I'm too busy and too lazy to try this out myself and I don't have the cables (which normally wouldn't be a problem except I've had some bad luck buying cables lately so I don't feel like doing more experimenting) so I'm putting it out there.
The basic idea is to run podcasts etc. through voice recognition software so you can read them (which is faster and easier) instead of listening to them. Hook up your audio output to your audio input, open up your voice recognition software, open up itunes or whatever, and press play. As I understand it (I haven't played with voice recognition very much) you'll have to train the software a bit at first, but once it's learned a particular podcaster's voice, it should be able to scan through quickly.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
How to get me to stop using bottled water
I don't use bottled water for the water, I use it for the bottles. Once I've finished the water that comes in the bottle, I refill it from the tap and keep reusing it until it dies or until I get sick and have to replace the bottle. It's just that I want to have water with me in my purse, and a water bottle is the easiest way to do that.
So to stop me from using bottled water, I will require a reuseable water bottle that is no less convenient than a standard 500 mL bottled water. That means that it must:
- Hold at least 500 mL
- Be no heavier than a 500 mL plastic bottle
- Fit easily in my purse. In addition to the regular goods and chattels, I always carry a small umbrella, a 500 mL water bottle, and a (usually hardcover) library book; my purses are sized accordingly. I would love to use smaller purses and would embrace a bottle that allows me to do this, but if the bottle is too big for the purse I want to use, I'm going back to "disposable".
- Close tightly (I can't guarantee it will stay vertical in my purse) and be able to put up with being treated with no care whatsoever.
- Stand up to being washed in the dishwasher, and fit comfortably into my 3/4 size dishwasher. I don't want to have to wash by hand or plan dish loads around the bottle.
- Be obtainable without going out of my way. Go to a website and click on a button good. Go somewhere on the Yonge subway line good. Get on a bus bad.
So to stop me from using bottled water, I will require a reuseable water bottle that is no less convenient than a standard 500 mL bottled water. That means that it must:
- Hold at least 500 mL
- Be no heavier than a 500 mL plastic bottle
- Fit easily in my purse. In addition to the regular goods and chattels, I always carry a small umbrella, a 500 mL water bottle, and a (usually hardcover) library book; my purses are sized accordingly. I would love to use smaller purses and would embrace a bottle that allows me to do this, but if the bottle is too big for the purse I want to use, I'm going back to "disposable".
- Close tightly (I can't guarantee it will stay vertical in my purse) and be able to put up with being treated with no care whatsoever.
- Stand up to being washed in the dishwasher, and fit comfortably into my 3/4 size dishwasher. I don't want to have to wash by hand or plan dish loads around the bottle.
- Be obtainable without going out of my way. Go to a website and click on a button good. Go somewhere on the Yonge subway line good. Get on a bus bad.
Let's stop thinking of the pay gap as a gender issue
In the news again recently was how the average woman gets paid less than the average man
The problem with positioning this as a gender issue is that it erects a giant Somebody Else's Problem Field around the issue. It makes it sound like employers are deliberately paying women less because they are women, then you realize that you don't know of anywhere where that's happening. Somebody else's problem! You read the story, then sneak a look at the paystub of your opposite-sex colleague with the most comparable job description and experience and see that you're earning more or less the same. Somebody else's problem! If you're male, it automatically labels to the story as Other. Somebody else's problem! If you're unionized or otherwise have everyone's pay governed by the same unbendable rules. Somebody else's problem! If you're an employer, you think "But I pay my male and female employees the same!" Somebody else's problem!
The headlines make it sound like women are getting paid less because they're women, but that's not what it is.
The jobs women hold. It's not the fact that the employees are women, it's the nature of the jobs. So let's look at the recommendations:
If we take gender out of these, we have some pretty good issues.
Part-time workers get paid a less for the same work than full-time workers! So if you come to realize you could get by on 60% of your salary, you couldn't get paid 60% for working three days a week! Injustice!
The minimum wage is far too low! Imagine making only $8 an hour! In today's rental market? With today's gas prices? Injustice!
Pensions penalize you for taking time away from work, even if you make it up later! So if you decide to take leave without pay to make your movie or care for your elderly parents or do your graduate degree or take care of your children or travel the world, it will fuck up your pension and your entire retirement forever! Injustice!
There isn't enough affordable child care, and that makes life difficult for parents! Injustice!
These are all issues that could conceivably affect a lot of people. A wide range of people can identify with these scenarios. They feel like it's their own problem, not somebody else's problem, and you tend to care more about things that affect you than things that are somebody else's problem.
For example, you might have noticed that when I was making issues out of the four recommendations, I was a bit vague on the child care one. That's because I'm childfree and child care doesn't affect me. It's Somebody Else's Problem, so I haven't been able to sum up the focus to learn about the issue well enough that I can articulate it in my own words; and if I can't articulate an issue in my own words, I'm certainly not going to be in a position to lobby for change. And that's exactly what's happening to all these important labour issues because they keep getting slapped together under the headline "Women are paid less than men!" and thereby promptly hidden behind a Somebody Else's Problem field.
The problem with positioning this as a gender issue is that it erects a giant Somebody Else's Problem Field around the issue. It makes it sound like employers are deliberately paying women less because they are women, then you realize that you don't know of anywhere where that's happening. Somebody else's problem! You read the story, then sneak a look at the paystub of your opposite-sex colleague with the most comparable job description and experience and see that you're earning more or less the same. Somebody else's problem! If you're male, it automatically labels to the story as Other. Somebody else's problem! If you're unionized or otherwise have everyone's pay governed by the same unbendable rules. Somebody else's problem! If you're an employer, you think "But I pay my male and female employees the same!" Somebody else's problem!
The headlines make it sound like women are getting paid less because they're women, but that's not what it is.
“As the report shows, the jobs women hold in Canada today mean they get paid less,” the labour congress said in a release. “These jobs also mean fewer women are able to access benefits through the federal government's Employment Insurance program.
The jobs women hold. It's not the fact that the employees are women, it's the nature of the jobs. So let's look at the recommendations:
The report makes several recommendations:
• Change employment standards so that full-time hours and part-time hours get paid the same when the same work is done.
• Raise the minimum wage to at least $10 an hour.
• Improve public pension plans so women, who live longer, aren't penalized for taking time away from the workforce to care for children.
• Improve access to quality and affordable child care; the report says two-thirds of women with children under the age of six are working outside the home.
If we take gender out of these, we have some pretty good issues.
Part-time workers get paid a less for the same work than full-time workers! So if you come to realize you could get by on 60% of your salary, you couldn't get paid 60% for working three days a week! Injustice!
The minimum wage is far too low! Imagine making only $8 an hour! In today's rental market? With today's gas prices? Injustice!
Pensions penalize you for taking time away from work, even if you make it up later! So if you decide to take leave without pay to make your movie or care for your elderly parents or do your graduate degree or take care of your children or travel the world, it will fuck up your pension and your entire retirement forever! Injustice!
There isn't enough affordable child care, and that makes life difficult for parents! Injustice!
These are all issues that could conceivably affect a lot of people. A wide range of people can identify with these scenarios. They feel like it's their own problem, not somebody else's problem, and you tend to care more about things that affect you than things that are somebody else's problem.
For example, you might have noticed that when I was making issues out of the four recommendations, I was a bit vague on the child care one. That's because I'm childfree and child care doesn't affect me. It's Somebody Else's Problem, so I haven't been able to sum up the focus to learn about the issue well enough that I can articulate it in my own words; and if I can't articulate an issue in my own words, I'm certainly not going to be in a position to lobby for change. And that's exactly what's happening to all these important labour issues because they keep getting slapped together under the headline "Women are paid less than men!" and thereby promptly hidden behind a Somebody Else's Problem field.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Genres that are more benign than I expect
I really have trouble groking ths scope of three genres: satire (writing/humour), punk (music) and alternative (anything). Whenever I encounter something that legitimately fits into one of these categories, I'm always surprised that it fits into that category. I keep expecting them to need to be far more out there than they actually are.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
There's another story in here somewhere
In a Toronto Star article about teen pregnancy (the article is not particularly relevant to this post) there's a map showing the correlation between low income and teen pregnancy. (PDF)
The map makes its point and I'm not going to get into that because it's not particularly interesting. What's interesting is that there are two neighbourhoods on the map where high income correlates with high pregnancy rates. One is the northeast corner of the Danforth/DVP intersection, and the other extends vertically from the DVP to Eglinton - it's where the DVP would go if it didn't veer eastward halfway between Danforth and Eglinton.
I've done some googling and identified these neighbourhoods. The City of Toronto calls the Playter Estates-Danforth and Leaside-Bennington, respectively. But I can't tell what it is about these neighbourhoods that gives them higher teen pregnancy rates when they have socioeconomic conditions that are normally associated with lower teen pregnancy rates.
Of course, neighbourhoods as defined by the City of Toronto don't necessarily coincide with neighbourhoods as defined by the people who live there. For example, they define the people living on the other side of Yonge from where I live as being in a different neighbourhood, even though we all think we live in the same neighbourhod. But nevertheless, I still think there's another story in here somewhere.
The map makes its point and I'm not going to get into that because it's not particularly interesting. What's interesting is that there are two neighbourhoods on the map where high income correlates with high pregnancy rates. One is the northeast corner of the Danforth/DVP intersection, and the other extends vertically from the DVP to Eglinton - it's where the DVP would go if it didn't veer eastward halfway between Danforth and Eglinton.
I've done some googling and identified these neighbourhoods. The City of Toronto calls the Playter Estates-Danforth and Leaside-Bennington, respectively. But I can't tell what it is about these neighbourhoods that gives them higher teen pregnancy rates when they have socioeconomic conditions that are normally associated with lower teen pregnancy rates.
Of course, neighbourhoods as defined by the City of Toronto don't necessarily coincide with neighbourhoods as defined by the people who live there. For example, they define the people living on the other side of Yonge from where I live as being in a different neighbourhood, even though we all think we live in the same neighbourhod. But nevertheless, I still think there's another story in here somewhere.
Bravo needs to get their movie rating shit together
The warning provided by Bravo before the movie: "The following program contains scenes of violence and mature subject matter. Viewer discretion is advised."
The TV content rating flashed up in the top left corner of the screen: G
The movie: West Side Story
The TV content rating flashed up in the top left corner of the screen: G
The movie: West Side Story
Things They Should Invent: option to sync an ipod with only one computer
There should be a checkbox in itunes to allow your ipod to be synced (syncked?) only with that particular computer. The only way you can add anything to or delete anything from that ipod is through that one computer. Why? Because then if someone steals your ipod, they're stuck with your music. They can't get it off and can't add their own music.
Snowday vibe
My building has a bit of a different vibe today. I've been trying to articulate what it is, and I just realized: it's like res on a snowday.
It's kind of subtle. There's a little more music playing, and it's a little louder than usual because it's less likely that your neighbours have to go somewhere. There's a higher than usual proportion of sweatpants and pyjama pants on the people walking around in the building. The TV that you can hear from behind your neighbours' doors is of slightly lower quality. It's like everything that's good about a sick day, but without being sick.
It's kind of subtle. There's a little more music playing, and it's a little louder than usual because it's less likely that your neighbours have to go somewhere. There's a higher than usual proportion of sweatpants and pyjama pants on the people walking around in the building. The TV that you can hear from behind your neighbours' doors is of slightly lower quality. It's like everything that's good about a sick day, but without being sick.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Brilliant idea, huge potential for disaster
A device reads brain signals and converts them to speech to help people with disabilities communicate.
But how does it know which of your thoughts you want to say? I certainly wouldn't want my interior monologue broadcast for the world to hear!
But how does it know which of your thoughts you want to say? I certainly wouldn't want my interior monologue broadcast for the world to hear!
Half-formed idea: a fetus is a positive physical attribute
So I've been thinking about this Bill C-484 thing. I see what they're trying to do, so I've been trying to think of another way to define the fetus that would satisfy the perfectly understandable desire to see people who hurt unborn babies punished, without creating legislative definitions. Yeah, because I'm SO qualified to think of tenuous legal language like that.
Anyway, the idea I'm currently mulling over is that a fetus should be thought of as a positive physical attribute.
We all have a few positive physical attributes. For example, I have a beautiful smile, spectacular breasts, and long silky hair. (And a surfeit of humility). Now most people in the world think these are positive things. There are one or two family members who I suspect aren't too thrilled with the breasts but are too polite to say anything, and my grandmother has said outright that she thinks the length of my hair is disgraceful (ironically, this rather closely mirrors what the reaction would be if I were pregnant), but the vast majority of people see these things a positive, or at least can understand why I like them.
However, I have every right to destroy them if I want. I could pull out all my teeth, get a preventive masectomy, and shave my head. And that is absolutely without question my right, and in no world would it be illegal for me to do any of those things. Futhermore, it is absolutly without question legal for my dentist, doctor, and hairdresser respectively to do those things for me at my request. Some people may question getting these things done electively, some individual practitioners may refuse to help me, but once I can find someone to do it there is no question that they were behaving legally.
But if some other person pulled out my teeth, cut off my breasts, and shaved my head without my consent, that would be bizarre and weird and creepy and clearly illegal.
And if someone attacked me, and as a side-effect of their attack I lost my teeth, breasts, and hair, that would surely make their crime come across as worse. Again, I don't the exact legal terms, but it would be a big part of the victim impact. Any decent prosecuting attorney would show the jury a picture of me posing like a movie star to show off my figure to its best advantage, a veela smile on my face and the ends of my hair grazing my hips, then have them compare it with the bald, toothless, flat-chested woman on the witness stand. And that would surely make the crime look worse than if I had come out looking exactly the same.
Now you're thinking "You shallow bitch, a baby is FAR more important than your hair!" Which is perfectly true, and which is why these things would be evaluated in a matter of degrees rather than as a true or false question. If my attacker had simply shaved my head or pulled out my hair, that wouldn't be judged as nearly as bad as if he had knocked out my teeth. You wouldn't assume that the attacker would be punished the same for pulling out my hair as for knocking out my teeth, nor would he be punished the same for killing my unborn child. Same concept, different degree.
Anyway, the idea I'm currently mulling over is that a fetus should be thought of as a positive physical attribute.
We all have a few positive physical attributes. For example, I have a beautiful smile, spectacular breasts, and long silky hair. (And a surfeit of humility). Now most people in the world think these are positive things. There are one or two family members who I suspect aren't too thrilled with the breasts but are too polite to say anything, and my grandmother has said outright that she thinks the length of my hair is disgraceful (ironically, this rather closely mirrors what the reaction would be if I were pregnant), but the vast majority of people see these things a positive, or at least can understand why I like them.
However, I have every right to destroy them if I want. I could pull out all my teeth, get a preventive masectomy, and shave my head. And that is absolutely without question my right, and in no world would it be illegal for me to do any of those things. Futhermore, it is absolutly without question legal for my dentist, doctor, and hairdresser respectively to do those things for me at my request. Some people may question getting these things done electively, some individual practitioners may refuse to help me, but once I can find someone to do it there is no question that they were behaving legally.
But if some other person pulled out my teeth, cut off my breasts, and shaved my head without my consent, that would be bizarre and weird and creepy and clearly illegal.
And if someone attacked me, and as a side-effect of their attack I lost my teeth, breasts, and hair, that would surely make their crime come across as worse. Again, I don't the exact legal terms, but it would be a big part of the victim impact. Any decent prosecuting attorney would show the jury a picture of me posing like a movie star to show off my figure to its best advantage, a veela smile on my face and the ends of my hair grazing my hips, then have them compare it with the bald, toothless, flat-chested woman on the witness stand. And that would surely make the crime look worse than if I had come out looking exactly the same.
Now you're thinking "You shallow bitch, a baby is FAR more important than your hair!" Which is perfectly true, and which is why these things would be evaluated in a matter of degrees rather than as a true or false question. If my attacker had simply shaved my head or pulled out my hair, that wouldn't be judged as nearly as bad as if he had knocked out my teeth. You wouldn't assume that the attacker would be punished the same for pulling out my hair as for knocking out my teeth, nor would he be punished the same for killing my unborn child. Same concept, different degree.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
One thing I don't get about Big Love
In Big Love, polygamy seems to be against the law - like the Hendricksons and the co-worker's family, not even the people on the compound.
But how can that be illegal? Like I understand that the marriages aren't sanctioned by law, but how can it be OMG-afraid-of-the-police-illegal? So a man gets married and has children, then has children with two other women and provides for them all. That simply cannot be against the law.
But how can that be illegal? Like I understand that the marriages aren't sanctioned by law, but how can it be OMG-afraid-of-the-police-illegal? So a man gets married and has children, then has children with two other women and provides for them all. That simply cannot be against the law.
Amy Winehouse is GOOD!
Being lazy about pop culture like I am, I never really paid attention to Amy Winehouse. I only ever saw her in celebrity gossip, which didn't make me terribly inclined to seek out her work.
Then I heard her mashed up with Ella Fitzgerald. And she made Ella's voice sound weak and immature!
So I'm thinking okay, awesome voice, unfortunate hair. Fair enough. Then I found pictures of her with different hair and it turns out the big hair actually suits her - it's more flattering to her face than normal hair. I gotta give the girl props for figuring out that a big fuck-off beehive is flattering on her! If my most flattering hairdo were a big fuck-off beehive, I would certainly never figure that out.
So onto the ipod she goes!
Then I heard her mashed up with Ella Fitzgerald. And she made Ella's voice sound weak and immature!
So I'm thinking okay, awesome voice, unfortunate hair. Fair enough. Then I found pictures of her with different hair and it turns out the big hair actually suits her - it's more flattering to her face than normal hair. I gotta give the girl props for figuring out that a big fuck-off beehive is flattering on her! If my most flattering hairdo were a big fuck-off beehive, I would certainly never figure that out.
So onto the ipod she goes!
A plot hole in the NAFTA saga
First of all, I should make it clear that I don't understand NAFTA at all. It happened before I was economically aware (I have a vague memory of seeing newspaper headlines about it and feeling terrified at how big and scary the grownup world was with all this free trade stuff I couldn't even begin to understand) so I have trouble understanding it because I don't have anything to compare it to. So nothing I say in this post is intended to say or imply that I think NAFTA is a good idea or a bad idea.
But understanding NAFTA isn't necessary to see this plot hole.
So first both Clinton and Obama mentioned that they'd renegotiate or opt out of NAFTA if elected president.
Then both Stephen Harper and David Emerson made statements to the effect that it would be a bad idea on the Americans' part to reopen NAFTA because NAFTA is pretty darn good for them and we would renegotiate something that is more in our favour.
So why did they make these statements? They really sounded like they were intended for American ears too. But if NAFTA actually so good for the Americans and renegotiating was such a risk for Americans, they wouldn't need to say things like that for American ears. They could just quietly wink at Canadians and say "Don't worry, they don't know what they're talking about." Then if the Americans do reopen NAFTA, we could just shrug our shoulders and go along with it in a docile Canadian way, then work out a deal where we make some nominal concessions to whatever the perceived slight is in exchange for ALL the oil plus one of the nicer Hawaiian islands and access to Hulu and free shipping from amazon.com. (See, I told you I don't know what NAFTA is actually about).
But then (apparently, allegedly, etc.) someone leaked a memo from Obama's team saying "Don't worry Canada, this NAFTA stuff is all just rhetoric, we don't really mean it" (traduction libre) and all kinds of shit happened as a result.
But again, if they knew that it was all just campaign rhetoric, why would both Harper and Emerson make these seemingly US-directed statements about how it's not that good an idea for the Americans?
I don't know what to conclude, but it is a plot hole.
But understanding NAFTA isn't necessary to see this plot hole.
So first both Clinton and Obama mentioned that they'd renegotiate or opt out of NAFTA if elected president.
Then both Stephen Harper and David Emerson made statements to the effect that it would be a bad idea on the Americans' part to reopen NAFTA because NAFTA is pretty darn good for them and we would renegotiate something that is more in our favour.
So why did they make these statements? They really sounded like they were intended for American ears too. But if NAFTA actually so good for the Americans and renegotiating was such a risk for Americans, they wouldn't need to say things like that for American ears. They could just quietly wink at Canadians and say "Don't worry, they don't know what they're talking about." Then if the Americans do reopen NAFTA, we could just shrug our shoulders and go along with it in a docile Canadian way, then work out a deal where we make some nominal concessions to whatever the perceived slight is in exchange for ALL the oil plus one of the nicer Hawaiian islands and access to Hulu and free shipping from amazon.com. (See, I told you I don't know what NAFTA is actually about).
But then (apparently, allegedly, etc.) someone leaked a memo from Obama's team saying "Don't worry Canada, this NAFTA stuff is all just rhetoric, we don't really mean it" (traduction libre) and all kinds of shit happened as a result.
But again, if they knew that it was all just campaign rhetoric, why would both Harper and Emerson make these seemingly US-directed statements about how it's not that good an idea for the Americans?
I don't know what to conclude, but it is a plot hole.
Things They Should Invent: a way to say "This is so stupid it's not worthy of attention" without giving any attention to the thing in question
I'd link to the thing that gave me this idea, but that would defeat the purpose.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Dear Eddie Izzard, please come to Toronto
Update, since I still seem to be the first google result: Massey Hall, April 30 to May 2, plus some other Canadian cities. Info here
Dear Eddie Izzard,
So you're doing another tour! Fantabulous! But why not come to Toronto too? We're a way bigger market than most of the places you're going to, and we're also one of the more expensive markets so you can get away with charging outrageous ticket prices here. Plus you can try out your material in French and everyone will be able to follow along well enough even if they don't think they speak French (this is how we sell bread up here), and no one is going to give you shit if you want to get a bit tarted up.
Besides, you can't call it a North American tour unless you put Canada in there too! Pretty please?
Edit: since I posted this, I've been getting about half a dozen hits a day from people trying to find out about Eddie Izzard coming to Toronto. I normally average 18 hits a day, so this is significant.
Edit again: I'm getting so many hits here I decided to add a proper pitch.
Dear Eddie:
Are you in it for the money? Our dollar is stronger now in absolute terms than it was when you were last here, and way stronger compared to the US dollar. You will not take any hit because of the exchange rate. Also, our economy hasn't taken nearly as big a hit as the US economy has, so we generally have more disposable income to spend on overpriced tickets and souvenir tchotchkes.
Are you in it for the exposure? Your stand-up specials never been on TV in Canada. (Why? I don't know. Talk to the Comedy Network.) Every audience you've ever had here was word-of-mouth only, so a live show would increase your relative exposure here far more than it would in the US. Also, most of our national media are headquartered here, so doing a show here will get you media coverage across the country.
Are you in it to get exposure for The Riches/your acting? The Riches does air in Canada, but not until after it airs in the US. Season 2 hasn't started yet here. And frankly, like it or not, your comedy is the single best tool you have to make people go "OMG I must seek out everything he has ever done!" So come here, do a show before season 2 of The Riches starts airing on Showcase, and people will start madly googling you and end up watching The Riches.
So you want a diverse audience? Based on pure demographics, I guarantee you your Toronto audience will be more diverse than 90% of your US audiences. And 100% is well within the realm of possibility.
Does your market research show that Canadians don't like you that much? If you're going by DVD sales, you should know that lots of us buy our DVDs from the US, because our dollars have more or less reached par but DVD prices haven't been changed accordingly (it's generally about 30% cheaper to buy from the States). If you're going by the size of audience you draw, remember that a) our population is only 1/10 that of the US, and b) you've never been on TV here, so it's word of mouth only. Statistically, if your audience numbers here are equal to 10% of what your US audience numbers were before Dress to Kill, then we like you just as much as the US does. But I'll bet your Canadian audience numbers are way higher than that, and will be even higher if you come do a show here.
A Toronto show will achieve any goal you might have, unless it's "Completely ignore Toronto because they suck."
Dear Eddie Izzard,
So you're doing another tour! Fantabulous! But why not come to Toronto too? We're a way bigger market than most of the places you're going to, and we're also one of the more expensive markets so you can get away with charging outrageous ticket prices here. Plus you can try out your material in French and everyone will be able to follow along well enough even if they don't think they speak French (this is how we sell bread up here), and no one is going to give you shit if you want to get a bit tarted up.
Besides, you can't call it a North American tour unless you put Canada in there too! Pretty please?
Edit: since I posted this, I've been getting about half a dozen hits a day from people trying to find out about Eddie Izzard coming to Toronto. I normally average 18 hits a day, so this is significant.
Edit again: I'm getting so many hits here I decided to add a proper pitch.
Dear Eddie:
Are you in it for the money? Our dollar is stronger now in absolute terms than it was when you were last here, and way stronger compared to the US dollar. You will not take any hit because of the exchange rate. Also, our economy hasn't taken nearly as big a hit as the US economy has, so we generally have more disposable income to spend on overpriced tickets and souvenir tchotchkes.
Are you in it for the exposure? Your stand-up specials never been on TV in Canada. (Why? I don't know. Talk to the Comedy Network.) Every audience you've ever had here was word-of-mouth only, so a live show would increase your relative exposure here far more than it would in the US. Also, most of our national media are headquartered here, so doing a show here will get you media coverage across the country.
Are you in it to get exposure for The Riches/your acting? The Riches does air in Canada, but not until after it airs in the US. Season 2 hasn't started yet here. And frankly, like it or not, your comedy is the single best tool you have to make people go "OMG I must seek out everything he has ever done!" So come here, do a show before season 2 of The Riches starts airing on Showcase, and people will start madly googling you and end up watching The Riches.
So you want a diverse audience? Based on pure demographics, I guarantee you your Toronto audience will be more diverse than 90% of your US audiences. And 100% is well within the realm of possibility.
Does your market research show that Canadians don't like you that much? If you're going by DVD sales, you should know that lots of us buy our DVDs from the US, because our dollars have more or less reached par but DVD prices haven't been changed accordingly (it's generally about 30% cheaper to buy from the States). If you're going by the size of audience you draw, remember that a) our population is only 1/10 that of the US, and b) you've never been on TV here, so it's word of mouth only. Statistically, if your audience numbers here are equal to 10% of what your US audience numbers were before Dress to Kill, then we like you just as much as the US does. But I'll bet your Canadian audience numbers are way higher than that, and will be even higher if you come do a show here.
A Toronto show will achieve any goal you might have, unless it's "Completely ignore Toronto because they suck."
Monday, March 03, 2008
Read this if you ever need to feel better about yourself
Until today, I didn't realize Jeff Healey and Jeff Buckley were two different people.
Irony
You know how grocery stores are trying to sell us tote bags so we won't use (and throw out) plastic bags?
Well, despite the fact that I use plastic bags, I seem to have acquired a number of totebags. And I can't find a good place to keep them. And I never use them, at all, ever, for anything. So I'm starting to consider throwing them out.
Well, despite the fact that I use plastic bags, I seem to have acquired a number of totebags. And I can't find a good place to keep them. And I never use them, at all, ever, for anything. So I'm starting to consider throwing them out.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Saturday, March 01, 2008
I wonder if dog shows have dress codes for humans?
I was watching a dog show on TV, and I noticed that all the female handlers were wearing skirts, hose, and closed-toe flats. That seemed odd to me. Under normal circumstances and given the normal variation of human wardrobe preferences, you'd think at least some of them would be wearing pants, or bare legs, or heels or boots or sandals. I wonder if they have a dress code? That would be a strange thing to have a dress code for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)