So last week, I gave everyone an overview of my interview with Apple and everything that went right. This week, I'm going to tell you all the things that went wrong with the interview. After the hardware interview, I was very confident and sure enough I got the call for round 2 of Apple's drubbing. I wasn't told what the second interview would entail but I figured it would be software oriented. During that week is when I realized how important it is to ask as many questions as you can about the team that you are being interviewed for because it can give you valuable insight into what to prepare. I obviously didn't ask enough questions on what platform they work in? what language do they code in? What are typical issues they face? These questions would have given me some ideas on the follow-up interview questions but since I didn't ask them, I was clueless on what was going to be asked.
Once the interview began, I was bombarded right away with a lot of unix based questions. It started off with some some simple questions like "How do you calculate the space occupied by a directory in unix" and "What does the pipe command do?" Had I known that I had to review my unix stuff, I would have been better prepared to answer them but luckily i remembered the command that du is for disk usage so got that partially right. The follow up question was "How would you find the size of a directory if you couldn't use the du command?" I was lost and had no answer. We moved on to other topics. I was asked, "If you could design an OS, what kind of scheduling would you do?" I answered that i would turn to a pre-emptive priority based scheduling. He asked me to explain what that meant so i tried to BS my way into saying that each process is given a certain priority level and higher priority process pre-empt lower priority processes. He follows that up with, "Is there any time when your scheduler is working correctly but a lower priority process gets more time with the processor than the higher priority process?" Once again I was stumped coz I couldn't think of a scenario when this would happen, especially if the scheduler is designed correctly.
Given my inability to answer these questions, the interview ended prematurely, instead of running for a full hour, it only ran about 40-45 minutes and I knew things weren't looking good.. I hadn't heard back from Apple for almost 3 weeks and until I got another offer and I forced their hand, i didn't receive a response. Finally, last week, I got an answer from Apple saying that I wasn't experienced enough for this position and that I should get back in touch with them in a couple of years to see what happens. I guess the consolation was that they rejected me in a very nice way if nothing else so I certainly take solace in that..
Stay tuned for the Royal Bank Corporation interviews in the coming days and weeks.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Interview #2: Apple Inc.. No longer Apple Computers..
As promised, i'm giving you guys an overview of another big interview that I went through. This one was with the infamous Apple Inc based out of Cupertino, California. The interview was for the iPhone Power/Performance team. Based on the description of the job, it seemed like a job that has both hardware and software elements to it. The job entailed hardware analysis to see ICs that drain a lot of power, and find software solutions to optimize the system to use less power. Sounds fun doesn't it. Plus, had I gotten the job, I would have been able to brag that I work on the most successful smartphone of the last few years.. I guess you guys can conclude that I didn't get the job.. but I did get the 2nd interview.. so that means I did some things right..
For those of you that don't know.. I did 2 internships with RIM and worked on Power Management which is probably why I got this interview in the first place so most of their questions revolved around my experience at RIM.
One thing I came to realize with Apple is that they are interested in people who know their stuff inside out.. They don't want someone who displays potential, they want someone who HAS potential and they're very picky.. They don't beat around the bush.. The recruiters don't use flowerly language or emails that are a full page long.. they use 3 sentences to get to the point..
Here's an example..
"I'm one of the recruiters on the iPhone performance/power team and was really interested in your resume. The work you've been doing is very interesting and I'm sure the team would like to chat with you. When might you be available?"
or..
"Sounds like your first chat went well. If you are interested we'd like to have you chat with another person from the iPhone perf team
For those of you that don't know.. I did 2 internships with RIM and worked on Power Management which is probably why I got this interview in the first place so most of their questions revolved around my experience at RIM.
One thing I came to realize with Apple is that they are interested in people who know their stuff inside out.. They don't want someone who displays potential, they want someone who HAS potential and they're very picky.. They don't beat around the bush.. The recruiters don't use flowerly language or emails that are a full page long.. they use 3 sentences to get to the point..
Here's an example..
"I'm one of the recruiters on the iPhone performance/power team and was really interested in your resume. The work you've been doing is very interesting and I'm sure the team would like to chat with you. When might you be available?"
or..
"Sounds like your first chat went well. If you are interested we'd like to have you chat with another person from the iPhone perf team
When is the next best day? Friday?"
As you can see.. they cut to the chase.. which I really haven't been doing in this entry so i'll start now.. let's cut to the chase and get to the questions..
Apple Inc.
Interview 1
Question 1: I see you've worked at RIM's Power team.. What did you do there?
Answer: This is a very open ended question and they want to see how detailed you can get from a technical standpoint. I was very in-depth in my answers. "I worked mostly in the lab automating power measurement for BlackBerry devices. Measuring voltage and current of different components and identifying Power Management ICs to be used in Next Gen BlackBerries."
Question 2: So u've worked with PMICs.. why don't u tell me what some of the components in a PMIC are?
Answer: Linear Regulators (LDO), Switched Mode Power Supplies(SMPS), I2C communication interface.
Question 3: Ok, you also said you helped pick out PMICs for next gen devices.. what are some of the criteria for picking them?
Answer: Size (Because mobile applications ahve a scarcity when it comes to board space) and efficiency (because mobile applications run on batteries with limited power capability). but there's a tradeoff because the more efficient power supplies (SMPS) are bigger and the less efficient ones (LDOs) are smaller..
Question 4: Very good point.. so u talk about LDOs and SMPS. Why are LDOs less efficient and Why are SMPS units bigger..
Answer: LDOs use a resistive network to bring down voltages, so you have loss to environment and heat dissipation while SMPS devices work with transistors that switch on and off really fast to produce the voltage and could theoretically reach 100% efficiency. The problem is that SMPS units require an extra inductor, so space wise, that adds to the size of the unit.
Question 5: Ok, I see that you talk about bringing down voltages. Is that all you can do?
Answer: No, you can use buck regulators to bring down voltages and boost regulators to bring up voltages too. But they can only be done in SMPS devices not LDOs.
Question 6: You've been giving very good answers so far and giving lot more detail than I need. Now something more specific. What do you think are the 5 biggest power consuming elements in the iPhone.
Answer: Processor, LCD, Radio, GPS, and Audio Speakers and Microphone..
Question 7: Great.. now can u organize those 5 in terms of most and least power consuming..
Answer: I would think LCD, Processor, GPS, Radio and finally speakers
Interviewer: close but the LCD doesn't consume as much as you think. I mean. it does consume a lot when it's on but over a period of time, the processor and radio are the biggest consumers..
Question 8: Do you know what a bypass capacitor does?
Answer: I know the term sounds familiar but I can't quite rememember.
The interviewer the explained what it was, and I knew that I had the answer somewhere in me but couldn't come to a conclusion.
So i screwed up two out of eight questions, not too bad.. I knew i did well enough in the hardware interview.. and I was confident..
I noticed that the interview was mostly based on my resume so i strongly urge you to not put anything that you don't know inside out.. they grill you on it and they question every nook and cranny.. The interviewers know their stuff so don't try to bullshit your way through it. If you don't know an answer, say that you don't know it. Don't try to make a fool of the interviewer coz they will point it out to you..
The next day I got a request for the second chat.. and sure enuff this one was going to be software based..
Stay tuned and i'll tell you what was in store for me.. I'll give you a hint.. I didn't follow my own advice.. LOL.
As you can see.. they cut to the chase.. which I really haven't been doing in this entry so i'll start now.. let's cut to the chase and get to the questions..
Apple Inc.
Interview 1
Question 1: I see you've worked at RIM's Power team.. What did you do there?
Answer: This is a very open ended question and they want to see how detailed you can get from a technical standpoint. I was very in-depth in my answers. "I worked mostly in the lab automating power measurement for BlackBerry devices. Measuring voltage and current of different components and identifying Power Management ICs to be used in Next Gen BlackBerries."
Question 2: So u've worked with PMICs.. why don't u tell me what some of the components in a PMIC are?
Answer: Linear Regulators (LDO), Switched Mode Power Supplies(SMPS), I2C communication interface.
Question 3: Ok, you also said you helped pick out PMICs for next gen devices.. what are some of the criteria for picking them?
Answer: Size (Because mobile applications ahve a scarcity when it comes to board space) and efficiency (because mobile applications run on batteries with limited power capability). but there's a tradeoff because the more efficient power supplies (SMPS) are bigger and the less efficient ones (LDOs) are smaller..
Question 4: Very good point.. so u talk about LDOs and SMPS. Why are LDOs less efficient and Why are SMPS units bigger..
Answer: LDOs use a resistive network to bring down voltages, so you have loss to environment and heat dissipation while SMPS devices work with transistors that switch on and off really fast to produce the voltage and could theoretically reach 100% efficiency. The problem is that SMPS units require an extra inductor, so space wise, that adds to the size of the unit.
Question 5: Ok, I see that you talk about bringing down voltages. Is that all you can do?
Answer: No, you can use buck regulators to bring down voltages and boost regulators to bring up voltages too. But they can only be done in SMPS devices not LDOs.
Question 6: You've been giving very good answers so far and giving lot more detail than I need. Now something more specific. What do you think are the 5 biggest power consuming elements in the iPhone.
Answer: Processor, LCD, Radio, GPS, and Audio Speakers and Microphone..
Question 7: Great.. now can u organize those 5 in terms of most and least power consuming..
Answer: I would think LCD, Processor, GPS, Radio and finally speakers
Interviewer: close but the LCD doesn't consume as much as you think. I mean. it does consume a lot when it's on but over a period of time, the processor and radio are the biggest consumers..
Question 8: Do you know what a bypass capacitor does?
Answer: I know the term sounds familiar but I can't quite rememember.
The interviewer the explained what it was, and I knew that I had the answer somewhere in me but couldn't come to a conclusion.
So i screwed up two out of eight questions, not too bad.. I knew i did well enough in the hardware interview.. and I was confident..
I noticed that the interview was mostly based on my resume so i strongly urge you to not put anything that you don't know inside out.. they grill you on it and they question every nook and cranny.. The interviewers know their stuff so don't try to bullshit your way through it. If you don't know an answer, say that you don't know it. Don't try to make a fool of the interviewer coz they will point it out to you..
The next day I got a request for the second chat.. and sure enuff this one was going to be software based..
Stay tuned and i'll tell you what was in store for me.. I'll give you a hint.. I didn't follow my own advice.. LOL.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Interview Review #1: Microsoft
It has been a couple of weeks since I last blogged but I thought now is a good time to write about my last few months of interviews and my take on the current new grad situation. With the current economic situation, I didn't want to tempt fate by writing about my interviews until I found myself in stable ground. I guess this entry is just an outline of the numerous questions i've encountered in the last 3 months from various companies and positions. So i'm going to start with one interview review per day. This is by no means expert testimony. This is just how things happened for me and an expression of whatever little I know or make sense of the interview process. It's certainly not advice.. but perhaps an example or a case study.. The first review will be from Microsoft. I haven't actually done the second round interview yet, so this is just an outline of the initial screen.
Microsoft
1) Write code to determine the second last element in a linked list.
Ans: have two pointers one incrementing before the other and when one gets to the tail, return the element pointed to by the other.
2) Write code to determine is a linked list is cyclic.
Ans: Again, have two pointers, one incrementing by 2, and the other incrementing by 1. If the first pointer and second pointer point to the same element at any point after the initial increment, the list is cyclic.
3) If you could design an alarm clock, what features would you add and why?
Ans: Very subjective. I obviously included a snooze button, a USB interface for loading custom music instead of *beep beep* and a laser pointed to the ceiling to show time and make humans even lazier. (i.e, u don't even need to turn your head to look at the clock on your table)
4) What is one piece of software you really like?
My Answer: "If i have to pick a microsoft product..."
Interviewer: "It doesn't have to be a microsoft product. It can be any piece of software"
My Answer: "Google Search"
Interviewer: "Ooh.. wrong answer.. not because we're microsoft but because my follow up question is 'How would you make it better?' "
Don't fall into this trap the way I did. Don't pick a software that is obviously leaps and bounds superior to competition. I eventually gave an answer along the lines that Google Search needs category based searches. For example, search only medical website, or college websites.
Let it be said that my answers were good enough to get me to the second round. The key is to relate and communicate with the interviewer. Don't be uptight but don't be too loose either. It's about finding the balance and the comfort zone. The interviewer isn't your homeboy, but they're not there to kill you either. They are genuinely interested in hiring you, otherwise they wouldn't be there so be confident but not self-obsessed. Understand that there are people out there who know more than you but you have what it takes. The whole package.. Finally, never forget to think outside the box. As crazy as some of the ideas my sound, it may show the interviewer that you have creative potential. An alarm clock with a laser and USB interface is not new, but it's not common. The common answers will put you on par with the other one hundred candidates. The unique answer puts you ahead of them.
Tomorrow i'll cover another interview that I attended while it is still fresh in my mind.
Microsoft
1) Write code to determine the second last element in a linked list.
Ans: have two pointers one incrementing before the other and when one gets to the tail, return the element pointed to by the other.
2) Write code to determine is a linked list is cyclic.
Ans: Again, have two pointers, one incrementing by 2, and the other incrementing by 1. If the first pointer and second pointer point to the same element at any point after the initial increment, the list is cyclic.
3) If you could design an alarm clock, what features would you add and why?
Ans: Very subjective. I obviously included a snooze button, a USB interface for loading custom music instead of *beep beep* and a laser pointed to the ceiling to show time and make humans even lazier. (i.e, u don't even need to turn your head to look at the clock on your table)
4) What is one piece of software you really like?
My Answer: "If i have to pick a microsoft product..."
Interviewer: "It doesn't have to be a microsoft product. It can be any piece of software"
My Answer: "Google Search"
Interviewer: "Ooh.. wrong answer.. not because we're microsoft but because my follow up question is 'How would you make it better?' "
Don't fall into this trap the way I did. Don't pick a software that is obviously leaps and bounds superior to competition. I eventually gave an answer along the lines that Google Search needs category based searches. For example, search only medical website, or college websites.
Let it be said that my answers were good enough to get me to the second round. The key is to relate and communicate with the interviewer. Don't be uptight but don't be too loose either. It's about finding the balance and the comfort zone. The interviewer isn't your homeboy, but they're not there to kill you either. They are genuinely interested in hiring you, otherwise they wouldn't be there so be confident but not self-obsessed. Understand that there are people out there who know more than you but you have what it takes. The whole package.. Finally, never forget to think outside the box. As crazy as some of the ideas my sound, it may show the interviewer that you have creative potential. An alarm clock with a laser and USB interface is not new, but it's not common. The common answers will put you on par with the other one hundred candidates. The unique answer puts you ahead of them.
Tomorrow i'll cover another interview that I attended while it is still fresh in my mind.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Frequent Flier Syndrome
I never really understood why frequent fliers hated flying. In my mind, it was always like "why would someone not like traveling to new and exotic places, trying new things, seeing new sights and of course who can ignore eating new cuisines." Last week, I understood why.. I saw the light.. I was traveling for some interviews in Austin, Texas from Ottawa and I realized that even a short flight like this one could make a person hate traveling. Let me give you a scene by scene description of the events that unfolded.
Thursday afternoon at 12:00 PM : I take off from work to catch a flight that leaves Ottawa at 3 PM headed to Newark, NJ.. Yes, there were no direct flights and I had to take a connection. I get to the airport and check in and was ready at the gate by 1:15 PM for the 3 PM flight.
2:00 PM: Announcement informing that flight to Newark has been delayed by 2 hours, it is now scheduled to leave at 5 PM. I think to myself that this shouldn't be a problem as I have 4 hours between my flights in Newark so i'm still good for my connection
5:00 PM: Announcement informing that the flight has been further delayed by an hour due to air traffic control issues. I go up to the attendant, she confirms that I should still be able to make my connection in Newark.
6:00 PM: We board the flight (i'm happy), we get out on the tarmac ready to take off.. Pilot informs us that we're stuck for another 90 minutes ON THE TARMAC because Newark has not given them permission to take off as they have too many planes landing and don't have time for ours.
8:00 PM: After the scheduled departure of my flight in Newark, we leave Ottawa and reach Newark an hour later...
9:00 PM: I get out of the plane and ask the attendant immediately if my plane to Austin has left. She nods with a false sense of comfort.. I ask her if there are any other flights I can take out because I don't want to be late for my interview the next morning. She informed me taht the 8 PM flight was the last one to austin and there are no other options or routes to get there that night. She then tells me to go stand in line at customer service so they can put me up in a hotel room.
9:45: I get to the front of the customer service line where I'm being helped by a woman who acts like she's concerned about what's happening to me.. she re-iterates the fact that there are no flights out that day and that the earliest flight she can put me on was at 6:45 AM the next morning, which gets to Austin at 10:00 AM.. a full 2 hours after the scheduled start time of my interview.. I accept my fate and ask her where they're putting me up for the night.. she checks with another superior agent standing next to her who shakes her head in disapproval.. here's the conversation..
Agent: "sir.. this is the part of the job I hate.. and I hate to be the one to break this to u but since you are coming from Canada, and since flights from Canada are not considered to be international flights, we cannot put you up in a hotel for the night.."...
This is when I lose my cool..
Me: "I've been patient and accepting of a 5 hour delay in my home city, accepting of missing my connection and accepting of the fact that i'm going to be late to my interview.. and accepting of the fact that thanks to you guys, i'm not going to get a job.. but now ur telling me that I have to sleep in an airport chair??"
Agent: "I'm sorry sir but that's policy.."
Me: "Well I don't give a damn about your policy, you are putting me up in a hotel room tonight because I need a place where I can sleep and shower in the morning.. Your agent at the door told me that i'd be put up in a hotel and I better be put up in a hotel or you will have to face legal action for distress and economic turmoil.."
Agent: "The lady at the door told you we'd put you up somewhere."
Me: "Yes she did."
Agent: "Let me see what I can do."
5 minutes later.
Agent: "Alright sir, here's your hotel voucher, you can go ahead and go straight, there will be a hotel shuttle waiting to take you there."
11:00 PM: I get to the hotel room and find out that the loving and caring agent did not attach a meal voucher to my hotel voucher.. wonderful.. hotel staff were nice enuff to let me order pizza.. i order a medium pizza, and gulp it down 40 minutes later.
Midnight: I finally go to bed so I can wake up in 4 hours and go back to the airport to go do my interview.
6 AM: Get to the airport, check in, get to the gate and find my flight delayed by 30 minutes once again..
7:15 AM: Flight to Austin actually takes off and we were told to expect turbulence.. (no sleep for Raj)
10:30 AM: Land in Austin, and my baggage surprisingly arrives safely. Get to the rental car and rive off by 11 AM. (3 hours after start time.
11:35 AM: Show up at the office for my interview.. they were very happy to have me and had all my interviews rescheduled to accomodate the travel mishap.. (yes, i had kept them posted throughout to make sure they knew what was happening.)
------- ALL THE GOOD THINGS HAPPEN IN AUSTIN------------
FLIGHT BACK....
More delays, more pain.. My flight out of austin was delayed by an hour by guess what.. Air Traffic Control in Houston.. Get to Houston 15 minutes before my connection was set to leave.. run across the airport and board barely on time.. which by the way was the best thing that happened to me in the airport all weekend.. get to newark and find my flight to ottawa delayed by 2 hours.. get to ottawa 2 hours later than expected..
i don't wanna go into more details, but let me conclude with this..
4 days, 5 flights, 5 delays, 2 hotel rooms, 1 overnight layover, 1 fight with Customer Service... All for 1 interview
so the next time someone says "you dont understand the pain of frequent fliers..", give them the benefit of the doubt..
Thursday afternoon at 12:00 PM : I take off from work to catch a flight that leaves Ottawa at 3 PM headed to Newark, NJ.. Yes, there were no direct flights and I had to take a connection. I get to the airport and check in and was ready at the gate by 1:15 PM for the 3 PM flight.
2:00 PM: Announcement informing that flight to Newark has been delayed by 2 hours, it is now scheduled to leave at 5 PM. I think to myself that this shouldn't be a problem as I have 4 hours between my flights in Newark so i'm still good for my connection
5:00 PM: Announcement informing that the flight has been further delayed by an hour due to air traffic control issues. I go up to the attendant, she confirms that I should still be able to make my connection in Newark.
6:00 PM: We board the flight (i'm happy), we get out on the tarmac ready to take off.. Pilot informs us that we're stuck for another 90 minutes ON THE TARMAC because Newark has not given them permission to take off as they have too many planes landing and don't have time for ours.
8:00 PM: After the scheduled departure of my flight in Newark, we leave Ottawa and reach Newark an hour later...
9:00 PM: I get out of the plane and ask the attendant immediately if my plane to Austin has left. She nods with a false sense of comfort.. I ask her if there are any other flights I can take out because I don't want to be late for my interview the next morning. She informed me taht the 8 PM flight was the last one to austin and there are no other options or routes to get there that night. She then tells me to go stand in line at customer service so they can put me up in a hotel room.
9:45: I get to the front of the customer service line where I'm being helped by a woman who acts like she's concerned about what's happening to me.. she re-iterates the fact that there are no flights out that day and that the earliest flight she can put me on was at 6:45 AM the next morning, which gets to Austin at 10:00 AM.. a full 2 hours after the scheduled start time of my interview.. I accept my fate and ask her where they're putting me up for the night.. she checks with another superior agent standing next to her who shakes her head in disapproval.. here's the conversation..
Agent: "sir.. this is the part of the job I hate.. and I hate to be the one to break this to u but since you are coming from Canada, and since flights from Canada are not considered to be international flights, we cannot put you up in a hotel for the night.."...
This is when I lose my cool..
Me: "I've been patient and accepting of a 5 hour delay in my home city, accepting of missing my connection and accepting of the fact that i'm going to be late to my interview.. and accepting of the fact that thanks to you guys, i'm not going to get a job.. but now ur telling me that I have to sleep in an airport chair??"
Agent: "I'm sorry sir but that's policy.."
Me: "Well I don't give a damn about your policy, you are putting me up in a hotel room tonight because I need a place where I can sleep and shower in the morning.. Your agent at the door told me that i'd be put up in a hotel and I better be put up in a hotel or you will have to face legal action for distress and economic turmoil.."
Agent: "The lady at the door told you we'd put you up somewhere."
Me: "Yes she did."
Agent: "Let me see what I can do."
5 minutes later.
Agent: "Alright sir, here's your hotel voucher, you can go ahead and go straight, there will be a hotel shuttle waiting to take you there."
11:00 PM: I get to the hotel room and find out that the loving and caring agent did not attach a meal voucher to my hotel voucher.. wonderful.. hotel staff were nice enuff to let me order pizza.. i order a medium pizza, and gulp it down 40 minutes later.
Midnight: I finally go to bed so I can wake up in 4 hours and go back to the airport to go do my interview.
6 AM: Get to the airport, check in, get to the gate and find my flight delayed by 30 minutes once again..
7:15 AM: Flight to Austin actually takes off and we were told to expect turbulence.. (no sleep for Raj)
10:30 AM: Land in Austin, and my baggage surprisingly arrives safely. Get to the rental car and rive off by 11 AM. (3 hours after start time.
11:35 AM: Show up at the office for my interview.. they were very happy to have me and had all my interviews rescheduled to accomodate the travel mishap.. (yes, i had kept them posted throughout to make sure they knew what was happening.)
------- ALL THE GOOD THINGS HAPPEN IN AUSTIN------------
FLIGHT BACK....
More delays, more pain.. My flight out of austin was delayed by an hour by guess what.. Air Traffic Control in Houston.. Get to Houston 15 minutes before my connection was set to leave.. run across the airport and board barely on time.. which by the way was the best thing that happened to me in the airport all weekend.. get to newark and find my flight to ottawa delayed by 2 hours.. get to ottawa 2 hours later than expected..
i don't wanna go into more details, but let me conclude with this..
4 days, 5 flights, 5 delays, 2 hotel rooms, 1 overnight layover, 1 fight with Customer Service... All for 1 interview
so the next time someone says "you dont understand the pain of frequent fliers..", give them the benefit of the doubt..
Monday, October 20, 2008
How Private Are You?
It's been a few weeks since I last blogged. I've been doing a lot of local traveling with interviews, family, friends and other things have been keeping me quite busy for the last 2-3 weeks but I finally found some time at work to write a little bit today.. I read an article a few weeks back where the founder of Google Sergey Brin was funding a company called "23 and me" which decodes your DNA and provides a mini-snapshot of diseases that you are genetically predisposed to. He published a blog where he identified that he had a much higher chance of being afflicted with Parkinsons. Knowing this can really help a person early in their life to alter their lifestyle appropriately to increase their chances of fighting back. The cost of decoding a DNA sequence cost as much as a million dollars a year ago to $5000 today.
This morning, I read another article in the NY Times called "The DNA Age" which identifies a Harvard Medical School study that decodes your DNA for free but the cost of doing this is that your genetic information is made public. Now, you are probably thinking, how dare they reveal my personal medical history and personal attributes to the whole world? I personally think that we are living in a world where privacy doesn't exist. Call me a cynic, but that's the truth. Google reads your mail, the gov't and banks see your money, the doctor/nurse/pharmacist see your health records.. they're all stored in a central database somewhere.. so what's wrong in you just revealing it yourself.. I would rather know that I am genetically predisposed to a heart attack than live my life with the false belief that my life is private and that no one knows the real truth about me.. The interesting question brought about in the article says that if you have an identical twin, both twins need to agree to share the information as the genetic information is a little too similar.. but in all other cases, when a person signs over the genetic data, it's property of the company "personalgenomes.org".. Imagine if your gene, along with a hundred thousand others can identify the exact sequence that causes alzheimers and parkinson's and could potentially prolong the life of millions in the future..
Last week, we faced some tumultuous times as a family after the passing of my 47 year old cousin. Cause: Heart Failure. If my DNA could have been used to identify common family traits, perhaps he could have been better prepared and lived a healthier lifestyle to stop this tragic event. I think that privacy advocates need to wake up and smell the air and realize that privacy is a myth and the sooner we accept that, the faster we can help future generations.
This morning, I read another article in the NY Times called "The DNA Age" which identifies a Harvard Medical School study that decodes your DNA for free but the cost of doing this is that your genetic information is made public. Now, you are probably thinking, how dare they reveal my personal medical history and personal attributes to the whole world? I personally think that we are living in a world where privacy doesn't exist. Call me a cynic, but that's the truth. Google reads your mail, the gov't and banks see your money, the doctor/nurse/pharmacist see your health records.. they're all stored in a central database somewhere.. so what's wrong in you just revealing it yourself.. I would rather know that I am genetically predisposed to a heart attack than live my life with the false belief that my life is private and that no one knows the real truth about me.. The interesting question brought about in the article says that if you have an identical twin, both twins need to agree to share the information as the genetic information is a little too similar.. but in all other cases, when a person signs over the genetic data, it's property of the company "personalgenomes.org".. Imagine if your gene, along with a hundred thousand others can identify the exact sequence that causes alzheimers and parkinson's and could potentially prolong the life of millions in the future..
Last week, we faced some tumultuous times as a family after the passing of my 47 year old cousin. Cause: Heart Failure. If my DNA could have been used to identify common family traits, perhaps he could have been better prepared and lived a healthier lifestyle to stop this tragic event. I think that privacy advocates need to wake up and smell the air and realize that privacy is a myth and the sooner we accept that, the faster we can help future generations.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Warren Buffett - Man of Vision
I'm sure everyone knows who Warren Buffett is. As of 2007, he was the richest man in the world. His ranking fell to number two this year largely due to the financial turmoil in wall street. It's almost universally accepted that Buffett is one of the world's foremost authorities when it comes to picking stocks and when it comes to picking undervalued investments with huge future potential. He is one man who can single handedly calm down an entire nation of investors from imminent collapse. This is just what he did earlier today by putting down $5 Billion of his Berkshire Hathaway money to buy a chunk of one of the two remaining wall street banks, Goldman Sachs. I Know.. I know.. Goldman Sachs is no longer a wall street bank technically.. But the man's brilliance can be seen from a quote he gave 5 years ago when he called credit default swaps, and derivatives in general, a "time bomb" and "financial weapons of mass destruction" and directed the insurance arm of his Berkshire Hathaway Inc to exit the business. His argument was quite simply that “there is no central bank assigned to the job of preventing the dominoes toppling in insurance or derivatives”. Today, Credit Default Swaps have resulted in the hundreds of billions of dollars in losses and the virtual destruction of wall street as we know it.. The man's genius can be seen from 1 simple statement more than 5 years ago..
Buffett has been known to make investments in companies that are declining but with future potential. This was in the early days of berkshire hathaway and he has since moved to a different approach. He now follows a theory of investing in high quality business with competitive advantages. He called these advantages "moat" businesses as opposed to commodity businesses. In layman's terms, Buffett's investments often involved companies whose products are priced much higher than cost and have a niche market. A perfect example was his investment in Coca-Cola in the late 80's where he knew that people would be willing to pay more money for a drink labeled Coca-Cola even though cheaper drinks with similar taste was available. He called Coca-Cola a moat business. Conversely, he believed a commodity such as salt is not a moat business because people generally didn't care what brand of salt they bought.
He often said that diversification is not necessary in investment, contrary to popular belief. He believed that you only diversify when you don't know what your investing in to protect your losses. (I guess this is true for most of us commoners) His company Berkshire Hathaway in its glory days between 1977 and 1983 never owned more than 18 companies and never fewer than 8. This shows that they didn't invest in a lot of decent companies but a few great companies.
Two of my favourite quotes:
"I’ll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It’s addictive. And there’s fantastic brand loyalty." - Warren Buffett
"It gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head." - Warren Buffett on the value of Gold
An overview of the famous companies owned or partially owned by Berkshire Hathaway:
GEICO, Dairy Queen, Cort Furniture, American Express, Anheuser Busch (Budweiser), Coca Cola, Comcast, General Electric, Glaxo Smithkline, Home Depot, H&R Block, Johnson and Johnson, Kraft, Lexmark, Nike, Procter and Gamble, UPS, US Bancorp, Walmart, Washington Post, Wells Fargo.
Amazing to say the least..
Buffett has been known to make investments in companies that are declining but with future potential. This was in the early days of berkshire hathaway and he has since moved to a different approach. He now follows a theory of investing in high quality business with competitive advantages. He called these advantages "moat" businesses as opposed to commodity businesses. In layman's terms, Buffett's investments often involved companies whose products are priced much higher than cost and have a niche market. A perfect example was his investment in Coca-Cola in the late 80's where he knew that people would be willing to pay more money for a drink labeled Coca-Cola even though cheaper drinks with similar taste was available. He called Coca-Cola a moat business. Conversely, he believed a commodity such as salt is not a moat business because people generally didn't care what brand of salt they bought.
He often said that diversification is not necessary in investment, contrary to popular belief. He believed that you only diversify when you don't know what your investing in to protect your losses. (I guess this is true for most of us commoners) His company Berkshire Hathaway in its glory days between 1977 and 1983 never owned more than 18 companies and never fewer than 8. This shows that they didn't invest in a lot of decent companies but a few great companies.
Two of my favourite quotes:
"I’ll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It’s addictive. And there’s fantastic brand loyalty." - Warren Buffett
"It gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head." - Warren Buffett on the value of Gold
An overview of the famous companies owned or partially owned by Berkshire Hathaway:
GEICO, Dairy Queen, Cort Furniture, American Express, Anheuser Busch (Budweiser), Coca Cola, Comcast, General Electric, Glaxo Smithkline, Home Depot, H&R Block, Johnson and Johnson, Kraft, Lexmark, Nike, Procter and Gamble, UPS, US Bancorp, Walmart, Washington Post, Wells Fargo.
Amazing to say the least..
Friday, September 19, 2008
Negative Campaigning - WTF mate?
I'm sick of all the smearing that's occurring on national television in the name of "political ads".. pisses the hell out of me to see 5th grade name calling coming out of presidential candidates who are supposed to represent the future progress of the world. i understand that it's politics but whatever happened to highlighting ur positives than someone else's negatives.. are we in such a depressing state that our "leaders" feel that people should vote for them not because they are the best candidate but rather they are better than the other guy.. It's happening on both sides of the border and it's disheartening to say the least.
it's sickening not just because of two opponents trying to smear one another but rather because it's eliminating the fundamental decency of politics. Government is supposed to be for the betterment of a nation but what I've seen from Obama/McCain and Harper/Dion/Layton campaigns thus far begs the question "do we need better campaign reforms??" With every smear and every lie that is spread through the media, I can't help but think that civil debate has been replaced by a political cage fight.
Yesterday John McCain released an ad identifying Obama's relationship to Franklin Raines, the former CEO of now bankrupt Fannie Mae Corp. The statement can be seen below.
"Obama has no background in economics. Who advises him? The Post says it's Franklin Raines, for "advice on mortgage and housing policy." Shocking. Under Raines, Fannie Mae committed "extensive financial fraud." Raines made millions. Fannie Mae collapsed. Taxpayers? Stuck with the bill."
--McCain video release, September 18, 2008.
Now that you've seen what the ad said.. here's the truthful aspect of it. The evidence that McCain's advisers are talking about is the Washington Post which had an interview with Raines back in July where he was asked if he "was engaged at all with the Democrats' quest for the White House. His response was that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign and when asked about what, His response was "oh, general housing, economy issues." Furthermore, the reporter went on to ask "Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific?" Raines's response was a definite "no."...
It's one thing to do negative campaigning.. it's totally a different ball game if ur gonna lie in it to sway the voters... To the majority of the voting public, this ad points out a negative characteristic in Barack Obama and shows him as a character who played a role in the collapse of the financial sector... It's sickening that such an ad was even approved by McCain and his advisers. Give me 15 minutes and I'll chalk up an ad with George Herbert Walker III (for those of u that don't know it's dubya's cousin not daddy) who happens to be a managing director of Lehman Brothers which incidentally collapsed last week. Oops.. I guess this can only mean that Senator McCain who voted with George Dubya 90% of the time had anything to do with the biggest collapse in the history of investment banking..
It is unfair to say that this game is one-sided as i'm sure there are comments that Senator Obama's crew passed with negative imagery.. but it's that much worse when the negativity is based off lies..
it's sickening not just because of two opponents trying to smear one another but rather because it's eliminating the fundamental decency of politics. Government is supposed to be for the betterment of a nation but what I've seen from Obama/McCain and Harper/Dion/Layton campaigns thus far begs the question "do we need better campaign reforms??" With every smear and every lie that is spread through the media, I can't help but think that civil debate has been replaced by a political cage fight.
Yesterday John McCain released an ad identifying Obama's relationship to Franklin Raines, the former CEO of now bankrupt Fannie Mae Corp. The statement can be seen below.
"Obama has no background in economics. Who advises him? The Post says it's Franklin Raines, for "advice on mortgage and housing policy." Shocking. Under Raines, Fannie Mae committed "extensive financial fraud." Raines made millions. Fannie Mae collapsed. Taxpayers? Stuck with the bill."
--McCain video release, September 18, 2008.
Now that you've seen what the ad said.. here's the truthful aspect of it. The evidence that McCain's advisers are talking about is the Washington Post which had an interview with Raines back in July where he was asked if he "was engaged at all with the Democrats' quest for the White House. His response was that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign and when asked about what, His response was "oh, general housing, economy issues." Furthermore, the reporter went on to ask "Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific?" Raines's response was a definite "no."...
It's one thing to do negative campaigning.. it's totally a different ball game if ur gonna lie in it to sway the voters... To the majority of the voting public, this ad points out a negative characteristic in Barack Obama and shows him as a character who played a role in the collapse of the financial sector... It's sickening that such an ad was even approved by McCain and his advisers. Give me 15 minutes and I'll chalk up an ad with George Herbert Walker III (for those of u that don't know it's dubya's cousin not daddy) who happens to be a managing director of Lehman Brothers which incidentally collapsed last week. Oops.. I guess this can only mean that Senator McCain who voted with George Dubya 90% of the time had anything to do with the biggest collapse in the history of investment banking..
It is unfair to say that this game is one-sided as i'm sure there are comments that Senator Obama's crew passed with negative imagery.. but it's that much worse when the negativity is based off lies..
Friday, September 12, 2008
Sub-Prime Mortgage... what does it mean for joe schmoe...
I just read an article about the state of affairs in one of the world's oldest financial firms, and their plight as they seek a saviour to rescue the company from the deep trenches of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. As I write this blog, Lehman Brothers, the 161 year old financial giant is on the verge of a collapse and had lost more than $7 Billion in the last two quarters alone. Add to this fact, most of lehman's employees have gotten most of their pay with stock, stock options and restricted stock units that vest over multiple years. Think for a second about the value of Lehman Brothers stock. The stock price plummeted from an all time high of $86.18 in early 2007 to $4.22 end of trading yesterday. When Nortel collapsed a few years back, thousands of employees were laid off but at least they were sufficiently compensated for their years of service with a payment that actually cashed out to something. Lehman employees were paid anywhere between 10% and 60% of their salary in stocks and stock options. In less than a year people saw their children's college fund disappear with no warning. Their crime: being part of a company whose management took decisions that landed them right in the middle of the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
Lehman Bros aren't alone on this one either. Global banks have lost close to $300 Billion to the sub-prime mortgage crisis with the IMF predicting that by the time all this is over, more than $1 trillion could be lost into fat air. Unlike Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taxpayer money isn't coming to the rescue of Lehman Bros where employees face more than $10 billion dollars in losses. With 24,000 employees working at Lehman, that averages out to $42000 per employee. Imagine waking up one day and realizing that you've lost $42000 dollars because someone else decided to borrow money from your employer and they couldn't pay it back. More than 80,000 jobs have been lost in the NYC area in the last year alone, mostly in the financial sector and mostly attributed to sub-prime..
For those that are still curious about what the sub-prime mortgage crisis really is, it's quite simple. It's case of a greedy lender and a greedy borrower fighting it out.
Part 1: Greedy Borrower... A few years back, the housing market was facing a boom and house prices were going up throughout the United States. People saw this as an opportunity to grow their personal wealth and went to their banks and asked for a mortgage to finance their new home purchase. Often times, they did not make enough money to support the mortgage they were asking but were hoping that house values would continue to rise and they could refinance their mortgage at a later date.
Part 2: Greedy Lender... Typically a bank would only give money to lenders who they strongly believed were capable of paying them back. However, the banks didn't make this any easier by providing incentives such as sub-prime and adjustable rate mortgages with very appealing initial terms. The banks knew the risk they were taking but were confident that the housing market would continue to grow and people would be able to afford whatever mortgage they were getting with interest rates that were below prime.
Chaos Theory: ...All hell broke loose in 2007 when the housing bubble burst and house prices started falling to the amazement of both banks and buyers. Banks refused to refinance once the housing prices started falling and people who borrowed could no longer pay back what they borrowed resulting in high default and foreclosure rates to end up where we are today..
Now, anyone with a financial background wanna explain to me the process of securitization?? i know the banks took all these foreclosed homes and resold them to investors as securities but I don't understand how they're in a position of being screwed over if they did that. Isn't the purpose of securitization to protect themselves and pass all the losses to the investors and not the bank itself?? and if they did that, y are they on the verge of collapse?? Also, what's the point of the gov't pouring millions/billions of tax payer money into these companies if they're going down under. I guess i'm asking this from an ignorant perspective because I don't fully understand the roles all these institutions play... anyone who wants to explain this to me.. please.. feel free to comment..
Lehman Bros aren't alone on this one either. Global banks have lost close to $300 Billion to the sub-prime mortgage crisis with the IMF predicting that by the time all this is over, more than $1 trillion could be lost into fat air. Unlike Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taxpayer money isn't coming to the rescue of Lehman Bros where employees face more than $10 billion dollars in losses. With 24,000 employees working at Lehman, that averages out to $42000 per employee. Imagine waking up one day and realizing that you've lost $42000 dollars because someone else decided to borrow money from your employer and they couldn't pay it back. More than 80,000 jobs have been lost in the NYC area in the last year alone, mostly in the financial sector and mostly attributed to sub-prime..
For those that are still curious about what the sub-prime mortgage crisis really is, it's quite simple. It's case of a greedy lender and a greedy borrower fighting it out.
Part 1: Greedy Borrower... A few years back, the housing market was facing a boom and house prices were going up throughout the United States. People saw this as an opportunity to grow their personal wealth and went to their banks and asked for a mortgage to finance their new home purchase. Often times, they did not make enough money to support the mortgage they were asking but were hoping that house values would continue to rise and they could refinance their mortgage at a later date.
Part 2: Greedy Lender... Typically a bank would only give money to lenders who they strongly believed were capable of paying them back. However, the banks didn't make this any easier by providing incentives such as sub-prime and adjustable rate mortgages with very appealing initial terms. The banks knew the risk they were taking but were confident that the housing market would continue to grow and people would be able to afford whatever mortgage they were getting with interest rates that were below prime.
Chaos Theory: ...All hell broke loose in 2007 when the housing bubble burst and house prices started falling to the amazement of both banks and buyers. Banks refused to refinance once the housing prices started falling and people who borrowed could no longer pay back what they borrowed resulting in high default and foreclosure rates to end up where we are today..
Now, anyone with a financial background wanna explain to me the process of securitization?? i know the banks took all these foreclosed homes and resold them to investors as securities but I don't understand how they're in a position of being screwed over if they did that. Isn't the purpose of securitization to protect themselves and pass all the losses to the investors and not the bank itself?? and if they did that, y are they on the verge of collapse?? Also, what's the point of the gov't pouring millions/billions of tax payer money into these companies if they're going down under. I guess i'm asking this from an ignorant perspective because I don't fully understand the roles all these institutions play... anyone who wants to explain this to me.. please.. feel free to comment..
Monday, September 8, 2008
The life of a nomadic co-op student
Another school term completed, another work term started, another move to a new town, another 4 months of routine life. I guess after 4+ years of it, you would think that I wouldn't complain about this anymore but the sad reality seems that each move makes me more and more bitter. Living off two suitcases is painstakingly difficult especially when you don't have a "home-base" to store your belongings. These past two weeks have been horrible in terms of settling in but I guess I have it better off than some of my buddies back in waterloo, who, by the way, were homeless for almost a week thanks to a construction delay in our new apartment. I guess a part of me is glad i didn't stay in waterloo for this term. On the plus side, we only have 2 more moves before we can settle in one place and boy am I looking forward to that. Finally a house I can settle in for more than a summer, a car I can call my own, a lifestyle that is not constrained to an extent where lunch out with friends is too expensive. I guess i'm getting a bit ahead of myself here. Let me first find a job first.
This brings me to my next point. With graduation a mere 8 months away, and a slumping economy as a graduation present, I'm finally starting to get worried about getting a good job. I know that i'm better qualified than most new grads with almost 2 years of work experience under my belt with some good, if not great, companies. I've prided myself on having varied experience by trying out different industries, different jobs, and different environments and cities. Of my 6 work terms, I've only lived in the same city twice, and that city happens to be Ottawa. Even in Ottawa, I've worked for two different companies in my two work terms. I guess the question is, how important is specialization and how important is variety when you're a university student. I could have easily spent 5 work terms at RIM and been an expert on the BlackBerry. But I chose to explore with Telecom (Alcatel-Lucent), Semiconductor (Cypress), and Consumer Electronics (RIM). In hindsight, I'm confused as to whether this was a wise decision. Now, upon graduation, do companies look at my experience and think "There's a guy who doesn't know what he wants?"or do they think "there's someone who's tried a lot and come to a conclusion on what he really wants to pursue".. I guess with a few months to graduation, I've all but eliminated semiconductors as a full time industry mainly because of the culture and "cheap" manner in which they run their businesses. Unless you're a giant such as Intel, it's hard for semiconductor firms to stay afloat and that means corporate culture is rather meagre. I did, however, enjoy my marketing term at Cypress thoroughly and had a natural aptitude for all things marketing.
Instead of rambling on, I'd like to hear your opinions on what you think is a good industry to be in and why? (P.S. If anyone has some good full-time opportunities that they know of and are willing to give me a hand, please give me a shout on that front as well.. This is my marketing/people skills talking.. if there's one thing i've learnt from that job its "contacts, contacts, contacts")
This brings me to my next point. With graduation a mere 8 months away, and a slumping economy as a graduation present, I'm finally starting to get worried about getting a good job. I know that i'm better qualified than most new grads with almost 2 years of work experience under my belt with some good, if not great, companies. I've prided myself on having varied experience by trying out different industries, different jobs, and different environments and cities. Of my 6 work terms, I've only lived in the same city twice, and that city happens to be Ottawa. Even in Ottawa, I've worked for two different companies in my two work terms. I guess the question is, how important is specialization and how important is variety when you're a university student. I could have easily spent 5 work terms at RIM and been an expert on the BlackBerry. But I chose to explore with Telecom (Alcatel-Lucent), Semiconductor (Cypress), and Consumer Electronics (RIM). In hindsight, I'm confused as to whether this was a wise decision. Now, upon graduation, do companies look at my experience and think "There's a guy who doesn't know what he wants?"or do they think "there's someone who's tried a lot and come to a conclusion on what he really wants to pursue".. I guess with a few months to graduation, I've all but eliminated semiconductors as a full time industry mainly because of the culture and "cheap" manner in which they run their businesses. Unless you're a giant such as Intel, it's hard for semiconductor firms to stay afloat and that means corporate culture is rather meagre. I did, however, enjoy my marketing term at Cypress thoroughly and had a natural aptitude for all things marketing.
Instead of rambling on, I'd like to hear your opinions on what you think is a good industry to be in and why? (P.S. If anyone has some good full-time opportunities that they know of and are willing to give me a hand, please give me a shout on that front as well.. This is my marketing/people skills talking.. if there's one thing i've learnt from that job its "contacts, contacts, contacts")
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Mammaries.... i mean.. memories..
It's been a while since I last blogged.. since another work term has just started, i figured now's a good time to start.. I guess i have to give my sister and my buddy kevin some credit to get me started again, since she's been telling me to restart writing and kevin had a discussion with me abt my last post. I had a rather eventful day as I spent a good chunk of it looking back at my last four years of university.. I had to write up a blurb about me to go along with my grad photo in the yearbook. so i spent almost 2 hours just thinking back to the crazy stuff ive done in the last four years.. but i cudn't stop at the four years.. i went back further.. that's when i came across an old email address.. one of my close friends, sarah, had an email address 8 years ago called cosmicfalcon@____.com. The moment i read it, a rush of memories poured in almost instantaneously. I had completely forgotten that such an email address even existed. it brought me back to a time when we didn't try so hard to be "professional", where we could meet up and enjoy for hours without an expensive dinner/coffee, and fun didn't always include elaborate plans with 50 emails passing between people to find out the exact time and place of a meeting. We didn't look at our schedules to squeeze time in for friends.. yet we are at a crossroads now where that's exactly what we'll be doing for years to come.. Maybe i'm having a little bit of a hard time to come to terms with that.. but i've been telling myself c'est la vie.. A part of me wishes that things don't have to be this way and that you will always be able to take certain liberties with friends and that we don't go on to lead lives as corporate robots yet it seems to be inevitable.
Friday, March 28, 2008
AND THE LEAFS ARE OUT...
I think i've made it quite evident in my previous posts that I'm an ardent supporter of the Montreal Canadiens. Along with this loyalty comes a perennial hatred towards all things Maple Leaf. (The hockey club of course..) i've been asked time and time again why I "hate" the leafs so much. Let's put it this way, i don't hate the players or coaching staff of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Now that that's out of the way, let me explain to those who question my lack of love for "Canada's team".
Simply put, because for the 5 million people in the GTA, the country Canada begins and ends in the city of Toronto. There's a saying that i've heard in Canada that americans are narrow minded and that they do not see beyond their borders. To a lesser extent, this is true of a number of Torontonians. Not to generalize, but this has been my personal experience. I don't know if these people have been massively brainwashed by the media, or if they truly believe that failure shud be rewarded. I speak this purely from a sports perspective. More specifically with regards to the attitude of Torontonians towards the Maple Leafs not their attitude in general.
Thanks to the media in Toronto, the leafs have been overhyped as "Canada's team". That in the last 10 years, the Ottawa Senators have made the playoffs 9 times means nothing to Leaf Nation. Yes it's the nation's capital but no they're not "Canada's team". The Montreal Canadiens are arguable the best professional sports team in North America with 24 Stanley Cups in the leagues 90 years. That's almost a 25% success percentage yet they are also not "Canada's Team".. The Edmonton Oilers who housed without doubt the greatest hockey player to ever play the game, Wayne Gretzky, had their glory years in the 80's with multiple stanley cups. Yet, they are not "Canada's Team".. but the media chooses to portray the team that has missed the playoffs 3 years in a row, that has not appeared in a stanley cup final, let alone win, in 41 years..
Now, if you were to look at the two major sports networks in Canada, CBC ( Broadcasting Corporation) and TSN (The / Toronto Sports Network).. Both these networks are national broadcasters, yet they broadcast nationwide, only leafs games. I understand market dynamics making them want to attract a large audience, which is available only in the GTA. Is it so far fetched to promote a team that is successful in Canada to be Canada's team. If the idea is to broadcast leafs games, why shove it down the throat of every market in Canada. People often wonder why all the other city fans hate the leafs organization. This is precisely the reason. They are being forced to follow a losing team, a team that they did NOT grow up watching, a team whose style of hockey they do not appreciate.
I was listening to the leafs broadcast last night right before they were eliminated. With about a minute left in the game, it was evident they were not going to make it. The commentators exact words were.. "It's rough on a team. The Leafs had a tough schedule early on where they had to play their first 10 games at home. That put too much pressure on them. They could never rebound from it.." I hear this and the first thought in my mind is "What BULLSHIT.." they call it home-ice advantage, not disadvantage. It's supposed to relieve pressure playing at home not add pressure. The New Jersey Devils started their season with 10 games on the road, if anything that's adding pressure because you're playing away from your home and you're exposed to travelling pressures, time differences, scheduling conflicts etc. The Devils are battling for 1st place in the conference along with Pittsburgh and Montreal. Playing at home is meant to be more relaxing, yet the media was trying to find excuses for their failure.. I couldn't help blow up laughing at the comment. For those of you that don't understand why Leaf Nation is doomed for years to come, simply look at the Leaf Management over the last 40 years from Frank Ballard, Punch Imlach leading up to Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment's purchase of the leafs. It will be quite evident why the leafs never cared about winning and why they never WILL care about winning. Not unless the fans wake up from their slumber.
It's just more proof that no matter how poorly the team performs, they will continue to sell tickets to brainwashed leafs fans, and they will continue to fail, and continue to promote "Canada's team".. yet many torontonians have the audacity to call French Canadians arrogant for being vocal in expressing their support against Leaf Nation.. ironic is it not??
Simply put, because for the 5 million people in the GTA, the country Canada begins and ends in the city of Toronto. There's a saying that i've heard in Canada that americans are narrow minded and that they do not see beyond their borders. To a lesser extent, this is true of a number of Torontonians. Not to generalize, but this has been my personal experience. I don't know if these people have been massively brainwashed by the media, or if they truly believe that failure shud be rewarded. I speak this purely from a sports perspective. More specifically with regards to the attitude of Torontonians towards the Maple Leafs not their attitude in general.
Thanks to the media in Toronto, the leafs have been overhyped as "Canada's team". That in the last 10 years, the Ottawa Senators have made the playoffs 9 times means nothing to Leaf Nation. Yes it's the nation's capital but no they're not "Canada's team". The Montreal Canadiens are arguable the best professional sports team in North America with 24 Stanley Cups in the leagues 90 years. That's almost a 25% success percentage yet they are also not "Canada's Team".. The Edmonton Oilers who housed without doubt the greatest hockey player to ever play the game, Wayne Gretzky, had their glory years in the 80's with multiple stanley cups. Yet, they are not "Canada's Team".. but the media chooses to portray the team that has missed the playoffs 3 years in a row, that has not appeared in a stanley cup final, let alone win, in 41 years..
Now, if you were to look at the two major sports networks in Canada, CBC ( Broadcasting Corporation) and TSN (The / Toronto Sports Network).. Both these networks are national broadcasters, yet they broadcast nationwide, only leafs games. I understand market dynamics making them want to attract a large audience, which is available only in the GTA. Is it so far fetched to promote a team that is successful in Canada to be Canada's team. If the idea is to broadcast leafs games, why shove it down the throat of every market in Canada. People often wonder why all the other city fans hate the leafs organization. This is precisely the reason. They are being forced to follow a losing team, a team that they did NOT grow up watching, a team whose style of hockey they do not appreciate.
I was listening to the leafs broadcast last night right before they were eliminated. With about a minute left in the game, it was evident they were not going to make it. The commentators exact words were.. "It's rough on a team. The Leafs had a tough schedule early on where they had to play their first 10 games at home. That put too much pressure on them. They could never rebound from it.." I hear this and the first thought in my mind is "What BULLSHIT.." they call it home-ice advantage, not disadvantage. It's supposed to relieve pressure playing at home not add pressure. The New Jersey Devils started their season with 10 games on the road, if anything that's adding pressure because you're playing away from your home and you're exposed to travelling pressures, time differences, scheduling conflicts etc. The Devils are battling for 1st place in the conference along with Pittsburgh and Montreal. Playing at home is meant to be more relaxing, yet the media was trying to find excuses for their failure.. I couldn't help blow up laughing at the comment. For those of you that don't understand why Leaf Nation is doomed for years to come, simply look at the Leaf Management over the last 40 years from Frank Ballard, Punch Imlach leading up to Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment's purchase of the leafs. It will be quite evident why the leafs never cared about winning and why they never WILL care about winning. Not unless the fans wake up from their slumber.
It's just more proof that no matter how poorly the team performs, they will continue to sell tickets to brainwashed leafs fans, and they will continue to fail, and continue to promote "Canada's team".. yet many torontonians have the audacity to call French Canadians arrogant for being vocal in expressing their support against Leaf Nation.. ironic is it not??
Friday, March 14, 2008
My first Rahman Post
I came across this article today and had to do my part in making it public.. That's right 21 filmfare awards more than any recipient before him. For those of you that don't know, filmfare awards are considered to be the "oscars" of bollywood. It's sad that all the awards that Rahman has bagged have been only for his hindi movies. Had filmfare been truly nationwide, that number could easily be twice as high. Look later tonight for my analysis of Jodha-Akbar songs.
Double whammy for Rahman
February 25, 2008, 4:17:01 PMIt was A.R. Rahman all the way at the 53rd Annual Filmfare Award. The music maestro, nominated in three categories – Best Music, Best Background Score and Best Singer, walked away with two statues of the black lady (Best Music, Best Background Score) losing out the third one by a whisker.
It should be noted that the world renowned composer had just one release in 2007, director Mani Ratnam’s Guru which released at the very beginning of 2007. However, the film’s songs are still a rage with the masses, a proof of Rahman’s musical prowess.
As he received the award for Best Background Score, Rahman (who was presented the award by Bollywood’s famed director duo Abbas-Mustan) said, “The Filmfare Award is like an ornament for a lady; the more you have, it enhances the charm.”
Later on, he was back on stage once again, this time receiving the Best Music award for Guru from Bappi Lahiri and Poonam Dhillon. The award, his 21st, makes the Mozart of Madras the recipient with the most number of Filmfare awards. We, at Galatta.com, wish the ‘Isai Puyal’ on his glorious triumph.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Hockey is getting interesting.
So, there's 10 games left in the regular season before the playoffs starts, and the NHL is proving to be quite the thriller. Living in portland, I don't get to see too many games, let alone any insightful post-game analysis, but let it be said that I've been drawn in by this year's installment of the final stretch. My habs are on the run for top spot in the eastern conference and they're fighting with a worthy adversary in the neighbouring Ottawa Senators. Add to this the fact that the leafs are likely to miss the playoffs, can a habs fan ask for anything better?? I highly doubt it.
At this point, I guess i'm drawing out a lot of scenarios in my head for the post season matchups and here's something that would be ideal. We all know that the top 6 spots in the east are all but locked up for the Ottawa Senators, New Jersey Devils, Carolina Hurricanes, Montreal Canadiens, Pittsburgh Penguins, and New York Rangers. The Boston Bruins and Philadelphia flyers seem to be in shape to get in, but with the last 10 games, if Toronto gets very lucky can manage to squeeze in. I am as anti-leaf as the next habs fan, but I'd still rather have toronto in the playoffs than an american team so for the time being.. Go Leafs Go. I must also admit that i do fear the leafs in the playoffs, especially if they're facing the habs. As horrible a team as they are, they somehow manage to perform well against the Canadiens every time. It seems that they only perform against the senators and the Canadiens, as though their only goal is to bring down their fellow canadian teams. It would be a bitter pill to swallow to see them barely make into the playoffs and eliminate the teams that have worked so hard throughout the year.
I guess the ideal scenario would be if Ottawa finished 1st in the conference and are forced to play the leafs in the 1st round. (highly unlikely.. more likely the Flyers).. New Jersey should be able to streamroll through 7th place Boston. and 3rd place Carolina are going to be destroyed by 6th place Montreal. That's right.. I said 6th place montreal.. you're probably wondering that I'm insane for saying that montreal drop to 6th place in the standings. that's because i see pittsburgh and newyork rangers to take 4th and 5th place respectively.. and face each other.. This leaves montreal to play the lowly hurricanes in the 1st round. It's just the kind of confidence building a young team needs early in the playoffs. Habs beat carolina in 5 and get through to the second round.
Going into the second round, we have, Ottawa Vs. Pittsburgh/NewYork and Montreal vs. New Jersey.. Knowing the Habs record vs. the devils this year, this should favour the habs.. and any one of ottawa, newyork or pittsburgh can get through on the other side. The reason i said any one of the three is because all three are very capable teams that are offensively powerful, and can be considered powerhouses.
Look ahead to the conference finals. The dream finals would be Ottawa vs. Montreal (although i dread it considering montreal's miserable showing in tonight's game). I see New York pulling through to face the habs. Habs take the series in 7 thanks to some stellar goaltending by the young Price. wishful thinking i know. The habs are still a good season away from becoming the contenders they're touted to be.
Out in the west, i'm betting that the sharks will make it through. The acquisition of Campbell to strengthen their defense was definitely the move of the deadline.
I know i'm being extremely hopeful here but you can't stop a guy from dreaming. You can't tell me that an all canadian conference final doesn't excite you. Let's get this show on the road and show the world what we're made of..
At this point, I guess i'm drawing out a lot of scenarios in my head for the post season matchups and here's something that would be ideal. We all know that the top 6 spots in the east are all but locked up for the Ottawa Senators, New Jersey Devils, Carolina Hurricanes, Montreal Canadiens, Pittsburgh Penguins, and New York Rangers. The Boston Bruins and Philadelphia flyers seem to be in shape to get in, but with the last 10 games, if Toronto gets very lucky can manage to squeeze in. I am as anti-leaf as the next habs fan, but I'd still rather have toronto in the playoffs than an american team so for the time being.. Go Leafs Go. I must also admit that i do fear the leafs in the playoffs, especially if they're facing the habs. As horrible a team as they are, they somehow manage to perform well against the Canadiens every time. It seems that they only perform against the senators and the Canadiens, as though their only goal is to bring down their fellow canadian teams. It would be a bitter pill to swallow to see them barely make into the playoffs and eliminate the teams that have worked so hard throughout the year.
I guess the ideal scenario would be if Ottawa finished 1st in the conference and are forced to play the leafs in the 1st round. (highly unlikely.. more likely the Flyers).. New Jersey should be able to streamroll through 7th place Boston. and 3rd place Carolina are going to be destroyed by 6th place Montreal. That's right.. I said 6th place montreal.. you're probably wondering that I'm insane for saying that montreal drop to 6th place in the standings. that's because i see pittsburgh and newyork rangers to take 4th and 5th place respectively.. and face each other.. This leaves montreal to play the lowly hurricanes in the 1st round. It's just the kind of confidence building a young team needs early in the playoffs. Habs beat carolina in 5 and get through to the second round.
Going into the second round, we have, Ottawa Vs. Pittsburgh/NewYork and Montreal vs. New Jersey.. Knowing the Habs record vs. the devils this year, this should favour the habs.. and any one of ottawa, newyork or pittsburgh can get through on the other side. The reason i said any one of the three is because all three are very capable teams that are offensively powerful, and can be considered powerhouses.
Look ahead to the conference finals. The dream finals would be Ottawa vs. Montreal (although i dread it considering montreal's miserable showing in tonight's game). I see New York pulling through to face the habs. Habs take the series in 7 thanks to some stellar goaltending by the young Price. wishful thinking i know. The habs are still a good season away from becoming the contenders they're touted to be.
Out in the west, i'm betting that the sharks will make it through. The acquisition of Campbell to strengthen their defense was definitely the move of the deadline.
I know i'm being extremely hopeful here but you can't stop a guy from dreaming. You can't tell me that an all canadian conference final doesn't excite you. Let's get this show on the road and show the world what we're made of..
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Sports Night - First Impression
So after numerous attempts, I managed to get a hold of the full 2 seasons of Sports Night. For those of you that don't know, Sports Night is considered by many to be the "father" show of the the West Wing. Aaron Sorkin's original creation for the small screen, but was unfortunately cancelled after just 2 seasons. It was soon followed by the record number of emmy award winning West Wing. Very similar to sorkin's Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, Sports Night revolves around a late night sports news show production. One difference being Sports Night was dubbed a sitcom and hence each episode is only 30 minutes long with some annoying laughter overlays in the middle of scenes. (not very sorkinese) The show does not lack its share of punchy dialogues either. So far I must say I'm impressed with the quality, although it is of no comparison to sorkin's master work. It still attacks those key issues that we run into in society and it still has numerous moments of intellectual wit.
I figured I'd start with the first episode that really blew me away, that also attacked something I hadn't already seen in the west wing. Robert Guillaume plays Isaac Jaffe, the station manager and felicity huffman plays Dana the producer. This episode revolves around Jeremy, played by Joshua Malina. (Will Bailey in West Wing) Jeremy is sent to cover a hunting segment for the show and despite his qualms with the assignment, Jeremy doesn't say a word about it and continues on with the assignment. He is then hospitalized and returns to work 2 days after the hunting assignment and has this conversation with Isaac, when Issac questions him as to what had happened.
Jeremy Goodwin: We shot a deer. In the woods near Lake Mattatuck on the second day. There was a special vest they had me wear so that they could distinguish me from things they wanted to shoot, and I was pretty grateful for that. Almost the whole day had gone by, and we hadn't gotten anything. Eddie was getting frustrated and Bob Shoemaker was getting embarrassed. My camera guy needed to re-load so I told everybody to take a ten minute break. There was a stream nearby and I walked over with this care-package Natalie made me. I sat down and when I looked up I saw three of them; small, bigger, biggest. Recognizable to any species on the face of the planet as a child, a mother and a father. Now, the trick in shooting deer is you gotta get 'em out in the open. And it's tough with deer, 'cause these are clever, cagey animals with an intuitive sense of danger. You know what you have to do to get a deer out in the open? You hold out a twinkie. That animal clopped up to me like we were at a party. She seemed to be pretty interested in the twinkie, so I gave it to her. Looking back, she'd have been better off if I'd given her the damn vest. And Bob kind of screamed at me in whisper, "Move away!" The camera had been re-loaded and it looked like the day wasn't gonna be a washout after all. So I backed away, a couple of steps at a time, and I closed my eyes when I heard the shot. Look, I know these are animals, and they don't play bridge and go to the prom, but you can't tell me that the little one didn't know who his mother was. That's gotta mean something. And later, at the hospital, Bob Shoemaker was telling me about the nobility and tradition of hunting and how it related to the native American Indians. And I nodded and I said that was interesting while I was thinking about what a load of crap it was. Hunting was part of Indian culture. It was food and it was clothes and it was shelter. They sang and danced and offered prayers to the gods for a successful hunt so that they could survive just one more unimaginably brutal winter. The things they had to kill held the highest place of respect for them, and to kill for fun was a sin. And they knew the gods wouldn't be so generous next time. What we did wasn't food and it wasn't shelter and it sure wasn't sports! It was just mean!
Isaac: Jeremy, why didn't you tell us how you felt about hunting when we gave you this?
Jeremy Goodwin: With all due respect Mr. Jaffe, I have 80,000 dollars in college loans to pay back. My instincts told me to shut the hell up and do what I'm told.
Isaac: Your instincts were wrong
Jeremy Goodwin: Not fitting in is how qualified people lose jobs
Isaac: Yeah but a lof of the time, that's how they end up working here. Now you had an obligation to tell us how you felt. Partly because i don't like getting a phone call saying I put one of my people in the hospital. But mostly because if you feel that strongly about something, you have a responsibility to try and change my mind. Did you think I'd fire you simply because you made a convincing argument. It's taken me a lot of years, but I've come around to this. If you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you. I'm an awfully smart man and Mark Sabbath is an idiot. He had you and he blew it. You fit in on your own time, but when you come to work for me, you show up to play. I'm going home.
I'm continually amazed at Sorkin's ability to write the most provocative dialogue on television. It's very unfortunate that Sports Night was another show of his that was cancelled after only 2 seasons. I really hope that he continues to write in the future so we can squeeze out everything this creative mind has to offer. I will continue to post some interesting dialogues and storylines that I encounter from time to time.
I figured I'd start with the first episode that really blew me away, that also attacked something I hadn't already seen in the west wing. Robert Guillaume plays Isaac Jaffe, the station manager and felicity huffman plays Dana the producer. This episode revolves around Jeremy, played by Joshua Malina. (Will Bailey in West Wing) Jeremy is sent to cover a hunting segment for the show and despite his qualms with the assignment, Jeremy doesn't say a word about it and continues on with the assignment. He is then hospitalized and returns to work 2 days after the hunting assignment and has this conversation with Isaac, when Issac questions him as to what had happened.
Jeremy Goodwin: We shot a deer. In the woods near Lake Mattatuck on the second day. There was a special vest they had me wear so that they could distinguish me from things they wanted to shoot, and I was pretty grateful for that. Almost the whole day had gone by, and we hadn't gotten anything. Eddie was getting frustrated and Bob Shoemaker was getting embarrassed. My camera guy needed to re-load so I told everybody to take a ten minute break. There was a stream nearby and I walked over with this care-package Natalie made me. I sat down and when I looked up I saw three of them; small, bigger, biggest. Recognizable to any species on the face of the planet as a child, a mother and a father. Now, the trick in shooting deer is you gotta get 'em out in the open. And it's tough with deer, 'cause these are clever, cagey animals with an intuitive sense of danger. You know what you have to do to get a deer out in the open? You hold out a twinkie. That animal clopped up to me like we were at a party. She seemed to be pretty interested in the twinkie, so I gave it to her. Looking back, she'd have been better off if I'd given her the damn vest. And Bob kind of screamed at me in whisper, "Move away!" The camera had been re-loaded and it looked like the day wasn't gonna be a washout after all. So I backed away, a couple of steps at a time, and I closed my eyes when I heard the shot. Look, I know these are animals, and they don't play bridge and go to the prom, but you can't tell me that the little one didn't know who his mother was. That's gotta mean something. And later, at the hospital, Bob Shoemaker was telling me about the nobility and tradition of hunting and how it related to the native American Indians. And I nodded and I said that was interesting while I was thinking about what a load of crap it was. Hunting was part of Indian culture. It was food and it was clothes and it was shelter. They sang and danced and offered prayers to the gods for a successful hunt so that they could survive just one more unimaginably brutal winter. The things they had to kill held the highest place of respect for them, and to kill for fun was a sin. And they knew the gods wouldn't be so generous next time. What we did wasn't food and it wasn't shelter and it sure wasn't sports! It was just mean!
Isaac: Jeremy, why didn't you tell us how you felt about hunting when we gave you this?
Jeremy Goodwin: With all due respect Mr. Jaffe, I have 80,000 dollars in college loans to pay back. My instincts told me to shut the hell up and do what I'm told.
Isaac: Your instincts were wrong
Jeremy Goodwin: Not fitting in is how qualified people lose jobs
Isaac: Yeah but a lof of the time, that's how they end up working here. Now you had an obligation to tell us how you felt. Partly because i don't like getting a phone call saying I put one of my people in the hospital. But mostly because if you feel that strongly about something, you have a responsibility to try and change my mind. Did you think I'd fire you simply because you made a convincing argument. It's taken me a lot of years, but I've come around to this. If you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you. I'm an awfully smart man and Mark Sabbath is an idiot. He had you and he blew it. You fit in on your own time, but when you come to work for me, you show up to play. I'm going home.
I'm continually amazed at Sorkin's ability to write the most provocative dialogue on television. It's very unfortunate that Sports Night was another show of his that was cancelled after only 2 seasons. I really hope that he continues to write in the future so we can squeeze out everything this creative mind has to offer. I will continue to post some interesting dialogues and storylines that I encounter from time to time.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The Price of Responsibility...
The trade deadline passed and the players moved.. now what?? well.. montreal certainly pulled a surprise by giving away arguably their #1 goaltender for practically nothing. Sure they could have potentially gotten more for huet than a menial second round draft pick, but then again there's the argument of whether there's a market for goaltenders in the NHL these days. Unless ur name is Roberto Luongo, JS Giguere, Martin Brodeur or Henrik Lundqvist, ur pretty much expendable in the NHL While teams like dallas, pittsburgh, and san jose strengthened their team, the habs and Bob Gainey seem to have done the reverse.
The flipside of this move though, is the payoff that waits around the corner. Sure, now all the hopes of a montreal stanley cup falls on the shoulders of a 20 year with a 21 year old backup. But history seems to favour the habs on this one. The last 2 times a rookie goaltender was thrust with this kind of responsibility, they brought home the stanley cup to la belle provence in 1971 and 1986, under dryden and roy respectively. I'm not saying that Carey Price is anywhere near the calibre of the 2 hall of famers mentioned above, but right now all we can do is hope that this young man can handle the pressures that come with the job and take us through. If he doesn't, we always have that draft pick we got.. which is 1 draft pick more than what we would have gotten for huet at the end of the season.
As a side note, what will happen if Montreal faces the Penguins in the first round?? they seem to be a powerhouse before the acquisition of Hossa. The two teams seem to be pretty evenly posed with them splitting the season series 2-2 but does the addition of hossa to the lineup really threaten to put them Pens over the top? I'm too scared to answer this question myself. my heart tells me that i shouldn't turn my back on my habs.. but the reality is that the powerplay lineup of malkin, crosby, hossa, malone is quite possibly the best line since alfredsson, spezza, heatley and redden. It's scary enough to think of one league leader in a line.. imagine having to block shots coming from 3.. I guess the bottom line is..Can Price Handle It? Is the loss of Huet too big a price for Price?? Only time will tell.
The flipside of this move though, is the payoff that waits around the corner. Sure, now all the hopes of a montreal stanley cup falls on the shoulders of a 20 year with a 21 year old backup. But history seems to favour the habs on this one. The last 2 times a rookie goaltender was thrust with this kind of responsibility, they brought home the stanley cup to la belle provence in 1971 and 1986, under dryden and roy respectively. I'm not saying that Carey Price is anywhere near the calibre of the 2 hall of famers mentioned above, but right now all we can do is hope that this young man can handle the pressures that come with the job and take us through. If he doesn't, we always have that draft pick we got.. which is 1 draft pick more than what we would have gotten for huet at the end of the season.
As a side note, what will happen if Montreal faces the Penguins in the first round?? they seem to be a powerhouse before the acquisition of Hossa. The two teams seem to be pretty evenly posed with them splitting the season series 2-2 but does the addition of hossa to the lineup really threaten to put them Pens over the top? I'm too scared to answer this question myself. my heart tells me that i shouldn't turn my back on my habs.. but the reality is that the powerplay lineup of malkin, crosby, hossa, malone is quite possibly the best line since alfredsson, spezza, heatley and redden. It's scary enough to think of one league leader in a line.. imagine having to block shots coming from 3.. I guess the bottom line is..Can Price Handle It? Is the loss of Huet too big a price for Price?? Only time will tell.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Moving on.. The Trade Situation..
Now that the oscars are done, I can move on to other topics.. so i figured i'd focus on the NHL trade deadline which is tomorrow.. so here I am waiting with bated breath on what's going to happen to mes habitants.. are they gonna make that trade for the impact player we've been told time and time again.
The Mats Sundin saga ended quite abruptly with him saying that he wants to stay in toronto. Although his intentions are noble, one has to wonder the long term repercussions of his decision.. Don't get me wrong.. I personally think that he is a great individual for staying loyal to the team especially when the team has treated him like shit over and over again. A simple question would be, y stay when the management doesn't want u to stay? will they really show you any respect? Knowing toronto management over the last 4 decades, i'm willing to bet my money that Sundin will be treated the same as all his predecessors. Doug Gilmour, Dave Keon, Wendel Clark, Daryl Sittler and many many more.
I read an article on the toronto star earlier today titled "Classless Leafs don't deserve Mats". This coming from toronto star columnist Rosie DiManno, a long-time supporter and die hard fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs.
"There is a recurring theme here in the melodramas of Maple Leaf Land. This is an organization without class and without conscience. Was a time that could be attributed to the deranged persona of Harold Ballard, a bully and misanthrope who abused staff, shamed players and held fans in contempt. But at least there was a face to put to the bungle and a desk where the buck stopped.
If you were to call the Leafs' front office today and ask to speak with the person in charge, who in the world might that be? It's a board of directors accountable to no one except shareholders and immune from scandal.
A few years back, the Leafs announced things were going to be done different. Alumni were welcomed back, the diaspora of beloved ex-Leafs embraced, vows of integrity expressed. In practice, little has changed. It remains a franchise without a soul, for all its iconic stature, thoughtless and disloyal.
Can you imagine the Detroit Red Wings treating Steve Yzerman, when in the eclipse of his career, as the Leafs are treating Sundin, even as respectful as Fletcher has attempted to be? Or the Montreal Canadiens similarly rushing Bob Gainey - his sweater retired on Saturday - out the door, with a slam-bang-thank-you capitaine?
The public has grown weary of sports idols who swap loyalties for the green, and rosier environments. Would serve the Leafs right if, denied a deal for Sundin at the deadline, he refuses to re-sign here now. But he won't. The guy's only crime is that he's not a mercenary, that he's true.
All else is false."
This is not to show my hatred for the TML organization but rather what i've been re-iterating for years about the lack of commitment and the lack of soul in the team. The time has finally come for the media and the fans to finally take a stance against the organization, to boycott the games, and to stop buying into the management's loose promises. But this has been an all too familiar a sight and is very likely to disappear into the background like all the previous years and the leaf organization, until a radical change is made, is doomed to failure.
The Mats Sundin saga ended quite abruptly with him saying that he wants to stay in toronto. Although his intentions are noble, one has to wonder the long term repercussions of his decision.. Don't get me wrong.. I personally think that he is a great individual for staying loyal to the team especially when the team has treated him like shit over and over again. A simple question would be, y stay when the management doesn't want u to stay? will they really show you any respect? Knowing toronto management over the last 4 decades, i'm willing to bet my money that Sundin will be treated the same as all his predecessors. Doug Gilmour, Dave Keon, Wendel Clark, Daryl Sittler and many many more.
I read an article on the toronto star earlier today titled "Classless Leafs don't deserve Mats". This coming from toronto star columnist Rosie DiManno, a long-time supporter and die hard fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs.
"There is a recurring theme here in the melodramas of Maple Leaf Land. This is an organization without class and without conscience. Was a time that could be attributed to the deranged persona of Harold Ballard, a bully and misanthrope who abused staff, shamed players and held fans in contempt. But at least there was a face to put to the bungle and a desk where the buck stopped.
If you were to call the Leafs' front office today and ask to speak with the person in charge, who in the world might that be? It's a board of directors accountable to no one except shareholders and immune from scandal.
A few years back, the Leafs announced things were going to be done different. Alumni were welcomed back, the diaspora of beloved ex-Leafs embraced, vows of integrity expressed. In practice, little has changed. It remains a franchise without a soul, for all its iconic stature, thoughtless and disloyal.
Can you imagine the Detroit Red Wings treating Steve Yzerman, when in the eclipse of his career, as the Leafs are treating Sundin, even as respectful as Fletcher has attempted to be? Or the Montreal Canadiens similarly rushing Bob Gainey - his sweater retired on Saturday - out the door, with a slam-bang-thank-you capitaine?
The public has grown weary of sports idols who swap loyalties for the green, and rosier environments. Would serve the Leafs right if, denied a deal for Sundin at the deadline, he refuses to re-sign here now. But he won't. The guy's only crime is that he's not a mercenary, that he's true.
All else is false."
This is not to show my hatred for the TML organization but rather what i've been re-iterating for years about the lack of commitment and the lack of soul in the team. The time has finally come for the media and the fans to finally take a stance against the organization, to boycott the games, and to stop buying into the management's loose promises. But this has been an all too familiar a sight and is very likely to disappear into the background like all the previous years and the leaf organization, until a radical change is made, is doomed to failure.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Expectations Shattered...
So the verdict came out.. and i guess it was a mixed package.. I was very happy that Juno won the best original screenplay but I am very disappointed with the selection of no country for old men as the best picture. Don't get me wrong, it was certainly a well directed movie and the character of anton chighur was played with such perfection that Javier Bardem definitely deserved the oscar for best supporting actor. I could even say that the coen brothers deserved the best director award for No Country for Old Men but it did not deserve the honour of best picture because it did not stand for anything. It was a movie about a psychopath, all is well. But the movie does not dwell into the psychopathic mind, nor does it portray what drives a man to insanity. In all honesty, this was a movie about a man who goes around killing people with no reason at all. (forget valid reason).. In my mind, if this movie deserved an oscar for best picture, so did I know what u did last summer.
The story also lacked any moral or ethical dilemmas that, when compared to previous best picture winners of the last decade, does not compare even remotely. Look at the likes of Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, Crash, The Departed, even Titanic. All these movies offered a story. What No Country offered was gore, violence and utter disregard for human life with absolutely no basis for the cause of violence. In comparison, the other nominees of the year were Atonement, Juno, There will be blood and Michael Clayton. I have yet to see There will be blood, but my gut instinct tells me that it deserved the best picture more than No country. Atonement certainly had a more powerful story that will withstand the test of time. That will move the audience and make them think. No country for old men will certainly have its audience grip their seats but at the end of it.. it is simply a movie.. Atonement, and its predecessors, left behind more than a simple feeling of fright. They left behind a lesson... Hopefully future academy awards will take notice and act upon the fact that Best Picture goes beyond one category.
The story also lacked any moral or ethical dilemmas that, when compared to previous best picture winners of the last decade, does not compare even remotely. Look at the likes of Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, Crash, The Departed, even Titanic. All these movies offered a story. What No Country offered was gore, violence and utter disregard for human life with absolutely no basis for the cause of violence. In comparison, the other nominees of the year were Atonement, Juno, There will be blood and Michael Clayton. I have yet to see There will be blood, but my gut instinct tells me that it deserved the best picture more than No country. Atonement certainly had a more powerful story that will withstand the test of time. That will move the audience and make them think. No country for old men will certainly have its audience grip their seats but at the end of it.. it is simply a movie.. Atonement, and its predecessors, left behind more than a simple feeling of fright. They left behind a lesson... Hopefully future academy awards will take notice and act upon the fact that Best Picture goes beyond one category.
Atonement - MY NOMINATION...
I just finished watching atonement and I will come right out and say it. This is the movie that is going to win. I would be very surprised if it didn't. Of the 5 movies nominated, the only one I have yet to see is "There will be blood" and I cannot imagine it to be better than what I just witnessed. Atonement not only appealed to me from a general perspective but also in a very close and personal manner. If there is one movie this year which combined drama, thrill, twists and emotion, this is the one. For those of you that know me well, you know the importance I place on truth and the importance I place on not using abusive language. This movie, better than any i've seen before, translated my fears into a worst case scenario and portrays them on screen in a smart and touching way.
Atonement is a story about lies, misconceptions and the repercussions of "white" lies. The story paces back and forth for a period of 5 years around the lives of Briony Tallis (Saorise Ronan, Romola Garai, Vanessa Regrave), Cecilia "cee" Tallis (Kiera Knigthley) and Robbie Turner (James McAvoy) The story starts with a young Briony, at a tender age of 13, aspiring to be a novelist/playwright. Briony witnesses her sister Cee making love to a poorer Robbie Turner, but incorrectly assumes that she was being molested based on her previous interactions with Robbie. In fact, Robbie and Cee earlier confessed their love for one another. Briony then further makes a wrong judgement and accuses robbie of a crime he did not commit, which in effect sends him to prison, and later to war. Move forwards four years into the future and you have an older Briony who understands the seriousness of her actions as a 13 year old. She desperately seeks for the forgiveness of her older sister and Robbie. I'll leave this story as vague as I can for this is one that just has to be experienced. It cannot be summarized in a plot synopsis.
The movie is directed exceptionally well with wonderful imagery and careful precision. The young Briony pulls off a performance to be reckoned with. Perhaps I am biased towards the movie for personal reasons, but all things aside, this is one movie you wouldn't want to miss. I am in somewhat of a hurry today and do not have time to give a full out review for this movie. But i will certainly get back to it soon. Here's the one quote that hit me..
(Right after Briony reads a letter that Robbie wrote expressing his desire to kiss Cee's "C*NT")
Briony Tallis, aged 13: Lola, can I tell you something? Something really terrible?
Lola Quincey: Yes please.
Briony Tallis, aged 13: What's the worst word you can possibly imagine?
In the meantine, I urge all of you to get out there and watch this one. My rating for this movie 4.5 out of 5...
Atonement is a story about lies, misconceptions and the repercussions of "white" lies. The story paces back and forth for a period of 5 years around the lives of Briony Tallis (Saorise Ronan, Romola Garai, Vanessa Regrave), Cecilia "cee" Tallis (Kiera Knigthley) and Robbie Turner (James McAvoy) The story starts with a young Briony, at a tender age of 13, aspiring to be a novelist/playwright. Briony witnesses her sister Cee making love to a poorer Robbie Turner, but incorrectly assumes that she was being molested based on her previous interactions with Robbie. In fact, Robbie and Cee earlier confessed their love for one another. Briony then further makes a wrong judgement and accuses robbie of a crime he did not commit, which in effect sends him to prison, and later to war. Move forwards four years into the future and you have an older Briony who understands the seriousness of her actions as a 13 year old. She desperately seeks for the forgiveness of her older sister and Robbie. I'll leave this story as vague as I can for this is one that just has to be experienced. It cannot be summarized in a plot synopsis.
The movie is directed exceptionally well with wonderful imagery and careful precision. The young Briony pulls off a performance to be reckoned with. Perhaps I am biased towards the movie for personal reasons, but all things aside, this is one movie you wouldn't want to miss. I am in somewhat of a hurry today and do not have time to give a full out review for this movie. But i will certainly get back to it soon. Here's the one quote that hit me..
(Right after Briony reads a letter that Robbie wrote expressing his desire to kiss Cee's "C*NT")
Briony Tallis, aged 13: Lola, can I tell you something? Something really terrible?
Lola Quincey: Yes please.
Briony Tallis, aged 13: What's the worst word you can possibly imagine?
In the meantine, I urge all of you to get out there and watch this one. My rating for this movie 4.5 out of 5...
Friday, February 22, 2008
No Country For Old Men - FREAKY!!!
I'll try to keep this one short considering i'm in somewhat of a hurry today. No Country For Old Men is quite likely the most heartracing story i've seen in quite some time. If there was a handbook for a way a thriller should be made, this movie sure followed it to the core. Save the last 20 minutes, this movie moves at a pace of a speeding bullet.. (pardon the superman analogy) The ending was rather abrupt and felt inconclusive but i'm assuming that this was done intentionally to let the viewer leave with an open mind.
The story is quite simple at its core. Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) finds a bag with 2 million dollars around a number of dead mexican guys who were trying to smuggle drugs across the mexico-texas border. He walks away with the 2 million without thinking too much into it but is soon tracked down by a killer for hire named Anton Chighur (Javier Bardem) Chighur is a ruthless psychopath who does not stop at any expense. His goal is quite simply to find the 2 million dollars and kill anyone that comes in his way. Soon we're off to the races, as Chighur chases Moss through the deserts of texas stopping at different motels. Moss manages to stay just one step ahead of Chighur until of course the defining moment. Behind both these men is Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones). Ed Tom is determined to save Moss from the hands of Chighur. Who lives and who dies is the crux of this story.
The performance by Bardem as the psychopathic Chighur is definitely oscar-worthy. A wonderful personification of pure evil. A friend of mine even went as far as to say that his role in the movie is comparable to the infamous hopkins in Silence of the Lambs. Every moment leading up to the moss-chighur encounter has ur heart racing. I must be honest though, I really didn't see much point to the movie as a whole. The ending to the movie was rather abrupt and sudden that it felt very unnatural. This movie is definitely worth a watch but not for the faint hearted. My warning to u... be prepared for gore and utterly gruesome imagery. My final verdict.. i'm still not convinced that this was the best movie of the year last year.. let's see if my mind changes tomorrow, I'm watching "there will be blood" starring daniel day lewis. See you all then.
The story is quite simple at its core. Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) finds a bag with 2 million dollars around a number of dead mexican guys who were trying to smuggle drugs across the mexico-texas border. He walks away with the 2 million without thinking too much into it but is soon tracked down by a killer for hire named Anton Chighur (Javier Bardem) Chighur is a ruthless psychopath who does not stop at any expense. His goal is quite simply to find the 2 million dollars and kill anyone that comes in his way. Soon we're off to the races, as Chighur chases Moss through the deserts of texas stopping at different motels. Moss manages to stay just one step ahead of Chighur until of course the defining moment. Behind both these men is Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones). Ed Tom is determined to save Moss from the hands of Chighur. Who lives and who dies is the crux of this story.
The performance by Bardem as the psychopathic Chighur is definitely oscar-worthy. A wonderful personification of pure evil. A friend of mine even went as far as to say that his role in the movie is comparable to the infamous hopkins in Silence of the Lambs. Every moment leading up to the moss-chighur encounter has ur heart racing. I must be honest though, I really didn't see much point to the movie as a whole. The ending to the movie was rather abrupt and sudden that it felt very unnatural. This movie is definitely worth a watch but not for the faint hearted. My warning to u... be prepared for gore and utterly gruesome imagery. My final verdict.. i'm still not convinced that this was the best movie of the year last year.. let's see if my mind changes tomorrow, I'm watching "there will be blood" starring daniel day lewis. See you all then.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Michael Clayton - Still not convinced
So continuing on with my oscar review.. Michael Clayton was the movie of the night starring George Clooney and Tom Wilkinson. After first look at this movie, i can confidently say that this is going to be the one movie that does not win the oscar for best picture of the year. It's a very interesting crime drama/thriller but it is definitely not oscar material. With George Clooney at the helm, it definitely is a lot of eye candy for the women but what i saw in this movie was a legal drama that had a slight tinge of facing up to moral and ethical issues.
Without much further ado, here's a brief synopsis of the story. Since this story is titled a suspense thriller, i'll try my best not to ruin it for any of you. Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is a lawyer with above ordinary credentials is a "fixer" for a high profile manhattan law firm. His job is to fix any mistakes made by any of his clients. For example, he clears the name for a client who just commited a hit and run, or stop the presses from printing any big stories that their clients don't want out. The firm's big account is with an agro-chemical company called UNorth, whose account is handled by clayton's good friend Arthur. (Tom Wilkinson)
The movie starts with Arthur losing his mind, stripping and attacking his plaintiff in the middle of a hearing. Clayton meets Arthur and is told that there's more to the UNorth case than meets the eye. Clayton tries to convince Arthur that he has gone way over his head and tries to calm him down. UNorth's in-house counsel Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton), meanwhile has her men follow arthur and finds out that Arthur knows some UNorth confidential information, has him killed and makes it look like a suicide. Clayton doesn't believe that the man he spoke to 12 hours ago, ready to take on the world, is now dead. He breaks into Arthur's sealed house and finds the secret that UNorth doesn't want him to know and is now the target for Karen Crowder's man.
And the chase begins...
This is definitely a weak nomination for the best movie category. I wouldn't say that this movie is boring and unbearable to watch, but for a suspense thriller, this movie lacks suspense and it lacks thrill. The dialogues are not very strong, and the picturization isn't that great. The characters are very poorly developed. For example, we find that clayton is divorced but remains close to his son, yet we do not see any character building between clayton and his family. My rating.. 2.5 out of 5.. I guess i'm a little harsh because i had high expectations for this movie. I will come back tomorrow with the highly anticipated "No Country for Old Men"
As always, all comments welcome..
Without much further ado, here's a brief synopsis of the story. Since this story is titled a suspense thriller, i'll try my best not to ruin it for any of you. Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is a lawyer with above ordinary credentials is a "fixer" for a high profile manhattan law firm. His job is to fix any mistakes made by any of his clients. For example, he clears the name for a client who just commited a hit and run, or stop the presses from printing any big stories that their clients don't want out. The firm's big account is with an agro-chemical company called UNorth, whose account is handled by clayton's good friend Arthur. (Tom Wilkinson)
The movie starts with Arthur losing his mind, stripping and attacking his plaintiff in the middle of a hearing. Clayton meets Arthur and is told that there's more to the UNorth case than meets the eye. Clayton tries to convince Arthur that he has gone way over his head and tries to calm him down. UNorth's in-house counsel Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton), meanwhile has her men follow arthur and finds out that Arthur knows some UNorth confidential information, has him killed and makes it look like a suicide. Clayton doesn't believe that the man he spoke to 12 hours ago, ready to take on the world, is now dead. He breaks into Arthur's sealed house and finds the secret that UNorth doesn't want him to know and is now the target for Karen Crowder's man.
And the chase begins...
This is definitely a weak nomination for the best movie category. I wouldn't say that this movie is boring and unbearable to watch, but for a suspense thriller, this movie lacks suspense and it lacks thrill. The dialogues are not very strong, and the picturization isn't that great. The characters are very poorly developed. For example, we find that clayton is divorced but remains close to his son, yet we do not see any character building between clayton and his family. My rating.. 2.5 out of 5.. I guess i'm a little harsh because i had high expectations for this movie. I will come back tomorrow with the highly anticipated "No Country for Old Men"
As always, all comments welcome..
Juno - last year's best movie?? Can't say for sure
Continuing with my analysis of oscar winners, i figured that with the academy awards in 3 days.. y not review this year's top nominees for Best Picture. I started by watching Juno last night starring ellen page, michael cera, jennifer garner and the ever so lovable Allison Janney (CJ for you west wing lovers) Juno was said to be the feel good movie of the year. One that made people smile with the underlying comedy even though the story revolves around a very controversial topic.
Juno (ellen page) is a 16 year old girl who ends up getting pregnant bearing the child of fellow 16 year old bleeker (michael cera).. After a revelation at the abortion clinic, juno decides that she doesn't want to abort the baby because it has fingernails.. :P
Juno MacGuff: ...and the receptionist tried to get me to take these condoms that looked like grape suckers and was just babbling away about her freaking boyfriends pie balls! Oh an Su-Chin was there and she was like, "Hi babies have fingernails." FINGERNAILS!
Leah: Oh, gruesome. I wonder if the baby's claws could scratch your vag on the way out?
Juno decides to give the baby up for adoption to a couple she finds in the pennysaver ad, vanessa and mark loring played by Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman. Mark is a musician who is kept on a tight leash while Vanessa is craving to be a mother more than anything in the world. The movie develops vanessa's character as a bossy wife, while portraying mark as the jovial, funloving guy but both of them as good hearted people until of course the climax. The story revolves around what happens after from the time that juno agrees to give the baby up to the couple till the time of birth.
The movie touches on a number of relationships effortlessly. Juno and Bleeker being the obvious one. Mark and Vanessa. Juno and Bren (Allison Janney, Juno's stepmother), Juno and Mac (J K Simmons, Juno's father). The movie's strength is definitely in the dialogues. Ellen Page does a brilliant job of playing a typical teenager, right down to the delivery of the dialogue and her mannerisms. The movie was certainly great.. but i don't know if i'd say it's worthy of an oscar best picture. I'll need to look at the other nominees to decide. Ellen page certainly is a contender for the best actress category and rightfully so. The movie's strength is also to be able to make the story very lighthearted despite the serious topic. The understanding parents who want what's best for their daughter. Allison Janney was excellent as a loving stepmother, contrary to the norm in movies. One of the interesting aspects i found was the background score for the movie was actually a series of vocal songs, somewhat like recitals, depicting the story. I found it to be a very unique and charming delivery and added the little extra touch to Juno that made it great.
So that's my 2 cents on Juno. I'll keep updating over the next 3 days with the other nominees. I'm planning to watch George Clooney in Michael Clayton tonight.. and hopefully before the actual oscars be able to come to a conclusion on the best movie... I'm adding a couple of the quotes from Juno that i found most interesting.
Vanessa Loring: You think you're really going to do this?
Juno MacGuff: Yea, if I could just have the thing and give it to you now, I totally would. But I'm guessing it looks probably like a sea monkey right now and we should let it get a little cuter.
Vanessa Loring: That's great.
Mark Loring: Keep it in the oven.
[at Juno’s ultrasound]
Leah: Dude that thing looks freaky.
Juno MacGuff: I am a sacred vessel; all you got in your stomach is taco bell.
Juno MacGuff: I'm losing my faith in humanity.
Mac MacGuff: Think you can narrow it down for me?
Juno MacGuff: I guess I wonder sometimes if people ever stay together for good.
Mac MacGuff: You mean like couples?
Juno MacGuff: Yeah, like people in love.
Mac MacGuff: Are you having boy troubles? I gotta be honest; I don't much approve of dating in your condition, 'cause well... that's kind of messed up.
Juno MacGuff: Dad, no!
Mac MacGuff: Well, it's kind of skanky. Isn't that what you girls call it? Skanky? Skeevy?
Juno MacGuff: Please stop now.
Mac MacGuff: [persisting] Tore up from the floor up?
Juno MacGuff: Dad, it's not about that. I just need to know if it's possible for two people to stay happy together forever, or at least for a few years.
Mac MacGuff: It's not easy, that's for sure. Now, I may not have the best track record in the world, but I have been with your stepmother for 10 years now and I'm proud to say that we're very happy.
[Juno nods]
Mac MacGuff: In my opinion, the best thing you can do is find a person who loves you for exactly what you are. Good mood, bad mood, ugly, pretty, handsome, what have you, the right person will still think the sun shines out your ass. That's the kind of person that's worth sticking with.
When Juno decides to tell her parents..
Leah: Dude, I think it's best to just tell 'em.
Juno MacGuff: I'm Pregnant.
Bren: Oh, God.
Juno MacGuff: But, uh ah, I'm going to give it up for adoption and I already found the perfect couple, they're going to pay for the medical expenses and everything. And and what ah 30 or odd weeks we can just pretend that this never happened.
Mac MacGuff: You're pregnant?
Juno MacGuff: I'm sorry. I'm sorry... And if it is any consolation I have heartburn that is radiating in my knee caps and I haven't taken a dump since like Wednesday... morning.
Bren: I didn't even know that you were sexually active.
Juno MacGuff: I, uh...
Mac MacGuff: Who is the kid?
Juno MacGuff: The-the baby? I don't really know much about it other than, I mean, it has fingernails, allegedly.
Bren: Nails, really?
Juno MacGuff: Yeah!
Mac MacGuff: No, I know I mean who's the father, Juno?
Juno MacGuff: Umm... It's Paulie Bleeker.
Mac MacGuff: Paulie Bleeker?
Juno MacGuff: What?
Mac MacGuff: I didn't think he had it in him.
Leah: I know, right?
Juno (ellen page) is a 16 year old girl who ends up getting pregnant bearing the child of fellow 16 year old bleeker (michael cera).. After a revelation at the abortion clinic, juno decides that she doesn't want to abort the baby because it has fingernails.. :P
Juno MacGuff: ...and the receptionist tried to get me to take these condoms that looked like grape suckers and was just babbling away about her freaking boyfriends pie balls! Oh an Su-Chin was there and she was like, "Hi babies have fingernails." FINGERNAILS!
Leah: Oh, gruesome. I wonder if the baby's claws could scratch your vag on the way out?
Juno decides to give the baby up for adoption to a couple she finds in the pennysaver ad, vanessa and mark loring played by Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman. Mark is a musician who is kept on a tight leash while Vanessa is craving to be a mother more than anything in the world. The movie develops vanessa's character as a bossy wife, while portraying mark as the jovial, funloving guy but both of them as good hearted people until of course the climax. The story revolves around what happens after from the time that juno agrees to give the baby up to the couple till the time of birth.
The movie touches on a number of relationships effortlessly. Juno and Bleeker being the obvious one. Mark and Vanessa. Juno and Bren (Allison Janney, Juno's stepmother), Juno and Mac (J K Simmons, Juno's father). The movie's strength is definitely in the dialogues. Ellen Page does a brilliant job of playing a typical teenager, right down to the delivery of the dialogue and her mannerisms. The movie was certainly great.. but i don't know if i'd say it's worthy of an oscar best picture. I'll need to look at the other nominees to decide. Ellen page certainly is a contender for the best actress category and rightfully so. The movie's strength is also to be able to make the story very lighthearted despite the serious topic. The understanding parents who want what's best for their daughter. Allison Janney was excellent as a loving stepmother, contrary to the norm in movies. One of the interesting aspects i found was the background score for the movie was actually a series of vocal songs, somewhat like recitals, depicting the story. I found it to be a very unique and charming delivery and added the little extra touch to Juno that made it great.
So that's my 2 cents on Juno. I'll keep updating over the next 3 days with the other nominees. I'm planning to watch George Clooney in Michael Clayton tonight.. and hopefully before the actual oscars be able to come to a conclusion on the best movie... I'm adding a couple of the quotes from Juno that i found most interesting.
Vanessa Loring: You think you're really going to do this?
Juno MacGuff: Yea, if I could just have the thing and give it to you now, I totally would. But I'm guessing it looks probably like a sea monkey right now and we should let it get a little cuter.
Vanessa Loring: That's great.
Mark Loring: Keep it in the oven.
[at Juno’s ultrasound]
Leah: Dude that thing looks freaky.
Juno MacGuff: I am a sacred vessel; all you got in your stomach is taco bell.
Juno MacGuff: I'm losing my faith in humanity.
Mac MacGuff: Think you can narrow it down for me?
Juno MacGuff: I guess I wonder sometimes if people ever stay together for good.
Mac MacGuff: You mean like couples?
Juno MacGuff: Yeah, like people in love.
Mac MacGuff: Are you having boy troubles? I gotta be honest; I don't much approve of dating in your condition, 'cause well... that's kind of messed up.
Juno MacGuff: Dad, no!
Mac MacGuff: Well, it's kind of skanky. Isn't that what you girls call it? Skanky? Skeevy?
Juno MacGuff: Please stop now.
Mac MacGuff: [persisting] Tore up from the floor up?
Juno MacGuff: Dad, it's not about that. I just need to know if it's possible for two people to stay happy together forever, or at least for a few years.
Mac MacGuff: It's not easy, that's for sure. Now, I may not have the best track record in the world, but I have been with your stepmother for 10 years now and I'm proud to say that we're very happy.
[Juno nods]
Mac MacGuff: In my opinion, the best thing you can do is find a person who loves you for exactly what you are. Good mood, bad mood, ugly, pretty, handsome, what have you, the right person will still think the sun shines out your ass. That's the kind of person that's worth sticking with.
When Juno decides to tell her parents..
Leah: Dude, I think it's best to just tell 'em.
Juno MacGuff: I'm Pregnant.
Bren: Oh, God.
Juno MacGuff: But, uh ah, I'm going to give it up for adoption and I already found the perfect couple, they're going to pay for the medical expenses and everything. And and what ah 30 or odd weeks we can just pretend that this never happened.
Mac MacGuff: You're pregnant?
Juno MacGuff: I'm sorry. I'm sorry... And if it is any consolation I have heartburn that is radiating in my knee caps and I haven't taken a dump since like Wednesday... morning.
Bren: I didn't even know that you were sexually active.
Juno MacGuff: I, uh...
Mac MacGuff: Who is the kid?
Juno MacGuff: The-the baby? I don't really know much about it other than, I mean, it has fingernails, allegedly.
Bren: Nails, really?
Juno MacGuff: Yeah!
Mac MacGuff: No, I know I mean who's the father, Juno?
Juno MacGuff: Umm... It's Paulie Bleeker.
Mac MacGuff: Paulie Bleeker?
Juno MacGuff: What?
Mac MacGuff: I didn't think he had it in him.
Leah: I know, right?
Friday, February 15, 2008
Oscar Winners - Rain Man
I guess continuing in the trend of my first post, i figured i'd give my 2 cents on another classic movie that somehow eluded me all these years. I'm in the process of watching Rain Man with Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman and I must say i'm very simply blown away by Dustin Hoffman's acting. Looking back, I can't help but wonder, where is the Tom Cruise that did movies of this high quality. His recent flicks, in my opinion, cannot compare to the Tom Cruise of Rain Man, Jerry Maguire, Top Gun and A Few Good Men.
Going back to Rain Man, for those of you that haven't yet seen it, it's a simple story of the bonding of two brothers, one of whom happens to be an autistic savant. Charlie (Tom Cruise) finds out of his estranged father's death and further realizes that his father left 3 million dollars to a benefactor Raymond, (Dustin Hoffman) Charlie's autistic brother who he doesn't know exists. Eager to get his fair share of his father's money, Charlie kidnaps Ray and holds him hostage until the trustees give him his share of the 3 million dollars. What happens after truly defines the movie as Charlie begins to bond with Ray despite his numerous quirkiness.
The movie doesn't lack its comical moments either. Although there were no scenes that made me roll on the floor laughing, the moments of comedy definitely brought a chuckle to my lips. If i had to just pick one scene to explain to you the underlying comedy, it would be the conversation below between Ray and Charlie.
Raymond: Of course I don't have my underwear. I'm definitely not wearing my underwear. Charlie: I gave you a fresh pair of mine to wear. Where are they?
Raymond: They're in the pocket of my jacket. Here.
Charlie: I don't want them back.
Raymond: These are not boxer shorts. Mine are boxer shorts. These are Hanes 32.
Charlie: Underwear is underwear, Ray.
Raymond: My boxer shorts have my name and it says Raymond.
Charlie: All right, when we pass the store, we'll pick you up a pair of boxer shorts.
Raymond: I get my boxer shorts at K-Mart in Cincinnati.
Charlie: We're not going back to Cincinnati, Ray, so don't even start with that.
Raymond: Gotta get my boxer shorts at K-Mart, 400 Oak Street, Cincinatti.
Charlie: [Pulls over, gets out of the car and yells] WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHERE YOU BUY UNDERWEAR? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? UNDERWEAR IS UNDERWEAR! IT IS UNDERWEAR WHEREVER YOU BUY IT! IN CINCINNATI OR WHEREVER!
Raymond: K-Mart! 400 Oak Street, Cincinatti
Charlie: You know what I think, Ray? I think this autism is a bunch of shit! Because you can't tell me that you're not in there somewhere!
Raymond: Boxer shorts. K-Mart! 400 Oak Street, Cincinatti
A blog entry doesn't do this movie justice. Although it does have its shortcomings. Very slow moving at times, the movie definitely is oscar worthy solely on dustin hoffman's performance. I wuda liked to see some more intriguing dialogues from Ray as was later done in forrest gump by Tom Hanks. Although it was necessary to maintain his character as an autistic adult, a few more enthralling dialogues couldn't have hurt. I would love to hear all of your opinions on the movie if you have seen it.
Going back to Rain Man, for those of you that haven't yet seen it, it's a simple story of the bonding of two brothers, one of whom happens to be an autistic savant. Charlie (Tom Cruise) finds out of his estranged father's death and further realizes that his father left 3 million dollars to a benefactor Raymond, (Dustin Hoffman) Charlie's autistic brother who he doesn't know exists. Eager to get his fair share of his father's money, Charlie kidnaps Ray and holds him hostage until the trustees give him his share of the 3 million dollars. What happens after truly defines the movie as Charlie begins to bond with Ray despite his numerous quirkiness.
The movie doesn't lack its comical moments either. Although there were no scenes that made me roll on the floor laughing, the moments of comedy definitely brought a chuckle to my lips. If i had to just pick one scene to explain to you the underlying comedy, it would be the conversation below between Ray and Charlie.
Raymond: Of course I don't have my underwear. I'm definitely not wearing my underwear. Charlie: I gave you a fresh pair of mine to wear. Where are they?
Raymond: They're in the pocket of my jacket. Here.
Charlie: I don't want them back.
Raymond: These are not boxer shorts. Mine are boxer shorts. These are Hanes 32.
Charlie: Underwear is underwear, Ray.
Raymond: My boxer shorts have my name and it says Raymond.
Charlie: All right, when we pass the store, we'll pick you up a pair of boxer shorts.
Raymond: I get my boxer shorts at K-Mart in Cincinnati.
Charlie: We're not going back to Cincinnati, Ray, so don't even start with that.
Raymond: Gotta get my boxer shorts at K-Mart, 400 Oak Street, Cincinatti.
Charlie: [Pulls over, gets out of the car and yells] WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHERE YOU BUY UNDERWEAR? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? UNDERWEAR IS UNDERWEAR! IT IS UNDERWEAR WHEREVER YOU BUY IT! IN CINCINNATI OR WHEREVER!
Raymond: K-Mart! 400 Oak Street, Cincinatti
Charlie: You know what I think, Ray? I think this autism is a bunch of shit! Because you can't tell me that you're not in there somewhere!
Raymond: Boxer shorts. K-Mart! 400 Oak Street, Cincinatti
A blog entry doesn't do this movie justice. Although it does have its shortcomings. Very slow moving at times, the movie definitely is oscar worthy solely on dustin hoffman's performance. I wuda liked to see some more intriguing dialogues from Ray as was later done in forrest gump by Tom Hanks. Although it was necessary to maintain his character as an autistic adult, a few more enthralling dialogues couldn't have hurt. I would love to hear all of your opinions on the movie if you have seen it.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
My First Post
I've been meaning to do this for a very long time. I guess finally being in a place by myself with nothing to do is enough incentive to start blogging. This place is gonna have me ranting about everything from the latest and greatest technologies that intrigue me, a modest review of the newest AR Rahman albums (occasionally some translations if I manage to get around to it), and the most random topics that you would find on the web. I started thinking what my first post should be on, and considering I just finished watching Richard Attenborough's Gandhi, and I came across some intriguing questions relating to the man himself. A couple of weeks ago, I came across an article that questioned Gandhi's last words. The common belief including my own till about 2 weeks ago was Gandhi's last words were "He Ram". Other sources indicated that Gandhi in fact said "Ram Ram" and not "He Ram". So you ask, why does this matter? "Ram Ram" and "He Ram" really don't make much of a difference. What the article goes on to state is that a few months before his death, Gandhi went on to say "Even if I am killed, I will not give up, repeating the names of Ram and Rahim, which mean to me the same God. With these names on my lips, I will die cheerfully." I suppose you can now see where I'm going with this. If Gandhi did in fact say "Ram Rahim" and not "Ram Ram", it could go a long way in promoting Hindu-Muslim co-operation in India and Pakistan. Gandhi, who to a large extent, is seen as the man who stood by hindu ideals and was an ardent believer of the bhagavad gita and its teachings has "He Ram" written in his tombstone. The man who millions follow may even be an atheist, based on a conversation published between Gandhi and Goparaju Ramachandra Rao, a devout Gandhi follower and a self-proclaimed atheist. Albeit, these claims were made by Rao in his book, one can never know if Gandhi actually claimed to be a "super-atheist" as mentioned in the book. All things aside, I guess the point of this entry is just to explore the far reaching effects of one statement, that may have potentially been misheard. All comments welcome.