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.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
25 Random Things
Looks like facebook is the new way to get chain letters. You can't install anything, play anything, or view anything without annoying 20-25 other people. The latest one is 25 random things about you where you are supposed to tag 25 friends and they'll say 25 random things about themselves and it passes on until you get it so many times you want to stick an icepick in your ear to see how far in it will go.
I won't do it on facebook, as to not clutter up everyone's screen with my tripe. That way I don't annoy anybody unless they want to be annoyed or have nothing better to do. However, these are completely random things, and really have nothing to do with relationships, but are just some comments or observations.
1. For some reason I enjoy chasing flocks of pigeons.
2. I believe in Karma. Largely because a pigeon shat on me when I was in NYC in the fall.
3. I'm pretty sure I like dogs and cats more then children.
4. Actually I'm quite sure of #3.
5. One day, I'm going to administer a series of IQ tests to a couple of my buddies (who shall remain nameless). One before a female enters their life. And one shortly after, because I'm pretty sure their IQ would drop 50 points.
6. On that note: To varying degrees all women are crazy, and all men are dumb. Largely because the opposite sex causes these respective ailments.
7. I find it remarkable how my hometown seems now just seems like a place to visit rather then a place I called home for 17 years.
8. A "lady" in the red light district in Amsterdam directed me to a church after trying to convince me to join her for a few minutes.
9. I was too baked, I couldn't find the church.
10. If a city or town has a one, and only one, 7-11 store. It follows that the 7-11 will be the center of the universe for the local high school age teens.
11. Three things that make up too much of my brain: Simpsons quotes, hockey stats, Seinfeld quotes.
12. The most scared I've ever been? Taking the elevator to the very top of the Eiffel Tower.
13. The second most scared I've ever been? Taking the elevator back down from the top of the Eiffel Tower
14. For the Westerners who have never been to a ripper joint outside of Sask and Alberta. The bouncers in Toronto get upset when you throw loonies at the girls. They don't make their money that way.
15. Bouncers in Toronto are also not very understanding of an honest mistake.
16. Truth in naming summed up in Southern Alberta: "Head Smashed in Buffalo Jump"
17. I don't think I'll ever whine about Saskatoon traffic again after battling rush hour on the QEW several times.
18. Two things I never want to know the numbers on: How much $$ I have spent on beer in my life. How much time I spent in high school with my buddies driving up and down main street Swift Current repeatedly.
19. I think the band with the broadest spectrum of fans is Tool. When I went a few years ago, I stood next to potheads, goth, metalheads, and typical t-shirt and jeans folk.
20. If you don't mind the smell of burning eyeball, I would recommend lazer surgery for anyone who is nearsighted.
21. For those who play guitar hero. There was a quote in one of the games - "A band is a dysfunctional family you choose". Truer words were never spoken.
22. On a related note, trying to choose covers to play when music tastes range from - 80s hair metal, 60s and 70s Brit rock, metal, progressive rock, and country sometimes proves difficult.
23. I saw a '79 beige Chrysler Cordoba for sale a few months ago. Almost bought it for nostalgia purposes (high school car).
24. How times change: a good friend I used to help with (or often do) math homework in grade school is now my financial advisor.
25. Definition of a small world: In Halifax, sitting next to a girl at a bar and finding out she is from Tisdale, SK who graduated high school with a good friend's ex-girlfriend.
Cheers.
I won't do it on facebook, as to not clutter up everyone's screen with my tripe. That way I don't annoy anybody unless they want to be annoyed or have nothing better to do. However, these are completely random things, and really have nothing to do with relationships, but are just some comments or observations.
1. For some reason I enjoy chasing flocks of pigeons.
2. I believe in Karma. Largely because a pigeon shat on me when I was in NYC in the fall.
3. I'm pretty sure I like dogs and cats more then children.
4. Actually I'm quite sure of #3.
5. One day, I'm going to administer a series of IQ tests to a couple of my buddies (who shall remain nameless). One before a female enters their life. And one shortly after, because I'm pretty sure their IQ would drop 50 points.
6. On that note: To varying degrees all women are crazy, and all men are dumb. Largely because the opposite sex causes these respective ailments.
7. I find it remarkable how my hometown seems now just seems like a place to visit rather then a place I called home for 17 years.
8. A "lady" in the red light district in Amsterdam directed me to a church after trying to convince me to join her for a few minutes.
9. I was too baked, I couldn't find the church.
10. If a city or town has a one, and only one, 7-11 store. It follows that the 7-11 will be the center of the universe for the local high school age teens.
11. Three things that make up too much of my brain: Simpsons quotes, hockey stats, Seinfeld quotes.
12. The most scared I've ever been? Taking the elevator to the very top of the Eiffel Tower.
13. The second most scared I've ever been? Taking the elevator back down from the top of the Eiffel Tower
14. For the Westerners who have never been to a ripper joint outside of Sask and Alberta. The bouncers in Toronto get upset when you throw loonies at the girls. They don't make their money that way.
15. Bouncers in Toronto are also not very understanding of an honest mistake.
16. Truth in naming summed up in Southern Alberta: "Head Smashed in Buffalo Jump"
17. I don't think I'll ever whine about Saskatoon traffic again after battling rush hour on the QEW several times.
18. Two things I never want to know the numbers on: How much $$ I have spent on beer in my life. How much time I spent in high school with my buddies driving up and down main street Swift Current repeatedly.
19. I think the band with the broadest spectrum of fans is Tool. When I went a few years ago, I stood next to potheads, goth, metalheads, and typical t-shirt and jeans folk.
20. If you don't mind the smell of burning eyeball, I would recommend lazer surgery for anyone who is nearsighted.
21. For those who play guitar hero. There was a quote in one of the games - "A band is a dysfunctional family you choose". Truer words were never spoken.
22. On a related note, trying to choose covers to play when music tastes range from - 80s hair metal, 60s and 70s Brit rock, metal, progressive rock, and country sometimes proves difficult.
23. I saw a '79 beige Chrysler Cordoba for sale a few months ago. Almost bought it for nostalgia purposes (high school car).
24. How times change: a good friend I used to help with (or often do) math homework in grade school is now my financial advisor.
25. Definition of a small world: In Halifax, sitting next to a girl at a bar and finding out she is from Tisdale, SK who graduated high school with a good friend's ex-girlfriend.
Cheers.
Friday, February 13, 2009
The Big Bear
Lazy day at work today, and I'm only working a half day anyways. Busy weekend coming up with some friends coming into town tonight for a weekend wedding, and me heading down to the old stomping grounds for some buffoonery. Should be a good one.
So, Canada had it's first trade deficit in 32 years in December. This did come as a bit of a shocker, and it was some great fodder for the hacks in Ottawa to start pointing fingers. Considering we had a trade surplus of $5.5 billion in August, a 5 month decline of $6 billion in the trade account is cause for a bit of alarm. Of course, the cries of "what is the government going to do" came out of parliament hill. Harper gave a nice stock answer about collaboration with other global leaders and blah blah blah. Translation - "What the hell can we do"?
Interesting to note that our imports were down in December as well, which meant that Canadians were buying less at the height of the busiest retail month of the year. So, this trade account deficit does not indicate we are heading to a United States model of a largely permanent trade deficit. Why does the United States have a permanent trade deficit? Largely because of oil and consumer goods. Everybody knows that U.S. imports a lot of oil, and almost all consumer goods these days are produced in Asia somewhere. When you have 300 million people buying clothing, toothpaste, and electronics that are built in other countries it is easy to see why the States have that permanent trade deficit. Of course I'm oversimplifying, but you get the idea.
Myself, I'm impressed with how well Canada is doing despite what is happening down in the States. Canada has done reasonably well to diversify its customers for its commodities, but the United States will always be our largest customer, and if they aren't buying two things happen. One, we sell much less to them. Two, the stuff we do sell to them is for a lot less then we are used to getting for it (oil and other commodities are prime examples of this). We will have a trade deficit for a while, but it will not be permanent. If anything, this is an example of how regardless on the scale of globalization of the world economy, it is still not robust enough to handle a sick United States. As Canadians, we have always known that. However, in the rapid growth since our last big recession in the early 1990's I think the rest of the world has forgot about that. George W. aside, I think this may have helped fueled global contempt for the United States - the attitude that "We don't need you anymore".
Maybe ask China right now how important the United States is to their economy. It has become apparent in the last few months that the Chinese might be more coupled with the U.S. economy than Canada is. Or you could ask the 25 million Chinese workers who lost their jobs in 2008. The U.S job losses of 2.6 million in 2008 is staggering to be sure, but on a per capita basis that is only 40% of what the Chinese have lost.
Fascinating stuff to be sure.
Cheers. Have a good family day long weekend.
So, Canada had it's first trade deficit in 32 years in December. This did come as a bit of a shocker, and it was some great fodder for the hacks in Ottawa to start pointing fingers. Considering we had a trade surplus of $5.5 billion in August, a 5 month decline of $6 billion in the trade account is cause for a bit of alarm. Of course, the cries of "what is the government going to do" came out of parliament hill. Harper gave a nice stock answer about collaboration with other global leaders and blah blah blah. Translation - "What the hell can we do"?
Interesting to note that our imports were down in December as well, which meant that Canadians were buying less at the height of the busiest retail month of the year. So, this trade account deficit does not indicate we are heading to a United States model of a largely permanent trade deficit. Why does the United States have a permanent trade deficit? Largely because of oil and consumer goods. Everybody knows that U.S. imports a lot of oil, and almost all consumer goods these days are produced in Asia somewhere. When you have 300 million people buying clothing, toothpaste, and electronics that are built in other countries it is easy to see why the States have that permanent trade deficit. Of course I'm oversimplifying, but you get the idea.
Myself, I'm impressed with how well Canada is doing despite what is happening down in the States. Canada has done reasonably well to diversify its customers for its commodities, but the United States will always be our largest customer, and if they aren't buying two things happen. One, we sell much less to them. Two, the stuff we do sell to them is for a lot less then we are used to getting for it (oil and other commodities are prime examples of this). We will have a trade deficit for a while, but it will not be permanent. If anything, this is an example of how regardless on the scale of globalization of the world economy, it is still not robust enough to handle a sick United States. As Canadians, we have always known that. However, in the rapid growth since our last big recession in the early 1990's I think the rest of the world has forgot about that. George W. aside, I think this may have helped fueled global contempt for the United States - the attitude that "We don't need you anymore".
Maybe ask China right now how important the United States is to their economy. It has become apparent in the last few months that the Chinese might be more coupled with the U.S. economy than Canada is. Or you could ask the 25 million Chinese workers who lost their jobs in 2008. The U.S job losses of 2.6 million in 2008 is staggering to be sure, but on a per capita basis that is only 40% of what the Chinese have lost.
Fascinating stuff to be sure.
Cheers. Have a good family day long weekend.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Resort Vacations
Over Xmas and New Years this year, I did what a lot of Canadians do in the dead of winter - go somewhere tropical. This year it was Punta Cana in the Dominican Republic. This is only the second time I've been on a hot vacation, largely because it is not my preferred type of vacation. I much prefer going to cities like Boston, Montreal, or New York. But I digress, overall the trip was a decent time but I'm not going to go into what I did, the daily events, and how nice the beach was. That's boring, and everybody comes back from tropical vacations saying it was gorgeous, we had fun, and the liver hurts.
This year I went with a good friend of mine (female, and no we aren't and no we didn't) and a couple from Alberta that are good friends with both of us. Small group, and naturally we ended up meeting different groups of people. People from Ontario, Britain, and upstate New York. Along with Michael Winslow of Police Academy fame (the sound effects guy). The group from Ontario of 25 came a day after we did, so we got drunk in the pool with them one day and our group was "adopted" into their group for the week. However, I was disowned later in the week (but that is another story). No biggy, because a British family adopted me, and they were MUCH more fun. One lesson I learned, I can't outdrink Brits in their mid-40s. Early 20's, yes, but not late 40s.
Having grown up in a relatively small city of about 15,000 people I have noticed some incredible parallels between a week at a resort and life in a small town. That week was a microcosm of what life in a small town is like. It is amazing on these huge resorts that you meet and hang out with the same people night after night, because you seek out people that are leaving within a day or two of you. So, very quickly everyone knows your story - single or married, where you are from, what do you do for a living, and whether you like candlelight dinners and long walks on the beach.
Now, it is great to meet other people, especially from other countries. However, there are consequences to this. This is where the similarities to a small town comes in. On a resort, there are only a handful of places to go at night - two or three lobby bars, a disco, and maybe a casino and theatre. So, unless you want to spend the night in your room "getting away" is very difficult because there is a very finite number of places in a small area that one can be at night. For people who know me, I do just fine on my own and I require some time to myself to keep my sanity. It becomes even more difficult to get away if someone at the resort hasn't seen the movie "He's just not that into you" and refuses to leave you alone. In a small town this is exactly the same. It is impossible to get away if someone wants to find you. In my old stomping ground of Swift Current for example, there are only a handful of decent nightspots so unless you want to try to pub crawl as an evasive maneuver you are at the mercy of geography and odds. I was naive to think that submitting to the urges of the evil monster gamblor that I could get away from some of the people who we getting on my nerves by hiding in the casino. It worked. For a grand total of 1.5 HOURS! I was found easily. Sniffed out if you will. I did make one crucuial and tragic mistake. I told one person where I was going, and not even my friend who I came with (she's like Elaine Benes from Seinfeld, her ability to keep her mouth shut is SEVERELY worsened by alcohol).
So, why the big effort in even trying to find me? Why just not leave the guy be you may ask. Well, I'll tell you. Imagine a house party is going on in a small town and someone you like and have a history with is all over somebody else. So, do you cause drama or do you avoid drama? If you choose to avoid drama, then you have to leave the party. But where do you go? It's a small town, and all your friends are at this party. Except one. And you know where this person is. So, you go and find them. But, someone tags along because she has been wanting to find this other person too, for other reasons. For the record girls, if a guy is interested you really shouldn't have to work hard. Read the signals. Nice guys won't tell you anything, but they will AVOID.
Another thing I noticed was that resort vacations are different than other vacations in the speed life happens. When you go to a place like Boston, you tour around, see some sights, and see what the nightlife has to offer. However, there isn't that sense of urgency and everything runs at the same speed as you are used to. Resorts, however, are completely different, especially for single people. Single people typically go down to resorts looking to hook-up. It's perfect, you probably won't see the person again, and as long as you don't find a clinger it's the last you will hear and see of them. With facebook that's not as true as it used to be, but the concept still applies. Let's say you meet someone. And also let's say the person you meet is there on a family vacation with parents. So, for a commitment phobe like myself this scares the crap out of me. You meet the parents immediately. How do you have a one-nighter with parents around? You have to make a very difficult decision. If it isn't the last night or two, then you have to make a decision - do you want a steady mate for the week or do you cut bait and find something a lot less complicated. The same thought process goes if you meet someone early in the week and you have to decide whether a one-nighter is actually possible. I had to go through this on night three, and decided to cut bait. Which brings me back to the small town. Unless the person is not a local how do you successfully pull off a one-nighter without having it bite you in the ass in the future. It's very tough. On a resort, if someone is leaving tomorrow then the mate can be considered a non-local because he or she won't be here for the rest of the week. However, if your mate is leaving around the same time as you are and it's only night three then there is a decision to be made. It's not an easy one (especially if you are attracted to the person). My decision was quite easy, because I'm a shallow bastard.
In summary, my next vacation is definitely NOT going to be tropical.
Enough on this for know, but keep this in mind the next time you go to a resort and just observe.
Cheers.
This year I went with a good friend of mine (female, and no we aren't and no we didn't) and a couple from Alberta that are good friends with both of us. Small group, and naturally we ended up meeting different groups of people. People from Ontario, Britain, and upstate New York. Along with Michael Winslow of Police Academy fame (the sound effects guy). The group from Ontario of 25 came a day after we did, so we got drunk in the pool with them one day and our group was "adopted" into their group for the week. However, I was disowned later in the week (but that is another story). No biggy, because a British family adopted me, and they were MUCH more fun. One lesson I learned, I can't outdrink Brits in their mid-40s. Early 20's, yes, but not late 40s.
Having grown up in a relatively small city of about 15,000 people I have noticed some incredible parallels between a week at a resort and life in a small town. That week was a microcosm of what life in a small town is like. It is amazing on these huge resorts that you meet and hang out with the same people night after night, because you seek out people that are leaving within a day or two of you. So, very quickly everyone knows your story - single or married, where you are from, what do you do for a living, and whether you like candlelight dinners and long walks on the beach.
Now, it is great to meet other people, especially from other countries. However, there are consequences to this. This is where the similarities to a small town comes in. On a resort, there are only a handful of places to go at night - two or three lobby bars, a disco, and maybe a casino and theatre. So, unless you want to spend the night in your room "getting away" is very difficult because there is a very finite number of places in a small area that one can be at night. For people who know me, I do just fine on my own and I require some time to myself to keep my sanity. It becomes even more difficult to get away if someone at the resort hasn't seen the movie "He's just not that into you" and refuses to leave you alone. In a small town this is exactly the same. It is impossible to get away if someone wants to find you. In my old stomping ground of Swift Current for example, there are only a handful of decent nightspots so unless you want to try to pub crawl as an evasive maneuver you are at the mercy of geography and odds. I was naive to think that submitting to the urges of the evil monster gamblor that I could get away from some of the people who we getting on my nerves by hiding in the casino. It worked. For a grand total of 1.5 HOURS! I was found easily. Sniffed out if you will. I did make one crucuial and tragic mistake. I told one person where I was going, and not even my friend who I came with (she's like Elaine Benes from Seinfeld, her ability to keep her mouth shut is SEVERELY worsened by alcohol).
So, why the big effort in even trying to find me? Why just not leave the guy be you may ask. Well, I'll tell you. Imagine a house party is going on in a small town and someone you like and have a history with is all over somebody else. So, do you cause drama or do you avoid drama? If you choose to avoid drama, then you have to leave the party. But where do you go? It's a small town, and all your friends are at this party. Except one. And you know where this person is. So, you go and find them. But, someone tags along because she has been wanting to find this other person too, for other reasons. For the record girls, if a guy is interested you really shouldn't have to work hard. Read the signals. Nice guys won't tell you anything, but they will AVOID.
Another thing I noticed was that resort vacations are different than other vacations in the speed life happens. When you go to a place like Boston, you tour around, see some sights, and see what the nightlife has to offer. However, there isn't that sense of urgency and everything runs at the same speed as you are used to. Resorts, however, are completely different, especially for single people. Single people typically go down to resorts looking to hook-up. It's perfect, you probably won't see the person again, and as long as you don't find a clinger it's the last you will hear and see of them. With facebook that's not as true as it used to be, but the concept still applies. Let's say you meet someone. And also let's say the person you meet is there on a family vacation with parents. So, for a commitment phobe like myself this scares the crap out of me. You meet the parents immediately. How do you have a one-nighter with parents around? You have to make a very difficult decision. If it isn't the last night or two, then you have to make a decision - do you want a steady mate for the week or do you cut bait and find something a lot less complicated. The same thought process goes if you meet someone early in the week and you have to decide whether a one-nighter is actually possible. I had to go through this on night three, and decided to cut bait. Which brings me back to the small town. Unless the person is not a local how do you successfully pull off a one-nighter without having it bite you in the ass in the future. It's very tough. On a resort, if someone is leaving tomorrow then the mate can be considered a non-local because he or she won't be here for the rest of the week. However, if your mate is leaving around the same time as you are and it's only night three then there is a decision to be made. It's not an easy one (especially if you are attracted to the person). My decision was quite easy, because I'm a shallow bastard.
In summary, my next vacation is definitely NOT going to be tropical.
Enough on this for know, but keep this in mind the next time you go to a resort and just observe.
Cheers.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Sean Avery
So, according to sportsnet, it looks like the New York Rangers are working to bring Sean Avery back in the fold. I may be in the minority, but I'm looking forward to seeing Avery back in the NHL. I think he needs to work on being more of a team guy so he is respected in the dressing room, but I hope he doesn't change his personality and comments in front of the microphone.
I love hockey, but I think the culture of the sport has an enormous bug up it's ass. The old school establishment of hockey has a tough time dealing with people with people that fit outside the "norm" of what a hockey character should be. That is... guys who dress in the same black suits, and when interviewed give the same stock answers about 110%, compliment the other team, and don't try to overshadow anything. You know, the typical respectable clean-cut kid from Canada. Once people go outside this norm, the sport has an incredibly difficult time figuring out what to do.
One reason why the NFL is so popular I believe, is the wide range of characters in the league from all kinds of backgrounds that appeal to wide range of people. Hot dogs like Terrell Owens, Randy Moss or Chad Johnson who do well at marketing the sport with their antics (love them or hate them). Lots of people relate to that. Myself, I'm kind of a dork so I relate more to the Manning brothers. You've got Ricky Williams, whose troubles with pot relates to a VERY large number of people.
In hockey, characters like this a few and far between. Jeremy Roenick is one who will have a great career in broadcasting once he is done playing. However, I look at what has happened to Ray Emery as evidence of hockey's close minded nature. Hockey doesn't have a lot of black players, and Emery was the first that really strongly embraced black cultural elements that are driven a lot from the hip-hop culture. He drove a large vehicle that looked like it had been customized by Xhibit. Instead of the black suit, he wore designer suits of different colours (similar to what guys like Kobe Bryant wear). What does the hockey establishment do, focus on him being late for practice, saying he's a cancer in the locker room, etc... Emery then gets banished to Russia. Looking at Ottawa's performance this year, I think its clear that Ray Emery was not the problem with the Senators.
I'm not saying the hockey establishment is racist, as Jerome Iginla is one of their most marketed athletes. However, Jerome is a clean cut Canadian from St. Albert, Alberta. I am saying that hockey needs to open its mind and let its 'characters' market the game as well. Avery may need to tone it down a bit when he comes back, but he shouldn't stop trying to sell the game because ultimately that is what he is trying to do. Maybe commenting on the various famous puck bunnies isn't the way to do it but guess what - it got hockey noticed. As did Emery fighting two guys on Buffalo a couple years ago.
Keep on talking Avery!
I love hockey, but I think the culture of the sport has an enormous bug up it's ass. The old school establishment of hockey has a tough time dealing with people with people that fit outside the "norm" of what a hockey character should be. That is... guys who dress in the same black suits, and when interviewed give the same stock answers about 110%, compliment the other team, and don't try to overshadow anything. You know, the typical respectable clean-cut kid from Canada. Once people go outside this norm, the sport has an incredibly difficult time figuring out what to do.
One reason why the NFL is so popular I believe, is the wide range of characters in the league from all kinds of backgrounds that appeal to wide range of people. Hot dogs like Terrell Owens, Randy Moss or Chad Johnson who do well at marketing the sport with their antics (love them or hate them). Lots of people relate to that. Myself, I'm kind of a dork so I relate more to the Manning brothers. You've got Ricky Williams, whose troubles with pot relates to a VERY large number of people.
In hockey, characters like this a few and far between. Jeremy Roenick is one who will have a great career in broadcasting once he is done playing. However, I look at what has happened to Ray Emery as evidence of hockey's close minded nature. Hockey doesn't have a lot of black players, and Emery was the first that really strongly embraced black cultural elements that are driven a lot from the hip-hop culture. He drove a large vehicle that looked like it had been customized by Xhibit. Instead of the black suit, he wore designer suits of different colours (similar to what guys like Kobe Bryant wear). What does the hockey establishment do, focus on him being late for practice, saying he's a cancer in the locker room, etc... Emery then gets banished to Russia. Looking at Ottawa's performance this year, I think its clear that Ray Emery was not the problem with the Senators.
I'm not saying the hockey establishment is racist, as Jerome Iginla is one of their most marketed athletes. However, Jerome is a clean cut Canadian from St. Albert, Alberta. I am saying that hockey needs to open its mind and let its 'characters' market the game as well. Avery may need to tone it down a bit when he comes back, but he shouldn't stop trying to sell the game because ultimately that is what he is trying to do. Maybe commenting on the various famous puck bunnies isn't the way to do it but guess what - it got hockey noticed. As did Emery fighting two guys on Buffalo a couple years ago.
Keep on talking Avery!
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Fighting in hockey
So with all this talk about fighting in hockey that has come up lately I figured I'd give my two cents. As one would expect with my blog, I'll talk about things I have an opinion on, so it really could be about anything :-). Today it's hockey and the hyped up discussion recently about fighting due to recent tragic events.
Regrettably, I have to say that Bob McCown was prophetic in his book "The 50 greatest hockey arguments" about the fact that someone would be seriously injured or killed on the ice in a hockey fight. I'm sure we've all heard about the young man that was killed in an Ontario senior hockey game, and with former Saskatoon Blade Garrett Klotz having a seizure on the ice recently as well after a fight. Now, for people who don't know McCown he is an advocate for taking fighting out of the game, and that point has become more valid lately.
Myself, I believe fighting has a place in hockey but the way it is used in the game now has made it less relevant. Now, it is largely a regular season spectacle between heavyweights. The fights are prearranged by the tough guys before the games, and sometime when the enforcers get on the ice at the same time for one of their 3 shifts they will get all game they drop the mitts. To me, this aspect of fighting needs to be removed from the game somehow. Otherwise, when San Jose and Minnesota play next time you might as well put "San Jose vs Minnesota with undercard Boogaard vs Shelley" on the marquee in front of the Excel Energy Center. This is a spectacle that undermines the legitimacy of my favourite sport.
Somehow I wish hockey could find a way to get rid of the "enforcer only" player. You know the guys - Boogaard, Shelley, Grimson, Godard, Ivanans, Boll - the guys who take up the 12th forward spot, get little icetime and only fight. Growing up in the 80s and early 90s I remember the enforcer who could also play hockey. Probert scored 20 goals a few times, McSorley was a decent defenseman, Chris Simon was good for 15-20 goals. The only player I can think of like that now is Chris Neil of the Senators. Not sure how more of these types are developed, but the NHL needs them.
The aspect of fighting that I love are the fights that start in the heat of the battle, when emotions are high and tempers flare up. Nothing wrong with that at all. Remember Iginla and Lecavalier in the 2004 playoffs? Comrie and Kovalchuk? Iginla and Hatcher? These are the types of fights that belong in the game because they aren't staged and happen in the heat of the game. How you keep one style of fighting but not the other I have no idea.
The last thing, something also needs to be done about this B.S. about "protecting your teammates". I'm talking about when a player gets hit by a good clean check and a fight breaks out afterwards. Don Cherry loves this crap. I think it's bush league. Hitting is part of the game, and players shouldn't be worried about having to fight if they deliver a nice CLEAN hit. I think about the weekend when Luke Schenn gave Malkin a bit of a ride into the boards. A nice clean hit that knocked Malkin down. However, Malkin got right up and back into the play and didn't even miss a shift. After the shift is done, Schenn gets jumped and Pittsburgh is down a man. You don't see fights in football after a Linebacker nails a running back with a good lick. If the running back got up and went after the Linebacker, the running back would likely be out of the game. What is the difference in hockey? Both are contact sports, why is there some false "code" in hockey and not in football? Cheap shots are one thing, but good clean htis are another.
Anyways, enough for today.
Cheers.
Regrettably, I have to say that Bob McCown was prophetic in his book "The 50 greatest hockey arguments" about the fact that someone would be seriously injured or killed on the ice in a hockey fight. I'm sure we've all heard about the young man that was killed in an Ontario senior hockey game, and with former Saskatoon Blade Garrett Klotz having a seizure on the ice recently as well after a fight. Now, for people who don't know McCown he is an advocate for taking fighting out of the game, and that point has become more valid lately.
Myself, I believe fighting has a place in hockey but the way it is used in the game now has made it less relevant. Now, it is largely a regular season spectacle between heavyweights. The fights are prearranged by the tough guys before the games, and sometime when the enforcers get on the ice at the same time for one of their 3 shifts they will get all game they drop the mitts. To me, this aspect of fighting needs to be removed from the game somehow. Otherwise, when San Jose and Minnesota play next time you might as well put "San Jose vs Minnesota with undercard Boogaard vs Shelley" on the marquee in front of the Excel Energy Center. This is a spectacle that undermines the legitimacy of my favourite sport.
Somehow I wish hockey could find a way to get rid of the "enforcer only" player. You know the guys - Boogaard, Shelley, Grimson, Godard, Ivanans, Boll - the guys who take up the 12th forward spot, get little icetime and only fight. Growing up in the 80s and early 90s I remember the enforcer who could also play hockey. Probert scored 20 goals a few times, McSorley was a decent defenseman, Chris Simon was good for 15-20 goals. The only player I can think of like that now is Chris Neil of the Senators. Not sure how more of these types are developed, but the NHL needs them.
The aspect of fighting that I love are the fights that start in the heat of the battle, when emotions are high and tempers flare up. Nothing wrong with that at all. Remember Iginla and Lecavalier in the 2004 playoffs? Comrie and Kovalchuk? Iginla and Hatcher? These are the types of fights that belong in the game because they aren't staged and happen in the heat of the game. How you keep one style of fighting but not the other I have no idea.
The last thing, something also needs to be done about this B.S. about "protecting your teammates". I'm talking about when a player gets hit by a good clean check and a fight breaks out afterwards. Don Cherry loves this crap. I think it's bush league. Hitting is part of the game, and players shouldn't be worried about having to fight if they deliver a nice CLEAN hit. I think about the weekend when Luke Schenn gave Malkin a bit of a ride into the boards. A nice clean hit that knocked Malkin down. However, Malkin got right up and back into the play and didn't even miss a shift. After the shift is done, Schenn gets jumped and Pittsburgh is down a man. You don't see fights in football after a Linebacker nails a running back with a good lick. If the running back got up and went after the Linebacker, the running back would likely be out of the game. What is the difference in hockey? Both are contact sports, why is there some false "code" in hockey and not in football? Cheap shots are one thing, but good clean htis are another.
Anyways, enough for today.
Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
