There's only one Trump I mean to bend my knee to: The Trump in the North

Hey there blogosphere,

In case your not aware, in the last decade or so there has been a new type of celebrity introduced into society. Where celebs were once actors, singers, or athletes, the new breed includes rich entrepreneurs. No where is this more evident than in the United States, where blow hard carnival barkers like Donald Trump have for a long time been appearing on talk shows, and recently they have embarked into reality television - with Trumps Apprentice dominating the Thursday night 10-11 slot for years (I follow him on twitter). Of course, like most U.S. trends, this fascination with rich entrepreneurs has migrated North, manifesting itself into the popular CBC show Dragons Den.

O'leary looks like the love child of Franklin the turtle's mom and Mr. Burns. 

By far the most noticeable dragon in the show is Kevin O'leary (though he is far from being the richest dragon, a title that belongs to Jim Treliving at an estimated 800 million dollar net worth). O'leary's Dragons Den popularity has allowed him to perform the Trump niche, advising regular people on how to manage their finances. He does this on his spin off show called The Lang and O'leary Exchange, a program I've watched probably 10 times in its entirety - including last nights episode. Actually, yesterday I made a conclusion that I had long since suspected: O'leary doesn't know what he's talking about.

The problem I have with O'leary's fiscal ignorance is that he disguises it, often by saying "I want to make moooneeey" in a condescending tone, and then using his wealth as evidence that he knows how to do so. But how did he obtain this wealth? Was it through investments made by his mutual fund? No. It was essentially because a company he was part owner of created Reader Rabbit. Really, I give him kudos for being a pioneer in the technology as a teacher game, but I must have missed where that makes him a financial genius. He spun his fortune into the O'leary Funds company, which grew quickly but has recently raised some eyebrows in the Report on Business, with large investment firms recognizing that his "yields are unsustainable and that some of their holdings are highly speculative".
 
Well, maybe he's got a strong educational background on financials. El Wrongo. In fact, he went to school for a degree in environmental policies, arguably one of the most useless post-secondary pieces of paper you can get (though it did force him to be an entrepreneur).

Indeed, O'leary has nothing other than his fortuitous wealth that would suggest he knows what he's talking about - and it shows. He is repeatedly giving advice that appeals to the masses, but is either irrelevant or ignorant to reality. For instance, he advised the NHLPA to cave into owner demands immediately in the most recent NHL lockout. He reasoned that the average NHLer only last 3 years and they should all take what they can get while they can get it, regardless of what the owners are giving. Now, this makes sense to the masses because we're all so envious that these people get paid millions to play a game, and we'd take 10% of their salaries to switch places with them. But, that's not reality. By simply waiting till November the NHLPA got an additional 200 million dollars put on the table, and would eventually get a deal that far and away beat the original offer of the NHL. It's called negotiating, and caving immediately shows that O'leary would be terrible at it. Yesterdays example, referring to the Diamond heist that took place, O'leary's advice was that they should have stole gold, as it would be easier to sell. Again, at face value this is not terrible advice, but it is completely irrelevant to the situation him and Amanda Lang were discussing.

Of course, the problem with all of this - in my opinion - is that O'leary is coming off appearing as a financial expert on our public broadcaster, when the reality is he is not an expert. The CBC shouldn't be allowing him to advise the general population. He's just another carnival barker who got lucky, and is selling himself on the premise that it was his brains that made him money. It wasn't. If that were the case, he'd be a billionaire by now. He's not. He's just the freak child, of these two.

























Later blogosphere

I like to get up and get the daily news

Hey there blogosphere,

I know what your thinking, 2 posts in one month. I'm on a blogging tear. Such is the life of an unemployed youth. In fact, if it weren't for the insurance plan I paid into while I was working, I would have to start charging for the privilege of reading this blog. But, thankfully, it hasn't come to that - yet.

Anyway blogosphere, I have the time so I might as well blog about something. Actually, this experience reminds me of an episode of Seinfeld, when George is unemployed. Kramer asks him, "Do you have any conceivable reason for even getting up in the morning?", to which George replies "Well, I like to get the daily news". And this is the situation I find myself in today. In fact, as I hung around my sisters house Walt-watching last week, my brother-in-law showed up at the end of one day and asked me what I had done that day. My reply was "we got Dorner!"


 
Of course, I was referring to Christopher Dorner, the anti-hero disgraced LAPD officer who declared war on his former employer this past week. Thank god for stories like his blogosphere - it really kept me entertained. I mean, the LAPD really couldn't have handled this any worse than they did. Not only did Dorner hold up in a condo basically across as street from them, but they had police out on the streets shooting at innocent hispanic women whom they had mistaken for Dorner. What idiots! Then, instead of trying to bring Dorner to justice, they burn him alive! Really? You can't make this stuff up. 

But what has my life become that I list reading the daily news as an accomplishment? Well, I think the long answer to that would be that it has become a disappointment. Anything I have ever tried for I have failed at. Of course, I prefer the short answer to that question: fun. That's the truth of it, blogosphere. Not working is fun. Don't get me wrong, I'm still going to continue the job hunt, and I'm sure eventually I will bounce back. But, in the meantime, I'm having a blast. I've been drinking like a fish, eating whatever I want, watching british comedies (incidentally, the show "Pulling" is bloody brilliant), and doing a ton of what I will categorize as hanging out.  And let me tell you something blogosphere, it never gets old.

What's that? The blade runner from the London games murdered his super-model girl-friend? Gotta go blogosphere - no work to do!

The hypocrisy of religious people

Hey there blogosphere,

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not a Ricky Gervais or Richard Dawkins type anti-theist atheist, where I feel the need to rub it in the face of religious people for their beliefs. The truth is, I'm a Presbyterian type atheist. I attend church when I have to (funerals, weddings), but other than that religion is not something that takes up much of my time.

But I do get annoyed by some religious things, mainly for two reasons. The first is when it interferes with my everyday life. For instance, when Muslims feel the need to have a massive prayer session together in a public area, they often take off their shoes. The smell is reprehensible. But the second thing that annoys me about religious people is the underlying hypocrisy of their thinking.

The most recent example I came across today was this story about a no-tipping pastor. You should note, blogosphere, that the story offended me first as a former server. The pastor, to avoid a mandatory 18% tip involved in parties over 6 people, had the bill split into 6 separate bills. But, she then proceeded to pay all of the bills herself. Certainly, flipping the bill for 6+ fellow church-goers shows how generous she is - to everyone except the people serving her*.

But there is more to this hypocrisy than her false feeling of generosity. It's the type of underlying hypocrisy I dislike about religion. You can be a complete ass, but as long as you are religious you are not a bad person. It's having your cake and eating it too.

Here's what I mean. The pastor didn't stop at the crappy tip. She went as far as to write a snarky message on the receipt (seen above). In an interview after, the pastor talks about how the posting of this receipt was God chastising her - something he only does to those who he loves, or so she says. But, she proceeded to complain to AppleBees and have the waitress who posted the receipt fired. There's the hypocrisy. On one hand, she is crediting this girl for doing Gods work by chastising her. She's thankful this girl did this, because it made her a better person. On the other hand, she's gotten the girl - who by all accounts was only doing what the good Lord asked of her - fired. Is that any way to treat a messenger of God?

Of course, the underlying message of the hypocrisy is that outspoken devout religious people can do terrible things, but parade the bible in front of them as evidence that they are good people. Fortunately, I think in general people are becoming less tolerant of this. A good example of this would be Ray Lewis. He recently won the super bowl, and, like many athletes before him, attributed the victory to Gods will (and God apparently acted through the referees, who failed to call several obvious holding penalties on the 2nd last play of the game, and an obvious passer interference on the 3rd last play of the game).

But what is just plain wrong with Lewis's outspoken religiousness is something that occurred in the superbowl pre-game. He gave an interview and referred to a double murder that took place in 2000, of which he was a prime suspect. At the time of the murder, Lewis was wearing a white suit, which has never been recovered. The logical conclusion would be that the suit was covered in the blood from the stabbings Lewis and his friends performed, and they subsequently burned it (but this is of course, speculation). Lewis was eventually charged for obstruction of justice for lying to police the next day, but was convicted of no other charges.

 
But listen to what Lewis is saying. He is pointing to the fact that his team is in the super bowl, that he has had a long and illustrious career in the NFL, and that he has given money to various charities, as evidence that he didn't commit murder. His claim is that God would not allow him to become so successful if he had of committed the murder. "It's the exact opposite" he says in the interview. The implication being that Lewis is being rewarded by God for being falsely accused of a murder with fame and fortune. Gee, I wonder what God would have given him as a reward if he hadn't of obstructed an investigation into a double murder? Probably 25 to life.

The point being, Ray Lewis is using religion to rub it into the faces of the relatives of the people who he may have had a hand in murdering. He was involved in the worst thing a person can do and that should categorize him as an evil person for the rest of his life. Giving a few million dollars away - especially when you just had a 10+ year career in the NFL where you were likely paid upwards of 80 million - is not going to change how he should be categorized. Yet, with the help of religion, that's exactly what has happened.

It's hypocritical. It's annoying. It's religion.

Adios Blogosphere.














*In the interest of full disclosure, she did leave a tip, but obviously it would be less than the recommended 18%.