Why Casino Toronto Is A Bad Idea — And A Good Idea

- May 19th, 2013

waterfront-casino

UPDATE: Kiss your casino goodbye. Toronto Council has voted 40-4 to oppose any new gambling facility in the city. Say hello Casino Markham or Casino Vaughan, smack-dab on Toronto’s doorstep.

—————————

I am really torn on the whole issue of putting a mega-casino in downtown Toronto.

 

But probably not for the same reasons that will come into play when city councillors convene on Tuesday morning to yell at each other and (probably) vote Casino Toronto into oblivion, at least for now.

 

Sure, it would be nice to have that $80 million a year flowing into city coffers (you don’t really think the $53.7 million figure is hard and fast, do you?) but after a couple of years the casino cash cow would just be taken for granted in the financial planning process and we would be no further ahead. Further behind, actually, if the casino cash flow suddenly stopped flowing so freely. Just ask places like Windsor and Sarnia how that works.

 

Casinos don’t really enhance a city’s quality of life (unless, of course, you’re already a complete disaster zone like Detroit). But they can be fun and add sizzle — if done properly.

 

Personally, I find the Niagara casinos boring and more than a little depressing. On the other hand, Las Vegas — which I haven’t been to for years — is a gloriously over-the-top experience, mainly because the experience involves so much more than just the gaming floors of the casinos. Gambling is, of course, the money machine that makes all the rest of it possible. But the card and dice tables and roulette wheels and bookie parlours aren’t the be-all and end-all of what makes Vegas shimmer and glitter through the night.

 

And that’s the main reason I DON’T want a casino in downtown Toronto. If it was to be just another Casino Niagara, why bother? If that’s the experience you want, just hop a bus for the 90-minute ride down the QEW and keep giving poor old Niagara a bit of income in its decrepitude.

 

No, the only reason to put a casino in Toronto is because the economics of having a casino in the heart of this city make it possible to go big and bodacious, to amp up the entertainment and excitement levels, to make it a shimmering jewel of naughty-and-nice delights on the shores of Lake Ontario.

 

I certainly wouldn’t want to see a massive casino complex in the downtown core where the convention centre is located. That would just be crazy, infrastructure-clogging overload. But I’ve always felt the Ontario Place/Exhibition Place site — close but not too close — would be ideal for a casino. Again — IF it was done well, IF it were to become a complete entertainment destination, not just a place to pour your poker chips down the drain.

 

(I know, I know — Ontario Place has been ruled out as the casino site because it’s not a big enough footprint, but if the main casino complex was located at Exhibition Place, then Ontario Place would be rejuvenated as part of the whole waterfront entertainment “golden mile.” That’s why I lump Ontario Place and Exhibition Place together in this.)

 

From what I’ve seen, the Exhibition Place proposal seems to have a really juiced-up entertainment component. I would dearly love to see the Ex and old Ontario Place dancing again, with a dozen or more show venues operating year-round and more or less around the clock. Can you imagine what a wonderful thing it would be for Toronto musicians and performers to have an extra 4,000 or 5,000 well-paying gigs available every year right here at home? And a permanent Cirque du Soleil show? Whew.

 

Like everything else, it’s location, location, location. I think Exhibition Place/Ontario Place is exactly the right location, a location with the possibility of real glitz and glamour, not just an industrial money-farming operation stuck off in the hinterland.

 

And that’s exactly what we’re going to end up with if/when Toronto council rejects a casino within city limits. There WILL be a casino within the GTA,  probably just on the north side of Steeles Avenue. And the City of Toronto will be stuck paying for all the services and infrastructure required to deal with the increased traffic and development up there — without any of the income from having the casino right in the city. And no Cirque du Soleil.

 

It’s a no-win situation for Toronto.

 

It is, however, a win-win situation for Kathleen Wynne, who engineered the probability of casino rejection in Toronto by making sure the share of revenue offered to the city was below the level that would have bought council approval (closer to Ford’s $100 million than to Wynne’s $53.7 million).

 

Why is Wynne so dead-set against a casino in Toronto? Because, as leader of the beleaguered Liberal Party of Ontario, it would hurt, not help her party’s (slimmish but still possible) chances of forming the government after the next election.

 

What might make sense from a business point of view doesn’t make sense from a Liberal electioneering point of view. Why do something that would improve the province’s bottom line if you’re just handing that new revenue flow over to a Tory government?

 

A lot of Toronto Liberals don’t want a casino here to begin with, and any move by her to make one possible would probably not add a single seat to what the Liberals win in the City of Toronto next time out.

 

A big, booming casino in the heart of Toronto would, however, pretty much kill all those little slots operations keeping race tracks across Ontario in business. A not-so-big, not-so-beautiful casino just outside Toronto would a) not make nearly as much money as a downtown casino, b) thus  leaving a sliver of hope for the survival of the rural/semi-rural slots operations and c) not be nearly as high-profile or paint Wynne as the enabler of the destruction of Ontario’s dying-but-not-yet-dead horse racing industry.

 

Don’t forget: Wynne made herself minister of agriculture as well as premier. Her entire election strategy is based on hanging on to Liberal seats in the cities while winning back all those rural ridings the Liberals lost to the Progressive Conservatives in the last election. By not facilitating a downtown Toronto casino, Wynne doesn’t do herself any harm in Toronto while doing herself quite a bit of good in all those rural constituencies she needs to win back in south-western Ontario. Same thing applies to the municipalities hosting the flock of smaller casinos around southern Ontario.

 

 

Like I said, I’m torn on the Casino Toronto issue. There is going to be a huge new casino somewhere in the GTA no matter what. That’s a given. So we don’t get to push all the associated problems of casino culture away from us. We’ll have to deal with the problems no matter what.

 

By keeping the casino out of the City of Toronto, all we’re doing is taking a pass on the benefits that would accrue from a mega-casino development on the city waterfront.

 

And that, I’m certain, is what is going to happen. Exhibition Place and Ontario Place will continue to sit fallow until everyone who killed a casino there becomes desperate enough to approve some less ambitious, less exciting, less profitable, less beneficial redevelopment scheme. More condos? Please, no. We already have enough future slums down in that area.

 

In the end, I guess I’m not torn. I’m in favour of a waterfront Casino Toronto. I just know it’s not going to happen.

 

Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
§
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
-
=
Backspace
Tab
q
w
e
r
t
y
u
i
o
p
[
]
Return
capslock
a
s
d
f
g
h
j
k
l
;
\
shift
`
z
x
c
v
b
n
m
,
.
/
shift
English
alt
alt
Preferences

Paralyzed Wheelchair Cat Adopts Abandoned Kittens

- May 16th, 2013

brigitta

Framegrab of Brigitta the wonder cat from a photo gallery on the www.spiegel.de website.

 

This is the stuff of which tabloid headline dreams are made. Sort of like “Headless Body In Topless Bar.”

 

Really. You can’t make this stuff up. Actually you can, which is why I’m always initially suspicious of these stories. And why I hate April Fools jokes in newspapers.

 

But this one seems 100% legit. And you’re almost certainly reading it here first. I can’t believe no North American news agency has picked up on it yet. It’s a natural — a heart-tugging, feel-bad-for-the-paralyzed-cat-then-feel-good-for-the-happy-ending story.

 

And it’s about CATS! The only thing that makes a hey-martha story better is if it’s about DOGS. For some reason, dog lovers are even more fanatical than cat lovers. And cat lovers are pretty fanatical. But dog lovers are more fanatical — and better organized. I once wrote a blog post about a dog that was picked up by a number of dog-lover websites and blogs. Within a week that Nosey Parker blog post was getting more than 4,000 Facebook “likes” a day — not just “views” but “likes” — and that went on for well over a month. The numbers finally started dropping after every dog lover in the world had seen it.

 

But this one’s about cats. And you’re starting to get irritated because you want to read the story about the paralyzed wheelchair cat adopting abandoned kittens, not my ramblings. Because you’re a cat lover. And you’re addicted to cute cat stories.

 

I apologize for my ramblings. Partly I’ve written the above because I’m fascinated by the cat/dog-lover phenomenon and know you wouldn’t bother reading it if I put it at the end of the REAL story. And partly because the story comes from the German news magazine Spiegel, is quite well done (if a little stilted in its phrasing) and I don’t have anything new to add to the story.

 

So I’m just going to quote Spiegel, as the story appears on the English-language version of the www.spiegel.de website. You can either go directly to the link I’ve just put up to the Spiegel story or continue reading here.

 

The mom cat’s name is Brigitta and you’ll love her. And her adopted kittens. And Angie Heuer, the German woman who took in Brigitta and built her a little cat wheelchair. I love this story because I too am a cat (and dog) lover.

 

Finally, here’s the story:

 

“Brigitta the cat became the victim of animal cruelty when someone shot at her for fun, paralyzing her hind legs,” wrote an unnamed person at www.spiegel.de using other unattributed European news stories as source. “A German animal lover took her in, building a cat wheelchair and paying for an operation. Now Brigitta is repaying her kindness — by adopting two abandoned kittens.

 

“Fate was cruel to Brigitta, the brave, tabby-and-white cat with big friendly green eyes. She was trotting along in her native Bulgaria when someone playing a brutal, callous game fired an air gun at her. The pellet lodged in her spine and paralyzed her hind legs,” Spiegel said.

“All her nine lives seemed to be over. A vet wanted to put her out of her misery. But then German animal lover Angie Heuer heard about the case via Facebook. Heuer, who runs a charity for stray cats, brought Brigitta to Germany for medical attention.

 

“Her local vet wanted to put Brigitta down as well. But Heuer refused. ‘There was no need for that,’ she told public broadcaster NDR.

“Heuer constructed a pink wheelchair for Brigitta, enabling her to move about with relative ease by pulling herself along on her front legs. Thanks to her guardian angel, Brigitta has gotten a second lease on life in her new home town of Celle near Hanover,” Spiegel continued.

 

“‘She’s enjoying life, she’s happy and confident,’ said Heuer. ‘She’s great.’ Even without the wheelchair, Brigitta manages to get about by dragging herself along on her backside.

“‘She does what she wants,’ said Heuer. ‘When she wants to get down the stairs, she just hobbles down. And when she hears her food is ready, she’s even faster.’

“Heuer paid €1,000 ($1,300) for an operation to remove the projectile from Brigitta’s spine. But she will never regain the use of her hind legs,” Spiegel said.

 

“Brigitta hasn’t just found a new lease on life but a new role as well — as an adoptive mother to two abandoned kittens just two weeks old. ‘I offered the babies to three other cats but they didn’t want them,’ said Heuer, according to Spiegel.

 

“But Brigitta accepted the kittens as her own. She can’t feed them, but she nuzzles and licks them affectionately. ‘She’s got a task now. That’s what she needed,’ said Heuer, looking with fondness and pride at the cat she has saved.”

Me talking again: Isn’t that a great story? And here’s a photo of Brigitta with the kittens.

brigitta-kittens

 

Here’s a link to a photo gallery of these and other photos of Brigitta and the kittens on the www.spiegel.de website.

 

You’re welcome.

Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
§
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
-
=
Backspace
Tab
q
w
e
r
t
y
u
i
o
p
[
]
Return
capslock
a
s
d
f
g
h
j
k
l
;
\
shift
`
z
x
c
v
b
n
m
,
.
/
shift
English
alt
alt
Preferences

10 Things You Might Not Know

- May 15th, 2013

This is a mash-up of a couple of pieces I wrote in early 2009. I was trying to track down something else in an old blog post and came across two “Things You Probably Don’t Know” pieces from back then that I found quite interesting — since I had forgotten a lot of the stuff in them. I work on the principle that bits and pieces of information I find interesting might interest other people too, so  I’ve put them all together in this one piece for your perusal.


1. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was founded by Napoleon Bonaparte’s grandnephew.

Charles Joseph Bonaparte was the grandson of Napoleon’s younger brother, Jerome, and American heiress Betsy Patterson. According to the FBI’s official history, he is the only authentic member of royalty to have ever entered American politics.


Charles Joseph Bonaparte

Bonaparte, a long-time friend and colleague of Teddy Roosevelt, entered Roosevelt’s cabinet in 1905, first as Secretary of the Navy and a year later as Attorney General.

While Attorney General, Bonaparte established the Bureau of Investigation in 1908 to pursue cases the Justice Department was prosecuting. That small group of special agents, who originally investigated mainly land fraud cases in the American West and interstate prostitution, quickly grew in size and scope of responsibility as a national U.S. police force.

The Bureau of Investigation was renamed the United States Bureau of Investigation in 1932 before finally becoming the FBI in 1935. J. Edgar Hoover became the first head of the FBI but five other men had preceded him as head of the Bureau of Investigation — the original “G-Men.”

2. Hound Dog was recorded by Elvis Presley on July 2, 1956, and released 11 days later with Don’t Be Cruel (also recorded in the same July 2 session) as the flip side. Hound Dog became the best-selling Elvis single of all time and was also the first song in history to top all three (at that time) Billboard charts — pop, country & western and R&B.

But Elvis wasn’t the first singer to have a hit with Hound Dog. He wasn’t even the second. Or third.


Big Mama Thornton

Written by Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller, Hound Dog first became a hit for blues singer Big Mama Thornton in 1952. Hers was a much slower, bluesier version. Within months, the song was covered by a number of country bands.

Freddie Bell and the Bellboys recorded a faster pop version 1955.

To appeal to a broader, crossover market, Bell had changed a number of Big Mama’s original suggestive lyrics about her unfaithful lover coming around for Mama’s treats to something tamer. “You can wag your tail, but I ain’t gonna feed you no more,” for example, became “ You ain’t never caught a rabbit, and you ain’t no friend of mine.” (Both good, although I actually think Bell’s lyrics are better.)

Elvis and his band were appearing in Las Vegas in spring 1956 as a lounge act while Freddie Bell and the Bellboys were headlining at another casino down the strip.

Elvis caught Bell’s show many times, loved his version of Hound Dog, and finally asked Bell’s permission to record it.

The rest is history. Thunk ya, thunk ya var much.

3. Just as people are left-handed and right-handed, we are also left-eared and right-eared.

About 60% of people are right-eared. That means we predominantly hear language with the right ear and music and background noise with the left ear. For the other 40% of the population, it’s the reverse.

The finding that the left and right ears process sounds differently is based on a 2003 UCLA study of 3,000 babies.

4. Roswell, New Mexico, was space-age long before the infamous Roswell UFO incident of 1947 and subsequent stories of alien spacecraft and bodies being secretly stored in “Area 51” at Roswell Army Airfield, as it was known at the time.

Roswell got its first space shot in 1930 when American scientist and inventor Robert Goddard moved there. Goddard invented the first liquid-fuel-powered rocket in the 1920s, the basic advance on which all modern rocketry is founded — from intercontinental ballistic missiles to Mars space missions.


Robert Goddard with his first liquid-fuel-powered rocket in 1926

Goddard’s early work was done in his native Massachusetts, but his rocket launches were so noisy and disruptive, he was forced to move to a more remote area — thus his arrival in the dusty little town of Roswell, New Mexico.

Funded on and off by the Guggenheim Foundation, Goddard made enormous strides in his rocket development. Area residents became used to strange, whizzing objects passing overhead.

Goddard worked in isolation in Roswell throughout the 1930s. Repeated attempts to demonstrate the military potential of his rockets were rebuffed by the U.S. Army although the Navy showed some interest.

One person who did take an interest was Werner von Braun, head of Nazi Germany’s rocket development programme. Von Braun used Goddard’s work, as presented in scientific journals, to develop World War II’s terrifying V-2 rockets.

Goddard died relatively anonymously in 1945, two years before the UFO incident put Roswell on the international map. Seized by American forces at the end of the war, von Braun went on to head the NASA space programme that put Americans in space and on the moon.

5. William the Conqueror, the Duke of Normandy who seized the English crown in 1066, was immensely fat. “Morbidly obese” is the right phrase, since his weight finally killed William in a strange way.

William was a large, tall, commanding presence at the time of the Norman Conquest, but his vast appetites had turned him into a corpulent caricature of the Conqueror in his later years.

French King Philip I, William’s enemy, mocked him as looking like a pregnant woman. Even William’s friend and flunky William of Malmesbury conceded “the protrubance of his belly deformed his royal person.”

When William had become so heavy that his favourite warhorse could no longer carry him, the Conqueror decided on a radical diet to lose weight: He locked himself in his bedroom and consumed nothing but wine and spirits for two weeks (Believe me, it doesn’t work.)

I guess he lost enough weight to ride again because, in 1087, he was leading his forces in battle on horseback near Rouen in Normandy. Until the belly strap holding the saddle on his horse broke from the enormous strain caused by William’s weight. Rider and saddle went crashing to the ground, and William suffered fatal abdominal injuries when he landed on the saddle’s large pommel.

It gets worse.

William’s body was carried to a monastery he had erected in Caen, Normandy, for burial. Knights, nobles and senior clery of the land were gathered in the chapel of Abbaye-aux-Hommes as William’s body was placed in the sarcophagus built especially for his funeral.

The body didn’t fit. The sarcophagus was too small to contain his enormous body, now further bloated by decomposition gases. The bishops conducting the funeral pushed and pushed on his body, trying to force it into the burial tomb so the stone cover could be lowered.

The pushing and prodding was too much for William’s bloated corpse. His abdomen exploded, covering the surrounding clergy in noxious body fluids and releasing a stinking miasma that sent the gathered nobility fleeing into the streets for fresh air.

And that’s how William the Conqueror came to his rather inglorious end.

6. Angelina Jolie, Madonna, Shania Twain, Celine Dion, Alanis Morrissette and Hillary Rodham Clinton are all cousins.

According to a 2007 report in the Washington Post, they are all descendants of Zacharie Cloutier, a French carpenter who settled in New France/Quebec in 1634. Cloutier had six apparently very fertile children because, by 1800, about 10,000 descendants in Quebec were attributed to him, the most of any early colonist.

The connections can be a little distant. Hillary Clinton and Madonna, for example, are 10th cousins. Clinton and Angelina Jolie are ninth cousins twice removed.

7. The incandescent light bulb was invented in Toronto. Well, one of the earliest efficient light bulbs was invented and patented here in 1874.

Rudimentary forerunners of light bulbs had been created as early 1800 and a few patents for very crude, short-lasting electric lights had been issued prior to the Toronto breakthrough by medical student Henry Woodward and hotel keeper Matthew Evans.

After months of experimenting in a workshop on Adelaide St. W., Woodward and Evans filed a Canadian patent on July 24, 1874, for their lamp with a carbon rod held between electrodes in a glass cylinder filled with nitrogen.


Woodward’s 1876 U.S. patent on the light bulb

Two years later, Woodward successfully got a U.S. patent on their light bulb, but the inventors were not able to convince investors that their light bulb could feasibly be brought into mass production.

Finally, in 1879, Woodward and Evans sold their U.S. and Canadian light bulb patents to Thomas Alva Edison for $5,000.

Using their work, Edison was able to file his own U.S. patent later that year for the Edison light bulb that is erroneously thought of as the first light bulb. Edison was the real creator of very few of the thousands of inventions he patented.

8. The electric chair was invented by a Buffalo dentist, Alfred P. Southwick in the early 1880s. The killing machine was designed as a chair because dentist Southwick was used to performing procedures on people in his dental chair. Southwick saw his invention as a more humane means of execution than hanging.

The electric chair was put into use for the first time in August 1890 at Auburn Prison, east of Buffalo. The man being executed was a wifekiller named William Kemmler.


Kemmler frying — literally — in the first electric chair

A short aside: Our old friend Edison was a strong proponent of direct current electricity, while his arch-rival, George Westinghouse, thought alternating current was a much more effective form of electricity. To push his thesis that AC was far more dangerous than DC, Edison pushed hard to make sure the first electric chair was operated on AC — thus reinforcing in the public’s mind that alternating current was a killer. Westinghouse fought hard to block Edison but failed. Used Westinghouse generators were finally acquired to juice the Auburn electric chair.

Back to Kemmler’s execution: Power was ramped up to 2,000 volts and then shot through the condemned man’s body for 17 seconds. When the charge was shut off, Kemmler was still alive, groaning and gasping for breath. The machine was turned back on for over a minute. Smoke rose from Kemmler’s head and witnesses complained of the horrific smell of burning flesh, but Kemmler was finally dead. Blame the dentist.

9. The U.S. Secret Service uses code names to identify the president, his family members, and other VIPS in the American government.

But the code names aren’t so secret.


Rosebud, Renegade, Radiance and Renaissance

The Chicago Tribune reported recently that Barack Obama’s code name is Renegade. His wife Michele is Renaissance. Daughter Malia is Radiance and daughter Sasha is Rosebud.

George W. Bush is Tumbler and his wife Laura is Tempo. Their daughters also have code names starting with T.

Code names for vice-presidents and other top officials start with different letters than the initial letter of the First Family codes.

A few other handles:

Bill and Hillary Clinton: Eagle and Evergreen

Ronald and Nancy Reagan: Rawhide and Rainbow

Richard and Pat Nixon: Searchlight and Starlight

John and Jackie Kennedy: Lancer and Lace

10. What did these three men have in common, apart from being victorious allies deciding the fate of post-war Europe at the Yalta Conference in 1945?


Seated from left: Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin

Well, they all had tattoos.

British PM Winston Churchill, who had been a lord of the admiralty in his younger days, had an anchor on his arm. U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had a tattoo of his family crest. And Soviet dictator Josef Stalin had a death’s head tattoo on his chest. How fitting.

Here are five bonus hits, just in case you knew one or two of the first 10:

11. The oldest classified document in the U.S. is a 1918 report on formulas for making invisible ink. The CIA as recently as last year  2008 blocked a legal bid to declassify the document.

12. Richard M. Nixon applied to be a FBI agent — and was rejected.

13. An individual sperm cell of a squirrel is bigger than the sperm cell of a whale.

14. A blue whale’s testicles can weigh up to 50 kg.

15. In Canada, crematoriums are covered under the same legislation as garbage incinerators.

Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
§
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
-
=
Backspace
Tab
q
w
e
r
t
y
u
i
o
p
[
]
Return
capslock
a
s
d
f
g
h
j
k
l
;
\
shift
`
z
x
c
v
b
n
m
,
.
/
shift
English
alt
alt
Preferences

The Itching Pain Of Smallenfreuden

- May 13th, 2013

visa-one

What the hell is “smallenfreuden” and why the hell should you or I care?

 

Does the current dumb, creepy Visa Canada ad on NHL playoff telecasts make you feel like you’re being beaten over the head with a dead codfish?

 

Well, that’s the way I feel. I hope Visa Canada is happy I’m mentioning “smallenfreuden” and they’re getting some publicity bang for their advertising buck because I’m going to spend the rest of this blog post crapping all over them for it.

 

I’m really appalled by the economic arrogance of Visa in ramming this ad down our throats. “They” (“we” actually, because “we” are paying the tab in the end) are spending millions in the current NHL playoff season to run this ad endlessly.

 

I know, “smallenfreuden” is on billboards and they’re trying to spark a social media viral spiral, but the repetitious TV ads during hockey games are the main thrust of the campaign.

 

It’s like brainwashing. Do they really think that, if they run the ad often enough, A) We will ever understand what it means? or B) We will ever care? or C) It actually makes the tiniest bit of sense?

 

I don’t think so. And that includes A) B) and C).

 

I’m not going to describe the ad because A) if you’ve watched the Leafs-Bruins playoff series at all you’ve seen the ad dozens of times already and B) it’s too cockamammy to bother describing and C) I don’t even know what the hell they’re trying to say.

visa-two

I think — and this is just a wild guess — Visa is trying to say no purchase is too small or inconsequential or inconvenient to NOT use your Visa card. And they’re somehow trying to make it seem like it’s either green-conscious or micro-economy-friendly or cutting edge to use a credit card to buy a beer at a hockey game. Jeesh. If you use a credit card to buy a beer at a hockey game it just means you’re cash-strapped from paying too much for the hockey ticket.

 

But mainly the ad seems to be saying you can stick it to your snotty, judgmental, too-big-for-their-britches neighbours by buying your beer or hot dog or sushi or whatever with your Visa card.

 

That’s why it’s called “smallenfreuden.”

 

It’s supposed to make us feel hip or smart (or at least smarter than our snotty neighbours) that we understand “smallenfreuden” is a play on “Schadenfreude.”

 

“Schadenfreude,” of course, is that wonderful German word that means “taking pleasure from the misfortunes of others.” Sort of. “Schaden” means “harm” and “Freude” means “joy.” You get the idea.

 

How that translates — either literally or figuratively — into “smallenfreuden” I do not know. (Actually, in German, “the joy of small” should probably be “Kleinefreude” but that’s another matter.)

 

Whatever message Visa Canada is trying to implant in our brains, it’s just a stupid — goofy stupid, creepy stupid — bad ad.

visa-three

I feel sorry for the actors in it. I recognize a couple of them and they are smart, funny people with (previously) lots of comedy-theatre cred. Now people just avoid them on the street.

 

Commercial actors in Canada don’t usually get TV residuals so it’s not going to cost the actors a lot when Visa finally bows to something like reality or acceptance and pulls the ads. But I think Visa is going to hang tough through at least the first couple of rounds of the playoffs. They may even have more inter-connected sequel ads to roll out. (Please, God, spare us.)

 

The biggest problem I have with the stupid ad — apart from the fact that it’s stupid — is that it’s completely contradictory. Everyone knows that ANY drink or food purchase you make at a Toronto NHL game could never possibly be considered “small.” And certainly not a “joy.”

Go Leafs Go!

Gone Leafs Gone

Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
§
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
-
=
Backspace
Tab
q
w
e
r
t
y
u
i
o
p
[
]
Return
capslock
a
s
d
f
g
h
j
k
l
;
\
shift
`
z
x
c
v
b
n
m
,
.
/
shift
English
alt
alt
Preferences

Tomato — Fruit Or Vegetable?

- May 10th, 2013

tomato

I know, I know — it’s not an argument worth having.

 

Fortunately, we don’t have to because the Supreme Court of the United States resolved the issue with a unanimous decision exactly 120 years ago — to the day — on May 10, 1893.

 

Technically — botanically, I should say — the tomato is a fruit because it’s the “seed-bearing structure growing from the flowering part of a plant,” to quote Wikipedia. It is, in fact, the external ovary of the plant, like all fruit.

 

But it’s not the kind of fruit you’re going to slice up on a bowl of ice cream. Yuck. We all know the tomato is really a vegetable, whatever it’s technical classification.

 

(Cucumbers, green beans, eggplants, peppers, squash and zucchini are also botanically fruits that are really vegetables. Pumpkins, too, but they’re sort of a grey zone — pumpkin pie and all.)

 

The Supreme Court of the United States, however, did not bring its magisterial might to bear on cucumbers, green beans, eggplants, peppers, squash or zucchini. But the mighty justices did focus all their legal intellect on the lovely tomato and concluded that …

 

But wait a minute.

 

First you have to know how the tomato came to be an object of interest for the Supreme Court of the United States in the first place.

 

The tomato, relative of the deadly nightshade plant and mildly toxic potato, is a native of the Americas, introduced by the Spanish conquistadors to Europe, where it was being grown by the 1540s.

 

Some early varieties of tomatoes were far more toxic than the strains we’re now accustomed to, so in those early days the tomato was grown primarily in flower gardens and used ornamentally as exotic table decoration by Spanish, Italian and French nobles.

 

Gradually the edible and inedible varieties of tomatoes — much like mushrooms — were sorted out and the tomato was an increasingly popular part of Mediterranean cuisine by 1700.

 

The British eventually accepted the tomato and from there it bounced back across the Atlantic to the English-speaking colonies of North America.

 

The Spanish had also introduced the tomato to their colony in the Philippines, from whence it spread throughout Asia. (Today China produces about a third of all the tomatoes grown in the world, with the U.S., India, Turkey and Egypt producing another third and the rest of the world combining for the final third.)

 

Now let’s jump ahead to 1883 when the U.S. Congress passed an omnibus tariff act which — among many other stupid, nonsensical things — placed a tax on imported vegetables but not on imported fruit. (Aha! You see where this is going now, don’t you?)

 

A few years later New York City produce wholesaler John Nix and Company brought in a shipment of green tomatoes from Bermuda and had the new 10% duty for imported vegetables slapped on the shipment by local tax collector Edward Hedden.

 

The Nix family paid the import duty but promptly filed suit to recover the payment because — as we all know — tomatoes are technically/botanically fruit, not vegetables.

 

It took another half-decade for the case — known as Nix v. Hedden — to work its way through the U.S. judicial system to the Supreme Court.

 

Expert witnesses were called, dictionary definitions were hashed and rehashed and, in the end, the Supreme Court settled on common sense to make its unanimous decision.

Horacegrayphoto

Justice Horace Gray wrote the decision which said tomatoes were almost always served and eaten “at dinner in, with or after the soup, fish or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast and, not like fruits generally, as dessert.”

 

Unbelievable. The Supreme Court of the United States was deciding whether the lowly tomato was a fruit or vegetable based of when it was served during a meal … at a time when the court’s plate was already full with some of the most vexing legal issues of the day — issues like busting up the railway, sugar and oil monopolies (a mixed record), segregation (“separate but equal” laws, which the Supreme Court ignominiously upheld), income tax (which the Supreme Court declared illegal in 1895) and even the issue of polygamy in the Mormon Church (the Supreme Court ruled the U.S. government and justice system had the right to intervene in religious practice).

 

So there you have it: Botany be damned — for the purposes of taxation, the tomato is a vegetable, not a fruit, according to the Supreme Court of the United States. It went on the record with that decision exactly 120 years ago today.

 

Thankfully no one’s ever asked them to rule on the correct pronunciation — “to-MAY-to” or “to-MAH-to.”

 

Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
Preferences
§
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
-
=
Backspace
Tab
q
w
e
r
t
y
u
i
o
p
[
]
Return
capslock
a
s
d
f
g
h
j
k
l
;
\
shift
`
z
x
c
v
b
n
m
,
.
/
shift
English
alt
alt
Preferences