Hi everyone, I hope you had a great Easter long weekend. Mine flew by as I did some Good Friday skiing, visited with friends and family and promptly flew back to Calgary.
Over the last 15 years or so, the debate about the legalization of marijuana has drifted in and out of the public discourse, depending on what is going on at the time. In the late 1990's, while Jean Chretien was finishing up his third term there was serious discussion of a change in marijuana laws and a senate report was commissioned to study usage patterns and the effects of marijuana on people. I am not going to discuss this report in great detail, but it is available with a simple google search and is a very interesting read.
When Chretien left power and the conservatives in Canada began to regain power the debate effectively disappeared from the discourse. In the United States, which was much tougher marijuana laws then we do in Canada, the debate started with medicinal marijuana when Bill Clinton was in office. It continued with George W. Bush's administration, but only in a very limited fashion because of larger events such as the war on Iraq, 9/11, and the general right wing ideals of that administration. Recently, the debate has started to enter the public discourse again in the United States.
Often, this discussion gets clouded and dismissed by people who believe that all people advocating for marijuana legalization are simply frequent users who don't want to break the law anymore. Indeed, many people on this side of the debate are frequent users and want the laws changed for basic personal reasons. However, many people advocating for softer marijuana laws are people who are not active users and look at it from a soceital perspective instead of
a individual perspective (like your's truly).
First thing, I am not going to use the term "legalization" further in this discussion. In reality, there are two plausible forms of marijuana law softening - decriminalization and regulation. Decriminialization takes the criminal component out of the personal usage of marijuana. For instance, if a person gets caught smoking a joint, or growing a small amount in her home for personal consumption only is only a summary offense with a fine (similar to a speeding ticket or an open liqour ticket). Selling or growing marijuana for the purposes of sale would remain
a criminal offense. If the laws ever get softened, my guess is this would be the first step in the process as it is the safer option politically.
Regulation is the model that is used in the Netherlands. The government tightly regulates the production, import and sale of marijuana. It can only be purchased in "coffeeshops" in the Netherlands, and can only be consumed within the establishment it was purchased from or (I believe) in a private residence. Many people tout make an argument that it is unfair to group marijuana with other hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin and meth and is more analogous to legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. While this may be true, I do not believe that any progress in softening marijuana laws will be made using these "it's not that bad" or "it's no worse than
alcohol".
Ultimately, the argument must be made with reference to the one thing everyone pays attention to - money. Currently, the marijuana trade is worth tens of billions of dollars annually in North America alone. The majority of this money goes to underground organizations such as street gangs and drug cartels and the government does not receive any tax revenue from this. However, Canadian and American governments spend large sums of money annually to
combat the marijuana trade through imprisonment, law enforcement, and any adverse effects on the health care system. That money comes out of the taxpayers pocket. Bringing the marijuana industry "above-ground" will give the governments additional revenue and would help greatly in funding programs and enforcement of other "harder" drugs that are mentioned above (which should still remain illegal).
With the marijuana trade being underground, criminal organizations such as street gangs have a large part in keeping the trade moving. Like any organization, criminal or not, they require money to pay their people and various expenses they incur. By taking the marijuana trade out of street gangs and cartels hands you eliminate a key source of revenue for the gangs. By doing that, the gangs may decrease in size and we also may see a crime rate drop. I'm speculating of course, and I don't think anyone knows for sure what the impact on street gang and drug related crime would be.
My prediction would be a short-term uptick in gang violence followed by a reduction over the long-term. The reason is that the various gangs would find themselves "over-staffed" and under increased competitive pressure for less money in the drug market. The gangs would then start battling over turf, and their membership would dwindle to balanced levels more in line with the illegal drug market without marijuana.
One example of this happening was an short-term upswing in gang related violence in Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton in early 2009. Although there is never one single factor for these types of trends one contributing factor was the decreased market for drugs in Western Canada as the economy went into a major downswing. In the years leading up to the recession, the Western Canadian economy was red-hot and there was a strong market for recreational drugs, primarily cocaine. A lot of people in the drug trade started migrating West to help keep up with the demand. When the economy slowed, so did the market for cocaine. The gangs started encroaching on each others' turf to gain more of a reduced market, and violence starting occuring.
Anyways, a long rant for today.
Cheers.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Ann Coulter
Greetings everyone. I hope everyone had an enjoyable St. Patrick’s Day. Wednesday St. Patties days are tough, because there are still two days of work left. You know the people I feel for? The people who are actually sick on March 18th and have to call in to work that they won’t be in. Employee “Hello, I’m sick and won’t be in today”. Boss: “Really, the green beer flu?” I work with a girl who came into work legitimately sick on the 18th, because she didn’t want to call in sick on St. Patrick’s day.
American conservative best-selling author and columnist Ann Coulter has been on a limited speaking tour in Canada this past week. She had stops in London Ontario, Ottawa, and a couple days ago in Calgary. For those not familiar with Coulter, she is a very polarizing figure in the United States as she has viewpoints that are far right on the political spectrum. A couple of her books are entitled “Treason” and “How to Talk to a Liberal if you Must”. Her vitriol towards Muslims is well documented; as she has referred to them as “Ragheads” on occasion and made statements such as “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims”. Naturally, her appearances have been met with protests in her three stops; although her Ottawa speech was cancelled because of security concerns about a reported threat to Coulter’s safety.
Ann Coulter, as a topic instead of person, is very interesting to observe with regards to free speech. For one thing, the head organizer of the Ottawa speech warned Coulter about her speech largely because, unlike the United States, free speech is not guaranteed in the same way in Canada. This surprised Coulter and naturally she was quite defensive as she is one of many people (on both sides of the political spectrum) that pushes the concept of free speech in the United States to its limit. In Canada however, the Human Rights Commission can charge someone with hate speech quite easily, and have shown in the past they are quick to do so. I believe that the speech organizer in Ottawa, at least, had Coulter’s best interests in mind.
The reason why is the case of Mark Steyn; a conservative, articulate columnist who often writes for MacLeans magazine. One of his key talking points in recent years has been the demographic challenges Western society faces (in particular Western European nations) with regards to low birth rates and immigration. Western European nations value their social democratic systems and are quite liberal in their policies and ideals. However, to make up for declining birthrates they turn to immigration primarily from Muslim countries in North Africa. Muslim birthrates are much higher than the Western European birthrates. Steyn’s concern, in my opinion a valid one, is that the Islam religion does not lend itself to a secularized society with liberal ideals, and if these demographic trends continue the fabric of the social democratic system the Western European’s hold dear is in jeopardy.
When Steyn wrote an article in MacLeans about this issue, he was charged under the Canadian Human Rights Commission as inciting hate speech and he was able to be charged in any jurisdiction in Canada (which by no coincidence was our most liberal jurisdiction – British Columbia). Steyn’s article was FAR less inflammatory than what Coulter often speaks and writes about. I will not be surprised if she gets a charge laid on her based on something she said in one of her speaking engagements.
I quite frankly have a problem with how some of my fellow Canadians behaved during this brief tour. She is not in any kind of position of power in the United States, let alone Canada, and yet she has threats made on her life based only on her often controversial viewpoints. This sounds strangely familiar to Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks getting death threats after her comments about George Bush in 2003 and Dutch talk show host Theo van Gogh being killed in the streets of Amsterdam because of his opinions on Muslims in the Netherlands. Although I disagree with 90% of what Ann Coulter says, I choose not to support her by not buying her books, or reading anything she writes.
Cheers, and have a great weekend.
American conservative best-selling author and columnist Ann Coulter has been on a limited speaking tour in Canada this past week. She had stops in London Ontario, Ottawa, and a couple days ago in Calgary. For those not familiar with Coulter, she is a very polarizing figure in the United States as she has viewpoints that are far right on the political spectrum. A couple of her books are entitled “Treason” and “How to Talk to a Liberal if you Must”. Her vitriol towards Muslims is well documented; as she has referred to them as “Ragheads” on occasion and made statements such as “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims”. Naturally, her appearances have been met with protests in her three stops; although her Ottawa speech was cancelled because of security concerns about a reported threat to Coulter’s safety.
Ann Coulter, as a topic instead of person, is very interesting to observe with regards to free speech. For one thing, the head organizer of the Ottawa speech warned Coulter about her speech largely because, unlike the United States, free speech is not guaranteed in the same way in Canada. This surprised Coulter and naturally she was quite defensive as she is one of many people (on both sides of the political spectrum) that pushes the concept of free speech in the United States to its limit. In Canada however, the Human Rights Commission can charge someone with hate speech quite easily, and have shown in the past they are quick to do so. I believe that the speech organizer in Ottawa, at least, had Coulter’s best interests in mind.
The reason why is the case of Mark Steyn; a conservative, articulate columnist who often writes for MacLeans magazine. One of his key talking points in recent years has been the demographic challenges Western society faces (in particular Western European nations) with regards to low birth rates and immigration. Western European nations value their social democratic systems and are quite liberal in their policies and ideals. However, to make up for declining birthrates they turn to immigration primarily from Muslim countries in North Africa. Muslim birthrates are much higher than the Western European birthrates. Steyn’s concern, in my opinion a valid one, is that the Islam religion does not lend itself to a secularized society with liberal ideals, and if these demographic trends continue the fabric of the social democratic system the Western European’s hold dear is in jeopardy.
When Steyn wrote an article in MacLeans about this issue, he was charged under the Canadian Human Rights Commission as inciting hate speech and he was able to be charged in any jurisdiction in Canada (which by no coincidence was our most liberal jurisdiction – British Columbia). Steyn’s article was FAR less inflammatory than what Coulter often speaks and writes about. I will not be surprised if she gets a charge laid on her based on something she said in one of her speaking engagements.
I quite frankly have a problem with how some of my fellow Canadians behaved during this brief tour. She is not in any kind of position of power in the United States, let alone Canada, and yet she has threats made on her life based only on her often controversial viewpoints. This sounds strangely familiar to Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks getting death threats after her comments about George Bush in 2003 and Dutch talk show host Theo van Gogh being killed in the streets of Amsterdam because of his opinions on Muslims in the Netherlands. Although I disagree with 90% of what Ann Coulter says, I choose not to support her by not buying her books, or reading anything she writes.
Cheers, and have a great weekend.
Monday, March 8, 2010
New Regina Stadium
Hi everyone,
Hope everyone had a great weekend. It was around the +10 mark in Calgary over the weekend so I took advantage of that with some walking, running, and patio beers.
In the last 6-8 months, a lot of discussion has been centered around a new stadium in Regina to house the Saskatchewan Roughriders. Various options have been talked about including a dome stadium, open air stadium, and upgrading and fixing the existing Mosaic Stadium. Ultimately, some money has to be spent going forward.
Not surprisingly, the most costly option is the dome stadium, followed by the open air stadium, followed by improving Mosiac. Before I get into my opinions on what should be done, I will preface that if a dome is built it MUST have a retractable roof. In the summertime in Saskatchewan, there are few better things to do then sit outside on a +25 Saturday afternoon enjoy some beverages and cheer on the green and white. I would not go to nearly as many games in the summer if they were played with a roof over my head.
The attraction for the Dome stadium in Saskatchewan has less to do with the Riders and more to do with the ability to attract other large events such as concerts, trade shows, and other sporting events such as the Vanier Cup. The dome is being entertained largely because the provincial government is more likely to help fund a multi-use facility then a cheaper outdoor option, but used only for football.
Depending on the numbers you believe, a 33,000-38,000 seat dome with a retractable roof is estimated at $400-$500 million. I am going to estimate on the high side, as these things always have cost overruns and say $500 million. There is environmental remidiation from the old railroad, and increasing commodity prices that will push the price of this stadium upwards to the half billion dollar mark.
My biggest concern about the retractable roof dome is that it may turn into a white elephant for the province. Although we are starting to grow after years of stagnant population, we are still only just over a million people in Saskatchewan. We are also still a relatively rural population spread out over a large area with less than 50% of us living in or between our two large centers Regina and Saskatoon. That means we are counting on people to travel to Regina for events to make the dome stadium work. This may not be a huge issue, as people have shown they will travel for the Roughriders and events such as the Rolling Stones and AC/DC.
The success of the Roughriders over the last three seasons and the attraction of stadium concerts to Mosaic has created the buzz for the dome stadium. The Rolling Stones and AC/DC were very successful. The Roughriders have packed the house for every home game in the past three years. However, has anyone completed an analysis on whether there is additional demand for Roughrider tickets to warrant the additional capacity in a dome stadium? The one thing we as a province can not do is adopt an "if we build it they will come" attitude.
Another concern is that large concerts, while quite profitable, are becoming fewer at the scale that can fill a 35,000 seat stadium. The acts that can fill them are getting old and it is unlikely the Stones or AC/DC will ever be back to Regina, even with a Dome. The only act that is still touring that is guaranteed to fill a stadium is U2. The only other act I can think of that would fill a stadium would be a Zeppelin reunion. There are many other acts that can easily fill 15,000-20,000 seats such as Foo Fighters, Coldplay, The Killers, and various pop performers like Beyonce and Rihanna. However I doubt, with the exception of maybe Coldplay, that any of these acts would fill 35,000 seats in Regina. We just don't have the population for it. We are right next door to Edmonton and Calgary, which would also grab a date on the same tour and we would therefore not get many travellers from Alberta.
Ultimately, the criteria for building a dome should be does it make money and will it pay for itself. Dallas just completed its new stadium to house the Cowboys which was over a billion dollars but had cowboys owner Jerry Jones putting up a significant amount of his own money to help build the stadium. Jones is in the top 200 richest men in the world according to Forbes. Cowboys stadium was largely a statement of Jones' hubris and that stadium does not need to pay for itself necessarily.
However, in a lot of these new NFL stadiums the practice of seat licensing is becoming common to help recoup building costs. Depending of the quality of the season tickets, season tickets holders may be required to put up licensing fees for their seat in the tens of thousands of dollars IN ADDITION to the costs of their tickets. This happened at both Cowboys Stadium and the New Meadowlands in New jersey where the Jets and Giants play. A good idea when you have a fan base willing and able to do this. This base of licensing fees works as a type of endowment that helps cover operating costs from year to year (I believe it is refundable if season tickets are cancelled, but the next season ticket holder must pay it).
Now, no Rider fan is going to pay a licensing fee in the tens of thousands for a seat. However, as a Rider season ticket holder I would be willing to help pay my share for a dome or open air stadium. If 15,000 season ticket holders paid a one time fee of $1000 that would pay for 1/3 of the stadium. The Saskatchewan government could then make that contribution tax deductable.
Funding aside, I think that the football stadium should be only a portion of what is built. Twin ice rinks, a three quarter indoor soccer pitch, swimming pool and a fitness facility should also be a part of this development. This will guarantee people are using the facility year round through beer league hockey and soccer, minor hockey and soccer, and the profits from that will go a long way in paying for the stadium as a whole. Linking a hotel and casino to the stadium is a good idea, but tourism and hotel revenue can also be realized through a sports complex.
Overall, I'm just not confident a dome stadium will work in Regina (or Saskatoon for that matter). I think an enclosed open air stadium is a more logical option.
Cheers.
Hope everyone had a great weekend. It was around the +10 mark in Calgary over the weekend so I took advantage of that with some walking, running, and patio beers.
In the last 6-8 months, a lot of discussion has been centered around a new stadium in Regina to house the Saskatchewan Roughriders. Various options have been talked about including a dome stadium, open air stadium, and upgrading and fixing the existing Mosaic Stadium. Ultimately, some money has to be spent going forward.
Not surprisingly, the most costly option is the dome stadium, followed by the open air stadium, followed by improving Mosiac. Before I get into my opinions on what should be done, I will preface that if a dome is built it MUST have a retractable roof. In the summertime in Saskatchewan, there are few better things to do then sit outside on a +25 Saturday afternoon enjoy some beverages and cheer on the green and white. I would not go to nearly as many games in the summer if they were played with a roof over my head.
The attraction for the Dome stadium in Saskatchewan has less to do with the Riders and more to do with the ability to attract other large events such as concerts, trade shows, and other sporting events such as the Vanier Cup. The dome is being entertained largely because the provincial government is more likely to help fund a multi-use facility then a cheaper outdoor option, but used only for football.
Depending on the numbers you believe, a 33,000-38,000 seat dome with a retractable roof is estimated at $400-$500 million. I am going to estimate on the high side, as these things always have cost overruns and say $500 million. There is environmental remidiation from the old railroad, and increasing commodity prices that will push the price of this stadium upwards to the half billion dollar mark.
My biggest concern about the retractable roof dome is that it may turn into a white elephant for the province. Although we are starting to grow after years of stagnant population, we are still only just over a million people in Saskatchewan. We are also still a relatively rural population spread out over a large area with less than 50% of us living in or between our two large centers Regina and Saskatoon. That means we are counting on people to travel to Regina for events to make the dome stadium work. This may not be a huge issue, as people have shown they will travel for the Roughriders and events such as the Rolling Stones and AC/DC.
The success of the Roughriders over the last three seasons and the attraction of stadium concerts to Mosaic has created the buzz for the dome stadium. The Rolling Stones and AC/DC were very successful. The Roughriders have packed the house for every home game in the past three years. However, has anyone completed an analysis on whether there is additional demand for Roughrider tickets to warrant the additional capacity in a dome stadium? The one thing we as a province can not do is adopt an "if we build it they will come" attitude.
Another concern is that large concerts, while quite profitable, are becoming fewer at the scale that can fill a 35,000 seat stadium. The acts that can fill them are getting old and it is unlikely the Stones or AC/DC will ever be back to Regina, even with a Dome. The only act that is still touring that is guaranteed to fill a stadium is U2. The only other act I can think of that would fill a stadium would be a Zeppelin reunion. There are many other acts that can easily fill 15,000-20,000 seats such as Foo Fighters, Coldplay, The Killers, and various pop performers like Beyonce and Rihanna. However I doubt, with the exception of maybe Coldplay, that any of these acts would fill 35,000 seats in Regina. We just don't have the population for it. We are right next door to Edmonton and Calgary, which would also grab a date on the same tour and we would therefore not get many travellers from Alberta.
Ultimately, the criteria for building a dome should be does it make money and will it pay for itself. Dallas just completed its new stadium to house the Cowboys which was over a billion dollars but had cowboys owner Jerry Jones putting up a significant amount of his own money to help build the stadium. Jones is in the top 200 richest men in the world according to Forbes. Cowboys stadium was largely a statement of Jones' hubris and that stadium does not need to pay for itself necessarily.
However, in a lot of these new NFL stadiums the practice of seat licensing is becoming common to help recoup building costs. Depending of the quality of the season tickets, season tickets holders may be required to put up licensing fees for their seat in the tens of thousands of dollars IN ADDITION to the costs of their tickets. This happened at both Cowboys Stadium and the New Meadowlands in New jersey where the Jets and Giants play. A good idea when you have a fan base willing and able to do this. This base of licensing fees works as a type of endowment that helps cover operating costs from year to year (I believe it is refundable if season tickets are cancelled, but the next season ticket holder must pay it).
Now, no Rider fan is going to pay a licensing fee in the tens of thousands for a seat. However, as a Rider season ticket holder I would be willing to help pay my share for a dome or open air stadium. If 15,000 season ticket holders paid a one time fee of $1000 that would pay for 1/3 of the stadium. The Saskatchewan government could then make that contribution tax deductable.
Funding aside, I think that the football stadium should be only a portion of what is built. Twin ice rinks, a three quarter indoor soccer pitch, swimming pool and a fitness facility should also be a part of this development. This will guarantee people are using the facility year round through beer league hockey and soccer, minor hockey and soccer, and the profits from that will go a long way in paying for the stadium as a whole. Linking a hotel and casino to the stadium is a good idea, but tourism and hotel revenue can also be realized through a sports complex.
Overall, I'm just not confident a dome stadium will work in Regina (or Saskatoon for that matter). I think an enclosed open air stadium is a more logical option.
Cheers.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Hi Everyone,
I just got back from a few days in Vancouver at the Olympics and like everyone else in Vancouver I had a great time. Checked out a couple hockey games, some of the sights, and helped keep various Vancouver establishments in business a little while longer. That's about all I'm going to talk about the Olympics on this post, largely because it has been talked about to death.
Recently, I had a letter to the editor published in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, the local Saskatoon newspaper. The issue was regarding a crackdown on speeding due to an ever increasing amount of traffic collisions over the last five years in Saskatoon. The last few years has seen Saskatoon's crime rate fall overall, but traffic collisions has stubbornly increased year after year. One of the solutions was to crackdown on speeding across the city. The story in the newspaper featured a crackdown close to a local high school.
This is a topic that most people have an opinion on, since it affects everyone. Opinions range from the argument that tickets are a hidden tax and officers' time is better spend elsewhere to those welcoming a crackdown to hopefully correct some dangerous driving habits. I don't discount either of those opinions, since money is always a factor in any decision and there are plenty of reckless drivers on the roads. However, if the idea is to reduce traffic collisions on Saskatoon streets focusing on speeding is somewhat of a red herring. My opinion is the reason the city is focusing on speeding is that it is the easiest to enforce.
One of my interests, outside what actually puts food on my table, is urban planning and design. Saskatoon has gone though a lot of growth and transformation in the last 5 years, and my opinion is the design decisions coupled with city growth is the primary reason for collision increases. Cities that are growing rapidly are always behind on infrastructure to support the growth (see: Calgary). Increased cars on the road combined with infrastructure has not expanded to meet those needs will result in more collisions. However, in Saskatoon collisions have risen in greater proportion to increased traffic volume. Therefore, there is an additional issue that is contributing to that.
From 2003 to now, Saskatoon has begun implementing a development model common in many U.S. cities. Big box retail "power centers" that are located in areas that are either on the outskirts of the city or not integrated well with residential areas. The addition of Preston Crossing, Stonegate shopping center, University Heights shopping and the upcoming Wal-Mart anchored power center on the western outskirts of the city have happened in this timeframe.
A large part of what has driven this is the moving of two Wal-Marts out of the shopping malls into these large power centers as a main anchor, along with the addition of a new Wal-Mart in the Southeast of the city. This has greatly reduced the shopping desirability of two shopping malls that not only are more integrated with residental areas but also have transit terminals located right at the mall. The effect of this is that in order to get to these power centers, people have to drive longer distances and on main arteries to run errands.
City planners and developers often tout these power centers as more convenient as they are a one stop shop for everything. The latter is true, but I question whether they are convenient. I am of the opinion that people should be able to run 75% of their errands within their own neighborhoods. The common errands I'm thinking of? Food, household consumables like toilet paper, and prescriptions. Older neighborhoods in Saskatoon typically have a smaller grocer and pharmacy available that is a short walk, bike, or drive away. What is more important, is that even if people drive to these spots they are on local roads and can avoid the major arteries. I do acknowledge that it is not feasible to get everything within one's own neighborhood such as larger consumer goods as home electronics and furniture. However, people generally do not buy household electronics or furniture on a weekly or even a monthly basis. For these higher ticket purchases, people do travel and are willing to travel farther. But, this is the minority of errands people have to run.
If this is indeed the case, then the city will have a much more difficult and expensive reducing traffic collisions and they would have to rethink the city development plan for new neighborhoods and look at what could be done in established neighborhoods that have lost local amenities to the power centers (Sutherland, Downtown, Lakeview for example).
Something to think about...
Cheers.
I just got back from a few days in Vancouver at the Olympics and like everyone else in Vancouver I had a great time. Checked out a couple hockey games, some of the sights, and helped keep various Vancouver establishments in business a little while longer. That's about all I'm going to talk about the Olympics on this post, largely because it has been talked about to death.
Recently, I had a letter to the editor published in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, the local Saskatoon newspaper. The issue was regarding a crackdown on speeding due to an ever increasing amount of traffic collisions over the last five years in Saskatoon. The last few years has seen Saskatoon's crime rate fall overall, but traffic collisions has stubbornly increased year after year. One of the solutions was to crackdown on speeding across the city. The story in the newspaper featured a crackdown close to a local high school.
This is a topic that most people have an opinion on, since it affects everyone. Opinions range from the argument that tickets are a hidden tax and officers' time is better spend elsewhere to those welcoming a crackdown to hopefully correct some dangerous driving habits. I don't discount either of those opinions, since money is always a factor in any decision and there are plenty of reckless drivers on the roads. However, if the idea is to reduce traffic collisions on Saskatoon streets focusing on speeding is somewhat of a red herring. My opinion is the reason the city is focusing on speeding is that it is the easiest to enforce.
One of my interests, outside what actually puts food on my table, is urban planning and design. Saskatoon has gone though a lot of growth and transformation in the last 5 years, and my opinion is the design decisions coupled with city growth is the primary reason for collision increases. Cities that are growing rapidly are always behind on infrastructure to support the growth (see: Calgary). Increased cars on the road combined with infrastructure has not expanded to meet those needs will result in more collisions. However, in Saskatoon collisions have risen in greater proportion to increased traffic volume. Therefore, there is an additional issue that is contributing to that.
From 2003 to now, Saskatoon has begun implementing a development model common in many U.S. cities. Big box retail "power centers" that are located in areas that are either on the outskirts of the city or not integrated well with residential areas. The addition of Preston Crossing, Stonegate shopping center, University Heights shopping and the upcoming Wal-Mart anchored power center on the western outskirts of the city have happened in this timeframe.
A large part of what has driven this is the moving of two Wal-Marts out of the shopping malls into these large power centers as a main anchor, along with the addition of a new Wal-Mart in the Southeast of the city. This has greatly reduced the shopping desirability of two shopping malls that not only are more integrated with residental areas but also have transit terminals located right at the mall. The effect of this is that in order to get to these power centers, people have to drive longer distances and on main arteries to run errands.
City planners and developers often tout these power centers as more convenient as they are a one stop shop for everything. The latter is true, but I question whether they are convenient. I am of the opinion that people should be able to run 75% of their errands within their own neighborhoods. The common errands I'm thinking of? Food, household consumables like toilet paper, and prescriptions. Older neighborhoods in Saskatoon typically have a smaller grocer and pharmacy available that is a short walk, bike, or drive away. What is more important, is that even if people drive to these spots they are on local roads and can avoid the major arteries. I do acknowledge that it is not feasible to get everything within one's own neighborhood such as larger consumer goods as home electronics and furniture. However, people generally do not buy household electronics or furniture on a weekly or even a monthly basis. For these higher ticket purchases, people do travel and are willing to travel farther. But, this is the minority of errands people have to run.
If this is indeed the case, then the city will have a much more difficult and expensive reducing traffic collisions and they would have to rethink the city development plan for new neighborhoods and look at what could be done in established neighborhoods that have lost local amenities to the power centers (Sutherland, Downtown, Lakeview for example).
Something to think about...
Cheers.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Airport Security
Greetings everyone. Hoping everyone had a good holiday season and all that stuff.
It's been a while since I made a post on here. 2009 was an interesting year for me. In the fall of 2008 I took a job back home in Saskatoon with a company I used to work for. I thought being home all the time was what I wanted; aside from travelling every week. Turned out I got bored VERY quickly, and the job was not incredibly stimulating. Aside from being able to play hockey a lot more frequently, being home in Saskatoon was not what I wanted. I quit that job in June of 2009, and went back to doing what I love - SAP consulting. I took a job that now finds me in Calgary every week for the foreseeable future. Needless to say, I am back to really enjoying myself again.
Now that I'm back to flying every week, the issue of airport security is once again something I pay attention. I'm sure many heard about the thwarted terrorist attempt on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. My opinion is the guy on the plane was not a terrorist. Just a guy who realised he was heading to Detroit mid-flight figured he would rather blow himself up.
All kidding aside, the issue was the bomber snuck through security, and was thwarted by passengers on the plane. The result was another measure of airport security along with the small bottles and taking off your shoes; a limit on carry on bags to small personal items (laptop, purse). This only applies to International flights into the United States as I don't see any changes on my frequent flights from Calgary to Saskatoon.
I believe that the approach to airport security needs to change significantly. One idea that has been thrown around since 9/11 is profiling "high-risk" groups and screen them accordingly. However, this concept is politically unpopular because it can be easily spun into racial profiling. My opinions on the politics of this aside, I believe there is a better method.
One of my favourite comedians, Bill Maher, jokes that as a society we know how to do security if we are willing to spend the money. "Have you ever been to a casino? You can't do math in your head without being booted into the desert!". Granted, a casino is generally a much more profitable venture then an airline and has the money to spend on security. However, a casino does not run every patron through long lines and an X-ray machine before entering. What they do is use tools such as player's cards and people on the floor like pit bosses to monitor behaviours. For instance, a irregular betting pattern at the blackjack table may indicate a player is counting cards.
In a casino, if you are not trying to cheat, count cards, or steal you will be left alone except to be given free stuff if you gamble enough. The airline's model of scanning everyone and randomly searching people more extensively is ok, but a behaviour monitoring strategy would be much more effective.
Airlines, like casinos, collect a lot of information on their passengers through check-in and loyalty programs such as Aeroplan. If you fly internationally, they record the passport number and every movement of a passenger is tracked in their databases. Now I am not an expert in psychology, but being a information systems guy that there is ways to "mine" this vast amount of data to identify patterns of behaviour by passengers to differentiate your run of the mill business traveller to someone who is involved in criminal activity.
Using this concept airport staff may be able to use more intelligent information to pull higher risk people out of the line for more detailed searches. That way, you don't have to pull 75 year old women, or Al Gore out of the line for random searches that only serves to waste valuable time.
My two cents anyway...
Cheers.
It's been a while since I made a post on here. 2009 was an interesting year for me. In the fall of 2008 I took a job back home in Saskatoon with a company I used to work for. I thought being home all the time was what I wanted; aside from travelling every week. Turned out I got bored VERY quickly, and the job was not incredibly stimulating. Aside from being able to play hockey a lot more frequently, being home in Saskatoon was not what I wanted. I quit that job in June of 2009, and went back to doing what I love - SAP consulting. I took a job that now finds me in Calgary every week for the foreseeable future. Needless to say, I am back to really enjoying myself again.
Now that I'm back to flying every week, the issue of airport security is once again something I pay attention. I'm sure many heard about the thwarted terrorist attempt on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. My opinion is the guy on the plane was not a terrorist. Just a guy who realised he was heading to Detroit mid-flight figured he would rather blow himself up.
All kidding aside, the issue was the bomber snuck through security, and was thwarted by passengers on the plane. The result was another measure of airport security along with the small bottles and taking off your shoes; a limit on carry on bags to small personal items (laptop, purse). This only applies to International flights into the United States as I don't see any changes on my frequent flights from Calgary to Saskatoon.
I believe that the approach to airport security needs to change significantly. One idea that has been thrown around since 9/11 is profiling "high-risk" groups and screen them accordingly. However, this concept is politically unpopular because it can be easily spun into racial profiling. My opinions on the politics of this aside, I believe there is a better method.
One of my favourite comedians, Bill Maher, jokes that as a society we know how to do security if we are willing to spend the money. "Have you ever been to a casino? You can't do math in your head without being booted into the desert!". Granted, a casino is generally a much more profitable venture then an airline and has the money to spend on security. However, a casino does not run every patron through long lines and an X-ray machine before entering. What they do is use tools such as player's cards and people on the floor like pit bosses to monitor behaviours. For instance, a irregular betting pattern at the blackjack table may indicate a player is counting cards.
In a casino, if you are not trying to cheat, count cards, or steal you will be left alone except to be given free stuff if you gamble enough. The airline's model of scanning everyone and randomly searching people more extensively is ok, but a behaviour monitoring strategy would be much more effective.
Airlines, like casinos, collect a lot of information on their passengers through check-in and loyalty programs such as Aeroplan. If you fly internationally, they record the passport number and every movement of a passenger is tracked in their databases. Now I am not an expert in psychology, but being a information systems guy that there is ways to "mine" this vast amount of data to identify patterns of behaviour by passengers to differentiate your run of the mill business traveller to someone who is involved in criminal activity.
Using this concept airport staff may be able to use more intelligent information to pull higher risk people out of the line for more detailed searches. That way, you don't have to pull 75 year old women, or Al Gore out of the line for random searches that only serves to waste valuable time.
My two cents anyway...
Cheers.
Monday, November 30, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, October 23, 2009
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.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, October 19, 2009
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.
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 
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.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, October 12, 2009
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.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
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
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.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
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.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, July 27, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
