Greetings, Grey Cup, and Randoms

Hi Everyone,

It's been a while since my last post as my life has gone back to the travelling consultant lifestyle, which I prefer. Right now I'm on a contract in Calgary, and travelling back to Sask every couple weeks. Worked out great for the Grey Cup this year, despite the final result. I used to dislike the city of Calgary, but it is growing on me, largely because I know to make living in Calgary work for me.

I won't relive the pain that came out of this game, but I will say that the new management in Saskatchewan has built a solid foundation that will finally allow our beloved Riders to challenge every year. Darian Durant has shown he is resilient, that he learns from his mistakes and he has a bright future. Yes, the way the season ended sucks. But, the Riders were picked to miss the playoffs or at best cross over to the East in 2009. Instead, we came seconds from defeating one of the more dominant CFL teams in recent memory.

I decided just to spew some random thoughts on this post, just for some minor entertainment.

1. Would anyone ever sing "Total Eclipse of Heart" at Karaoke if it wasn't featured slightly modified in the movie "Old School".

2. I heard a song by a band called "5-Finger Death Punch". As you can likely guess they are hard rock/metal type band. You have to think that a name like that pretty much pigeonholes them to their chosen music genre, and doesn't allow a ton of room for experimentation. A collaboration between Elton John or Norah Jones and 5-Finger Death Punch doesn't really seem plausible.

3. I think one of the best money makers would be a brothel in a busy airport. What a better way to spend a "lay-over". Pun gratuitously intended.

4. What the hell is a "hip-hop tic-tac-tition"? A technically gifted rapper with fresh breath?

5. Men will take leak at a urinal in close quarters with other men doing the same and not blink an eye. So, when we use the stall to take a pee why do we always lock the door?

6. Hippopotomonstroses and quippedaliophobia means a "fear of long words". Isn't that just cruel?

I'm still tired from the weekend. Now to get ready from Edmonton 2010.

Cheers.

George W's Saskatoon visit

Happy Friday everyone!







Former US President George W. Bush is currently on a speaking tour through Canada, and this past Wednesday he made a stop in Saskatoon. Brett Wilson, of Dragon's Den fame, interviewed Bush. The tour is classified as a "discussion with George W. Bush".



In my 30 years, I can't think of a single person as polarizing as the former president. No one seems to be indifferent to Dubya, you either agree with him or you dispise him. So, naturally, his visit to Saskatoon (and other cities) has drawn a lot of attention from protestors and other opposition groups. In the couple weeks leading up to Dubya's appearance, this poster could be seen around various light poles in Saskatoon. Subtle opposition of course...







I did not go to his speech, but was interested. Regardless of your opinion of him, he was President of the United States for eight years and would have made for an interesting 90 minutes. I did however, make a point of walking to my gym (which is right beside the TCU Place) to check out the protestors. They were loud, but peaceful so good on them for that. I was bothered by one loudmouth with a megaphone yelling at the people in line to see his speech, and some "Sold Out! Sold Out!" chants were directed at people in line to see Bush. I'm actually glad I wasn't in line, because I have a tough time keeping my mouth shut in situations like that... and the old addage is true "Don't argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience".



Now, I'll never disagree with the right for a group of people to peacefully protest. It's one of the great things about our country that people can do that and not be worried about getting shot. However, I will disagree about the purpose of this protest. Bush is no longer a sitting president, and protests and the continued vitriol against the man seems pointless, especially in Canada. My cynical view is more than half the people there were protesting just to be seen protesting, and a good chunk of the guys there met a cute girl at Lydia's over the weekend and she said she was going, so the guy went as well.



Some comments from people who went to the speech was that Bush is engaging and much more articulate then he his given credit for. This does not surprise me. While I'm far from being a Bush fan, I never bought into the caricature of Bush being an idiot. I do believe he was over his head as President, but that doesn't make him stupid. There are very few people that are capable of the job.



Many people who went to his speech are opponents of Bush and came away disappointed. Saying that Brett Wilson lobbed pre-approved softball questions and the discussion wasn't controversial enough for them. What did they expect? Bush was going to come to Canada and apologize for Iraq and some of his other now unpopular policies? Bush still believes he is right on Iraq, and he is still the same man that cut taxes to the rich and had a conversative agenda. He is not going to apologize for who he is, and how that shaped his policies as President. Again, move on people.



One last point I am going to make. Currently, there is lot of right-wing hate being spewed against current President Barack Obama in the United States, calling him everything from a communist to the Anti-Christ. Similar to many people watching this, it makes me angry because I do like Obama and what he stands for. Also, I had trouble understanding how people could go that far to characterise Obama that way. However, a couple of weeks ago I remembered back to when Dubya became President. At that time, the Republicans controlled everything just like the Democrats do today. It was very common to hear Bush called a Fascist and yes, the Anti-Christ. Because we in Canada in general have never supported Bush, we found this a lot more acceptable even though it is just as unfair to characterise Bush that way as it is for Obama.



I don't know for sure, but I'm wondering if the birthers, tea-baggers, and loud town hall meetings are a measure of revenge against the left for the anti-Bush vitriol from 2001-2008? The nice thing is, after thinking about this, I don't get nearly as angry when hearing the anti-Obama hyperbole as I did even a month ago.


Anyways, have a good weekend.


Cheers.

NHL Musing - Divisions and Realignment

Hi everyone,

Kicking my last Wednesday in Saskatoon for a while, as the work week from now until Xmas will be in Calgary.

The rumblings of a possible NHL return to Quebec in a few years got me thinking about the locations of teams in the NHL, and the tough travel arrangement for some teams in the Western conference. I also did some comparisons with the NBA which also has 30 teams and conferences divided by East and West (NFL and MLB do not divide the conferences by geography).

What is interesting about the NBA is that the Western teams do not have nearly as bad a travel schedule as the NHL Western teams do (except for the NBA NorthWest division with Denver, Utah, Portland, Oklahoma and Minnesota). In the NBA Detroit, Chicago, and Cleveland are in the Eastern conference and those teams are in the West in the NHL (Columbus instead of Cleveland). The NHL, having only one team in the mid-South (Dallas Stars), has Detroit, Chicago and Columbus in the West. Nashville also has it tough, as it's closest NHL city is Atlanta which is in the Eastern conference, and are at least 350miles from any other Western conference foe (St. Louis and Columbus).

The NHL should consider having uneven conferences: 14 in the West, and 16 in the East with 2 divisions per conference. To make it fair for playoffs, the 9th place team in the East could cross over to the West to take the 8th place spot there if they had more points. Moving one team to the Eastern conference (Nashville) would take a lot of long travel away from the Western teams and make travel for Nashville a lot easier. It would also make it much easier for Minnesota, who would now be in a division with Detroit and Chicago as opposed to Vancouver and Edmonton.

Here is how the divisions would look.

Western Confernence
West Division: Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Phoenix
Central Division: Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Minnesota, Dallas, Colorado, Columbus

Eastern Conference
Northeast Division: Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Boston, Buffalo, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, New Jersey
Southeast Division: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Washington, Nashville, Carolina, Atlanta, Florida, Tampa Bay

A little tougher on the Pennsylvania teams, but a little easier on Washington. Also this alignment keeps travel to within one time zone in the Western conference in each division (aside from Denver). This has been mentioned as the hardest thing on players when travelling is the time change. There is a three hour difference between Vancouver and Detroit, and a two hour difference between Vancouver and Minnesota (and they play 6 times!).

Some fun food for thought.

Some thoughts on George W's trip to Canada later this week.

Cheers.

Beer

Hello everyone,

How did the weekend treat you? I spent my second of three consecutive weekends in Regina. This weekend was not Rider related, as I was in a squash tournament. Yes I play squash, and yes I'm serious enough about it to travel to tournaments.

A little tidbit about me is that I'm a beer snob. You know, one of those people that scoffs internally when you order a Canadian and if there are four people at a table and won't share in the pitcher. In general, a minor pain in the ass. My preference is ales, porters and stouts (darker beers) and having travelled a bit, I thought I'd share some of my favourite beers that you may have not heard of. It's also some advice if you are ever in New York or the West Coast and don't feel like a Budweiser and want to try something new.


Brooklyn Lager. I've started to see this a bit one in Canada, specifically some stores in Calgary that have a bit more of a selection. You can also get it at my favourite Regina pub - Beer Bros . It's from Brooklyn and widely available on the East Coast. Similar to: Sleeman's Cream/Honey Brown




Black Butte Porter. This one is basically only available in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, and is brewed in Bend, Oregon. It's a Porter, so its a very dark flavourful beer. If you like Guinness, give this one a try if you ever find yourself in Seattle or Portland OR.




Garrison Raspberry Wheat. I'm using this one as an example, as the Garrison brewery in Halifax, NS has 5 other beers that are worth trying as well. This one has the distinction of being the best flavoured beer I've ever had (yes girls, better than bud light lime). A lot of microbrewed berry beers are too sweet and taste a bit too fruity for a manly beer drinker. This one has a hint of rasperry that compliments the beer, instead of overpowering it.

Palm. Now for a beer from overseas. Palm is a Belgian beer that doesn't have as strong a hoppy taste as other Belgian beers like Hoegaarden and Leffe. But, like other Belgian beers it's strong (7.5%) so you can't drink it like a Canadian.








Samuel Adams Octoberfest Ale. I assume most people are familiar with Sam Adams Boston Lager (Always a good decision). However, the Sam Adams brewery produces a lot of Seasonal beers for the NorthEast United States market. One of these beers is the OctoberFest Ale, which is their fall beer. It is modelled after the Octoberfest beer that is served in Munich. It's as good as Sam Adams Boston Lager (one of my favourites). If you enjoy Rickards or Keith's Red give this one a try.



That's all for today.



Cheers.

WHL Drafting and some Theo Comments

Hi everyone,

Just enjoying a couple weeks working in downtown Saskatoon before my project starts up in Calgary at the end of the month. It's strange, I've lived in Saskatoon for 13 years and have not worked downtown since 1999. It's nice going out for a walk at lunchtime, taking the bus to work, and being a block from my gym for a quick lunchtime workout. Saskatoon does not have a great downtown core concentration, and this needs to improve as our city grows.

I'm sure many a hockey fan had their suspicions confirmed when Theo Fleury revealed he was molested by ex-coach Graham James. Out of this, the topic of how to better protect teenage hockey players is being revisited. What popped to my head immediately is some of the hardship that young hockey players go through in being seperated from their families at the age of 16 or younger to go to a strange city to play hockey. Because of this, the primary adult in a lot of these kids' lives is their hockey coach.

Compounding the issue is that the kids are often playing hockey a considerable distance from their families, especially in the Western Hockey League. The Southern/Western most team, the Portland WinterHawks, are 2,200km from the Eastern most team; the Brandon Wheat Kings. Granted, these teams only travel to play each other every other season, but it does display the reach of a junior hockey league. Contrast this to the Ontario Hockey League where the most remote team, the Sault Ste Marie Greyhounds is less than 1000km away from its farthest competition the Erie Otters. Even the distance between Rouyn Noranda QC to Charlottetown in the QMJHL is less than Brandon to Portland.

Granted, the teams that are far apart don't play against each other very often. However, when Bantam kids are drafted nothing stops Portland from taking a kid from Brandon and vice versa. Therein lies part of the problem. I am sure it has been explored before but one must think that having a kid playing reasonably close to home has got to be easier on both the kid and his family. Also having the child's support system within a days drive away could help in ensuring that an abusive coach doesn't become the primary adult in his life.

Currently in the WHL, there is 1 team in Manitoba, 5 in Saskatchewan, 5 in Alberta, 6 in British Columbia, and 5 in the Western United States. The WHL could establish some kind of regional drafting system that would allow the kids to be closer to home, while still maintaining fairness in the league. In the 2009 WHL draft, the number of kids drafted in the first 5 rounds were as such:

Manitoba: 17
Saskatchewan: 22
Alberta: 37
B.C.: 29
United States: 5

One suggestion would be to only allow teams to draft from an adjacent province. For teams in Saskatchewan that would mean they could only draft from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. For British Columbia, they could draft from B.C. and Alberta. For the U.S. teams, they would have exclusive rights to U.S. born players in the Western U.S. (as the OHL and QMJHL draft out of the Eastern States) and B.C. players. Of course, a kid from Medicine Hat could still end up playing in Vancouver or Prince George, but the situation where the kid from Saskatoon ends up playing in Portland or Seattle is eliminated. What this would also do is ensure that kids are often playing in a division close to home. For example, let's say a kid from Rosetown is playing in Prince Albert. Parents can easily come watch road games in Saskatoon and Swift Current, and home games in Prince Albert and spend time with their kids more often. That is not really feasible if that kid from Rosetown ends up in Kelowna. For example, in this year's draft the Portland WinterHawks had the first pick and selected a kid from Weyburn SK. Moose Jaw had the second pick and selected a kid from Vancouver. The kid from Weyburn will be almost 2000km from home, and the kid from Vancouver will be 1700 km from home. If the above rules applied, the Weyburn kid would be 150km from home, and the Vancouver kid would be 500km from home without affecting the competitiveness and fairness of the league.

Teams should also be able to "reserve" 1 or 2 hometown talents every draft if they choose. This is not only good for the kids but it is good for business. If two years ago, the Saskatoon Blades were able to have both Luke and Braydon Schenn dress for them, fan support may have increased to see these local products suit up for the home team. Same can be said for Ryan Getzlaf playing for the Pats instead of the Hitmen or Patrick Marleau playing for the Swift Current Broncos instead of Seattle.

Well, that's all today. It will also be the last hockey related blog for a while. 3 in a row is enough, and there is sufficient hockey discussion in cyberspace as it is.

Cheers.

Happy Thanksgiving and NHL stuff

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! I hope everyone had some good eats over the weekend. Since my thanksgiving was just me and the folks this year, my dad cooked a prime rib instead on the ol' BBQ. I'm thankful we had that instead of turkey.


So, some interesting rumblings out of the NHL in that Bettman did not rule out the possibility of a return to the NHL for the Quebec Nordiques contingent on a new arena being built in Quebec City. My opinion of "I'll believe it when I see it" with regards to anything that little weasel Bettman says it did get me thinking of when the Nordiques were in the NHL.

It also got me thinking about a rule in the six team NHL era that allowed the Montreal Canadiens to have first crack at any Francophone NHL players. This rule was ended in the early 1970's as the league had expanded to 12 teams but the players were still largely Canadian and the already powerhouse Canadiens were able to unfairly get players like Guy Lafleur and Rejean Houle before the much weaker expansion teams.

However, with 30 teams in the NHL and almost half of all NHL's coming from countries other than Canada it got me wondering if such a rule would be feasible again. So, for the sake of killing time and fun let's assume the Quebec Nordiques never moved and are still in Quebec. Let's keep the rule simple, and say that if the Quebec Nordiques or Montreal Canadiens have a first round pick they MUST draft a Quebec born player but they have access to any Quebec born player, regardless of where they pick. So, if Montreal has the 10th pick, and there is a francophone player projected to go fourth Montreal could get that player.

I've taken the first round picks from the last 20 years for the Habs and the Nordiques/Avs to see how their different the teams may have looked. Note that whoever finished lower in the standings between Montreal and Quebec gets the first pick of the francophones.

Montreal
Actually Picked Francophone Picked
1988 Eric Charron Martin Gelinas
1989 Lindsay Vallis Steve Larouche
1990 Turner Stevenson Karl Dykhuis
1991 Brent Bilodeau Martin Lapointe
1992 David Wilkie Manny Fernandez
1993 Saku Koivu Alexandre Daigle
1994 Brad Brown Jean-Yves Laroux
1995 Terry Ryan J.S Giguire
1996 Matt Higgins J.P. Dumont
1997 Jason Ward Roberto Luongo
1998 Eric Chouinard Vincent Lecavalier
1999 N/A Martin Grenier
2000 Ron Hainsey Antoine Vermette
2001 Mike Komisarek Pascal Leclaire
2002 Chris Higgins Pierre Marc Bouchard
2003 Andrei Kostitsyn Marc-Andre Fleury
2004 Kyle Chipchura Alexandre Picard
2005 Carey Price Benoit Pouliot
2006 David Fischer Jonathon Bernier
2007 Max Pacioretty David Perron
2008 N/A Nicolas Deschamps
2009 Louis LeBlanc Jordan Caron


Quebec/Colorado
Actually Picked Francophone Picked
1988 Curtis Leschyshyn Daniel Dore
1989 Mats Sundin Patrice Brisebois
1990 Owen Nolan Martin Brodeur
1991 Eric Lindros Patrick Poulin
1992 Todd Warriner Paul Brousseau
1993 Jocelyn Thibault Jocelyn Thibault
1994 Wade Belak Eric Fichaud
1995 Marc Denis Denis Gauthier
1996 Peter Ratchuk Daniel Briere
1997 Kevin Grimes J.F. Fortin
1998 Alex Tanguay Alex Tanguay
1999 Mikhail Kuleshov Brent Clouthier
2000 Vaclav Nedorost Mathieu Chouinard
2001 N/A Jason Pominville
2002 Jonas Johansson Martin Vagner
2003 N/A Steve Bernier
2004 Wojtek Wolski Nick Fugere
2005 N/A Luc Bourdon
2006 Chris Stewart Derick Brassard
2007 Kevin Shattenkirk Angelo Esposito
2008 N/A Yann Sauve
2009 Matt Duchene Louis Leblanc

Interesting. As expected from drafting out of the QMJHL, lots of offense and goaltending and light on defense. The 2000s have great for producing excellent prospects out of the QMJHL, following a terrible 1990s. Most of the Canadian players drafted in the 1990s were out of either the WHL or OHL. Likely, both Quebec and Montreal would have a glut of great goaltenders that they could trade and have excellent clubs because of that. Colorado likely would not have 2 Stanley Cups though without being able to draft Sundin, Lindros and Nolan.

That's it for time wastin today.

Cheers.

Fall (Winter?) Update

Well, after a gorgeous September the weather we were expecting came to visit this week. I'm working in Calgary this week, and I had trouble seeing across the Bow River from downtown.

The NHL hockey season has started, and yours truly got a little choked up watching the jersey of one of the greatest players to ever play in the NHL raise to the rafters of the Pepsi center in Denver.

I'm a bit biased, but Sakic is the best #19 to ever play hockey. The debate, of course, would be compared to another great player in Steve Yzerman. Valid arguments on that side too, other than he played on my hated wings. Because I'm in a hotel room in Calgary taking it easy I've decided to make some career comparisons to kill some time. The similarities are uncanny in their careers: multiple Stanley Cup winners, long time captain of the same franchise, Olympic gold medal winner,

Sakic:

20 Seasons

Goals: 625

Assists: 1016

Points: 1641

Games Played: 1378

Points per game: 1.19

Stanley Cups: 2

Hart Trophy: 2001

Conn Smythe: 1996

Olympic MVP 2002

Yzerman:

22 Seasons

Goals: 692
Assists: 1063
Points: 1755
Games Played: 1514
Points per game: 1.16
Stanley Cups: 3

Conn Smythe: 1997

Again, what may tip Sakic over the top is his Hart Trophy and his MVP performance in the 2002 Olympics. And, the fact that Sakic had his two best offensive years in 1996 and 2001. The two years the Avalanche won the Stanley Cup. Yzerman is a first ballot hall of famer, and Sakic is a sure thing for that as well.

This season is weird though, my heart is not into cheering for the Avalanche any more. So, I'm just enjoying the game for entertainment so far instead of as a fan. It's actually a lot better...

Cheers.

A long time coming...

Hey everyone,

It's been a long time coming for this post, but the last several weeks my head has been focused solely on getting set up for the new job, which starts Monday. Now I can relax, and enjoy the last couple days of my time off.

I was also on a trip to the Eastern United States splitting time between the great cities of New York and Boston. These are the types vacations I prefer, as opposed to resort type vacations in the winter. As you would expect it was a great time, and I lucked out with watching a Blue Jays and Yankees brawl and a Lewis Black appearance on a Daily Show taping.


This was my 3rd time to NYC and my second time in Boston. I've said numerous times that New York is a great place to visit, but I would live in Boston. A very active, urban, and walkable town with excellent public transit and a safe downtown core. Living in a city like that facilitates being active. My friend even said that she thought she needed to run while there just to fit in. Politicians that are in charge of urban development should be required to visit Boston to see how a vibrant urban life can be built. Calgary and Edmonton really missed the boat when they grew their cities to be more suburban focused. I see Saskatoon going down this road as well. Our council says they want a vibrant core, and at the same time permits big box developments with three large Wal-Mart stores spread around the outskirts of the city. In a city of our size, it is very difficult to have both.

Oh yeah, and U2 kicked ass.



Cheers.

Michael Vick

Hi everyone,

Here's a topic that I'm sure has been blogged about and discussed to no length over the last couple years, and it is now being talked about again. Michael Vick, who most people know served nearly two years in prison for running a dogfighting ring out of his home, has finished his sentence and has recently signed on with the Philadelphia Eagles. With this, the discussion on whether Philly should have taken him and a discussion of whether he has paid his debt to society has been ongoing.

With something like what I'm going to talk about, I have to preface this and say I do like dogs. Not all dogs (yappy purse dogs annoy the hell out of me, and the huge dogs just seem excessive), but overall I do like dogs.

If you remember back when this dogfighting ring came to light, the public outrage was widespread. It wasn't just groups such as PETA, but everyday citizens who rallied against what Vick had done. I can understand the outrage, as people probably looked at their family dog and imagined some of the tragic things that happen to dogs in a dogfighting ring happening to their own dog.

While Vick deserved to be punished, no doubt, 23 months in prison has always seemed incredibly excessive to me. The typical standard in the USA for a more common underground activity; cockfighting, is a fine and a maximum of 6 months in jail. Why the discrepancy? Roosters and dogs are animals. Regardless that we have largely personified dogs over the last several decades, I don't believe that animal abuse laws are written to be specific to a type of animal.

So, now the question is - should they be? If Michael Vick ran a cockfighting ring, he would have likely not even seen the inside of a jail cell and been playing football that same year. An episode of Seinfeld was based on cockfighting, and it was a very funny episode. That same episode with "Little Jerry Seinfeld" being a dog would not have been funny at all.

So, if society has applied a higher standard for certain animals, should the laws be written to provide harsher sentences if people abuse these certain animals (dogs, cats, and horses are the three that come to mind immediately). Even though I personally agree that the idea of a cat, dog, or horse being abused is much more distasteful then abuse of a pig, cow, rooster, rat, or gopher. In the prairies, a common summer pastime is shooting gophers for fun. This is an idea I personally find distasteful, but our Western culture overall does not and nobody is ever going to be arrested for killing gophers on a farm.

Some food for thought...

Cheers.

More on Healthcare

Hey everyone. A Sunday post after a fun filled August long weekend and the annual street dance/buffoonery in Speedy Creek last night.

Our friends to the South continue to furiously debate the issue of health care reform. Through town hall meetings, talk shows, the debate has become increasingly vicious and the dialogue has been enhanced with some increased vitriol. It has been very tough to find an educated debate on this issue with points of view from both sides. Real Time With Bill Maher this past Friday was a refreshing exception.

In the debate, the inevitable comparison with the Canadian health care system has come up, and the mention of our system's trouble spots, such as elective and non life-threatening surgery wait times. However, the continued comparison and criticism of Canada's health system by opponents of Obama's reform bill is a red herring. The United States system was ranked 37th in the world by the World Health Organization. Canada's however, was only ranked 30th. To me if the Americans are looking to spend billions to reform healthcare they should be looking at other large industrial democracies that are ranked much higher such as France (1), Italy (2), and Spain (7). It is important to note that the United States system costs much more per capita ($6600) on healthcare compared to other large Western democracies ($2500 - $3500) such as France, Canada, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Great Britain.

The Boston Globe provided an excellent article highlighting the French system. The French system is a public/private hybrid system. Insurance companies manage the public health insurance system, and citizens have a choice of providers. Like Canadians, the French also can have relatively inexpensive supplemental coverage to look after the areas not covered by the public system. Doctors are given full professional control over their practices and medical decisions, which all but eliminates both rationing (common in Canadian and British systems) and the interference of private insurance common in the American system. Also interesting is that the French have greatly reduced the overhead required for practicing Doctors with a very simple billing and reimbursement system, eliminating the need for a large amount of non-medical support staff (which is very common in the States).

The Boston Globe article also touches on a very important issue that the debate in the United States has largely ignored, and that is medical liability litigation. A major reason why care in the United States is so expensive is the practice of "defensive medicine". This is the practice of ordering expansive and unnecessary tests to "cover all bases" to avoid litigation. Naturally, this is very expensive. The medical malpractice tort system needs to be overhauled in the United States to accomplish any real reform and to also get costs under control. Punitive damages and huge rewards have caused medical malpractice insurance premiums to skyrocket, often in the hundreds of thousands per year, per practice. According to a lot of legislators in the States, tort reform is not in Obama's package.

Why is this? Why isn't a main cause of high healthcare costs being reformed in Obama's bill? Simple. Trial Attorneys. Medical malpractice claims is a cash cow for personal injury law firms, and the trial attorney is a powerful lobby in Washington. Trial attorney associations are also a key contributor and supporter of the Democratic Party. The Democrats would have a tough time swallowing a bill that would lose them support and contributions of trial attorneys. Canadian and French systems in general only allow for economic damages in malpractice suits, which are typically significantly less then the punitive/pain and suffering awards given in the United States.

Some food for thought, and the coming weeks will continue to be very interesting in this debate.

Cheers.

Health Care Reform

Happy Monday everyone. Back from a fun weekend in Regina where I ran into a lot of friends and watched a good football game despite the result.

The American news in recent weeks has been talking about a bill to reform their health care system. Naturally, this is a very emotional debate that contains a lot of rhetoric and not a lot of information of what this reform actually entails. The "Con" side of the debate often involves vilifying "socialized" systems in countries like Great Britain, Canada, and France. I won't get into that today, but in a later post this week I will discuss the comparisons between various health care systems in industrialized nations.

No health care system in the world is perfect, our system and the American system are glaring examples of that. The American system is a reflection of their culture in that everything should be profit driven. The argument is that being profit driven increases efficiency and fosters creativity and innovation. Health care is not a typical industry however, and the Americans have missed the mark incredibly on efficiency. Currently, the US system costs more per capita then the Canadian "socialized" system does.

However, where they haven't missed the mark is innovation. US companies are by far the leaders on innovation in the health care industry for new surgical techniques, tests and pharmaceuticals. It is likely that the drive for profit has fostered this. The US healthcare industry has places such as the Mayo Clinic and Cancer Centers of America who are specialized care centers that provide care for cancer and other deadly diseases that is second to none in the world. Are these centers cheap? Not by a long shot. However, it is nice to know that this care is available.

What has happened over the last several decades is that the rest of the industrialized world has piggybacked off of American health care innovation to make their own systems better. I remember twenty years ago, my father was very ill and one of his three surgeries to fix him was to remove a benign tumor off his adrenaline gland (the tumor, although benign was causing issues with blood pressure and creating chemical imbalances in his system). The surgery to fix this was very invasive, and he still walks around with a large scar that surrounds nearly half his torso. Today, that same procedure can be done via an incision a fraction of the size and lasers. The new technology is more expensive, but the greatly reduced recovery time makes for a much reduced hospital stay and cost savings. Not to mention the improved quality of life afterwards.

I am not against parts of health care being a "For-profit" enterprise. However, the struggle for the United States will be to ensure that any much needed reform does not stymie innovation. As distasteful as it is to some to make money off the suffering of people, increasing profit margin is a much better motivator for innovation and efficiency than cost savings. If the current administration can accomplish quality health care reform that genuinely makes the system better for the majority of Americans, it will be a monumental achievements. Think of the stakeholders that potentially have something to lose by health care reform - insurance companies (both for healthcare and malpractice insurance), trial lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, and big healthcare management firms such as Aetna. All incredibly powerful lobby groups that have an interest in keeping the system pretty much the same.

That's all for today.

Cheers.

Misguided Creativity

Hey everyone, hope the summer is going well. My self taken "teacher's summer" is getting very boring. I should be starting work again next week or the week after for a long time, and it can't come soon enough. I, in general, really enjoy what I do and I realise that although my last gig was not a good fit I do identify my work with who I am quite a lot.

Anyways a quick, fun post today. I'm sure everyone has one or two groups of good friends that in the course of the usual buffoonery, come up with some good ideas. Or, stupid ideas that are still very creative. My post today is about my friends and I and misguided creativity. You know, something very clever that is done, that while funny really adds nothing to the betterment of society. Here are some examples. I will not mention any names, but everybody knows who they are.

1. Grade 12. Having decided on a career, I purchased a top of the line computer for the time in 1996. It even had the Internet. Aside from looking at porn, my good friends and I made a series of commercials and short audio skits with sound effects and everything. It included:
a) A Chrysler Cordoba commercial - which involved it exploding and hurling off the side of a cliff.
b) An ad for a weapons seller ("Bazooka Hut"), who's main selling feature was giving local farmers the ability to blow up a hutterite van.
c) A news cast where we shot down the helicopter.

2. In University and looking for cheap entertainment, some friends and I would pass time by playing croquet a couple times a week. One said friend, in the middle of studying for finals, developed a 10 page croquet manual from scratch which included our take on the game. It had logos, graphics, colour, and was done in PDF format. Very professionally done. Why? I'm not sure.

3. As payback for a previous joke, a friend needed a method to get back at one of his female friends. The payback? Rewire her car so that whenever she hit the brake, the horn would go off. The truly cunning part? They had an attachment that they could take out to return the car to normal, so when she tried to take the car to the garage it would not repeat the behaviour.

4. Invention of the game "death-beer". Again, this is myself and my old college roommates. Fill up a tub with water, ice, and beer. One beer is an empty filled with water with "XXX" written on the bottle. To grab a beer, you must close your eyes and reach in the tub to grab one. Whoever grabs the death beer must drink the 1.14L bottle of Colt 45 in the fridge.

5. Ambient bathroom music. One of my college roommates decided to wire up a walkman with a pair of speakers in the bathroom. Whenever the light would turn on and the door would close, music would come on. As soon as the light turned off or the door opened, the music would stop. This was a big hit at parties.

I'm sure everyone has stories like this about groups of friends and goofy stuff like this. Feel free to share. The requirement? Has to be clever, and contribute a disproportionate amount to the betterment of society for the amount of effort involved.

Cheers.

Mid July Musings

Hope everyone is enjoying their summer so far. Been a while since my last update, and there is enough to talk about.

Of course, the big story recently is the death of Michael Jackson and the extensive media coverage that has followed. I didn't grow up with "Thriller" and "Bad" so I've never been a big Jackson fan. I respect what he did for music, and music videos especially, and tip my hat to the fact that he did put out some good tunes.

I am fascinated by the overwhelming reaction however. Here is a man who is a very tragic figure; he could have been the lead character in a 5 act Shakespearean play that we studied in high school English. A talented and beloved person whose life turned into a punch line in the last years of his life (even without the legal troubles). I think what this speaks to is the affect music has on people, and this is an affect I am having trouble relating to.

Anyone who knows me well knows I am a music guy. I listen to it constantly and I also play it. I don't have many DVDs and half the ones I do have are of concerts. I have a wide ranging taste in music, and finding new music that I like is my primary hobby. That being said, I can't compare any one of my favourite artists to the passion millions of people feel for Jackson. If my favourite artist, Bono, passed away I would be bummed out for sure but nothing close to the reaction that Jackson is getting.

A common cliche you hear about artists like Jackson or Elvis is "he shaped my life". I'm not sure what that means. Good music will trigger good memories of childhood and teen years. However music being a memory trigger doesn't really mean that is was responsible for someone's growth as an individual. I've went to a lot of concerts since the mid-90s and most of them were great experiences and a lot of fun. To say that those artists shaped me into the person I am is a stretch. My friends, family, and education hav been responsible for that.

The closest example in my lifetime I can relate to this is the death of Kurt Cobain. I was 14 I believe, but I do remember a lot of strong reactions by my fellow classmates. To a point where some guys wanted to "win this hockey game for Kurt!". Again, a common quote was "His music spoke to me!". I don't know how Cobain's anti-establishment angst grunge music spoke to middle class white kids from Swift Current, but maybe I just needed a more open mind.

Not sure what the point of this one is completely, other than I'm looking for some help in understanding how a music figure can ellicit this type of reaction.

Cheers.

Saskatchewan Uranium Development

Hey folks,

In the last couple weeks, a public consultation forum on uranium development in Saskatchewan has been traveling the province, gathering input from citizens on the further development of the uranium value chain in the province. This discussion is looking at the Uranium Development Partnership's (UDP) report and recommendations to the province on what should be done. The trigger for this process is the strong growth our province has seen in recent years, and the forecasted future growth. With growth in the economy and population comes increased power demands. On June 15th, I attended the forum in Saskatoon.

SaskPower is a part of this process, because by 2020 between economic growth and retired assets they need to come up with an additional 1700 MegaWatts (MW) of generating capacity. A nuclear reactor can make up 1000 MW of this gap, which is why this discussion is happening right now.

I'll come out and state where I'm coming from. In the decade that I've been working in professional jobs, 6 years have been spent in the nuclear industry in Saskatoon. I believe that while the industry did not perform well in the 50s and 60s with regards to the environment, the necessary environmental and regulatory framework is in place to ensure these types of projects show the utmost care for the environment. The industry has numerous professionals that work with regulators on environment assessments and licensing.

That being said, I'm not completely sold on the idea of building of a reactor based PURELY on the economics. Nuclear reactors are big and expensive, and I'm not sure with all the associated upgrades required to our grid we can afford it. That being said, the forum was interesting, although the "anti-nuke" crowd was there in full force. A lot of what was said was informed dissent and gave me some pause for thought, and a lot was based on misguided assumptions or simply fear mongering. My favourite example was the idea that nuclear material is altering our DNA through soldier's semen. Not an exaggeration.

Here are a few discussion points I'd like to make about this:

1. Many people at the forum seemed to think this was a choice between nuclear and other cleaner power options such as wind, solar, and hydro. That is not the case. There is still 700 MW of capacity that SaskPower needs to come up with, and renewables will be part of that mix. Wind and solar are social no-brainers, which is why large public forums like this one are not required for renewables.

2. Many people also had the impression we are not looking at solar and wind as options, and that is not the case. The province currently has 170MW of wind turbines scattered around the Swift Current area. As a former resident of Swift Current, I can't think of a better place for wind power in our province. SaskPower is looking at expanding this capacity all the time.

3. Some folks in attendance are convinced that wind, hydro and solar power can replace our fossil fuel generation completely. Unfortunatly, with current technology this is not the case (unless we use nuclear as well). The technological issue with wind and solar right now is energy storage, and I'll outline why this is important. As I'm writing, the temperature today is forecasted to approach 30 degrees. When the hottest part fo the day hits, air conditioners in homes and offices will be working the hardest and consuming the most power. To manage this, power plant operators forecast this and will bring increased capacity online to cover the spike in demand. This is done by consuming more natural gas or coal to run additional turbines in a power plant. Right now, this demand management is not possible with wind or solar. If we have a windy day of 80km/hr but the additional power generated is not required it can not be saved for the calm hot day. Operators can not turn on the wind or the sun to meet increased demand. Can wind and solar be an integral part of our energy mix? Absolutely, but natural gas, coal, or nuclear must also be part of our mix for the purposes of demand management.

4. Nuclear is often touted as a clean energy source, and compared to fossil fuels it is. However, a good point is raised that the mining, transport and construction processes use a lot of fossil fuels (namely diesel). This is true, and is a valid argument. However, one must remember that solar panels do not magically appear, they have to be manufactured. Components in photovoltaic solar panels use precious metals (such as cobalt, cesium, and platinum) in their manufacture. These metals are mined, just like uranium, and most of it comes from areas such as South America and Africa. So, once the product is mined and refined, it has to be transported to the United States, Mexico and SouthEast Asia where it is a raw material in the manufacturing of solar panels. A lot of fossil fuels are consumed in this process as well. This is not saying that solar is not a viable option, but it is a comment that the manufacture of most products has an extraction and transportation component to it that uses fossil fuels.

Thats all for today,

Cheers.

Facebook musings and observations...

Hi folks,

As with the majority of the people I know that around my age or younger, I am on facebook. Have been for at least a couple years now. As far as how much I use it? I'm still checking it daily, and it has replaced email and MSN as my primary way to electronically talk to friends. I don't need to discuss in detail how facebook has been ingrained in modern pop culture, but there are two major indications. One, most people know that the abbreviation "fb" stands for "facebook". Second, facebook has now been turned into a verb as well as a noun. I can go on facebook and facebook someone and it makes sense.

Ultimately, facebook is a tool for marketing. What company is it marketing? "Me, Inc." Every person on facebook (including yours truly) uses the tool to market themselves to varying degrees. Since most people are facebook friends with people from high school and college, there is also an element of competition and a touch of spite involved. Let me be clear though, this marketing is not strictly about finding a mate. People who are married and engaged use facebook to market themselves as much as single people do. What I'm going to talk about are the various ways people do this on facebook, and some suggestions. I do, or have done these types of things to some degree. Again, I'm not going to talk about finding a mate specifically, as my buddy Switzer does this specifically in one of his posts (and I'm not really a good source on that topic anyways).

The primary method people use on facebook is the status update, or the "what's on your mind" as it is called now. A typical theme in all of these categories is simply "don't overdo it". Facebook now allows you to block status updates from friends from appearing in your "news section". And yes, I have done this. Largely because someone has overdid it on all of these categories (except the last one I mention). Keep in mind when updating, as it is tough to market yourself if everyone has your updates blocked.

Here are the various types of status updates I notice...
a. The generic update of what is up. This is the "x is at work", "x is hangin with the family", "x is watching hockey". Pretty basic and innocuous. Just don't update it 14 times a day.

b. The vacation post. At some point, at least a dozen of your friends (or you) are on vacation somewhere. This is one of the most easiest marketing updates. It is an easy way of saying "Check me out, I travel to broaden my horizons and be more worldly". Typically, the more exotic the place, the more frequent the posts. Have I done this? Absolutely. The trick is to find that appropriate amount of times to update without annoying people. I'll use a personal example of when I was in Europe three years ago. In general, your friends are interested in where your travels are taking you, but only at a high level. For example, if my updates looked like this, I am sure it would get old very quickly:
1. Shane is at the Eiffel Tower 5:50pm
2. Shane is strolling the Champ d'Elyesse
3. Shane is at the Arc de Triumphe 8:00pm
4. Shane is at a lovely Paris bakery getting some breakfast 9:00am
5. Shane is on his way to Notre Dame 10:00am
6. Shane is at Notre Dame 10:15am

That is as annoying as those long winded bulk emails people send when they are on those 6 month travel vacations. Only your mom wants to know your every movements. For vacation updates, keep it to:
1. Shane is in Paris
2. Shane is in Brugge
3. Shane is in Amsterdam
and then write some type of comment afterwards to make it interesting and unique to yourself.

If you want to share intricate details your vacation on facebook, do it through the photos section. Give people the choice of checking out the vacation or not.

3. The baby post

I'm almost frightened to write this section. Almost. Yes, I know the birth of a child is a reason for the new parents to celebrate. And yes your friends all want to know the basics - is baby healthy, is momma healthy, what is the new addition's name, time of birth, gender. I know it's tough to fathom, but the majority of people aren't interested past the basics. For example "baby X looks so cute in her new sleeper". Thanks for the info, but it comes off as trying to hard. Again, for the proud momma, post a photo album and give your friends the option of checking the baby out. The new grandmother wants to here everything I'm sure, but facebook is not the place.

4. The achievement post

This is the post that people share where they have reached a goal that they are proud of, and they share it through facebook. Naturally, this is pure personal marketing designed to get a "Good Job!" response from your friends. These posts are very effective, but must be used sparingly to avoid looking like a braggart. Big occasions like graduations, completing a running race, new jobs, and promotions are occasions that should be shared with your friends.

5. The drama post

My favourite types of posts. Sharing to everyone about relationship troubles, family troubles, etc... is not a good reflection on yourself, and I have seen posts that are even spiteful or hateful. Ultimately, if your girlfriend, boyfriend, or mother is giving you trouble it is really none of my business. And I don't want it to be. There is really no good drama post. Period.

6. The humour post

This has become more and more prevalent as facebook evolves, which is a good thing. The funny status update, or joke. These are the posts that keep people interested if done properly. A good humourous facebook status is slightly self-deprecating (shows people you can laugh at yourself) and is a means to provide entertainment to your friends. The humour post can be combined with the vacation or baby posts to make them entertaining even if the updates are more frequent then they should be. For example, instead of saying you are in you say "X is in Amsterdam" say "X is in Amsterdam. Something smells like the art teachers' lounge". These are the types of posts are difficult to overdo, if you are good at it. If you aren't sure, update occasionally and see what the responses are, then update more often.

Those are the big five, and of course I am simplifying a little bit.

Cheers.

Book Review...

Hey folks,

I recently read an interesting book called "The Sexual Paradox". I can't remember the author, but it's a very interesting read. No, it's not a book about relationships and intimacy, it's a look at women in the workforce and the decisions they make, in comparison to men. I have been long been fascinated with this topic since I was in the seventh grade (I actually did a Science Fair project on this issue).

To really understand the point this book is trying to say, you have to look at the feminism movement that took place in the 60's and 70's. This movement is largely responsible for the increased role women have in the workplace, politics, and decision making that we see in the 21st century. Change for the better, to be sure. However, what has troubled researchers that look at trends is that despite the increased role of women there is still a significant gap at the top of organizations, and in certain professions. The point that is consistently being made is that these gaps are not closing as fast as they should be. The book I read takes a close look at some of the reasons why.

What the 60-70s brand of feminism did was say that Women and Men are not only equal, but alike. That essentially said that women and men can do the exact same tasks equally well which was an effort to attract women outside of traditional female professions such as education and nursing. While it has worked to a certain extent, as there are more women accountants, lawyers, and doctors than ever, there are still significant gaps in some areas. A side effect of this "alike" concept was that it has become taboo to imply that women are wired different then men and therefore, in general, are not attracted to the same professions.

Two main areas of concern are engineering and the computer sciences. Both are lucrative, well respected professions that are still dominated by men. Less than 20% of University Grads in these areas are women. The book explores why this gap does not seem to be closing. A knee jerk response may be to say that "Men are traditionally better at Math and Science". This is actually not the case. A study that was cited in the book indicated that men and women's performance in Science are equal, and men scored marginally better in math. Looking at these stats, one would think the gap should be closing. It isn't, it is actually widening.

With that, there has to be another reason. What the book seems to indicate is that, in general, women don't enter these professions because they aren't as interesting to women as they are to men. Women tend to gravitate towards professions that allow them to assist or help people in some fashion. It comes from the biological maternal instinct and empathy. The book indicates that women tend to get frustrated in their professions if they don't see themselves as makign a difference in other people's lives.

To show this, case studies of the legal profession were looked at. Right now, more women graduate law school then men. And the same proportion end up working at big law firms right out of University. Law firms are not discriminatory these days, they covet brilliant women as much as brilliant men. However, what is startling is the number of women that LEAVE the legal profession after 10-20 years. This number is much more then men, and the "family" argument only explains some of it.

What seems to be happening is that women join the legal profession to make a difference and help people. After several years, they discover that their current path is not taking them to the end goal, and they leave the profession or leave the big money in corporate law to work in the public defender's office. One can imagine a corporate lawyer dealing with corporate taxes, big lawsuits, and endless paperwork could get jaded. Not saying that men do not have that same goal for getting into law, but as a trend they are able to adjust their expectations to fit the reality of the legal profession and overall find compensation as more of a motivator then women do.

There is a lot more in this book, but this is a summary of the main thesis.

Cheers.

The continuing saga...

Well, a bit over a week has passed and the saga with regards to the Phoenix Coyotes continues. What has become apparent in the recent days is that the competing offer is not even close to Balsillie's. Second, the NHL is trying to portray Balsillie and the owner of the Coyotes as the villains in this, and that they are trying to subvert NHL rules in the bid for the Coyotes. They are also trying to portray the Coyote fans as the victims, and having their team stolen from them. That is maybe true, but when 15,000 people came out in 1995 to save the Winnipeg Jets, and only 200 come out in a similar rally to save the Coyotes this week that should be an indicator to the NHL that not many people will lose sleep over the Coyotes relocating.

Now, we are starting to see the PR battle taking shape. Bettman knows the court of public opinion is HEAVILY on Balsillie's side in Canada. So, he throws it out there that he prefer to see the team to Winnipeg if it does indeed move. Say what you want about Bettman, he may be stubborn but he is not stupid. Bettman does not want another team in Winnipeg. However, what he is trying to do is polarize the Canadian supporters of the move. What better way to play the nostalgia card and get the fans of the Jets and other Western Canadian teams questioning the move to Southern Ontario.

In response, Balsillie offered an olive branch and displayed that is bargaining in good faith by offering to keep the team in Phoenix one more season. This was alleviate scheduling concerns the NHL brought up. A nice counter-punch from Mr. Blackberry.

However, that does bring up an interesting issue. Moving a Western conference team to the Eastern conference does create an issue for the league that a team in Winnipeg or Kansas City would not. Which team moves to the Western conference? The three choices are likely Pittsburgh, Atlanta, or Hamilton. None of these three choices are great.

1. Pittsburgh would move into the Central with Chicago, Detroit, Columbus and Nashville. That's not bad, but the question becomes what happens to St. Louis? Likely, Vancouver would have to join the Pacific Divison, and St. Louis would move into the NorthWest divison.
2. Atlanta moves into the Central Divison with Nashville, Detroit, Columbus, and Chicago. Again, St. Louis would have to be re-aligned.
3. As a "punishment", Hamilton moves into the central with Detroit, Columbus, Chicago, and St. Louis/Nashville. If Nashville was left hanging, a divison would likely be formed with Edmonton, Calgary, Nashville, Minnesota and Colorado. This leaves Vancouver, San Jose, Dallas, LA, and Anaheim.

A team moving to Winnipeg does not create these types of headaches. Winnipeg would easily slide into the NorthWest, and Colorado would take Phoenix's place in the Pacific.

This saga is a nice side story to the playoffs. I'm following it almost as close.

Cheers.

Balsillie and the latest Saga

So, I'm sure everyone has heard by now about Jim Balsillie's latest pitch to buy himself an NHL team. Unlike the last two, this time he has been explicit in the requirements that he be able to move the franchise to Southern Ontario. Balsillie has played this last offer incredibly well, and it has Bettman fuming. In his last two offers, Bettman has stepped in to ensure that Balsillie does not get his team.

Here is why this offer is so well done. With the Phoenix offer, Balsillie waited until the Coyotes petitioned for bankruptcy protection. By doing this, the lion share of the decision making now ends up in a bankruptcy court instead of the NHL headquarters. Bettman is now challenging this, not surprisingly. But, he is challenging whether the owner of the Coyotes legally can put the team into bankruptcy. This makes sense, since the NHL will lose a lot of control over the fate of the Coyotes if the bankruptcy proceeds.

What the bankruptcy court is most concerned with is how the Coyotes' creditors (secured and unsecured) can get the biggest share of their money owed. To do this, the assets are put into auction and go to the highest bidder. Balsillie, with his $212 million USD offer, is the highest bidder and it is unlikely the competing bid that Bettman likes will match it. However, with the situation in the courts, Bettman can not go to the Coyotes owner and persuade him to take the lower bid (as what happened in Nashville). The bankruptcy court will not allow that. So, there are a couple things that can happen that would work out negatively for Balsillie:

1. The bankruptcy court finds that it can not force the Coyotes to relocate legally, which voids his offer to purchase.
2. A new ownership group bids $217 million USD or more. The Coyotes owner would be mandated to take the highest bid in bankruptcy.

Of course, Balsillie needs 2/3 of the NHL governors to approve him as an owner. This is far from a slam dunk, since MLSE and Buffalo would surely vote no. As would the handful of GM's that Bettman has in his pocket. However, with the economy in the states some owners have become increasingly concerned about falling franchise values. $212 million USD is an overpayment for the Coyotes, which would help in bringing franchise values of places like Anaheim, Nashville, San Jose, Atlanta, Columbus and Florida up into the $200 million mark. This is great for those owners. It has little impact on the Leafs, Rangers, Flyers, Canadiens, and Red Wings since their values are well over the $212 million mark. The vote will be interesting.

Good luck to Balsillie on this one. Canada deserves another NHL team.

Cheers.

Questions about Everyday Life

Hi all,

Went to Calgary over the weekend to check out The Killers on Sunday April 26th. They rocked the Saddledome. I'm sure that performance was much more enjoyable then the performance at the Saddledome the night after (ouch).

Interesting update, I gave notice to the current job last week without having anything lined up right after. A little scary, but I did give notice for the end of June. Gives me a little time.

I have always wondered about certain protocols in life that either should be established, or whether they are and I just don't know about them, or whether the protocol is disputed. I welcome all comments.

1. At what age does a woman become a "cougar". And is cougar an absolute or relative term. I mean, can a 19 year old boy call a hot 29 year old woman a cougar? If it's an absolute term, can I call a 32 year woman a cougar, even though I'm 30?

2 Speaking of which, is there an comparable term for older bar-star men? Male slang always enters the lexicon much quicker. Girls are much more secretive and subtle about this stuff. My guess: each group of girlfriends has their own unique term.

3. I'm sure most of us has gone through the first few birthdays after we became legal to drink. It is always an exercise in how drunk the birthday person can get, and how horrible the shooters are. My question is, at what age are you eligible to refuse certain shots on a birthday? For example, I refuse to drink tequila and at some point in time it stopped being bought for me on the birthday. Refusing tequila is not possible on a 19th or 20th b-day, but how long do you have to earn drinking cred before you can start refusing...

4. The "third date" rule. I've never been clear on what the actual rule is. I know that the third date is some standard that if "something" doesn't happen by the third date with a girl that it's time to cut-bait. What is that "something"? A kiss? Heavy-Petting? Full on monkey lovin in the back of a 1979 Cordoba station wagon? (On the Corinthian leather of course). I think a true standard should be established. It's really all too confusing, and gives me too much to think about. Especially on the third date. Maybe that's why I'm so distracted on the third date all the time?

These are types of thoughts that keep me busy when I'm sitting at home and the power goes out.

Cheers.

Trash Talking

Well, my favourite sports league (the NHL) is at it again. NHL VP Colin Campbell came out today warning Calgary and Chicago players about the amount of "chirping" or "trash-talking" going on at ice level. You mean to tell me that some pro hockey players may engage in trash-talking? That is just unconscionable. Hockey is a respectful game... please return to your running players from behind and punches to the face after every whistle.

Yes, that was snarky, but I'm illustrating a point about the NHL. The pundits (such as Don Cherry) in the league always like to talk about "respect" and a "code" and all that. However, nobody ever talks about what this "respect" in hockey is supposed to look like. Hockey is a contact sport, but people talk about respect when the team goon goes after an opposing player after a CLEAN hit. That makes no sense to me. To me, the most respectful thing a player can do in the NHL is let up when a player has his back turned or on a foot race for an icing. And, in most cases, the players do. Until the playoffs are at stake. If a team is down one goal with 5 minutes left in a playoff game, and you see a player let up when the opposing player is in a dangerous position please find me a youtube clip.

This brings me back to trash-talking and what the big deal is. Here's my opinion, and it's back to my general opinion that the NHL has a gigantic bug up its ass. In the NBA and NFL, trash-talking happens all the time. It is a tool some players use to try to get other's off their game or goad them into a stupid penalty. There is a youtube clip floating around with Ryan Kesler and Alex Burrows taunting David Backes with comments like "Kelly is a great girl, tell her I said hi" (Backes' wife is named Kelly). Harmless stuff meant to try to get players off their game. Sure, if a player crosses the line and makes a racist comment that's different. However, the comments about mothers, wives, etc... are common to the sport. Reg Dunlop's "Your wife is a D**e" taunts from "Slap Shot" are based on reality.

Shouldn't the NHL be worried about hits from behind and the endless skirmishes it seems after every whistle instead of Adam Burish making comments about Jarome Iginla's mother? God forbid that the NHL mimics some of the NBA and NFL. God forbid, the NHL may actually get a decent US television contract.

Anyways, keep enjoying the playoffs folks. Carolina and Jersey is turning into the series to watch.

Cheers.

Post-Easter update

Hopefully the trend from last night doesn't continue in the NHL playoffs, or my playoff pool team will be done very quickly.

Hope everyone had a great Easter. While most choose to spend Easter with family, I spent mine in Vegas. Best. Easter. Ever.

The above is one of the few pictures from the weekend that are appropriate to post to the public as I may consider running for public office someday. This is a picture taken from the top of the Hoover Dam. For those of you who don't know, the Hoover Dam was built to control the flow of the Colorado River, which is the border between Arizona and Nevada. I was actually doing the Homer Simpson "Arizona, Nevada, Arizona, Nevada" dance before I got punched in the face.

Anyways, the Hoover Dam also acts as a bridge and cars drive on top of the dam. The road to get to the damn from both the Nevada and Arizona side is windy and narrow. With Vegas growing so much recently, they had to do something to deal with the increased traffic flow around the dam. The picture above is the progress of what will the fourth largest arch bridge in the world that spans over the canyon. I'm not sure what was more impressive, this bridge or the dam itself. Both are some great feats of engineering.

I won't go into much detail about the trip, because it truly was a "what happens in Vegas" type of weekend. However, I did make some interesting observations.

One night the group ran into a couple of stagettes (or "hen" parties as some of the Yanks call them) back to back. The similarities in the groups were quite striking. Here are some of the characters:

1. The bride to be. She justs wants to drink and dance, and good for her.
2. The married but hiding the ring friend who is looking for that "what happens in Vegas weekend".
3. The happily married friend who wants to let her hair down and dance a bit, but that's all.
4. You have the other engaged friend who doesn't even want to look at another male because she is so in love (ahhhh, how sweet) and is jealous of the attention her other engaged friend is getting.
5. The single friend. Scantily clad and shameless. Especially since "marriage" has come up several times over the weekend in the group. Her friends think she is a slut.

Also, my favourite visual of walking the strip in Vegas is watching five-foot drunk girls carry around a three foot Margarita.

Cheers.

Reality TV Shows

Hey everyone; light hearted entry today. I'm sure everyone has followed some kind of reality television in the last ten years when this TV trend started; be it Survivor, Big Brother, American Idol, Amazing Race, the Bachelorette, or the Hills. I've never been a big fan, and it seems the whole movement is running out of steam. Now if some of the following shows were developed, you may have a new audience member in your's truly.

1. An apprentice style show starring some of the disgraced CEO's that have been in the news in recent years. Rick Wagoner of GM, Jeffrey Skilling of Enron, Bernie Ebbers from Worldcom, John Thain of Merrill Lynch, and Maurice Greenberg of AIG. This reality show is a war of attrition, where these Ex-CEOs have to work at various entry level jobs for a week at a time. For instance, a cashier at Burger King or a Wal-Mart greeter. You also inform ex-employees of these CEO's where they are working to make a show out of it. The CEO who lasts the longest wins, and gets stock in Citigroup.

2. The "Sports Switch Challenge". Sports teams from two different sports play each other in a third sport. For example, the Boston Celtics play the New England Patriots in a game of hockey. Or, the New York Rangers play the New Jersey Nets in a game of football. To make things even more interesting, you throw in a sport that neither team knows much about. How about the Philadelphia Phillies against the Flyers in a Rugby or Cricket match. Winners get to play the same team in their own sport. For instance, if the Flyers beat the Phillies in Cricket, they get to play the Phillies at hockey.

3. The "Get out of Jail Free Card Game". Most of my married friends are familiar with the concept of the "Get out of Jail Free Card" where you have a short list of celebrities that you can sleep with, without impunity, if the chance ever came up. This game would put this concept to the test. Men and women have the opportunity to go out with a member of the list and the night can go as far as the celebrity lets it. The other spouse watches the whole time. If the jealousy is too much, then the couple must get a divorce and the jealous spouse gets screwed over royally. If I was a contestant on the show, you can bet that one of the girls on my list would be a porn star.

Thats all today.

Cheers.

Fox News and the Latest Outrage

So, the latest bit of outrage going around in Canada is a segment a Fox News show the "Red Eye" did on Commander Leslie's comments that our troops may need a breather in Afghanistan after next year. The panel on the show took the opportunity to lampoon Canada in general, and make fun of our military. Naturally this has sparked some outrage in Canada, asking for boycotts of Fox and it also made our major news networks.

I won't post a link here (simply search youtube for Red Eye Canada) and you will easily find it. The main reason? My points below.

Let me first clarify that I'm not a fan of Fox News, far from it, and I am playing a little bit of a devil's advocate here. First off, The Red Eye (and Fox News in general) has always been about infotainment, and less about news. I did briefly watch the Red Eye for about 15 minutes a few months ago, and changed the channel because quite frankly, the show is awful. But, one thing I did note is what the show is trying to be. They are trying (albeit badly) to be a conservative version of The Daily Show. The problem is, they have a tough time doing the "news satire" bit with a conservative bent because it is hard to do without coming off as incredibly mean spirited. And also the people on that show are hacks compared to people like Bill Maher, Stewart and Colbert.

When The Daily Show features Canada on his show when the U.S. president visits Stewart always takes his shots at Canada, however the tone of them are light-hearted and on topics that us Canadians can laugh at ourselves for. Take for example Rob Corddry attempting to speak French a few years ago. What The Red Eye did was basically call us Canadians wimps, made fun of a cultural institution in the RCMP, and proclaimed the superiority of the US. Satire or not, those three topics all strike a BIG nerve with Canadians. So, given that the people who produce the Red Eye either are incredibly ignorant or they did their homework. My guess is the latter. Here's why...

Their goal with this segment was to manufacture outrage and get attention. So, I'm thinking they knew which buttons to press to get us Canucks going. Guess what, it worked. Fox does not have a high viewership in Canada; but in the Internet age youtube clips spread very quickly. There are groups on facebook, news segments, emails, hate mail, etc... all dedicated to this topic now all asking for boycotts and a call to action against the evil people of Fox News. I would be interested to see the Red Eye's viewership numbers in the coming weeks. My guess? It's Canadian audience will spike. If you have ever heard the stat when Howard Stern started out, people who disliked him listened longer than the people who liked him.

Here's my advice Canadians. Ignore it. Turn the other cheek. Why, because getting angry is playing right into what Fox and the Red Eye want. Fox News is excellent at manufacturing outrage (see Hannity and O'Reilly) and they are now trying to do it up here. Not because they hate Canada, but because they are trying to build a market up here. They are trying to find a niche in our news landscape, and the area around the center political spectrum is already clogged with CTV NewsNet and CBC Newsworld. They are going for a big bang, and they may have got it. The thing that would anger Fox News and The Red Eye the most, is if we would have responded with a collective "Meh". Or a "look at those crazy Yanks trying to start something, how adorable" and left it at that.

You won't see me on any facebook group, or writing any hate mail. I hope my fellow Canadians do the same.

Cheers.

Head shaker

Every once in a while, I'll stumble on something that does just that - makes the head shake. I typically don't get angry at things I see or read (even if I should). For example, I don't feel any outrage towards the AIG executives for their bonuses. My reaction was, who is their PR guy? He is the one who should be fired, not the executives who received the bonuses. Why? How did a PR guy for AIG not convince them that the American people may get somewhat angry about a bunch of rich guys getting bonuses provided by the taxpayer. Although, when a lot of money is involved people sometimes get blinded to reality.

Bernard Goldberg Segment on Fox News

So, the gist of the above debate is about whether a Yiddish word for a black person is offensive. My opinion is if you have to debate whether something is a racial slur, or offensive, then it is not. Regardless, it seems like a reasonable debate on laguage, albeit a waste of time. Until this Goldberg guy says the dictionary is written by someone with a liberal bias.

The Dictionary. Is written by someone with a liberal bias. (Shakes head)

OK, if you want a neutral book without a political bent the dictionary, along with a thesaurus, is a pretty safe bet.

How a dictionary can have a liberal bias is beyond me. Maybe the Webster's dictionary is written in Berkeley, California and describes "liberal" as a person who is a pillar of society with an outstanding moral compass. It in turn describes "conservative" as a misguided person with suspect morals who likes to have sex with immediate family. How else could you make that distinction?

Or, maybe the Webster's dictionary is the liberal book, and the Oxford dictionary is the conservative book. I don't know where he got this idea from. We always hear about a bias in the media, but this is usually because OPINIONS are expressed in print media. Last time I checked, not a lot of opinions are expressed in the definition of words like cauliflower, piano, computer, and albatross.

Anyways, a short rant for today.

Cheers.

My fair city - Saskatoon

So, as I'm sure everyone has heard by now. My beloved home of Saskatoon is the most dangerous city in Canada. The list for the last few years has basically been a revolving door of Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, and Edmonton at the top. What surprised me the most, having spent 6 months there working last year, was Halifax being #7. This year, Saskatoon got it. Of course, the mayor of Saskatoon has talked about steps the city has made to deal with this and assure people that steps are being taken. Granted, Saskatoon (along with Regina, Winnipeg, Edmonton, and the other cities at the top of the crime rankings) are not without their problems. But I think a little perspective is in order. Being the nerd that I am, I decided to dig a little deeper into this. So, I went to Statistics Canada for some information. Some quick math showed some very small discrepancies in numbers, so I am going to assume that the sources are the same.

What the MacLean's study did, is look at the average for 6 categories - homicide, robbery, sexual assault, aggravated assault, breaking and entering, and vehicle theft. They then took the Canada wide average, and rated the various cities at above or below average. For instance Chilliwack B.C. had the highest ranking for breaking and entering - at 149.79% above the national average. My guess is thieves were stealing 70's Canadian classic rock albums.

Before I get into this, I want to make a few large observations. First, it is important to know that Canada's crime rate dropped in 2007, continuing a recent tred. Violent crime was down, as was property crime continuing a downward trend that started in the early 1990's. It is also important to point out that Canada is a very safe country, with crime rates similar to Western European nations like Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands.

A lot is always made of the "Murder Capital" of Canada. This is measured by murders per / 100000 people. The average in Canada for 2007 was 1.8, which is continuing a downward trend from the 1970s when it was around 3.0. This year, the capital was Port Coquitlam BC (and not because of Robert Pickton). The problem with this is that Canada has very few murders - 594 in 2007 nation wide, and a quarter of those are committed in Calgary, Montreal, and Toronto (The stats for metro Vancouver are split between lower mainland cities like Burnaby, Surrey, New West, etc...). So, that leaves a little over 400 murders to be spread out over the rest of the country.

Port Coquitlam has a population of around 60,000 people. They had 3 murders in 2007. I'm not a statistician, but I don't think 3 even be considered statistically significant. So in 2008 if there was only one murder you could say "Murders decreased 66% this year". I just don't think it means anything and I think that when you are dealing with such small numbers the results should be thrown out. If I remember my University days correctly, to be a statistically relevant sample size you need at least 20. Regina is another interesting example. In 2003-2006, Regina had the dubious distinction of either being first or second in homicides with 8-10 a year. In 2007, they had only 5 which dropped them to 17th. Great for Regina, but is a numerical drop of 4 an indicator that anything has improved? Was a number of 9 homicides the year an indicator that the city has a problem with homicides to begin with? Police say that homicides are very difficult to prevent, because the victims typically know each other and crimes of passion are frequently involved. Only the largest cities in Canada have enough homicides a year to do any kind of meaningful trending or analysis on. That's a good thing.

Let's do some comparisons with our friends to the South for 2007. Let's use Edmonton as an example, with around 32 murders in 2007 for a rate of 4.18 murders per 100,000. Edmonton had a population of around 764,000 that year. If you compare with Indianapolis Indiana, a city of comparable population. Their murder rate was 14.30. Over 3x as much. Columbus, Ohio is around 10. For alarm, I'll throw in two of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. stats - Baltimore and Detroit. Both had a rate around 45. I'm not trying to bash our neighbours to the South. In general, the United States is also very safe. New York City, considered one of the safest big cities in the world had a rate of 6.03.

What brought Saskatoon down was aggravated assault and robberies. Using robbery as an example, Saskatoon had 272 counts in 2007. If I was to put Saskatoon in a chart with comparable size U.S. Cities, Saskatoon would be towards the bottom of the pack - behind Irving and Lubbock, Texas and ahead of Yonkers NY and Spokane.

I'm not making any excuses, and I know that in the West the influx of gang influence that brings crime rates up needs to be dealt with somehow. But, overall, even the highest crime cities in Canada are great places to live.

Cheers.

Sports TV

OK, yesterday proved it. There is way too much sports coverage on TV. Yes, I said it. As most Canadians know, yesterday was the NHL trading deadline which is often talked about with as much hype as the first day of playoffs. This has been covered even more in recent years, since the salary cap has really lessened the amount of player movement throughout the season for various reasons. TSN started the countdown to the trading deadline a month ago. A MONTH!

So we had three networks - TSN, The Score, and Sportsnet all vying for the the viewer's interest with comprehensive coverage of the day and the ultimate goal of reporting something 30 seconds before the competitor network. Every trade is dissected, over analyzed, argued about until the next one. Given there was about 25 trades this year, and most of them minor, that's a whole lot of TV to fill with not a lot of information.

The networks also bring in special guests as experts to weigh in with additional expert analysis. Such as Marty McSorley. No offense to Marty, but what else can he possibly bring other than stating the same as Nick Kypreos and Darren Millard, just phrased different.

Millard: "So, can we break down the Andy Wozniewski for Danny Richmond trade"
Kypreos: "Well Darren, in Wozniewski Pittsburgh adds to their depth on defense, and a guy who can hit. Richmond is a good stay at home defensemen who should make the team next year"
McSorley: "Pittsburgh does well here. They needed another depth defenseman. Richmond is a good addition to the Blues prospects, and should help the team in the near future"



Gee thanks guys. All you accomplished was eating up airtime by taking twice as long to say the same thing. And don't get me started on TSN. Do you really need three "Hockey Insider" type guys. Why do you need Bob McKenzie, Pierre McGuire, and Darren Dreger to all talk about rumours and over analyze everything in hockey. Bob McKenzie said the big winner of the day was the Florida Panthers because they did NOTHING. Thanks Bob for the insight. Really profound. And if Florida is the big winner by doing nothing why is there so much hype on the day to begin with?

Also, what is with Darren Dreger and his blackberry on set the last couple days? He was taking calls and answering emails on set. Are we supposed to believe that Dreger has a red phone to 30 NHL GM's and countless player agents? Let me get this straight, if something happens in the trade market, the GM's immediately send Dreger a text? Come on, sports announcers just aren't that important. Maybe now that the deadline is over he can answer his blackberry during commercial breaks.

On a related note though, Swift Current area boy Travis Moen is now a San Jose Shark joining another Swift Current area boy Patrick Marleau. They will coached by former Bronco coach Todd McLellan. With that kind of hometown contingent, I guess the Sharks will be the team I hitch my horse too if the Oilers don't make it into the playoffs.

Enough for today. Cheers

Weird firsts

This post relates to some things I think about when I'm at home by myself and the power goes out. I have always wondered about the first time something was done, and how it came about. Now, I'm not talking about famous cultural shifting firsts such as the first man on the moon, Rosa Parks, or the first person to climb Mount Everest. Most people know the details of these firsts.

What I wonder about is how certain elements of our culture came to be part of our culture, and how did it happen the first time.

1. Mentos and Diet Coke. Immortalized in the Youtube landscape are various videos of people putting a mentos in a Diet Coke and turning it from a low-calorie soft drink to a aspartame and fructose cannon. Who found this out? Did some scientist try to discover this on purpose? If so, I believe there may be better uses of his time. I say his, because I can't see a female doing this on purpose. Stupid experiments with consumer products are strictly a domain of us men.
What if this WAS found by accident. What if mom bought her 5 year old a pack of mentos and a diet coke at 7-11. Being inquisitive, the kid decided to see how Diet Coke flavoured mentos would taste. Instead, he found out what a coke covered minivan looks like. I hope mom was wearing her favourite white shirt just to add to the hilarity.

2. Ski Jumping. I am sure most people have seen this event in the Winter Olympics. You know, someone skiing down a steep slope to get speed, then up a ramp and proceeding to fly through the air and landing a couple hundred feet below. This is one of those sports, along with bull riding, that I politely say "Good luck with that".
To me, this sport had to have been found out by accident. There is no way someone came up with this event with the notion it could actually be feasible to fly off a ramp a couple hundred feet in the air with a couple fibreglass twigs on your feet and land safely without injury. My guess is this was discovered by accident. A talented skier was out of bounds and he skied off the edge of a cliff. He decided to make himself aerodynamic, and behold he survived with some injuries. This fellow (again, stupid ideas ladies) then thought as he was lying in traction - "You know, with a slightly smaller jump and some technique we could make a sport out of this".
My thinking is that this fellow was either a real good salesman, or he hired an excellent marketing firm. How do you market this into something people would actually decide to get into. Skiing is dangerous enough without having to worry about landing safety after jumping off a cliff. And how do you explain your choice to the parents. Little Johnny goes to mommy - "I want to be a ski jumper". Mommy then says to daddy - "I told you we gave him too much Ritalin".

3. Pink Floyd and children's movies. I am sure that a lot of people have heard, at least vaguely, about two famous Pink Floyd albums "synching up" with movies. The jist of it is, if you watch Disney's Alice in Wonderland while playing "The Wall" or watch the Wizard of Oz while playing "Dark Side of the Moon" that the music and movie eerily match up. I haven't seen The Wizard of Oz, but I can say that "The Wall" and Alice and Wonderland do synch up as long as you skip the song "Comfortably Numb".
Now, I give credit to the musical and production abilities of Roger Waters and David Gilmour, but I highly doubt they did this on purpose. So, how did this get found out? Given that 40% of the weed smoked between 1973 and 1985 took place with one of these two albums playing in the background you can guarantee that this was discovered in a "haze".
Let's take the Wall for example... who came up with this idea the first time? I know stoners can have some interesting ideas, but this seems kind of out there. Was it a group of broke college kids that had some weed, their favourite CD, and for some reason a VHS of Alice and Wonderland? They decide to do all three things at once, and one hour in go "Whoa". Seems far fetched to me. Also, how did they find out that everything gets screwed up unless you skip "Comfortably Numb"? Trial and Error? This really puzzles me.

That's it for today.

Cheers.

Two weeks in a row

So, for the first time since the late 1990's I was in Swift Current two weekends in a row. This last one was on a impulse as my hockey team was playing hockey at a tourney in Elrose and decided to head to Swift instead of staying in Rosetown (which was the original plan). Basically wanted to check out the casino. Didn't get to have a beer with Switzer but, we'll make up for that in March.

Of course, the main bar (Caddyshack) was like clockwork. Show up at 11;30 you can shoot a cannon through the place and only injure the coat check girl. By 12:15 the place is full and lined up. I still shake my head at how small this province is. My one buddy runs into his cousin from Saskatoon. Why is she in Swift, her good friend grew up in Swifty and on a whim they came down for the night to check the place out. Yep, I graduated high school with the friend. Oh yeah, ran into the girls the next morning at Smitty's on the way out of town. My bud James summed it up when he said "This is a really small town" when we left.

All and all there were 6 of us that made the trip to Swift, as gamblor got the best of us. The couple hours we spent at the casino showed how casinos make their money. I only play blackjack, and play quite conservatively. I play for fun only, and have never lost more than $20 in a sitting, or won more than $40. Basically an excuse to sit at a table, bullshit, and drink some beer.

Of the six of us, two won a decent amount of money. One hit the triple 7 at blackjack for a cool $500, and the other won $150 at poker. Myself and teammate #3 were each down about $20. Teammate #4 went down about $80. So as a group we did good? Well five of us anyway. Teammate #5 lost $550. So, the group as a whole broke even. Not bad (except for teammate #5 of course). The thing to note is that hitting the triple 7 is very narrow odds, hence the $1 bet = $500. So, even with a stroke of luck like that, the casino still breaks even in our group.

I've always said that gambling is a tax on the people who are bad at math. Never been proved wrong there.

Cheers.