The Ironical Monocle

Super Smooth and Licensed to Chill

andrealown — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:40:00 +0000

For the launch of their new blueberry, pomegranate and cranberry smoothies, Del Monte commissioned a poll to determine which British Celebrity British women would “most like to lick” based on looks, charm, confidence and “smoothness”. The results? Daniel Craig/James Bond might just be the first person to have a commemorative icecream treat fashioned after his likeness.

Note: Before you get too excited, the popsicle features him from the waist up – I assume another version will be out on the adult market shortly.

Del Monte spokesperson Matt O’Connor explains “Daniel Craig topped our poll of Britain’s coolest celebrities and thanks to our Del Monte lolly replica he is officially immortalised as super smooth and licensed to chill.” The marketing campaign comes just in time for Britain’s first annual icecream week.

While I think this is a pretty hilarious and attention grabbing marketing tactic, the accompanying photos leave me slightly confused. It seems obvious that the campaign is aimed at women – they polled 1000 women and the treats are advertised as being under 100 calories. So, what’s up with these eye-catching, but perhaps slightly innapropriate (given the demographic) photos?

Perhaps they are intending to reach thoughtful and considerate males either in a relationship or cohabiting with women who also do the majority of the grocery shopping? Seems odd that they’d go after such a small target market.

10 in 2010! 10 in 2010!

geoffm — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:10:00 +0000

As much as I love Greg Graffin and his finger-wagging power-chorded visions of dystopian madness, it seems history will disprove his (very catchy) prediction from back in ’96 of a world population of 10 million by the year 2010:

The world’s population will hit seven billion early in 2012 and top nine billion in 2050, with the vast majority of the increase coming in the developing countries of Asia and Africa, according to a UN estimate released Wednesday.

Hania Zlotnik, director of the UN Population Division, said that “there have been no big changes” from the previous estimate in 2006.

(quote from the Globe and Mail)

This perhaps does not bode well for Prof. Graffin’s prediction that We’re Only Gonna Die (From Our Own Arrogance).

Back to Basics: Book Reports

andrealown — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:29:00 +0000

Top 5 Things I Learned from Malcolm Gladwell’s ‘Outliers’
by RollingStop

Practice Makes Perfect:
If you want to be really good at something, you need about 10,000 hours of practice. So you better find something you really enjoy because ten thousand hours amounts to about 10 years of diligent training, or fewer if you really blitz it.

Make Your Own Luck and Opportunities:
You can either carry around a two headed coin a la ‘Two-Face’, or throw yourself into various situations that allow you to meet new people and open yourself up to opportunities. Once you’ve met a new subset of cohorts, set aside your ego and ask for anything and everything. The worst they can say is “no”.

Schedule Your Babies for Success: Your children will have a better chance of success if you plan their birth. Get out your ovulation calendars and thermometers because this is going to get technical.

1. Plan to have kids when no one else is. Your children will be born in times of lower birth rates and therefore have less competition. It will be easier for them to get into the best schools, get scholarships and sought after jobs. Easy.

and

2. Pick the sport you want your child to excel at before conception. Then check the cutoff dates for little league in the sport of your choice and plan to conceive so your child is born just before the date. He or she will be bigger and stronger than other children born up to 12 months earlier. So, they will excel at an early age, make higher level teams, get exposed to better coaching… and eventually have a better chance of playing professionally.

Know Your Heritage and Where You’re From:
Chances are the classic stereotypes are a least a little true of you. Use them to play up your strengths and avoid your weaknesses.

Chose Your Airline Wisely:
Avoid flying on airlines from Brazil, South Korea, Morocco, Mexico and the Philippines. Enough said.

It’s Like if Gary Busey had sex with a cat…

bingofuel — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:29:00 +0000

…and that cat had a baby.

happy new year.

Air, bud!

bingofuel — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:36:00 +0000

I’m not normally one for one-offs, but the video is too beautiful to pass up: 24 hours of global air travel compressed into 72 seconds:

Quoth the maven

bingofuel — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:50:00 +0000

I mark-up books a lot. The books I’ve most enjoyed over the years have inspired me to print in their margins recording a reaction, a response, or even just the date. I’ve been collecting inspiring or intelligent quotes in my mobile phone as well.

Here’s a dump of the ones I’ve currently got stored — they’ll be recorded here and deleted from my phone. The process begins… ANEW.

“This is one of the upsides of acting boldly: you wind up too busy to wring your hands.”

“A good businessman is too dumb to be able to do everything, and smart enough to surround himself with the people who can.”

“I don’t know the key to success but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.”

Lynx or Links: Private Eye for the Interweb Guy

andrealown — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:30:00 +0000

Is there anything you can’t find on the webbernet these days? After today, I would venture to say no – although it depends just how long and hard you’re willing to look.

As more and more things and stuff get put on the interweb, search engines are rejigging their algorithms to surface relevant results. Both Google and Yahoo have developed a form of universal search which surfaces various maps, images, videos and the like at the top of the results. While sometimes useful, giving this content (usually from their own properties) prominence pushes would-be relevant content further down the page, in turn making the more obscure content even harder to find.

While I can not reveal the specific piece of content I triumphantly found this morning after years (seriously, years) of searching, I’ll give you a few newfangled ways to find your own mysterious gems on the internet.

Assuming you’ve already tried a couple google searches and browsed wikipedia:

1) Look to smaller niche search engines like technorati that only searches for content on blogs. If you’re looking for something new, it will rise to the top of the search results faster given the relatively small amount of content indexed compared to google.

2) Rely on others to curate important content for you by searching del.icio.us, or other social bookmarking tools. If you’re looking for a common topic displaying an unruly number of search results, it’s best to limit your search to resources that someone has already deemed worthy of tagging. If you don’t find what you’re looking for, consider subsribing to feeds from subject matter experts within your topic. It’s easiest to consolidate these feeds in a folder within your google reader.

3) On the same note, Twitter now allows you to search keywords within tweets. So if what you’re searching is chat worthy in less than 140 characters, you’ll probably find it there. In addition, there are many applications for Twitter cropping up such as Twilert (how to) which allows you to set up an e-mail alert for particular people or topics.

However, if you’re like me – a) lazy and b) have been searching for an the leathal combination of old and obscure content, these tactics do not always yield the best results.

4) Get smart with Google. First, learn how to ninja your way through google search by using advanced search operators (handy printable cheatsheet). Second, let google do the work for you by setting up a google alert. You can limit the sources you’d like them to search and alert you to. Use varying terms, sit back, and wait for your hidden gem to come to you.

If you get impatient – which is likely to happen – be proactive ask fellow internerds for guidance.

5) Check out Yahoo Answers, Amazon’s Askville, LinkedIn answers, Answerbag, Yedda, and Wikianswers to name a few. Curiously, Google Answers is no longer accepting questions. Does that count as admitting defeat?

Have a hint to add? Leave us a comment.

Out with the auld

bingofuel — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:15:00 +0000

As we bear witness to the steady decline of print media — precipitated by the shift in advertising dollars to new media such as the web (and, defiantly, television), and the fact that print was declared dead by Egon the Ghostbuster back in 1984 — we also get to see the unusual though expected lashing out of the old guard against the new.

Old-hat journalists — their livelihoods threatened — take issue with this new media nonsense. That anyone can leverage the inexpensive tools of authorship into their own mini-media empires seems nonsensical. But it’s not. It’s been proven. Here are some examples. So rather than lash out at the up-and-comers, these salty bastards need to pull their heads out of their asses and pay attention.

Part of what I do out there in the world is run a sports website dedicated to the Edmonton Oilers. It was born of a discussion me and my partners had about the state of sports media in Edmonton — there was a lot of glad-handing and backslapping going on in print and on TV, in our estimation, that more or less completely detracted from the stories fans were thirsting for. So we created a site that we’d hope would gather insightful commentary from the media and bloggers alike. It’s been an interesting and successful experiment thus far, and it brings to light a few different issues about the perception of bloggers, and the shifting role of the media (both mainstream and otherwise).

I blog, therefore I am

Let’s look at the perception of bloggers, then, starting with the mainstream media’s view of them. The MSM sees bloggers as a bunch of amateurs, sitting in their parents’ basements surrounded by pizza boxes, and occasionally conducting WoW raids.

Knee. Fuckin’. Jerk.

For a group of so-called professionals taught to cover all angles of a story, these boys and girls have it all backwards. However, the cognitive dissonance apparent in the MSM perception of bloggers is clear: these guys — wherever the shit they’re writing from, and whatever empty food containers they happen to be surrounded by — are as good or better at gathering and disseminating information to the masses. There is the question of accountability for some of the more outlandish blogs published or claims made by so-called amateur writers. But herein lies the beauty of the internet.

The web isn’t some passive conveyance of information, like a book or a newspaper. It’s inter-fuckin’-active. And I think this is one of the things that blows the minds of old-hat journos. Bloggers, web-based writers, whatever, are held to account in real time all the time by commenters and readers who have at their fingertips the means to fact-check information. Bloggers who make dubious claims are routinely taken to task if their assertions are proven to be unfounded. The interactivity of the web serves as the ultimate Letters to the Editor section of ye olde newspapiers. It’s wicked!

So accountability exists. Not always, but it’s easy to call a blogger on his or her bullshit, and then let the rest of the planet know how wrong they are.

The Jon Stewart Effect

Old-hat journos also like to trot out the notion of access as a key difference between bloggers and journalists. Access gets you interviews with politicians, movie stars, athletes… So that rather than simply speculate or interpret what someone says, a journalist can actually go and ask someone important the question that needs to be clarified or what have you. To me this is an argument between two extremes, let’s say: access and analysis.

What do you have with access? Sound bites. Legitimacy (?). More colour for a story, maybe? Sure. I’ll agree to all those. But does that represent a major difference between the legitimacy of a journalist versus a blogger? Hells no. This isn’t about the specific tools you have at your disposal when crafting a post or a story. This is about how you use those tools. You can have all the quotes in the world from Politician A, and realize when you’re transcribing a recording that the person didn’t actually answer your questions and tell you anything. So what? You had access and you squandered it. Here’s your Pulitzer, big shot.

But take someone like Jon Stewart — who I would argue (and do so without any evidence, like a TRUE BLOGGER) has had the most significant impact on news gathering and reporting in the last decade. Here’s a guy who rarely interviews the subjects of his fake news stories; he jokes, makes fun of people, offers up opinion, and yet is one of the few comedians from whom a siginificant sample size of Americans get their daily news. From a fuckin’ COMEDY SHOW. And his commentary is biting and incisive, and frankly much-needed.

The staid anchor-talking-to-field-reporter-who-talked-to-an-expert formula is done. It’s being lampooned on countless comedy shows. It’s literally a joke. And the comedians lampooning the staid formula have become reliable sources for news and honest commentary, something I think people are thirsting for.

Reshaping the space

This doesn’t mean all journos are out of jobs, or that bloggers are somehow going to render these people completely irrelevant. Journos still have an important place in this particular space, even as it moves online. The smart journos will use their knowledge and access to turn themselves into super-bloggers. At a minimum, they will provide front-line information that other bloggers will draw from to form commentary and opinion. That’s the internet. Record and disseminate. Record and disseminate.

But the means of production have shifted. Enough semi-intelligent people with access to the tools of authorship means that this petty bickering over citizen journos versus professional ones is a moot point. It’s all happening. Right now. So shape up or ship out.

It’s called the internet, ever heard of it?

andrealown — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:28:00 +0000

This morning I attended a free seminar put on by a gracious corporation launching a new product. I enjoyed a rather nice cup of tea, some delicious fruits, a rather dry mini croissant and a few good chuckles.

The seminar was intended to teach marketers how to pitch bloggers with stories and ideas. I couldn’t believe some of the questions being asked. Besides being a rather annoying hour, it served to remind me that some people really don’t use the interweb as much as I assume.

Audience Question: What are the top 3 ways to meet the “online audience”?
Me (in my head): what the eff do they mean by the online audience?
Speakers dumbfounded response: 1) Internet 2) Internet and 3) Internet.

They later went on to include blogs, twitter and facebook.

‘Were you saying boo, or boo-urns?’

bingofuel — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:01:00 +0000

I’m not really sure what to make of Canada’s political crisis. It seems like much ado about nothing. Well, that’s rather glib. It’s much ado about a lot, but mostly it’s a statement in my mind about how over-the-top ridiculous politics have become in this country, how divisive they are when minority government situations crop up as they have the last eight years or whatever.

The issue at hand is that there are no particularly strong leaders Canadians can rally behind. No statesmen (or stateswomen for that matter) that bring people together. I’m loathe to evoke the already-cliched cliché, but there’s no Barack Obama of the North to bring together Canadians of all political affiliations.

I’ve traditionally, up until this past election, voted Liberal. They were probably the best fit for me ideologically, and up until Jean Chretien left, they were seemingly the least bat-shit crazy. That baby’s been thrown out with Canada’s political bathwater, however.

This “crisis” as it’s been branded is a foregone conclusion. Regardless of the GG’s decision about proroguing Parliament or Stephane Dion’s, the Moustache’s and the Traitor’s Coalition of the Woeful, the economy will continue to decline, Canadians will be left with a leadership void in Ottawa and Stephen Harper’s reprieve will just mean more over-the-top political ads. NOW WITH EGGNOG.

I’m a disenfranchised voter, but I still hold hope that something good will come out of this. Namely, that in hitting rock-fucking-bottom, the Liberal Party of Canada will have the opportunity to rebuild from the ground up. Of the three Liberal leadership hopefuls – Rae, Leblanc, and Ignatieff – Iggy seems the least dumb to me, or at least that person possessing the most potential to become a true statesman. I think this, in spite of his book Blood and Belonging.

I believe it so much so, it prompted me to write to Mr Ignatieff. I apologize for the over-dramatization contained in the letter. I felt strongly about it at the time, and I think I still do. Here is my attempt to stoke the fires of Canadian centre-left politics:

Dear Mr Igantieff,

I’m writing to express my concern over the actions
being taken by Stephane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe in a misguided and
precipitous bid to oust the Conservative party in a clearly politically
motivated attempt to seize power.

While I can certainly agree that the
actions taken last week by Prime Minister Harper and the Honourable Jim Flaherty
around the proposed reduction in party funding was at best misguided and at
worst ultra-partisan and divisive, I do not in any way believe the actions of
the Liberal, ND and Bloc Quebecois parties are much better.

I have
watched Canadian politics on the sidelines, without any true party affiliations,
since I was about ten years old. I’ve watched the Liberal Party decline, quite
rapidly over the last four years, into a shell of its former self. A once proud,
strong Canadian institution has become mired in the worst sort of politics and
brinkmanship. This past election was the first one in which the federal Liberals
did not receive my vote.

I believe the Liberal Party of Canada is at a
crossroads. And the current leadership seems to be leaning down a path that
would further weaken a party that once represented strong Canadian values – the
same party responsible for so many of the fundamental rights and brilliant
social programs that Canadians benefit from today. Stephane Dion is playing the
role of statesman right now, and he is hardly well suited to it. His actions,
and those of his dubious coalition partners, seem to be motivated by anger,
vengeance and a greed for power. He may tell a different story, but his actions
come across as partisan and desperate.

I’m writing to express my support
for you, sir. I believe you should take the high road and stand up for the
future of the Liberal Party of Canada. Say that you want no part of this, that
this is precisely the opposite of what our country needs right now. Declare the
actions of your colleagues destructive, including the actions of Messrs Harper,
Dion, Layton and Duceppe. Now is the moment for you to declare that a Liberal
Party under your leadership will not stand for this destructive partisan
bickering, especially when Canadians from all walks of life are speaking out
against this coalition nonsense.

Now is your chance to be the statesman
Canada needs – to rejuvenate the Liberal Party of Canada by standing up for what
is right for all Canadians: stability in these difficult times, strong
leadership, clear, well-constructed policies and consensus-building even among
citizens and MPs who lie at opposite ends of the political spectrum. I implore
you, Mr Ignatieff, make your mark. Make your mark and I will happily buy a
membership with the Liberal Party of Canada and support you at the next Liberal
Leadership Convention.

I realize this is a tall order, and I understand
how polarizing a statement like this would be for your fellow party members.
Moreover, it would be easy to brush this off as a ridiculous letter from a
non-member just trying to rock the boat. All I ask is that you consider what
I’ve written here, consider the future of the once-proud Liberal Party and
consider what state of affairs you want Canada to be in after the next federal
election.

Sincerely,

bingofuel