Jaimoe

Indeed he is, but he was disappointing in the first half of the season. Hill and Rios have played consistantly well this season, but what other non-pitching stars played up to their potential? Zero, and Johnny Mac doesn't count since he's not a star, just a fucking great fielding shortstop.

I don't think there's much you can do to sleep in other than stay up really, really late the night before. Drinking will not help. Trying to re-adjust your body-clock is a difficult task and it is a gradual thing for most people. I work shifts: 2 weeks 7am to 7pm and then a weekend turnaround followed by 2 weeks 7pm to 7am. I'm basically jet-lagged every two weeks. I can't sleep longer than 7 hours. One sure-fire method of sleeping in is hanging out at Booche's place on a Friday or Saturday. The tunes, TV and beer only gets better after 2am.

I remember the much maligned Mike Wilner mentioning in August that the Jays are the worst team in the AL advancing runners on 1st and 2nd with one or none out. McKown said the other day that JP calls all the shots regarding the style of ball the Jays play. He essentially said, Billy Beane ball is alive and well in T.O.: power baseball over small ball. If the power guys like Glaus, Overbay, Wells and Thomas aren't hitting home runs and more importantly, not being asked to play small ball, then a .500 team is what you get. And that is what the Blue Jays are in a nutshell. Don't jump all over me for mentioning Thomas either. He played like ass for the first half of the year and is a disappointment even if his stats don't look too bad to a salary arbitrator.

Even though I didn't care for his latest album, The JW Jones Blues Band are good. He's a hell of a good guitarist.

You are very perceptive and handsome... and you look damn good in a dress.

True AD. But I hope some of the 4 billion-plus goes into high-end windows and lights.

That artist's rendition of the Dubai tower looks really cool, but the photos/video of the real tower are ugly as hell.

One of The Toronto Star's most important and best writers, architect and urban affairs columnist/critic, Christopher Hume, wrote this piece a number of weeks back. Rarely does he defend Toronto (and for good reason), but I like his reflective praise and defense of the CN Tower. CN Tower topped by Dubai but soars beyond in beauty Aug 27, 2007 04:30 AM Christopher Hume Urban affairs columnist At some point during the next few weeks, the CN Tower will no longer be the tallest free-standing structure in the world. It will be surpassed by the Burj Dubai, yet another nasty-looking petro-money monster in the United Arab Emirates. The question is: Does anybody care? Not likely. It's amazing Toronto's 30-year-old tower has reigned as the world's tallest free-standing structure for as long as it has, but let's be honest, in the 21st century the fight for height has become degraded, ersatz and rather tasteless, even tacky. To be blunt, the edifice complex is no longer a Western obsession; it has moved to arriviste nations recently grown wealthy by plundering their own natural resources, and, in China's case, its population. You want proof? Just ask yourself: Until the Burj Dubai (due to top off 165 storeys of offices and apartments a year from now) began to claim both records, what was the tallest building in the world? The answer, lest you've forgotten, is Taipei 101, a 2004 architectural grotesque that stands just over half a kilometre tall. Before that, it was the Petronas Towers (1998) in Kuala Lumpur. Few outside Malaysia have ever heard of the building, unremarkable but for its height. The need to be the biggest, highest, shiniest – whatever – is something cities go through in their civic adolescence, so to speak. Paris built the Eiffel Tower for the Universal Exposition of 1889. In New York, the race to the clouds was played out in the 1920s and '30s, the great age of skyscrapers. Think of the competition between William Van Alen and his Chrysler Tower (1930) and William Lamb and the Empire State Building (1931). All three are as famous now as ever. All are also magnificent structures. That's the critical factor. None of the early giants has held a height record for decades, but as icons they loom as large as ever. Their places in the collective imagination will never be matched by Taipei, Petronas or Burj. Not only is there less interest in height records, the architecture of these three ugly sisters lacks the poetry of their antecedents. The CN Tower, while technically not a skyscraper – a needle housing communications cables is not the same as a building – also has its place in contemporary culture. Sure it was tallest, but its design said something more; it speaks of the modern age and man's eternal desire to reach ever higher. More to the point, it soars. It is a spire, tall, thin and, yes, beautiful. Of course, it also says much about Toronto's wanna-be psychology, but the important thing is that the CN Tower transcends the banality of its makers' intentions. The designer, Australian-born architect John Andrews, came up with a masterpiece, a structure that is somehow quintessential, not compromised by design trends or architectural fashion. It is elemental; this, we feel, is what a tower should look like. Even the accomplished Santiago Calatrava, creator of the Montjuic Telecommunications Tower in Barcelona, didn't come close to the CN Tower. By contrast, the Dubai building is all about height for height's sake. Its ambition can be read in every detail. It is what it is, nothing more. It goes no further than its creator's desires. This is why the CN Tower's reign as one of the world's most recognizable and admired towers isn't threatened. It possesses qualities more important than mere height; it has a kind of perfection that makes it indispensable, irreducible and incomparable. It rises above time and place and the conditions of its own creation. It simply is, much in the manner of the pyramids, not exquisite like the Parthenon, it's true, but equally essential. Spires elsewhere may out-climb the CN Tower, but Toronto need not concern itself. Outside their host cities, few will care.

Jones was every bit as important to Zeppelin as the other three. He was Zeppelin's multi-instrumentalist, their underrated writer, bass innovator and band's anchor. Adding Jones makes this reunion interesting and significant.

At least Phil Collins ain't drumming this time, although if he was, it would almost be worth it to see the sick fury in Page's face once again.

Once again, FU Booche. And blame the misinformation I received from both Centre Stage Music and Long & McQuaide regarding low priced Taylors and Martins.

I hope Page brings his A game. We all know what he sounds like when he's not on: see the 80's and most of the 90's.

I've never been a fan of buying acoustics with pick-ups already in the guitar, especially for beginners. For one thing, the pick-up will jack-up the price of a cheaper guitar. I always recommend buying a better guitar for the same money you'd buy a guitar that already has a pick-up. You can add the pick-up of your choosing later.

Another great Canadian-made guitar (from Newfoundland) is Garrison. They just got bought by Gibson, but they are excellent solid-wood acoustic guitars. A guitar shop in Port Credit is the Ontario dealer. I've played a few and they are excellent and are priced starting from around $300.

US:(Sittin’ On) The Dock Of The Bay - Otis Reading UK: Lady Madonna - The Beatles And here's the Canadian Chart #1 song on the day before my birthday: Canada: Valleri - The Monkees Here's the Canadian Chart link: http://lyrics.webfitz.com/Chartlst.html

Also, beware the "off-shore" Martins, Taylors and Gibsons. If the guitar brands I've mentioned are surprisingly cheap priced, then they ain't made in the States.

Both Steve's and Long & McQuaide in Toronto carry a big selection of Norman and Seagull acoustics. You can get a new one, satin finish, starting at $250. Songbird on Queen has a good selection of used, but I find them a little to a lot overpriced. Buy a new guitar. Nickle and diming doesn't make sense.

I have three episodes of Season 4 on my PVR. I just got back from Ireland and I'm going to watch them soon.

I was the MC at a wedding a few weeks back and did the cocktail DJ-ing duties. I played the Coltrane-Hartman album and it got raves. So did my Rat Pack CD and the always incredible Bobby Darin. Just watch the crowd's energy lift when you put on "Beyond The Sea".

Sad news. Too bad he didn't live long enough to get his new CBGB club going.

Great! Congrats!!

It has to be one of those convoluted and maddening marketing network deals between US and Canadian cable networks. TMN seems to not be part of this, but Showcase may not have the money to air the shows at the same time. Better yet, Showtime and networks of their ilk may lack the initial foresight to invest into shows without waiting to see if they are hits - the deals probably were made and can't be changed or are too expensive to change. Unfortuately for Showcase and other channels that share shows, down-loading can kill potential audiences, particularily in Canada. Space/CityTv used to air Battlestar Galactica only after its initial US run ended, and the show suffered ratings-wise here. Same with another cool Space show: The 4400, which will air its 4th season only after it finishes airng on the Sci-Fi Channel in the US.

For steaming purposes, it's hard to beat this site (or its heavy British content): http://tv-links.co.uk/listings/1

I watched a CBC documentary on Free Spirit Spheres. It was really interesting.

And I'm really jacked to see the Battlestar movie prequel called Razor, that will probably air on Space in November, but I may wait til the DVD comes out so I can watch the sucker in HD 5.1... for the first time! http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33805