Skip to main content

the montreal metro project, part 2

here's another installment of "the montreal metro project", a series of photographs i took of all the metro stations in montreal. yes, i frequently have a lot of time on my hands.

the blue line, often forgotten because it crosses nowhere near downtown, actually has some of the nicest stations on the network. these shots are taken from the université de montreal stop.





i got all artsy and wanted to take reflective shots at metro lionel groulx, one of the network's "connector" stations where multiple lines cross over. 



metro place-st-henri is notable for its cavernous depth more than anything else, although it also has a nifty skylight patterned like a snowflake and a strangely isolated statue of the man for whom the station [and the adjacent neighbourhood] is named [who wasn't a saint himself, but one with a saintly name]. 






george vanier station holds the distinction of being the only one on the network that has no bus service. every other station has at least one bus that stops there to ferry commuters to nearby locations lacking their own metro stop. not this one.

why do i know this? because the bus service was stopped right around the time that i first moved to montreal and it was a big deal in the local media for about ten minutes. a long time later, the residents of petit-bourgogne have only a dim memory of bus service and i know one more useless fact. [oh, it's also the second-least used station on the network. and it has the amazing cement "light tree" statue you see below.]




Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…