Oh, You’re Mad About Strategic Voting?

This past Monday, Canada elected a new prime minister. Maybe you heard about Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. Or his hair. He unseated the Conservative’s Stephen Harper. Maybe you heard about that, too. You probably also heard about how Canada’s third major party, the NDP, lost a lot of support to the Liberals in this election. A lot of people seem to think this is because of strategic voting. And a lot of people are mad about that.

Now I’m pretty sure that anyone complaining about strategic voting after this election probably voted for the NDP, because they didn’t win. I doubt you would complain if the party you voted for got elected.(I won’t say who I voted for, but it wasn’t Liberal and it wasn’t Conservative.) People seem to be mad about strategic voting because it seems like voters went Liberal only because they felt it was their best chance to defeat Stephen Harper. I can’t really deny that.

But you shouldn’t be mad at strategic voting. You should be mad at Stephen Harper.

You should be mad that he made the majority of Canadians that afraid of him.

You should be mad that he gave them very legitimate reasons to be afraid of him. (Seriously. Read that.)

You should be mad that the majority of Conservative voters have probably never heard of any of those things.

You should be mad that Harper tried to divide the country into a strict right and left divide, attempting to split the vote between the Liberals and NDP so he could retain power.

You should be mad that he tried to make people afraid of Niqabs.

You should be mad that he thought he could make this election about Justin Trudeau’s hair and toques for ISIS.

You should be mad that some Conservative voters honestly believe Harper is the greatest prime minister in the history of Canada, and therefore should stay in office forever.

You should be mad he made the NDP feel like they had to go a little bit soft.

You should be mad that he put Canada in this position.

Based on the election results and voter turnout, the country clearly felt he needed to go. My problem with people getting upset over strategic voting is that you are allowed to change the party you vote for for reasons besides strategy.

There was strategic voting at play in this election, without a doubt. But what about the people that switched their vote from Conservative to Liberal? Was that strategic? Or was it they felt like they could no longer support the Conservative party with a leader as tyrannical as Stephen Harper? To me, that’s not strategic. That’s not wanting to vote Conservative in this election.

That’s the thing. It wasn’t just NDP voters switching parties. It was Conservatives, too. This country realized Stephen Harper needed to go. I understand people being upset that Justin Trudeau was elected because of people voting against Harper, but he didn’t give us much choice. That’s what you should be mad at. He made Canada feel threatened.

In the same way that you couldn’t logically claim you voted for Stephen Harper because he was the lesser of four evils (which is the most obviously untrue thing in this entire election), you can’t lament strategic voting and say Trudeau’s government is definitely going to bad. He hasn’t done anything for us to get mad about. Yet.

Take Me To The Nosebleeds

Full disclosure: I’m a huge baseball fan. Specifically, I’m a huge Toronto Blue Jays fan. I grew up watching the team and caught their back-to-back World Series wins at the impressionable ages of 8 and 9. Maybe that’s why hockey never took hold of me the way baseball did. I’ve always followed the Jays and the sport very closely. That’s why I like to think of myself as a pretty reasonable fan. I know there are ups and downs in every season. I know a game doesn’t end when your team falls behind in the 5th inning. I know that with a 162 game season, eve the best players and teams waver and struggle. So I feel like I can fairly say that last night, sitting in great seats in the 100 level at SkyDome, I was surrounded by the worst fans our city has to offer.

SkyDome

I should start by saying that I have season tickets, but my seat is up in the 500s. The nosebleeds. That’s where I watch the majority of the 20+ games I go to every season. I got a seat in the 100s last night thanks to my girlfriend’s parents, and it was one of the best views I’ve ever had at a Jays game. But here’s the thing: I’m not sure any of the people sitting around us were enjoying themselves. It actually seemed like they were angry that they were even there.

Up in the 500s, people tend to enjoy themselves. Sure, there are people who are paying more attention to their beer than the game. But they cheer when the Jays score. They cheer when the Jays are in a jam and the pitcher’s trying to get out of it. They may have only paid $15 for their ticket, but they want the team to win. Or maybe they just don’t really care. Maybe they just want to have a good time and that’s why they cheer. I really don’t know.

What I do know is that the people sitting down in the 100s last night wanted to be angry. They wanted the Jays to lose. Because only then would all their negative thoughts about the team and this season be confirmed and they can go around declaring their “I told you so”s. Early in the game, I heard numerous people cursing R.A. Dickey, the Jays’ starting pitcher, as he struggled to not pitch a perfect game. Even more people were bemoaning the fact that Jose Reyes, newly returned from the disabled list, didn’t get a hit every at bat. One sterling gentleman in front of us went so far as to call Reyes a “stupid fucking Puerto Rican” when he went hitless in his first two at bats. Reyes is Dominican.

But it was more than the baseless, racially-fuelled criticism of Reyes (a four-time All Star) that bothered me. It was the fact that none of the fans, if you can call them that, sitting around us seemed to want to enjoy themselves. Last night’s game was a high-scoring, back-and-forth affair. Which to most fans, means it’s a really exciting game. But when the Jays took the lead, I’d hear things like “this won’t last long.” When the Jays were behind in the 4th inning, I heard someone say “I told you they were going to lose.” The 4th inning! We weren’t even halfway through the game and the team had already been written off by its alleged supporters.

As is often the case in sports, the lead kept changing between teams. The Jays were ahead and then they were behind. By the 8th inning, it was no longer just Reyes that was, to use that same gentleman’s words, “a piece of shit,” it was every Jays player that failed to hit a five-run home run in every at bat. With the team was down by a score of 9-7 at the end of the 8th, the game and season was widely being decreed to be over. Many of the people seated around us left the game disgusted yet exalted by confirmation of their eternally negative mind.

Then, in the bottom of the 9th, this happened:

The Jays won thanks to a walk off hit from their best player Josh Donaldson. But it was also thanks to a key hit from Jose Reyes. Now the meatheads loved him, at least until the last player had crossed the plate. Then I heard “the Jays didn’t deserve to win that one.” They couldn’t even enjoy a win.

The way I see it, if you feel that way about the Jays and you’ve got tickets in the 100s, you don’t deserve to sit there. Paying $60 for a ticket might make you feel entitled to complain and boo the team you’re supposed to be cheering, but it doesn’t make it right. It just makes you a jackass The Jays and their players are not immune to criticism but aren’t you there to enjoy the game? I know I am. I actually want the team to win. And I’d rather sit with people who feel the same way.

Enjoy your field level views with the clueless commentary. I’ll be in the 500s.

John Madden Is Everything Wrong With Sports

I don’t know how many of you reading this are baseball fans, but I assume at least some are Will Ferrell fans. So you might have heard about him playing every position for 10 different Major League Baseball teams in one day. It’s important to point out that he was playing in Spring Training games. It’s even more important to point that he did this to raise money for charity. Because as much as this was a media stunt, it was for a good cause.

Now, I’m usually the first person to let his cynicism make him question whether he’s allowed to enjoy or approve of something like this. I’ll admit that when I first heard about Will Ferrell doing this I figured he was just doing it to promote Semi-Pro 2 or something. Or he was using his celebrity status to fulfill a childhood dream. But then I watched some video from the day.

Will Ferrell look ridiculous out there. Of course he did. He’s in his 50s. But he still made the play. And more to the point, I enjoyed watching him and clearly so did the players on all the teams. Why? Because it’s Spring Training. The games don’t mean anything. The games are meant to get players tuned up for the season. Sure, some players are competing for rosters spots, but Will Ferrell played for one out at each position. He hardly had any impact on the future of any fringe big league players. He had fun and so did they.

So why, exactly, is John Madden — former NFL head coach and current video game shill — chiming in? Because apparently he thinks what Will Ferrell did “lacks respect” for the “game.” That’s right, John Madden is complaining that a famous comedian isn’t respecting a child’s game played by adults for ludicrous sums of money.

John Madden probably doesn’t care that Ferrell raised money for cancer. Realistically, he probably doesn’t even know. The man’s a fossil that travels the country by bus because he’s afraid of flying. No, John Madden only cares about “respect.” Even though he plays in the AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro Am golf tournament which, at its core, is the same thing. But he dismisses the comparisons by saying Pebble Beach has tradition that goes way back to Bing Crosby (himself a shining example of respect).

And with that, John Madden shows why he represents everything that’s wrong with professional sports right now. All the old timers (players and media alike) constantly whine about how things aren’t like they used to be. They say there’s no respect, honour or integrity. Tradition has been forgotten.

Baseball players are too flashy, show too much emotion and look as if they are enjoying being paid millions of dollars to play for three hours a day. NHL players are soft now. There’s no grit in hockey anymore. No fighting. NFL players run their mouths during media scrums when really they should keep quiet. They talk too much shit after games. They should obey the code of silence so they don’t humiliate the losing team.

Put simply: no professional player is allowed to do anything that might give them a personality, make it seem like they enjoy their job or use all of their skill to their full potential.

As a sports fan I ask, where’s the fun in that?

We all watch sports because they are fun to watch. We watch for pimped home runs, end zone dances, emphatic dunks and even breakaway goals. We watch because players that show off are either the ones you love (when they’re on your team) or the ones you love to hate (when they’re not). We don’t watch for cliched quotes, stone faced benches and gentlemanly handshakes after a championship win.

That’s why people were excited to see Will Ferrell to play baseball. It was silly. It was harmless. It was fun.

Fans don’t care about respect. They care about enjoying the game. Something I doubt John Madden (or 95% of sports media) could ever really understand.

Rolling Stone: All 1 Terrible SNL Article Writers, Ranked

As you probably know, this past weekend marked the 40th anniversary for Saturday Night Live. Comedy snob or not, you have to admit this is a remarkable achievement. (Yes you do.) Forget the debate about which era was best, which was worst, and whether or not the show should even be on the air anymore. It has a lot of issues but it’s 90 minutes of original comedy, every week. That’s crazy to me. It took me over a year to write five minutes of stand up material I didn’t hate. Forget about whether the show should be that long, it’s just not an easy thing to do.

And yet Rolling Stone has deemed some guy, Rob Sheffield, capable of ranking all 141 cast members in the history of Saturday Night Live. Lists like these are subjective, stupid and, of course, meaningless. And yes, I don’t agree with the rankings. I didn’t have to get past Norm Macdonald at #135 to know I didn’t need to read the rest of them. Whoever this guy is, he’s entitled to his opinion. (He might not even be behind the actual rankings, but his name is on them.) What I really take issue with is his mean-spirited, dismissive write-ups for some of the cast members.

Every single one of these people contributed more culturally to the world in one sketch than Rob Sheffield ever will writing hot take click-bait garbage like that article. (Not to mention his rankings of the best SNL Characters ever.) This is the kind of arts “journalism” that made me quit writing criticism. It doesn’t contribute anything to the world. And neither does the guy writing it.

But in the spirit of hot takes and jumping on a cultural event to garner site traffic, I now present to you my insanely lazy, ruthlessly quick ranking of every Terrible Rolling Stone SNL Article Writers ever!

1. Rob Sheffield

cornyrob

I don’t know who Rob Sheffield is and neither do you. Let’s check back in with him on the 40th anniversary of his SNL article.

Drown your sorrows in puppies

Let’s talk about this year’s Super Bowl (aka Big Game for the unaffiliated) commercial for Budweiser. It’s a lot like last year’s spot. It has a puppy in it.

Not only does it have a puppy, it’s got a real “tug at your heart strings” vibe going on. Much like the commercial from last year. Both ads leave me wondering, just what kind of beer is Budweiser? They call themselves the King of Beers™. But this isn’t a beer ad. It’s an internet video with a puppy in it. Oh, and it has the hash tag #BestBuds. Get it? Like Bud. As in Budweiser. (The beer.)

It already has over two million views. I’m sure the brand and their agency (Anomaly) are thrilled with that number. I’m sure they also knew exactly what they were doing when they decided to make another ad about a puppy. But I have a couple of problems with this ad.

One, it doesn’t tell me anything about the beer. Sure, it’s Budweiser, so you could argue they’ve said it all. Or you could argue that with the increasing rise in popularity of craft beer, maybe they should be bother to tell people why someone might want to drink Budweiser.

My second issue is that this doesn’t even feel on target or on brand for Budweiser. When I think of Bud, I think of an all-American quarter back pounding back a few after a hard day’s footballin’. Or maybe an alcoholic Vietnam War veteran. Or somewhere in between. Regardless, I don’t see any of those types caring too much about the plight of a lost puppy. If anything, I think they would be put off by this ad. It doesn’t have anything to it. No sports. No humour. No America!

Instead, they’re trying to make people teary eyed. I don’t understand beer brands making emotional ads. I drink beer because I don’t want to feel anything. The one thing I take away from this ad is that if I stay home on my farm drinking alone long enough, my alcoholism will get so bad that my only remaining friend will be a dog. If Budweiser wants to connect with me emotionally, they should make an ad about jealousy, bitterness and crippling self-doubt.

This ad is just the worst kind of pandering bullshit that some people believe passes for a brand message. Actually, I’ll agree with that. Because I don’t see how this does anything but say Budweiser is watered-down dog water.

If there’s anything positive to take away, it’s this Go Daddy parody commercial/promotional stunt:

I have an opinion on the opinion pieces on the tragedy I know nothing about

Let me start this by saying: I had never heard of Charlie Hebdo before the attack on their office that left 12 people dead. I think that’s important because I feel like a lot of people in North America had never heard of it before either. And yet everyone now seems to have an opinion about the attack and what it means. What a surprise.

One horrible tragedy that spawns a global news story and suddenly everyone is an expert on freedom of speech, Muslims and editorial cartoons. (Here’s a fun game: when’s the last time you actually saw an editorial cartoon that had enough of an effect on you to tell a friend about it?) Apparently, everyone is also now an expert on opinion pieces about freedom of speech, Muslims and editorial cartoons. Thanks to the internet and our 24 hour news streams, there are always opinion pieces about opinion pieces about opinion pieces.

Because it’s important that someone “gets it right” in terms of what 12 people getting killed for making politically charged cartoons all means. That’s what’s important. There has to be meaning from this. It can’t just be that two mentally unstable people shot a bunch of people for no reason. No, it means something and everyone needs their meaning to be the right one.

Je_suis_Charlie.svg

Responding to the attack isn’t about saying “Je suis Charlie,” it’s about saying “Je suis Ahmed.” Or even “I am not Charlie Hebdo.” The material produced in Charlie Hebdo is racist. It’s also heroic. But… pretty racist. That said, we should still condemn those kooky radical Muslims, am I right? Everyone needs to have a response and it needs to be posted by EOD. Every media outlet needs to have one of their people say something about the tragedy before the story dies. The quickest way to think of something to say is to respond to something that’s already been said. And then of course we all must have something to say about all that’s been said.

That’s what’s important. This story is all over news. You have to know where you stand. You definitely have to tell all your Facebook friends where you stand. Twitter needs to know, too. So start sharing everyone. Don’t take a step back to consider the attacks themselves, why they occurred, what they were against or even what they were for. Quickly form your opinion based on the first North American op-ed you saw that more-or-less felt right to you. We’re all waiting to hear what you think.

But really, you don’t always have to have an opinion on something. Even if it’s a tragedy on this scale. Or one that’s this politically charged. You don’t have to rush to determine which opinion piece best represents your views on the event. You certainly don’t have to tell everyone how you feel. Especially when you were never familiar with the magazine or what its material was about.

Sometimes saying “Well, this is really fucking awful” is enough. But that’s just my opinion.