In the meantime, it looks like an amazing music video was released right around the time we got back. OK GO produced a 2nd video for their single This Too Shall Pass, featuring an elaborate Rube Goldberg machine that runs for the duration of the song and was built to sync up to the music with its blerks and borks and crashes and movements.

It’s amazing.

There is a very special place in my heart for Rube Goldberg machines.

When I was in elementary school I was part of a team in a district-wide Rube Goldberg competition. The machine had to start a certain way (activated with one finger I believe), contain at least X steps (I forget how many now – somewhere around 13), and finish by launching a beanbag into the center of a circular target on the floor.

I don’t remember much about the specifics of our machine, except that it finished by launching the beanbag off an old metal-frame foot-pump for blowing up bike tires and soccer balls and the like.

We were a pre-pubescent team of perfectionists, and rigorously tested our machine in my driveway, running it multiple times to confirm the distance it would launch the sample beanbag we were given, and used that distance to measure exactly how far from the edge of the circle we needed to set up the final step of the machine to hit the center target.

Competition day.

We are nervous but confident. We have our beanbag launching precision down to the centimeter.

We confirm the distance and set up our machine. Nervously, one of us hits the “go” button.

Tick. Tock. Smash. Ping. Crash. Swivel. Ping. Pop…. LAUNCH!

Our soft fabric beanbag sails through the air in a graceful arc! We hold our breath as it goes… up, up, up, down, down, down…. BINGO!

The beanbag landed EXACTLY in the center of the target.

The target on the smooth (completely un-like my driveway) polished concrete floor of the de-iced community rink we were in. And slid. Nearly to the other side of the circle.

The highly unqualified (in my oh-so-expert opinion) panel of judges awarded the prize to the much less prepared rinky-dink team from another school whose beanbag haphazardly slid nearest to the target. We got the launching aspect of the competition nailed. Too bad they hadn’t informed us of the curling part. We lost.

And thus I experienced my first lesson in how not to test, and that sometimes those in charge of RFPs don’t know to supply all the required parameters to build something that works, and that sometimes you fail and go away in tears, and if you’re lucky you get to adjust your work and try again another day, but sometimes it means you just lose.

But enough about me. Back to OK GO!

Their machine goes off without a hitch, including the payoff at the end. Please watch, and think of an 8-year-old me and my machine when you do!

Of course it’s hero, but most North Americans start out calling it a jai-row until corrected.

By that time of course the word gyro is stuck in my head, and I’m doing this thing where I roll a word around in my mouth until it sounds ridiculous (gyro…. gyroooooo…. gyyyyyyrooooowwwwww…. gyRO!). And the inevitable happens. I start singing the song Holding Out for a Hero in my head.

Except, it’s “Holding Out for a Gyro” – and now it’s Weird Al (because OF COURSE it is), and while I’m not actually composing alternate lyrics to the song, I am directing the music video on my head:

Drunken Weird Al is careening about a busy New York City street on a drunken Saturday night, upsetting food carts of all sorts, looking for the perfect thing to soak up alcohol – nothing else will do, he’s Holding out For a Gyro.

Does anyone else do this?

And by “this” I mean direct music videos in your head, although I’d also be interested if you have drunken Gyro-hunting stories…

Comments on the videos (mostly “ewww!”) come through every now and again, but I hadn’t thought much about them. Until the emails. So I checked them out. Apparently eating strange things is intensely popular on YouTube, since my videos are at a little over 33,000 views each! Certainly not because of anything I did (other than eating the octopus & posting video).

Clearly we should’ve taken video of eating a smoked sheep’s head and snails right out of their shells in Morocco.

And I’ll be sure to take a camera that shoots video to Thailand in February, in case there are any delicacies that make the average North American go “Hmmm” (or “ewww!”) that we stumble across.

In the meantime, some video from the watercooler archives:

Hessie also had a post recently about how she’s changing how she gives this year, and it got me thinking about the United Way. This entry really started as a comment on her blog, but was getting a bit lengthy.

I never thought much about the United Way until I read yet another pop-economics book (More Sex is Safer Sex by Steven E. Landsburg), which contains a chapter on the economics of giving to charities.

The basic premise of this chapter is that, economically speaking, every cause is a worthy cause, and no cause will ever have enough. So following the path that makes the most economic sense means you will give as much as you can to the one cause you feel strongest about, because that is the way you will make the most difference.

The simple fact is that sprinkling money around various charities is the least effective thing you can do. Unless you have solved the problem of the first charity with your donation, why would you suddenly switch horses and go on to solving other charities’ problems? Is the first cause no longer as worthy as when you decided to donate the first time?

And it’s exactly what the United Way does. Their entire reason for being is to collect donations and sprinkle them amongst charities. A charity-based middleman if you will. Which means not only are your dollars spent in the least effective way (economically speaking), but the United Way is taking a bunch right off the top for the privilege of ineffectively distributing other people’s charitable donations.

The United Way is an easy “charity” for people to donate to, since they don’t actually stand for anything anyone might find controversial, but following the logic of doing the most good with your dollars, why on earth would anyone donate to an organization who’s going to skim some of that donation off the top, simply for the (likely unnecessary) act of managing that donation?

Neil and I generally contribute to three charities. He does the Movember thing every year (oh, hey, donate here if you’re so inclined) – mostly because it’s an excuse to grow a ridiculous moustache. I blogathon’d earlier in the year for the SPCA, and we also give to the Union Gospel Mission.

I believe all of these to be worthy causes, and like the book mentioned, I do feel good about giving to each of them. But Landsburg also makes the point that charity is not about making ourselves feel good, it’s about doing the best we can for others. And that means choosing who I feel can best use my dollars, and trust that someone, somewhere is taking care of the rest.

I had another one while driving to work this morning. And I thought it would be a good opportunity to test the little voice’s theory.

First, an observation: The number of stuffed animals, statuettes and doo-dads glued to a person’s dashboard seems to be inversely proportionate to their skill as a driver.

Now, the dark thought.

After being nearly run-into by someone with their entire dashboard plastered with trinkets, I began composing a piece of artwork in my head: A dashboard (view from inside the car) covered in smiling, happy trinkets, which are dripping in blood and joined by the decapitated head of the idiot who, moments before, was driving the car.

It would be a watercolour.

What say ye: lock me up and throw away the key? Or are some of you out there at least a little bit twisted in the same strange way?

I’m talking about Sustainability. The latest in a long series of buzzwords that’s been appropriated to make people feel better about their choices – not the first, and certainly not the last. But definitely the one I find most annoying right now.

sus·tain·a·ble (s?-st?’n?-b?l)
adj.
1. Capable of being sustained.
2. Capable of being continued with minimal long-term effect on the environment: sustainable agriculture.
3. To keep up or keep going, as an action or process: to sustain a conversation.

There are dozens of programs out there that claim to operate under the banner of sustainability. The problem comes when you actually look at these programs, and realize their “sustainability” only exists in a vacuum. And the world just doesn’t operate that way.

Two conversations about sustainability I’ve had lately revolve around agriculture and real-estate. One promoting sustainability, one illustrating unsustainability. Both, after scratching the surface, dead wrong.

Sustainable Food Program

I recently heard of an initiative up at my Alma Mater, SFU, as they’re trying to bring “sustainable food” to the hill. In partnership with the Fraser Valley Food Network’s South Fraser Harvest Box program, SFU Local Food is bringing Harvest Boxes up the mountain once a month for students to purchase. Local food, from local farms, for locals to eat. Hooray for supporting sustainable agriculture!

Except, this program is subsidized by the United Way and the Fraser Health Authority.

Suddenly, it doesn’t look so sustainable.

If this program requires funding from the aforementioned organizations to survive, then what’s sustainable about it? The program promises to give farmers a fair wage while bringing affordable food to residents at SFU. If there needs to be fund raising intervention in the middle of the process, it means either the farmers can’t afford to farm & distribute on what people are able to pay, or people are unwilling to pay for the true cost of their food.

The program touts a discount of 2-3x what one would pay in a grocery store for similar products – why does it need to be so staggeringly inexpensive? And this is not just for students, as advertised on the website. Anyone living at SFU (including those in the half-million dollar condos) may participate.

A truly sustainable system would be able to support access to fresh, local food, while paying farmers and distributors a fair wage, and ensuring those who really can’t afford it are still able to participate.

Hiding the true cost of food under the umbrella of “charitable subsidy” is certainly not doing sustainability any favours.

What happens when the funding disappears because of cuts, or just someone’s “better idea” for allocating dollars? Or when someone moves away from SFU, having no idea what the true cost of sustainable food is? My guess is they go back to purchasing unsustainable food.

All this program has done is given some farmers and eaters the proverbial fish, rather than teaching them how to operate in a sustainable system.

That Crash, it’s coming, any day now…

On the flip side, I’ve seen a couple graphs floating around about the “unsustainability” of Vancouver’s real estate prices, based on whether the average Vancouver resident can afford to own a home. The lament is loud… “real-estate is unsustainable, since locals can’t afford to live here!”

Wrong.

About one-million Vancouverites (the population within the city limits) beg to differ. They can certainly afford to live here – they already do. What they can’t afford to do is buy real estate here.

Anyone who’s done the most cursory of learning about financial planning should know that owning real estate is not necessary to be fiscally secure today and into the future. What is necessary is paying no more for housing (including rent/mortgage, heating, insurance and taxes if applicable) than 35% of one’s household net income and saving another 10% for retirement. I know plenty of people who are able to do that on one income, never mind the “three incomes” the Canadian Housing Price Chart states are necessary to afford a mortgage in Vancouver.

As for the housing market, if you believe that Vancouver residents purchasing homes are both necessary and sufficient to sustain the market, you’re trapped in that vacuum again.

A huge proportion Over half of residences in downtown Vancouver are owned by foreign investors. Property values skyrocketed in the mid 1990’s as wealthy Asian investors moved their money into foreign assets in anticipation of Hong Kong going back to China. And since then, as Vancouver’s appeal has grown as an international destination, and as the city consistently ranks in just about any top 10 list of “best places to live in the world” it’s not surprising that our fair area has the wealthiest postal code in the country and our premium properties are in high demand.

The only way a crash is going to come is if renters are so unable to afford their homes that investors are forced to sell at a loss, because they’re no longer able to carry the property with the income it’s generating. Considering vacancy rates here have been hovering around 2% for as long as I can remember, that seems unlikely. Even with the recent economic crash, there was only a slight correction in late 2008/early 2009, and values are quickly climbing again.

Is anything sustainable?

Really, I have no idea. Everything comes at a cost – whether it’s the environmental impact of making batteries in China (one of the most toxic manufacturing processes in existence) for your electric car to “save the planet,” or subsidizing food cost and distribution to bribe people into thinking they’re making sustainable food choices, to confusing an idea of resource allocation “fairness” with actual market sustainability in terms of who we think should own things.

I think we have to make the best choices we can, based on what we know. But before you blindly follow something because someone has tagged it “(un)sustainable,” perhaps step out of the vacuum and look at the whole picture. You may be surprised at what true sustainability really looks like.

McDonald’s and Coca Cola have been happy bedfellows for as long as I can remember. And I started thinking about the relationships between fast-food restaurants and soft-drink preferences. What effect do they have on each other?

People’s soft-drink preferences seem to be passionately felt, as evidenced by Ian’s tweet later the same day:

Where does that come from? Is it truly a matter of taste preference? Or is it something deeper, driven by familiarity?

When I was younger, my fast-food restaurant of choice quickly became McDonald’s. I even worked there as a teenager. Ergo, I drank a LOT of Coke. I have always preferred Coke.

I know other people whose fast-food restaurant of choice is something else – A&W, KFC, Wendy’s, Dairy Queen. And their soda of choice is usually the one served by those eateries.

So then I start thinking about cars, and how car companies (especially the domestics) try to get college students into one of their cars ASAP, because Ford knows if you start off driving a Ford, you’re likely to keep driving Fords for many years. Does it work the same with soda?

And in terms of fast food/soda preference, what comes first, the burger or the beverage?

Or do I just need to lay off the McFood, because it’s clearly addling my brain?

So until I feel like posting again, which doesn’t feel like it will be particularly soon, I leave you with a picture, from Derek, of racing pigs at the fair at the PNE in 2008.

I have already been to this year’s fair, but didn’t bother bringing a camera. I figured I’d need both hands for mini-doughnuts and cotton candy. And I was right.

Head out and enjoy those dog days people, they’re awfully lovely. And I’ll catch ya on the flip side!

One of the units in the program is to guide the students through thinking about how to market the class business (in this case, chocolate sales to fund their class trip) and make some ads to put around the school to promote the sale.

The kids were super excited about the exercise that day, because (as their teacher so excitedly informed me) they’d just had a great discussion on advertising and marketing. Three seconds in and it became apparent that they had just crucified the entire advertising industry for the two hours before I walked in the door.

Not that I wanted to stifle their preshus, preshus creativity – but that day’s entire lesson became an exercise in steering the kids away from dreaming up mind controlling robots and back to making posters that say “chocolates are tasty and the proceeds go to a good cause, so you should buy some” and thinking of effective places to display them.

I still wonder what those kids think of advertising today (I bet they’re all busy whining to their parents about needing an iPod and some name-brand sneakers), and I’m still a bit annoyed at that teacher for encouraging such a black and white view of the world.

I know as I’ve grown up I’ve challenged myself on a lot of preconceived notions I wasn’t really aware I held. I make a conscious effort every day to check in with myself on whether I’m being truly open-minded, and accepting of others (note – I don’t have to agree with them, but if their decisions don’t affect me, why not just let it go).

And as Neil and I start thinking about what kind of parents we want to be when we start a family in a few years (repeat: in a few years! parents: you may peel yourselves off your respective ceilings), one of the things I’ve flagged as something I think is important to reinforce from an early age is that there are many, many different ways and things to be, think, do and believe. And different does not immediately mean wrong or bad – it just means different. And more often than not, that is a-okay.

I have no idea how one goes about doing that, since kids’ brains are necessarily hardwired to think in black and white, rather than shades of grey, as they figure out the world, but I’d sure like to try.

Anyhow, along that vein, this has got to be one of the best commercials I’ve seen lately. And not just because the hippo snarling at the cat is adorable.

It’s one of the few things out there that doesn’t beat the same “smarmy advertisers tricking our preshus babeez” drum, and instead encourages something we could all stand to practice a bit more: take some time to think for your damn self, and come to your own conclusions.

The fact that someone put house hippos (or any number of other make-believe characters and scenarios) on TV isn’t inherently bad. The fact that this commercial is the exception, rather than the rule, and that we don’t do much to encourage a bit of critical thought around what’s on our TV, is.