Author Archives: Rob MacD

First of all, is it "pogey" or "pogie"?  And shouldn’t it be "poagey".  How does one ensure the hard-g in its pronunciation?

Last summer, one of our Sketch 22 videos was called Joe Stamps, a take-off of the "reality" show Joe Millionaire.  The video documented the moment in the fake Joe Stamps reality show where the Joe Stamps character tells the three remaining "Tammy"s that he’s not actually the catch they think he was.  That he’s not, as promised, about to receive maximum Employment Insurance benefits, and therefore, the "winning Tammy" will not be able to live the life of lazy luxury for 9 months as Joe Stamps welfare woman.  Joe Stamps gleefully tells the women that he’s not getting his stamps.  He "don’t even got no prospects.  So any of yuz that ends up shackin’ up with me will be doin’ it outta love.  Or whatever."

Well, I think a show like this has real potential.  So, here’s my idea for a reality show I call "Pogey!".
The goal is to be the last remaining contestant, to be the one who accumulates 12 weeks of Insurable Wages and will therefore be the only one who qualifies for EI.
The show selects 12 people who have no job, and who currently have no accumulation of Employable Hours or Weeks (or however it’s designated now).  These people are Hired To Do Nothing.  They are all paid top dollar to do nothing (to ensure top EI dollars to the winner), and will all live together, in a duplex.  They will be required to perform tasks and challenges as part of their "job", but the majority of their time will be spent doing nothing much.
The tasks and challenges will all relate in some way to the stereotype of the lazy welfare bum.  Even though these contestants will be "working", their job is basically to live as though they are poor and unemployed.  It’s really the dream job of dream jobs.
Each week, one contestant gets laid off.  The longer you stay, the more insurable weeks you accumulate.

At the end of the 13 week job, the top two contestants battle to  see who is the ultimate winner… In fact, the ultimate winner does not get laid off, but rather remains hired by the production company and continues for the next three years, to get paid the same wage for doing nothing.  The runner-up gets laid off with the necessary accumulation to begin EI right away.
The show would "hire" all kinds of people from all walks of life.  They all would, however, perform challenges and tasks that might be more suited to, shall we say, the lower class of people.

Some challenges, off the top of my head:
In the first few episode, they’d be divided into two teams.  One challenge would be a relay race of sorts:  The team must bum enough money to afford the money for the following tasks:  Player 1 must go to Kens Corner and buy a tin of tobacco and rolling papers.  Run back to the apartment and roll 20 smokes.  Once completed, Player Two calls a cab which takes him/her to the Liquor Store across town to buy a two-four.  S/he must then take the box back to the apartment without the assistance of a vehicle.  Once completed, Player Three begins to cook up four boxes of Basics Macaroni & Cheese and, once cooked, must eat it all.  Following that, the entire team must then drink the beer as quickly as possible.
First team to finish all 24 beer is declared the winner.  The losing team must decide which co-worker gets laid off.

Another challenge, this one as individuals:  As an example of what will be expected of the person on who eventually wins EI, each contestant is told they will be interviewed by an Employment Insurance Agent.  To prepare, they each must go out and actively pursue work from 5 employers, so that each will have a list of 5 places they looked for work that they can show the agent when asked.
The one who best demonstrates to the EI agent that s/he was serious about finding a job, will remain hired for at least one more week.  One of the remaining losers will be laid off.

Any other challenges or tasks you can think of?

When That Guy Who’s Up On Child Porn Charges apologised for his actions, I don’t think he was very perfervid.

or

Scene: late at night, police officer has stopped a driver...
Guy in car:  …an’ annuzher shing, occifer…I think that porn guy is perfervid!
Officer:  And I think, sir, that you are drunk.

Mom, Pearl Harbour may have tried to take this day for itself, but to those of us who know you,  those of us who are fortunate enough to be comforted by your love and compassion, December 7 has an altogether different, more relevant and more important meaning.
It’s Your Birthday!!
To borrow a phrase from my rap friends:  Mom, you da bomb on Pearl Harbour Day.

Happy Birthday
Love
Robert

What the hell is it with those Burger King television ads for their Steakburger, where the guy seems to be having a sexual relationship with a cow?

What the hell is it with those Burger King television ads for their Steakburger, where the guy seems to be having a sexual relationship with a cow?

Last night the power went off for a couple of hours in my neighbourhood.  This is not unusual in itself.  Our section of "the grid" seems to lose power quite often, and I’d bet dollars to donuts that we lose power (even just momentarily) more often than anywhere else on PEI.  So, losing power, as I say, wasn’t unusual.
What was unusual was that, last night when the power went out, everything shut down, then a moment later there was the faintest amount of power still passing through our home.  The lights that were on a moment before the outage were still glowing, but ever so faintly.  I would guess at 5% of ‘normal’ capacity.  The televisions and computers, etc all shut down, but the power lights on the computers were still glowing, faintly.
It was kind of spooky.  We turned off all the lights etc, because the weak glowing wasn’t powerful enough for us to see properly.  After about half an hour of outage, the faint glowing disappeared, presumably as that lingering electrical enegy drained itself from the grid.  About an hour and a half after that, the power returned.

When the power returned, I discovered that our main computer had lost all its cookie settings, and I am now trying to remember the various cookie-stored usernames and passwords that I use for various sites I visit.

If there was NHL hockey this year, my Montreal Canadiens would be playing the Devils in New Jersey tonight.  Instead, my homepage’s sports section shows the game as ‘postponed’.
Sigh.

But wait.  What’s this?  The NHL 2004/2005 season IS on?  What?  It’s a simulated season from the folks at WhatIf Sports.  That’ll have to do, pig.  Checking the stats, it looks like the Habs are doing pretty good so far, tied for fourth in the Eastern Conference.

Hey, simulated sports, simulated sex nor simulated Ketchup flavour are as good as the real thing, but when you’re deprived, you’ll take what you can get.

As a public service to my loyal readership, I offer you this warning, just in time for Christmas.  It concerns a confidence scam that surfaced last year, and by all accounts, will be even more popular this year.  It is being dubbed The Christmas Shoes Scam.
This is how it works:
The scam usually is pulled at a busy department store or mall, usually at times when there are large crowds mingling.  A young child (usually, could be a trust-inspiring early teenager too) will linger around the checkout, holding an item of clothing he makes obvious he wishes to purchase.  While the item is usually a pair of womens shoes (hence the scam’s name), it can be anything really.  The main characteristic is that the item is NOT something the child would purchase for his own wardrobe.  While holding the item, the child will look sad.  This is done to lure in the victim.
It is an inactive scam, meaning that the child will wait until approached.  Once approached by a concerned (meaning: vulnerable and/or Christian) adult, the scam artist will begin with the waterworks, crying softly at first, moreso as the situation demands.  When asked what’s wrong, the child will lay the base of the scam.  Usually the child will say something to the effect that a family member (usually a Mother) is very ill, and is in fact about to die. Perhaps even this very night.
If the victim bites, then the scam artist will continue on with a story that usually implies how he’d love the dying family member to wear the article of clothing that he is buying.  He may say that, when well, the dying family member expressed delight regarding that specific piece of clothing.  Unfortunately, the child doesn’t have enough money.
If the victim has stayed this long, it is pretty much a certainty that the victim will offer to pay outright for the article of clothing.  Tearfully, the scam artist accepts the generosity and allows the transaction to occur.  With purchased item in hand, the scam artist thanks the victim, then runs off to, he says, his dying family memeber.
A day later, the child (or, if part of a Christmas Shoes gang, it’s usually the ‘guardian’ who) returns to the store and receives a full cash refund for the item.
In a busy mall at the height of Christmas shopping a good Christmas Shoes scam artist can rake in a thousand dollars a day.
Read this testimonial for an actual account from a victim:

It was almost Christmas time, there I stood in another line, tryin’ to buy that last gift or two, not really in the Christmas mood.  Standing right in front of me was a little boy waiting anxiously, pacing ’round like little boys do, and in his hands he held a pair of shoes.
His clothes were worn and old, he was dirty from head to toe.
And when it came his time to pay, I couldn’t believe what I heard him say.

“Sir, I want to buy these shoes for my Mama, please.  It’s Christmas Eve and these shoes are just her size.  Could you hurry, sir, Daddy says there’s not much time.  You see she’s been sick for quite a while, and I know these shoes would make her smile.  And I want her to look beautiful if Mama meets Jesus tonight.”
He counted pennies for what seemed like years, then the cashier said, "Son, there’s not enough here". 
He searched his pockets frantically, then he turned and he looked at me.

He said “Mama made Christmas good at our house, though most years she just did without.  Tell me Sir, what am I going to do?  Somehow I’ve got to buy her these Christmas shoes.”

So I laid the money down. I just had to help him out.  I’ll never forget the look on his face when he said “Mama’s gonna look so great.” 

I knew I’d caught a glimpse of heaven’s love, as he thanked me and ran out.  I knew that God had sent that little boy to remind me just what Christmas is all about.

This guy was sucked in big time.  Let it be an example to you.  So, as a warning, please be careful this Christmas when approached for money.  It could be a scam.

Speaking of Muppets, I haven’t really enjoyed their antics much since Jim Henson died.  That they’ve carried on the characters that he voiced (that he *was*) is sad to me, but I understand, from a corporate greed angle, why it must be done.  Kermit is, quite simply, not Kermit anymore.  I cannot enjoy what these characters do or say, because I cannot see them as the entities they were.  They are impersonators.
I could handle the Dick York/Dick Seargeant switch on Bewitched because, even though they were playing the same character, Dick2 didn’t try to copy Dick1.  He played the character in his own way.
I was equally frustrated when the Warner Brothers kept the Looney Toons franchise going after Mel Blanc died.  Bugs, Daffy, et al just didn’t sound right.  I’d occasionally see some post-Mel cartoons and would get upset at the voice-work and ultimately decided not to watch any more.
Sunday, Looney Toons Back In Action was on, and I half-heartedly decided to check it out for a minute (to see how long it’d take before I got frustrated at the voices and angrily changed the channel).  Well, I was pleasantly surprised.  The new guy they got to do the voices has nailed many of them.  Daffy sounds like Daffy again.  Bugs is back to being Bugs.  Yosemite isn’t so good, but overall, I was impressed.
Enough to watch the whole movie.  Which was okay, by the way.  I’m always cheering for Brendan Fraser to succeed.

This is pretty funny.
Grover was always my favourite Muppet.  I never stopped to consider the cost of that fame and celebrity.  Grover, the monster at the end of that book wasn’t just you.  It was ego and vanity and need and the desire to be loved.  The monster at the end of that book was all of us, my friend.