Anyone read the Calgary Sun?

If newspapers were a school, I sort of picture the Calgary Herald as the brainy student, the Globe and Mail as the teacher with the short-sleeve dress shirt with necktie, the National Post as the substitute teacher who wears the golf shirt with jeans, and the Calgary Sun as the gossipy shit disturber who talks like an "A" student, but gets "C's" on the report card.

This mental picture could have been more solidified after reading the Calgary Sun's reporting of the City choosing not to emblazon their vehicles with the large "Support the Troops" decals (pronounced in Canada like "deckle" not "d-KAL"). Check it the article here.

Note the use of language.

"The city has issued an edict". Aside from the grammatical error of not capitalizing the proper noun "City", you usually think of the word "edict" as something hostile, like some despot ruler issuing a decree that all citizens are to bow to his image every morning. This sentence sets the tone for what's to come.

"Stickers were ripped from garbage trucks..." Wow. I have this vision of a group of four thugs arriving on the scene removing these stickers while the City worker begs, with tears streaming, for mercy. "SILENCE!" Bellows the bully, while brandishing a blood-speckled baton.

"Not sure if (they'll) defy the order" The word "defy" you immediately think of someone sticking up for himself, right? David defied Goliath. That Chinese protester-guy defied the tank in Tienanmen Square. The Sun continues to set the scene as a struggle against an oppressive and unjust force.

The article, as a whole, gently suggests to you that the City hates the troops. The report doesn't have the guts to say it, but the general theme is unmistakable. Does this not conflict with the City's track record on charity causes? What about the United Way campaign every November when we try to raise a million bucks for the less fortunate? What about the Breast Cancer fundraising? What about the "Support the Troops" decals that the City will be selling at its facilities? OOPS!! I guess the Sun forgot to mention that last one, eh?

Anyway, friends. Read for yourself. By all means, continue to read the Sun if you prefer. Hey, every once in a while even the healthiest person grabs a Big Mac.

New iMac Revealed

The rumours were right. The new iMacs are significantly different than the previous all-white iMacs. When I saw the first photos, and heard about iLife 08, then saw the new specs, I almost whipped out my credit card and ordered one online. I want! Must have! Gimme!

But I resisted. I took a deep breath. I wiped the drool from my chin and changed my shorts. Then I heard a voice. Was God talking to me? Was it the voice of reason? Was I channeling the spirit of a wise Buddhist monk? I listened. It said, "Oh ye with troubled spirit. Drink not the wine from the look of the barrel. Consider ye the vintages from all the regions."

Not wanting to piss off any spirits, I navigated to the apple store page, jotted down the price and the specs. I then made my cyberway to Memory Express's site, and jotted down the specs and price of a comparable PC.

Here's what I got....

iMac
Cost $1299
2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo (model number not provided)
1 GB RAM
250 GB Hard Drive
ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory
8x double-layer SuperDrive [DVD +/- RW]
20 inch display

Memory Express
Cost $1098
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 Processor
G33 chipset motherboard
PC5300 2G DDR2 Memory
250G SATA2 Hard Drive
18x18 DVD writer
8600GT SC video card with 256M
Samsung SyncMaster 206BW 20in Widescreen

Okay, those are the raw specs. But there's more to life than numbers. On the "Pro-Mac" side: the Mac would come with all the software to begin actually using the darn thing. The PC would not. The iMac looks good, suitable for any room. The PC's monitor may look nice, but the box typically is not, and needs to be "stashed" in an aesthetic manner.

On the "Pro-PC" side: the PC is cheaper (yes, I am of Scottish descent). The actual machine is more powerful, I could experiment with the latest cutting-edge games if the whim hits me. I could also upgrade various components to the PC: video card, Hard Drive. The iMac is on lockdown: no touch-ee!

So I will meditate on these thoughts. I'll go to Best Buy and fiddle with the new iMac, pop by Memory Express fiddle with their stuff. I'm curious to see which way I will go.

Enough With The Soccer Whining!

I dig sports. I bought an HDTV so I can be there without being there, I have a ferocious appetite for ESPN, TSN, and sportsnet podcasts, and I follow the scores, standings, gossip, rumours, all that good stuff. So, with this being said, I'm noticing a real annoying trend: soccer bashing.

Soccer has become the latest whipping boy, in part, due to "Beckham Fever". People from all walks are coming out of the wood-work to take pot shots at the "Beautiful Game". They spew the usual rants: its boring, different, foreign, not American.

To you soccer-bashers who don't like any sports:

Just zip it. Complain about something of use, like politics. We get it. You don't like to exert yourself. Sweat is the devil. Turn on "The View", have another donut.

To you soccer-bashers who follow the other North American pro sports:

In top level soccer, you often see some aggressive leg tackles, clash of heads, shoulder-hits, blood is not uncommon. Now, not to name names, but might I remind you, that you follow a North American pro sport where a slap on the arm is considered a "foul". The referee stops play immediately. You follow another one that has extremely rare physical contact, you may see contact during a so-called "play at the plate". You could watch 10 straight games and not see any contact.

In terms of boring? A soccer game is two 45 minute halves with a 15 minute break. A soccer game is done like dinner in under 2 hours. How about baseball. Ever see a two hour MLB game? Ever see a 2 hour NBA game? The final 2 minutes of an NBA game seem like 2 hours with all the time-outs and intentional fouls and free throws, right? And don't get me even started on watching PGA golf. Is soccer 2 hours of pure adrenaline thrills and excitement? Absolutely not. I'm just saying that before you drag out the tired "soccer is boring" argument, you should take a good hard look at the sports that YOU follow.

Hey, soccer is not my favourite sport either. But I've participated in it, taken the time to learn it, and developed some level of appreciation. When did this become a bad thing? When did learning something new become a bad thing?

But, I guess its easier to just give up and hate something rather than invest time and effort to learn, eh? Better stick with something more intellectually stimulating like "The View". At least one won't break a sweat.