where politicians work... nothing more than a house of rats!
Having just updated my railfanning notebook index through the end of my European experiences, I decided to go back through the index and have some fun with German-language place names.
The following questions resulted:
Do people make friends easily in Chum, Switzerland?
Are the breakfasts good in Egghütti, Switzerland?
Do they skip generations in Grandson, Switzerland?
Do people often have bad hair days in Grossheringen, Germany?
Do only less attractive people live in Haag, Switzerland?
Do young lovers go to Kissing, Germany?
Do they ever buy anything in Liesing, Austria?
Do they build new houses in Neuhausen Bad, Switzerland?
Is it a good thing that Payerbach, Austria is not near Taxenbach, Austria?
Do they have good snacks in Pichl, Austria?
Do they overdose in Pill, Austria?
Do people have good manners in Rottenmann, Austria?
Do they have good alcohol in Rum, Austria?
Do people fall in love in Schmitten, Switzerland?
Are they early adopters in Tecknau, Switzerland?
Of course, after massacring all these place names, I would probably be sent to the Rathaus (city hall) for punishment. I've always thought that was a great name for a place where politicians work... nothing more than a house of rats!
Friday, February 5, 2010
Politics: Agreeing with Brooks Again
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Several times in the past, most notably in this entry, I have praised New York Times columnist David Brooks for taking a very real-world approach to his conservative views. I may disagree with Brooks on many issues, but I never get the impression that Brooks lives in a different world with different facts than the world I live in, something that often happens with other prominent people on the right in the United States.
One of the things that I think makes Brooks so valuable is that in the spirit of other, less ideologically-identified columnists like David Broder, he tends to take the pulse of the public extremely well, even when public opinion is turning against his preferences. He understood the depth of anger against the Republicans in 2008 early, and understood what Barack Obama was tapping into against Hillary Clinton.
I believe Brooks picked up on another trend last Sunday during the roundtable discussion on Meet the Press, which I haven't heard him discuss elsewhere. (Brooks seems to appear all over the place; I usually hear him at least on NPR's All Things Considered and the PBS NewsHour each Friday.) While discussing the current tide against Democrats in the United States, Brooks noted that people are turning to the Republicans because they are dissatisfied with government action. However, they don't really want no government action, they just want more effective government action. They distrust THIS government, but they want to trust government. By calling for preventing or undoing all Democratic initiatives, the Republicans run the risk of over-reaching as much as they claim the Democrats have.
I suspect Brooks is correct. The TEA party may want government completely out of their lives, but those people have already been voting Republican. The independents that determine elections--and elected Scott Brown in Massachusetts--want government to actually achieve something. The party that figures that out and manages to actually seem effective will probably do quite well this fall. Somehow, I doubt either party is listening.
One of the things that I think makes Brooks so valuable is that in the spirit of other, less ideologically-identified columnists like David Broder, he tends to take the pulse of the public extremely well, even when public opinion is turning against his preferences. He understood the depth of anger against the Republicans in 2008 early, and understood what Barack Obama was tapping into against Hillary Clinton.
I believe Brooks picked up on another trend last Sunday during the roundtable discussion on Meet the Press, which I haven't heard him discuss elsewhere. (Brooks seems to appear all over the place; I usually hear him at least on NPR's All Things Considered and the PBS NewsHour each Friday.) While discussing the current tide against Democrats in the United States, Brooks noted that people are turning to the Republicans because they are dissatisfied with government action. However, they don't really want no government action, they just want more effective government action. They distrust THIS government, but they want to trust government. By calling for preventing or undoing all Democratic initiatives, the Republicans run the risk of over-reaching as much as they claim the Democrats have.
I suspect Brooks is correct. The TEA party may want government completely out of their lives, but those people have already been voting Republican. The independents that determine elections--and elected Scott Brown in Massachusetts--want government to actually achieve something. The party that figures that out and manages to actually seem effective will probably do quite well this fall. Somehow, I doubt either party is listening.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Heritage: Unbuilt Toronto
Author Mark Osbaldeston prepared to give a talk on his "Unbuilt Toronto" book to the Swansea Historical Society on 3-February-2010
TORONTO, ONTARIO - For some reason, despite all the awards it has received, I had never bothered to read the book "Unbuilt Toronto." Thus, when author Mark Osbaldeston spoke at the Swansea Historical Society last night, the material he presented was all new to me, and made it all the more obvious to me why the book has won such profound praise.
While the book was organized by topic (unbuilt transportation, retail, etc.), in his presentation, Osbaldeston instead took a street segment, Queen Street West from Yonge to University, and chose to highlight all the unbuilt projects related to that area. Being in the core of downtown Toronto, that meant everything from a Queen Street subway for streetcars to a much larger version of the Eaton Centre to a wonderful monument traffic circle that could have been built near Queen and University to hide the jog in University that would have cost just five figures.
Much of the presentation focused on what would happen on the location that today hosts City Hall and Nathan Philips Square. Originally purchased by the city to create a civic square between (now-Old) City Hall and Osgoode Hall, the property languished for years as different proposals, many of them replacing Old City Hall, came and went. One was even an early version of a Public-Private Partnership, which would have built a new building on the Old City Hall site that would have initially contained retail space catering to downtown workers until the city needed additional space. Most surprising to me were the proposals to create a "Federal Avenue" (later going under other names) that would have run from the center of Union Station directly to the site on Queen. Imagine what it would be like today to look from City Hall or Union Station and see the other building!
Arguably the most visionary project was Buckminster Fuller's proposal for re-connecting Toronto with its waterfront, including an atrium in which University Avenue would have extended south, crossed the railway lands, and reached Lake Ontario. It seems amazing today that more than forty years later, Toronto is still trying to re-connect with Lake Ontario, making progress in fits and starts. This proved to be a major theme of Osbaldeston's presentation, that old ideas come back and are eventually implemented. The current Eglinton light rail designs resemble the original Queen designs, much of Toronto's retail did move north (just to Bloor, not College), and George Brown College is building a waterfront campus.
Yet, the bigger theme appeared to be that Toronto has (almost) always developed pragmatically. The Eaton's plans for a mega-city development did not proceed because there just weren't enough prospective tenants. The monument traffic circle on University wasn't built because the construction of the University extension was funded by a local improvement district that wasn't interested in such niceties. Most amazingly, the parking lot underneath City Hall was built first, to help fund the project, and all proposals for the design had to incorporate the already-existing garage!
Considering this reality, it's amazing that we have the significant buildings we do have in Toronto. Mark Osbaldeston did a great job of putting that in perspective.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Culture: So It's Not That They Are Gay
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Frankly, the spectacle going on in the United States right now about gays in the military is pathetic. Canada has allowed homosexuals to openly serve in its military since 1992, without any significant issues. For those of you who have issues with the effectiveness of the Canadian military (and if one is paying attention in Afghanistan, I really wonder why), then look to Israel, which has allowed gays and lesbians to serve since 1993 without affecting their effectiveness. In a time when having adequate soldiers to fight--particularly those with language and other specialized skills--is a central issue, turning away an otherwise-qualified and skilled individual because of their sexual orientation is bordering on insane. Does the United States not have as professional of a military as Israel or Canada?
Talk show host Dave Ross tried to understand what opponents of the repeal of the present "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy were really concerned about earlier this week on his KIRO-FM talk show in Seattle. Fifteen minutes into this podcast, he takes what I found to be a revealing call. The male caller stated that gays made him uncomfortable, calling himself a "guy's guy." When asked who else made him feel that way, he referred to "soft" office workers. Upon exploring the matter further, he admitted that "manly" gay men did not bother him. "It's not if you're homosexual or not, it's whether you're male dominant or not... it's effeminate guys."
While some small percentage of true homophobia does exist in this world, I suspect the attitude expressed by the caller is actually far more common; in many cases, it would effectively be indistinguishable from homophobia. There seem to be a fair number of people in the United States--almost all men--that just cannot handle any blurring of traditional gender roles, in particular effeminate men, gay or not. I really don't understand the psychology of the "guy's guys" that somehow feel threatened by effeminate men--the effeminate men are not likely to steal a mate from a "guy's guy," pose a physical threat, or threaten their social standing. Since there doesn't appear to be such an overt biological cause, it has to be an insecurity about themselves of some kind; I won't (and am not qualified to) speculate beyond that.
The amazing thing is that in the United States, compared with other countries, these insecure men apparently have more power than in other countries, as they've managed to keep gays out of the military, whereas they haven't in most of the rest of the developed world. It can't reflect well on the United States that this is the case.
Talk show host Dave Ross tried to understand what opponents of the repeal of the present "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy were really concerned about earlier this week on his KIRO-FM talk show in Seattle. Fifteen minutes into this podcast, he takes what I found to be a revealing call. The male caller stated that gays made him uncomfortable, calling himself a "guy's guy." When asked who else made him feel that way, he referred to "soft" office workers. Upon exploring the matter further, he admitted that "manly" gay men did not bother him. "It's not if you're homosexual or not, it's whether you're male dominant or not... it's effeminate guys."
While some small percentage of true homophobia does exist in this world, I suspect the attitude expressed by the caller is actually far more common; in many cases, it would effectively be indistinguishable from homophobia. There seem to be a fair number of people in the United States--almost all men--that just cannot handle any blurring of traditional gender roles, in particular effeminate men, gay or not. I really don't understand the psychology of the "guy's guys" that somehow feel threatened by effeminate men--the effeminate men are not likely to steal a mate from a "guy's guy," pose a physical threat, or threaten their social standing. Since there doesn't appear to be such an overt biological cause, it has to be an insecurity about themselves of some kind; I won't (and am not qualified to) speculate beyond that.
The amazing thing is that in the United States, compared with other countries, these insecure men apparently have more power than in other countries, as they've managed to keep gays out of the military, whereas they haven't in most of the rest of the developed world. It can't reflect well on the United States that this is the case.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Culture: Watch for Rising Violent Crime
TORONTO, ONTARIO - The "TEA" (standing for "Taxed Enough Already?") party movement in the United States is largely seen as having political consequences. It may elect specific candidates (some would say Scott Brown in Massachusetts), it may push the Republican Party to the right (remember the Congressional election in New York's 23rd District?), and it may lead to a radical shift in Congressional makeup this fall. What may be even more relevant to the average person is that it likely portends an increase in violent crime.
Some analysts were quite surprised when the murder rate in the United States did not appreciably rise when the recession took hold. Violent crime rates were thought by some to be mostly correlated to economic status; the more people seemed to have invested in a job and their general economic situation, the less likely they would be to resort to violence. However, that correlation doesn't seem to hold up, including in the recent period when unemployment and insecurity went up, and the murder rate and other violent crime statistics did not.
In researching his recent book, American Homicide, Ohio State professor Randolph Roth found instead that the correlation was with belief in government and trust of fellow citizens. As long as those two elements are in place, poverty and unemployment don't seem to matter, and neither do incarceration rates or tough-on-crime policies. If people trust the people around them and trust their government to act in their best interests, they don't seem to resort to violence.
In a recent CBC interview I've mentioned before, Roth pointed out that the effect might explain why the United States is so much more violent than its northern neighbour, with more than double the murder rate. Canadians generally trust their government--and their fellow Canadians--while those south of the border do not.
So, when Barack Obama was being viewed positively and talked about entering a post-racial era, the unemployment rate and other economic indicators didn't matter so much, the murder rate still went down. Now that the "TEA" Party is raising ire at government, we can expect it will go back up again.
What I find interesting is that Roth has gotten so little media attention for research that is intellectually interesting, correlated with other researchers in Europe, and potentially has a clear lesson to learn. Why not? Because the media makes money from people getting mad at government. It's good business to keep things the way they are--and that may be the most disturbing thing about Roth's findings.
Some analysts were quite surprised when the murder rate in the United States did not appreciably rise when the recession took hold. Violent crime rates were thought by some to be mostly correlated to economic status; the more people seemed to have invested in a job and their general economic situation, the less likely they would be to resort to violence. However, that correlation doesn't seem to hold up, including in the recent period when unemployment and insecurity went up, and the murder rate and other violent crime statistics did not.
In researching his recent book, American Homicide, Ohio State professor Randolph Roth found instead that the correlation was with belief in government and trust of fellow citizens. As long as those two elements are in place, poverty and unemployment don't seem to matter, and neither do incarceration rates or tough-on-crime policies. If people trust the people around them and trust their government to act in their best interests, they don't seem to resort to violence.
In a recent CBC interview I've mentioned before, Roth pointed out that the effect might explain why the United States is so much more violent than its northern neighbour, with more than double the murder rate. Canadians generally trust their government--and their fellow Canadians--while those south of the border do not.
So, when Barack Obama was being viewed positively and talked about entering a post-racial era, the unemployment rate and other economic indicators didn't matter so much, the murder rate still went down. Now that the "TEA" Party is raising ire at government, we can expect it will go back up again.
What I find interesting is that Roth has gotten so little media attention for research that is intellectually interesting, correlated with other researchers in Europe, and potentially has a clear lesson to learn. Why not? Because the media makes money from people getting mad at government. It's good business to keep things the way they are--and that may be the most disturbing thing about Roth's findings.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Photos: Seattle, Washington
A Sound Transit Central Link light rail vehicle passed the tower at Sea-Tac Airport heading for its terminus at the airport on 23-December-2009
TORONTO, ONTARIO - This week's update to my photo site is part three of my trip to the west coast. Scenes from a visit to the Seattle, Washington area between 15-December and 25-December-2009 included a ride on the new Central Link light rail to Sea-Tac Airport, other transportation infrastructure and various scenery including mountains and Bellefields Nature Preserve in Bellevue, Washington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)