Posts filed under ‘discussion’
I’ve finally discovered the secret to successful blogging.
You see, the secret to successful blogging – and by successful I of course mean the number of hits you receive, not the quality of your blogging – is to not blog. No, seriously, I have proof.
During the course of this blog, some where over a year of fairly regular posting, the number of daily hits I received steadily increased. Of course, this is all relative, because when I started blogging my hits were exactly 0, so even one hit could be considered an increase. But, over the months the total increased gradually until I was at a point somewhere slightly above 0; and I mean slightly.
The past few months, though, I’ve only made a handful of posts. This was due to a combination of burnout, wanting to focus on other things, and questioning the purpose of it all anyway. I pretty much stopped blogging, although I hadn’t yet decided what my intention was as to the future: did I want to pack it in entirely or would I start blogging regularly once again?
Even though I had stopped writing for the blog, I still checked in every so often, and looked at the stats. Starting a couple of weeks ago I noticed my daily hits were climbing to significantly impressive (for me) new levels. One day during this past week my daily hits made it into the 4-digit range, which was something I never expected would happen.
Part of Taoism is discovering the path of least resistance – which I interpret as a licence to be lazy. Just kidding…or am I???
No, I am. In the blogging world, the path of least resistance is to not blog.
Another idea in Taoism is that in order to succeed, you need to give up the attachments to succeeding, which I did a long time ago. So, by not blogging I have tapped into the Tao and this has caused my daily hits to increase significantly. Obvious proof of the validity of Taoism, not that it needs it.
Then again, the new found number of daily hits might have something to do with a more human element. The posts responsible for the vast majority of hits lately have something in common. That commonality, coincidentally, happens to be that each of these posts contain a picture of half-naked babes. Here is a link to the post that has garnered the most attention of late: Canadian Nationalism: How Do We Know Who is Best?
So, this new found success can be boiled down to either Taoism or Half-naked babes. Tough call…
I was Stumbling around the net when I came across this site: http://magswordfinder.com/
I didn’t find the site particularly interesting, my personal opinion, of course. The site allows you to type in a word and it will pull out any other words that can be made out of the letters involved in the word you type. What I found interesting, though, was the disclaimer:
“Note that some dictionaries are quite large, so the search may take several seconds.”
Several seconds? What kind of world are we living in where we have to wait several seconds to discover all the iterations of the word “Impatient”? I’d rather spend my time watching cat videos and eating fast food, thank you very much.
Creating top-ten lists is the meat and potatoes of internet posting. Although I do enjoy reading them, I think making a top-ten list is lazy authourship. That having been said, I would like to return to Canadian Fermentation by introducing for your education, Dear Reader, my Top 10 Tips on Creating Lists of Tips.
Although it may seems like there are contradictions in my list, there are, in fact, none. It’s a perfect top-ten list. I hope you enjoy it and are able to take something educational away with you from the experience.
1. Creativity and entertainment are more important than applicability, facts or actual usability. Go crazy!
2. Interesting visuals are nice, particularly if they include a hottie (male or female depending on your target readers), or a picture of a cat doing something crazy. The pictures should, even if loosely, be related to the topic or tip.
The best visuals are a combination of hot babes and cats.
3. Originality is overrated. Focus on topics that people are familiar with. People don’t want to learn something new, rather they want their beliefs confirmed.
4. Keep entries short. A long entry just provides more material for other people to prove you wrong.
5. Try to refer to at least one “expert” in your list. Jane Spilousia, Lead Tip Master with the Tip Institute of Toronto says, “Experts give your tips acumen and authority. If in doubt, find an expert to make your tip pertinent.”
6. Don’t share personal anecdotes, and beware of using your personal experiences as proof. Trust me – I tried this on my last Top 10 list and it didn’t work.
7. Borrow from historical sources. If you become stuck for tips to share just remember that the internet is your playground. Ignore what others have told you; there is no such thing as plagarism on the internet.
8. Maintain your authority. If you receive critical responses to your list, either delete the responses or chastize and humiliate the person who criticized you (preferably using an alias). This will show other readers how masterful and in control you are.
9. Give yourself a deadline, and stick to it. Don’t worry about having a concise, accurate list with the absolute “top 10” tips. The important thing is production; get that post on the web where it’s needed! Be willing to embrace tip #1, rather than strive for total accuracy and relevancy. By utilizing tip #’s 5 + 8 your list will remain relevant.
10. Avoid being witty. Most readers are stupid anyway, and won’t get the joke. Don’t waste your time on them with your best work when any old junk will do.
Bonus: Always have a bonus tip. Why? No one really knows, it’s just something that all top 10 list makers do. You don’t want to stand out from the crowd, do you?
Back to the roots of Canadian Fermentation! I have recently started some exhaustive research into the history of Canadian Prime Ministers. This has led to some interesting discoveries! I’ve included some of the more interesting and strange – as well as some of the more infamous – examples of Canadian Prime Ministers. I hope you enjoy it.
Please feel free to leave a response and share who your favourite Prime Minister is.
Sir John A. McDonald:
- Served two terms; the first Canadian Prime Minister from 1867-1873, and a second stint from 1878 – 1891.
- One of the Fathers Of Confederation.
- Enjoyed drinking. Heavily. Often. Sometimes naked, when he would yell to his enemies, “Bring it, bitches.”
- Born in Scotland, which may explain the drinking.
- Progenitor of the trans-Canada railway.
(Sir John A. McDonald enjoyed sunsets, long walks on the beach and parties.)
Sir John Abbott:
- 3rd Prime Minister of Canada.
- Nobody fucking cares about John Abbott.
(Who is this guy?)
- Little known fact that Marx was Prime Minister in 1933. Ruled under the name Rufus T. Firefly.
- Changed the name of country from Canada to Freedonia.
- Forced Freedonia into a war with fictional country, Sylvania. Hilarity ensued.
- Wields a mean Stradivarius.
- Excerpt from cabinet meeting:
- Minister of Finance: Here is the Treasury Department’s report, sir. I hope you’ll find it clear.
Rufus T. Firefly: Clear? Huh. Why a four-year-old child could understand this report.
[to Bob Roland]
Rufus T. Firefly: Run out and find me a four-year-old child, I can’t make head or tail of it.
(Mr. Marx had the reputation that he would do anything, or anyone, for power.)
William Lyon Mckenzie King:
- Served as Prime Minister on three different occasions; 1921-1926, 1926-1930, 1935-1948, thus winning the Triple Crown of Canadian politics. His award was a free extra large double-double at Tim Hortons.
- It’s good to be king.
- Introduced old-age pensions.
- Prime Minister during WWII. Claims he single-handedly beat Hitler at a game of crokonole, thus ending the war.
(The Lyon King also wore a crown as World Crokonole Champion from 1941 – 1946)
Lester B. Pearson:
- Prime Minister from 1963-1968.
- Won Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 for role in ending the Suez Crises by introducing crokoonole to the Middle East.
- President of 7th session of the United Nation’s General Assembly.
- Brought many programs to Canada, including; universal health care, Canadian pension plan and full nudity strip clubs.
- Approved the current Canadian flag.
- Created world’s first race-free immigration system, leading to the establishment of a UFO landing dock at St. Paul, Alberta.
(Lester Pearson established the first inter-galactic immigration system.)
- 1979-1980 (9 months)
- Joe who?
(Historians remain baffled.)
- 1993 (4 months)
- First woman Prime Minister.
- Last woman Prime Minister.
(Kim Campbell once said that she only served as Prime Minister for four months because she was able to accomplish everything she set out to do in that time. It might be true.)
- Has served as Canadian leader intermittently, according to hard-core religious American conservatives.
- Dresses exclusively in red. Obvious sign of communist leanings.
- Allows gay rights. Plans to introduce inter-species marriages.
- Free medical care is just a scam to bankrupt the country as well as the citizen’s morals.
- Wants to change name of country to Kanuckistan.
(Satan often gets a bad rep, but he has quality leadership capabilities. He’s not afraid to get the job done, by any means necessary.)
With all the hullaballoo going on in Canada about the impending political battle – can Stephane Dion actually end up as Prime Minister?!?!?!? – I think that it’s obviously time for a post about testicles. You’ll see.
How messed up is it that a guy who only a month ago was on his last, shaky, political legs and about to exit from the political stage in Canada, can make some kind of strange u-turn and now be standing on the edge of becoming Canada’s next Prime Minister. I mean, really? This seems like a good idea to the political mavens?
Although I’m no fan of the Conservative Party, and this really does serve Harper and his bully tactics a slice of humble pie – I find a tingling glee forming in the pit of my cockles – do people really think inserting a shaky coalition government between three parties that wouldn’t stand at consecutive urinals together if they had a choice, a good decision for a country that has a questionable economic future?
I’m not sure.
Then again, it can be argued that the leftist parties who will form the coalition government have more right to claim that position than Harper’s Conservatives, since the left won a majority of the popular vote.
What brought us to this point is that Harper’s balls grew a size too large, which is not good when your heart is smaller than the Grinch’s, pre-enlightenment, as at that point the heart is not strong enough to pump the proper amount of blood into the over-sized balls. This just leads to elephantitis of the scrotum. Not good.
Harper tried to ram some politically questionable laws down Canadian’s throats, perceiving the opposition to be weak and unable to stand against the onslaught. Apparently he was wrong. His vision was obscured by his big balls. His brain was lacking in proper blood flow due to the excessive size of his scrotum.
(This guy is proud of his big balls. Yet, they are not as big as Harper’s. Yikes!)
(Rumours have it that this is Harper’s favourite song. He enjoys singing along with the chorus.)
The big question on the mind of many people is what will the international community think about this move? That is an easy answer, and here it is.
Did you catch it?
Anyway, there is snow on the ground, a hockey game to watch later this evening, and politicians are looking in the mirror and wondering why they don’t get more respect: It is just another day in Canada.
Ah, it is a simple quesiton, no? Who won the 2008 Canadian Federal election? It just happened yesterday, so the results should be obvious, shouldn’t they?
In my opinion, yes and no. Let’s take a look.
(Steven Harper celebrated the Conservative’s victory by reorganizing his filing cabinet.)
The Conservatives: It’s easy to automatically say that the Conservative Party won this election because they had the most MP’s elected to Parliament, and therefor will keep their mandate to form the Canadian goverment. So, yes, they “won”. But, I don’t think that all members and supporters of the Conservative Party will agree when looking at the bigger picture. Whether or not Prime Minister Steven Harper said so – and to be clear he claimed that his goal was a minority government and he didn’t believe that he was able to capture a majority – but if you believe that then let me tell you that I used to be a Rhodes Scholar and invented the resevoir tip for condoms. In other words, for those slower than I am, it’s a crock of shit.
The Conservatives weren’t performing badly, their base was holding tight, and they were making ground in Quebec and Ontario, and their main rivals, the Liberals, were (and still are) in leadership turmoil and are as factuous and disjointed as they have been during my lifetime. Don’t forget about the looming economic crisis, and the fact that sitting governments usually don’t do well with the electorate if they are in power during major economic upheavals, whether or not they deserve the ire of the people. It was the perfect time for Harper to try for a majority government, and waiting any later would jeopardize any chance for it to happen.
Did the Conservatives win? They were the winning party, and they increased the strength of their minority government, but they lost. They are heading into a major economic challenge with a minority government. They will have a grace period as the Liberals sort out their mess and work towards finding a new leader, but when the new Lib leader is in place and secure, it’ll only be a matter of time before they take down the government and call another election. I give Harper two more years at most.
Success: Won a second minority government, increased number of members of parliament.
Challenges: Missed great chance to secure a majority government. Still no success in major cities outside of western base of support. Making it appear that Harper has a soul.
(Stephan Dion is, reportedly, still in the closet crying about the unfair universe.)
The Liberals: The week before the election Liberal leader, Stphane Dion, was slowly starting to fit the role of ‘Leader’. Oh, he wasn’t there yet, but he was showing glimpses of potential, and, therefor, was becomming a less futile choice for disgruntled voters. For a while there was even talk of a Liberal minority.
Anyway, the Liberals, who are Canada’s traditional default ruling party, had their worst results since the 1980’s when Mulroney ruled this land. The party is fractious with – seemingly – few in the party feeling really comfortable with Dion as leader.
To put it bluntly and to the point, the Liberals are in trouble…shambles…swimming with the poop.
This election the Liberals were the biggest loser. They lost support, they lost ridings, and their power is drained. They are the oldest existing party in Canada, and, perhaps, are starting to show signs of the wear and tear of years.
Success: Nobody was killed.
Challenges: Finding a new leader to reinvigorate the Canadian voters. The government is the Liberals to lose. Rediscovering their purpose. Losing their attitude.
(Jack Layton celebrated a solid NDP showing by twirling his moustache.)
The New Democratic Party: The NDP won more seats and had a greater share of the popular vote for the third straight election after having fallen to a measley thirteen seats in 2000. Jack Layton claimed that he was running not to be a social conscious alternate political choice for Canadians, as per usual, but to be the Prime Minister of Canada.
Of course no one really believed him.
Ultimately the goal was to hope for a Liberal collapse which would result in great gains for the NDP, leading to official oppositions status, which would have been a coup for this party. Although the party did well in this election, they didn’t do as well as they had hoped.
Are the NDP winners or losers in this election? This is a tough call. Layton didn’t accomplish his stated goals, but under his leadership the party has slowly been gaining traction within the Canadian political consciousness as a valid federal option.
I call this one a draw for the Ndippers.
Success: Increased number of seats in parliament. Increased percentage of the popular vote. Won a seat in Quebec. Layton still has the coolest moustache in Canadian politics.
Challenges: Continuing to grow the base of support. Smoking less pot.
(Elizabeth May celebrated by going on an orgiastic carbon-letting frenzy, which included; driving an SUV, burning coal, and punching a hippy in the face.)
Green Party: The Green Party really has nothing to lose. This is, if I remember correctly, the first federal election where the Green Party ran a candidate in all ridings, except for the one contested by Liberal leader Stephan Dion, as per agreement between he and Green leader Elizabeth May. That is, in itself, a victory for this young party.
Their realisitic hopes for this election was to grow their popular vote, and challenge – with thoughts of winning – a riding or two. The didn’t win a riding, but they did increase their vote by almost 2.5%, and a good number of candidates finished third, with at least one candidate – May – finishing second.
I have to consider this a victory for the Greens. They are slowly increasing their acceptance as a viable party. It’s a tough haul in Canadian politics, but I think the Greens have now made it to the next level as a Federal Party. It’s now time for the party to step back and consider what their future is, and where they want to take the party.
It’s a win for the Greens.
Success: Ran a candidate in all but one riding. Improved performance over last election. Competitive in a handful of ridings.
Challenges: Increasing base of support. Determining if having another competitive party on the left is viable in Canadian politics.
(Giles Duceppe celebrated a solid showing by sacrificing an anglophone to the gods of French.)
Bloc Quebecois: Canada’s oxymoronic federal sepratist party didn’t collapse like many were predicting up for most of the run up to the election. The Bloc came away with a similar result to the 2006 election where they won 51 seats in Quebec. This election they carried 50 seats.
On the other hand they did drop half a percentage point in the popular vote. This may not seem like a significant drop, but keep in mind that they only run candidates in one province, Quebec, and the percentage quoated is based on federal results, so the drop is much more significant than the number indicates.
Moving into the future, with the separatist movement apparently stalled and experiencing fatigue, many will continue to question the relevancy of the BQ. They, obviously, have no hope of forming the federal government, and have only slim hope of forming the official opposition. Then again, the BQ’s success in Quebec was the foil to the Conservative government obtaining a majority; many will consider that a success.
Did the BQ come away winners of this election? I think so. The exceeded expectations, and affected the face of federal politics. On the other hand, though, how relevant is this party in the modern political era? Other than their seperatist platform their main role is as a leftist party, of which we, arguably, already have three. Nonetheless, this election was a win for the BQ, and they did as well as could be expected.
Success: Maintained representation in parliament. Showed that there is still significant support for the BQ.
Challenges: Proving the party is still relevant. Obvious drop in support.
Tonight – October 2, 2008 – is an historical night without compare. Well, I really don’t know if it is “without compare” as I just wrote. Mainly I thought that sounded quite good and really dramatic. This night may, indeed, have compare, but that would require research and looking things up. We all know that’s not going to happen. So, unless you can prove me wrong, tonight is, indeed, an historical night without compare.
You see, in a brilliant move Elections Canada has decided to schedule the first english-speaking debate for major party leaders tonight at the same time that the Vice-presidential debate is taking place south of the border. This brings up the question that, as a Canadian, which debate should I watch?
It’s a tough choice, Dear Reader, and the answer can only be found by some serious soul searching. That or by placing two T.V’s side by side.
In an absolutely historically brilliant move beyond compare I have decided to take a look at the two debates and break them down for you, Dear Reader, in hopes that I may give you some assistance in your choice of which debate to watch.
Canadian Debate Facts: Tonight the leaders of Canada’s five main political parties will be debating in English. Last night the french-language debate took place, but nobody cared. Well, except maybe for some people in Quebec. But they’re not really people anyway, right? Common, who’s with me on this? See, I don’t get any readers from Quebec anyway, so why should I care about slagging them off? Damn Frenchies.
Na, I’m just kidding. I love the Quebecois.
Tonight’s debate will tackle all of the serious issues;
- What verbal gaffes will Stephane Dion make and for how many days will it get play in the media?
- How did Elizabeth May manage to squeek into the boy’s club, and will she reveal that her penis is bigger than any of the other leaders’?
- At what point in the debate will Jack Layton rip off his moustache and throw it like a ninja-star at Steven Harper?
- Will it be revealed that Steven Harper is actually a stick dressed up in a suit…or was that a suit worn by a stick…no, that’s right, the question is will he reveal how big the stick up his ass actually is?
- And then there’s the french guy that no one outside of Quebec cares about, which is OK, because he doesn’t care about anyone who lives outside of Quebec, so the feeling is mutual.
(NDP leader, Jack Layton, is best known for his legendary ninja skills.)
U.S. Debate Facts: This one is the only debate between the presidential running mates, Joe Biden for the Democrats, and Sarah Pallin for the Rupublicans. Usually no one cares much about the VP debate, but this year is different because everyone, including Canadians, want to see if, and how badly, Palin will screw up. Has everyone bought their Pallin To English dictionaries yet? After a brilliant start the fancy wrappings in which McCains choice for running mate was wrapped have been discovered to be lead-based paper from China. Biden has suffered from his own gaffes but, let’s face it, they pale in comparison to the dithered golemn that parades around giving hockey moms everywhere a bad name.
(Sarah Palin may be smiling in this picture, but tonight she actually has to speak…and answer questions…and pretend she’s human.)
Tonight’s VP debate is less about the subject, and more about Reality TV come full circle. The main question to be answered: Can Sarah Palin rebound and represent herself as a credible Vice Presidential candidate. If she flubs as baddly as she has the past week or so, I say game over. Call the election now, because how can anyone with a conscience vote for an ancient Presidential candidate with a moronic running mate. On the other hand if Bidne comes out hard and gives her a couple of back-hands, and Pallin stands up tall and shows the world why she was elected governor of Alaska, then It’s On!!
There you have it, Dear Reader. I hope that helps. As for me, I’m still undecided. I want to watch the Canadian debate because as an undecided voter (except, of course, for the fact that I will be voting Cirellean, as you should too), I want to embrace the chance to get to know the leaders a little more and to witness what they have to say. On the other hand, the U.S. debate is likely to be vastly more entertaining.
Good luck, readers. Choose wisely.
And, of course, head on over to Humor-blogs.com to vote for this article. Just click on a smiley face and make the world a happier place.