Friday, June 24, 2011

The Frito Lays Supreme Court of Canada

Fact #1: The Canadian government wants to please the Canadian people.

Fact #2: The Canadian people would be pleased if the government eliminated the debt/deficit.

Sub-conclusion #1: The Canadian government should eliminate the debt/deficit.

Fact #3: To eliminate a debt/deficit, the government must either increase revenues or cut services.

Fact #4: The Canadian people will not be pleased if there are cuts to services. (Recall fact #1.)

Sub-conclusion #2: The government should increase revenues.

Fact #5: To increase revenues, the Canadian government can force the Canadian people to pay them more money (taxes), ask for money (donations), or sell things.

Fact #6: The Canadian people will not be pleased to pay more taxes. (Recall fact #1.)

Fact #7: No group of people will donate regularly or in large enough amounts to eliminate the debt/deficit.

Sub-conclusion #3: The only option the Canadian government has to increase revenues is to sell things.

Fact #8: The Canadian government has a limited number of things it can sell.

Fact #9: The Canadian government needs to sell a lot of things to eliminate the debt/deficit.

Fact #10: If you have a limited number you can sell and you need to sell a lot of things then you need to cast a wide net when considering what you could possibly sell.

Sub-conclusion #4: The Canadian government needs to cast a wide net when considering what it could possibly sell.

Fact #11: One thing that can be sold is sponsorship.

Fact #12: Sponsors will pay good money to associate their brand with entities that have a good reputation.

Fact #13: The Supreme Court of Canada has a good reputation.

Q.E.D.

Let's Define "Working Class"

You might have seen the following post making the rounds on facebook (posted by a Canadian):
Remember when teachers, nurses, postal workers, librarians, social workers, airline employees and care assistants crashed the stock market, wiped out banks, took billions in bonuses and paid no taxes? (Copy and paste into your status to show support for the world's working class)
The point about bailouts going to rich bankers is well-taken, but what irks me is the attempt to label teachers, nurses, and other relatively well-paid groups "working class". Language is fluid and I might be behind the times, but my understanding of the definition of "working class" does not include those professions. In my world, working class people are not government employees competing against the banks for bailout money because working class people are not politically organized. That's part of why they are stuck in the working class.

(Aside: the other thing that is irksome about the italicized statement is that it lumps nurses, librarians, postal workers, etc in with the "world's" working class, like people who make two-dollars a day stitching Nikes in Bangladesh should feel a sense of solidarity with entitled Westerners that own jewelry worth more than a house in Bangladesh and could not find the country on a map.)

If the definition of "working class" is "the group of people who work to make money" then politicians and bankers would be working-class but a retired steel-worker would not be. Unless you are trying to distinguish the masses from the landed aristocracy in pre-war England then using that definition of working class is not going to be very much help.

The vagueness of the definition makes the term useful to politicians. The NDP, for example, can talk about fighting for "working families" knowing that almost everyone will think of themselves as part of that group. They won't realize that "working families" is nearly equivalent to "Canadian families" which, incidentally, is who the Conservatives say they fight for. (I guess that leaves the Liberals fighting for non-working non-Canadians) In reality, the NDP is probably the party that would do the most for non-working families by pushing a stronger safety net for the unemployed.

Anyway, I am getting off-topic again. Below are three keys you can use to determine whether or not you are working-class. If all three statements are true about you then there is a very good chance you qualify.
  1. Your household income is in the bottom third. Since working class is usually contrasted with middle class and upper class, I am using the one-third mark as the cut-off. In Canada, that works out to approximately $55,000. Remember that we are looking at household income so if you are someone who works part-time and makes only $10,000 annually, you will still fail to meet this condition if your significant other works as a teacher making $70,000.
  2. You are not on salary. I wanted to say, "You are paid by the hour" but that would exclude people who are paid for production such as tree-planters and farmers. And I realize that lawyers and prostitutes are paid by the hour, but they are differentiated in the other two conditions.
  3. You are paid more for your what body does than what your brain does. As a corollary, a member of the working class usually has to stand to do his or her job while the rest of us get to sit down.
If you are still on the fence, here are some other factors that would strongly suggest you are working-class or maybe even destitute:
  • You know former co-workers who had to stop working because of injuries.
  • You have unironically voiced a prejudice against a race or national origin in the past year, possibly while inebriated.
  • You know how long you are allowed to stay on welfare before they cut you off.
  • You think TFSA is an acronym for a new baseball statistic.
  • Your house looks like the house next to it. Alternatively, you do not have a house.
  • You last went to school in grade twelve.
  • You have a job, not a "profession".
  • You have ever worn handcuffs for non-sexual reasons.

The desire to be classified as working-class is similar to the desire people have to be well-off while simultaneously appearing poor. People love to complain about how tight their budgets are yet never discuss how they allowed their disposable incomes to be tied up on frivolities. Being rich is seen as tacky. People who are poor grind their way to make a living which is seen as a noble struggle. Their efforts may not produce stunning results but you have to admit they got the job done. They are "workmanlike", which is a compliment.
Essentially, the middle-class wants the sympathy and authenticity that comes with the perception of working crap jobs, but they cannot accept the reality of low pay and hard work that is the other half of the equation.

This has lead to white-collar workers romanticizing menial labour from a distance. Think about the protagonist in Office Space: At the start of the movie he is a software engineer which is a job that requires him to work for a living but he is not working-class. He is paid a good salary to essentially sit at his desk daydreaming. At the end of the movie, he gets a job as a construction worker, which is clearly working-class but it makes him happy. In real life no one is making that transition, but as a fictitious narrative it can sell a lot of DVDs.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

@georgestroumboulopoulos

so excited to ask the bass player from Blondie some questions tonight about his childhood in urbana illinois ... gonna be amazing #philosophy

crazy ... did you know that google means a hundred zeroes? ... i know what friday's show is going to be about! #learnsomethingneweveryday

loving! the punk metal and other music with an edge on polaris short list this year ... awesome ... gonna try and listen to some of the singles later tonight on the show #stromboshow #indiepunk

taking an in-depth look at what gdp is on the show tonight! ... might be a graph of U.S. vs. Canada then we'll ask folks on the street what they think #thehour

did some yoga ... feelin good! ... now i just gotta get my head massaged at cranio-sacral then i'll be ready for profound discussion with the director of dude where's my car ... the hits just keep on coming #thehour

I may work at the CBC but i'm still an anti-establishment rebel #sexpistols

lots of views on PM Harper's throne speech in the newsroom at work today! ... fit in extra 30 seconds on the show tonight for it then doing a 40 minute interview with kathy griffin #thehour

i love hockey and i get pumped when the playoffs are on ... does guy laflower still play for the Canadiens? ... they are amazing ... great team ... definately my favourite #NHL #Canada

practicing sitting with as little of my butt on chair as possible at ACC ... society's rules are just not for me! #goleafsgo

just got into argument with air farce people at geminis ... we couldn't agree whose vapid jokes were delivered with less insight! ... wild stuff backstage! #bigtimecelebrity!

doctor says i'm good case study for long-term effects of ritalin overuse ... wanted me to see specialist but I shut him down #saynotobigpharma #holisticmedicine

our latest ratings came in ... happy to see good chunk of 35+ crowd watching! ... now need to connect with youth who need canadian cultural identity and news info! ... super pumped! #cbc

wow ... great show tonight with figure skater josee chouinard ... her views on spinning in a circle really made my head spin #cbcsports #humour

secret to public speaking for everyone clamouring to know: 1) keep face expressionless 2) read 10 words really fast without inflection 3) draw out eleventh word a little like it might be punchline 4) look confused for a second 5) back to step 1 #nextmansbridge

hey at least i am not @rexmurphy #journalists

good thing i have been focusing on my buddhism ... baristas way backed up at starbucks today and without my morning joe I almost went Nine Inch Nails there! haha! #punkbuddha

important cause i just heard about ... the rain forest get in way of farms ... donate at burnitdown.org ... very important! ... everyone has to contribute in their own way including celebrities #ilentmyvoice

celebrating Tommy Douglas's anniversary ... down here in vegas but going to make sure I get my vitamin water #preventativemedicine #vivalasvegas

lots of people asking me how i can stay so focused while I talk to borderline celebrities everyday ... trick is to move around a lot while they are talking ... go from lotus position to legs-crossed-at-thigh at least 1/minute #iaskthequestionsonthepapertheygiveme

camera flying around the set at work today! ... thought we going to have another decapitated audience member! haha! ... serious note ... does anyone else get stomach ache when they watch the show? #thehour

bosses at cbc want me to be on even more to help them connect with the youth ... i may be almost 40 but still young to them ... super pumped! #rockon #rollingstones

working with @jianghomesi to raise awareness about the struggles of first nations aboriginal artists in mississauga ... so important! ... lots of folks up there being forced to work full shifts when they have gigs #supportthearts

picked up my double-double at timmy's because i am regular canadian under my tough exterior ... terrible service though ... they need to put the wood to those guys #keepcanadavibrant

by the way! ... tim hortons was a great baseball player back in the day! ... still making us all proud today! #canadianhistory

was gonna do a sketch on the show today about baby-seal-hunting but realized you need writers for that ... more time for me standing and talking #pleasefundpublicbroadcasting

going out to vancouver to report on rioting that happened two days ago ... lots of questions to be answered ... great stuff! .... will make sure to ask vancouver bureau when toronto is going to finally get an Asian police chief #rockstarjournalist

make sure you vote! ... even if you know nothing about the issues or the candidates! ... think about how candidates would answer a question about their friends in high school and then make your voice heard! #democracy #voteordie

Sunday, June 19, 2011

McIlroy in Haiti

Professional golfer Rory McIlroy made his first official humanitarian trip as a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador this week, visiting newly built schools, a maternal centre, and camps for displaced people in Haiti.
My first reaction to this story was: who is Rory McIlroy? My second reaction to this story was: why would Haitians care? If I have barely heard of the guy and I live in a country with things like the internet, television, and golf, then would Haitians have any idea who he was? Haiti has the lowest Human Development Index in North AND South America, so they probably are not a nation of golfing enthusiasts.

But then I read about McIlroy's visit some more and I realized that he is not going there for the rush Haitians might get from meeting a quasi-celebrity from a quasi-sport. He is going there to raise awareness that Haiti still sucks a year-and-half after the earthquake -- really it always sucked but it sucked even more after the earthquake -- and so this isn't like one of those NBA Cares situations where they send the players out to read Dr. Seuss books to school children. This is more like one of those Live Aid concerts famous artists will play to raise money and awareness for an issue, but it would be weird if UNICEF rented an arena for McIlroy to hit irons in front of a screaming crowd.

Nonetheless, the cost to put on a photo-op like this cannot be negligible: McIlroy (plus the photographer and the journalist that I assume accompany him) must be vaccinated against cholera and other diseases, flown in, bused around, housed and fed. But I trust UNICEF did the cost-benefit analysis and determined they will get more back in donations than they spent on the publicity.

What is sad about this is that it implies there is a sizable chunk of us -- me included -- that would not think to donate to the destitute in Haiti if a golfer had not gone there for two days. It's great that he is raising money for Haiti, but it seems silly that he had to go there to do it. What does it say about the rest of us that he has to put on a show because he can't just ask for money?

The danger is that normal people will see a rich person like McIlroy spend two days travelling around Haiti and conclude that that is sufficient. Humanitarian tourism is better than nothing, but the poor people receiving it would probably prefer secure, long-term aid from those already inside the country that can help them in their own language. And if McIlroy -- who has already made over 10 million dollars in his young career -- is doing his part by handing out some cholera medication, demonstrating hand-washing, and holding kids for the camera, then the equivalent for someone of average means is stopping for less than an hour on a cruise around the Caribbean to throw a couple rolls of toilet paper into the rubble before snapping a quick pic of a senior dying of diarrhea while they give a thumbs-up to the camera.

Now that Rory McIlroy is winning the US Open and his Haiti trip is getting more play, UNICEF's investment in sending him over there is looking very wise. It's great for fundraising purposes but it also highlights the last angle to McIlroy's trip to Haiti, i.e. that it is good for his own brand. There must be some value to him as a public figure who endorses products and receives appearance fees to wrap himself in the blue flag of the United Nations. Any goodwill he generates as a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador flows to him as well. Was it a coincidence that McIlroy went on his first trip as a UN ambassador the week before the US Open?

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Dipping Sauce

As if pizza wasn't already bad enough for you. One dip cup of Pizza Hut's Roasted Garlic Dipping Sauce has 230 calories and 24 grams of fat, which is like adding another whole slice to a 9'' Meat Lover's pizza if that extra slice came with double fat.

Blogging vs. Insanity

It occurs to me that if I was keeping notebooks filled with random and discarded ideas I would probably be labelled crazy, but if I throw those same ideas up on a blog/twitter, I am a forward-thinking Web 2.0er.
Labelling Theory

Friday, June 17, 2011

Prostitutes vs. Drug Dealers

There is a challenge to the laws connected to prostitution working its way up the Ontario court system right now and one of the central issues being discussed is how to keep prostitutes safe while simultaneously punishing their customers. In the words of the national newspaper The Globe & Mail (G&M), "The appeal has dwelt on prostitutes to the exclusion of the real culprits – male customers."

Now, I could complain about the culprits being stereotyped as strictly male but that is a trite criticism and, to be honest, most johns probably are men. Instead, I'd like to speculate on why we accept that prostitutes are morally superior to their customers but we think drug dealers are much worse than their customers.

As proof of this distinction, first consider that under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, trafficking in opium, cocaine, or meth can get you as much as life in prison while merely possessing those same drugs can't get you more than seven years. In contrast, prostitution is technically legal in this country (and may be headed towards greater legitimacy) but soliciting the services of a prostitute is an offence. The pervarding opinion is that people who buy sex should be the focus of the fight against prostitution while people who buy drugs are a peripheral concern in the war on the drugs.

Let's start with what prostitutes and drug dealers have in common: Both peddle vice. Both have high demand for their product despite decades/millenia of intervention by the state. Both sell on street corners at the lowest levels. Both spread disease -- prostitutes in the form of STIs and drug dealers less directly through the needles their customers share. Both operate in a black market which prevents them from appealing to law enforcement when things go awry or they find themselves in danger. For both groups, operating outside the law makes them an easier target for violence, as does the criminal element they deal with in the course of their business. If anything, an addict is going to be more likely to resort to violence if he or she cannot get their fix relative to a john.

So, in an effort to explain the dichotomy, I have come up with some theories about what is going on, consciously or subconsciously, that would cause the moral repugnancy to lie with the producer/distributor when it comes to drugs and with the consumer when it comes to sex.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Free Daycare

As you are no doubt aware, the great country of Peru recently elected Ollanta Humala to be their next president. He made some fairly standard leftist campaign promises like raising the minimum-wage and a state pension for seniors, but what surprised me was his promise to provide free daycare.

Here in Canada, there was a push at one point by the Liberal government of Paul Martin to institute free national child care but that never came together and instead we got the Universal Child Care Benefit from the Conservatives, which is basically $1,200 per year in income that parents get for every child they have under the age of 6. Unfortunately that falls quite a ways short of making child care free for Canadians.


So, my questions is: Does this mean that Peru is going to have a more robust welfare state than Canada?

Criminal Cruft #2: Mischief

Common Mischief

The offence of "mischief" is overbroad but Parliament has managed to also make it overcomplicated. Judging by its name you would think it would be a law against the shenanigans of Saturday-morning cartoon villains, but the reality is much less interesting. (There is also an offence for "public mischief" which is equally dry but not what I want to talk about here.)

The law against mischief is found at section 430 (1) of the Criminal Code. It covers destruction of property, damage to property, rendering property dangerous, rendering property unusable, interference with the use of property, and interference with the enjoyment of property. That is supposed to be a succinct paraphrase of the offence and it still drags on. You could be excused for thinking that it covers all the mischief a criminal could possibly do to property, but that doesn't stop the Code from having another 3 mischief offences.


Mischief Against Data

The first of these is mischief against data. "Data" is defined as any information or concept that is usable by a computer. I assume this extra section exists because intangibles like computer data are not necessarily included in the legal concept of "property". That is a stretch since property usually includes intellectual and other intangible property nowadays. However, even if that were not the case and someone managed to corrupt your porn collection, the police could still charge that guy with: 1) interfering with the use; 2) interfering with the enjoyment; or 3) interfering with the operation of the property known as "your computer," all three of which are recognized versions of common mischief.


Mischief Against Religious Property

The other two superfluous mischief offences are mischief against religious property and mischief against cultural property.

Mischief relating to religious property occurs if someone motivated by hatred towards a religion, race, or origin commits mischief against a church, mosque, synagogue, or other building primarily used for religious worship. So if you try to distract someone in church by tapping on the glass because you hate them because they are from Norway then that is a different offence then tapping on the glass to distract them because you hate them because those Norwegians happen to be jerks.

Apparently the laws against mischief and hate propaganda are not enough to deal with mischief that is a hate crime so we need another law. That way the police can charge you with all three! (Plus they will probably want to throw in charges for criminal harassment while they are at it.) Meanwhile, one of the sentencing principles in section 718.2 of the Criminal Code already directs judges to take any evidence that a crime was motivated by hate into consideration, but don't rely on that because a judge is paid a quarter of a million dollars each year not to exercise her discretion.


Mischief Against Cultural Property

To know what mischief against cultural property is you have to look at the definition of cultural property. It is not found in the Canadian Criminal Code but instead it is in Article 1 of the "Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict" signed at The Hague on May 14, 1954. The definition turns out to be very extensive with everything from monuments to books covered, but the key part is that the object or building must be "of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people."

Now, I complained earlier that the definition of mischief is overbroad, but the standard for property to qualify as "cultural property" has to be too stringent. What piece of Canadian property has great importance to the cultural heritage of every people? I mean, Niagara Falls is nice but I don't think the Mongolians, the Hutus, or the Incas would say it is of great importance to any of their cultures.

Because of this overreaching definition of cultural property, this subsection of the Criminal Code is effectively useless. I did a quick search on CanLII for cases containing the strings "mischief" and "cultural property" but none of the cases it turned up were about the offence, so I can only assume that this charge is never laid.


In conclusion, the government could cut out the laws against mischief targeting religious and cultural property without losing anything except verbiage. I would recommend cutting out the offence for mischief against data as well after making it clear that property includes electronic property like health records. The Crown will still have the expansive definition of common mischief to fall back on.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Diseased Descriptors

Does it bother people who are anemic when the adjective "anemic" is used as an adjective to describe a hockey team's power play? I would suspect not since the word has its own separate (but still very related) meaning in that context and the word is not being used derogatorily to demean anemics. Still, with so many other options out there, why not use something that is not a chronic disorder?

What about when a baseball team's offence is described as "impotent"? Do old guys with Cialis prescriptions squirm when they hear that? If so, commentators should probably think of something else to say since old guys with Cialis prescriptions are a key demographic for baseball.

What other medical conditions are also used as adjectives for describing bad play? It's not like you hear the play of lumbering linemen labelled "polioesque" or anything like that. I'm sure someone nicknamed the Chicago Bulls offence "cardiovasular disease" because it was so congested in the Eastern Conference Finals, but that is in jest and the object of scorn is the Bulls, so I can cut that some slack.

Maybe I'll start characterizing Andrea Bargnani as "athlete's footy" since he's flaky and his feeble condition seems to be spreading through the locker room.

Friday, June 10, 2011

2011 NBA Finals - Game 5 Diary


Pre-game

I hate it when I am making guacamole and the bowl I pick out is barely big enough for the avocados so once I add the rest of the ingredients (read: salsa, lemon juice, and a sprinkling of garlic powder) I cannot mash the mixture together without spillage. WHY DO I KEEP ON MAKING THIS MISTAKE?

Do the coaches have to stand in place while they’re introduced so the camera can film their face? I think they do, in which case they should make funnier faces. Right now they look like they are trying to come off as action heroes.

Do all the Dallas Mavericks cheerleaders want to be Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders?

The ABC NBA Finals graphic intro is very reminiscent of CBC’s Hockey Night in Canada intro. They both have grainy images of famous plays and players over top of gray objects in the background while the camera swirls and lively music plays.


First Quarter

I think I would rather lose the opening tip. That way you get the ball at the start of quarters two and three.

Well, that was not very aggressive by James. He had the ball twice in the post and didn’t even try to make a move past his guy.

Bosh finally hits a hook shot in the series. That is a skill I always expect him to be better at. He has an Abdul-Jabaar build that you would think to lend itself to hook shots, even if they are only ones of the baby variety.

Why is James shooting left-handed floaters? No part of "left-handed floater" indicates aggressiveness and I thought we were all in agreement that more aggressiveness was what we are looking for. I suppose we should at least be happy he is not fading away from the basket while shooting it.

What stops fans who sit near the visitor’s bench from listening to what the coach says to his team during timeouts and then repeating it to the home team when the timeout is over? The coaches are always yelling so it should be possible. Even if the fan cannot see what the coach is drawing on the board, you could still pick up something based on who he is talking to and what he is saying then relay that information to your own team when they come back down the floor. One day I will get awesome seats and do this.

When are the announcers going to mention that Bosh and Marion used to be on the same team in Toronto? Never, because no one cares about Marion. Or Bosh. Or Toronto.

As someone cheering for the Heat, I do not like Bosh trying to rebound against Chandler. Bosh is only averaging 6 rebounds per game for a reason. [Note from the future: Bosh ended up with rebounds this game, so what do I know?]

Spolestra should let Zydrunas Ilgauskas play. Him going up against Brian Cardinal just feels right.

Why do defenders insist on trying so hard to block Nowitzki’s shot? You are not going to be able to block it plus he throws lots of up and under moves at you so you ended up fouling him which is an essentially guaranteed two points at the line.

Breen: “[Dirk] is the complete package offensively.” -> I disagree. The complete package would be able to jump.

How come I never see Joel Anthony ever smile? He must have bad teeth or something that he is embarrassed about.

Mike Breen is pumped he can finally play up the Wade-is-getting-too-many-free-throws-like-in-2006 storyline. 

I predict a surge in Brian Cardinal jersey sales after this game.

Wow, Jason Terry just blew by Dwayne Wade. There was no pick or anything. He just walked forward with his dribble, gave him a shake, and was gone. He did something similar to The Brawn in Game 1. Those are two impressive blow-bys. Meanwhile, Chris Bosh is too busy taking fall-away jumpers to try and blow-by anyone.

Who will take over for the Miami Heat with Wade injured and Bosh on the bench, LeBron James or Mario Chalmers? If you said LeBron James, then you are wrong but you should be right. That said, I do like Chalmers.

How has Cardinal been in the league for 11 years? Playing hard should not be enough for a frumpy 6-8 guy to accomplish that. I am sure lots of people would be willing to play hard for the salary he makes.

 
Second Quarter

Guacamole makes me feel bad about myself.

Doris Burke: “Where are they hurting you, Erik?” Wow, she should have been a social worker. She could have helped a lot of children talk about their abuse.

Terry and Chalmers should play H.O.R.S.E. against each other.

The Heat should attach a shock bracelet to James that goes off whenever the Heat have a 24-second shot-clock violation to try and get him to be more aggressive early.

Being someone who has played basketball for a long time now and loves to pass, LeBron should know that you are allowed to pass after your have dribbled, too. You don’t have to stare at your defender and call for two picks then throw a skip pass over the whole defence.

I can’t believe the Heat are up by one right now.

DeShawn Stevenson has retroactively become a bigger piece of the Josh Howard trade than Caron Butler

Brian Cardinal: NBA Finals difference-maker.

Again, why wouldn’t the fans around Pat Riley listen in while the doctor describes Wade’s injuries to Riley? I would tell other fans around to shut up if I had to and then pass along the information to my team so that they could better target Wade.

This could be the first game in the series to have at least one team break the century mark.

Brian Cardinal is awesome and a man named Brad Cardinal just won an MMA title fight. Be right back, I'm off to put money on the St. Louis Cardinals.

Nice crossover by Bosh on Nowitzki after Dirk ended up guarding him off an offensive rebound. I like that. You have to go at Dirk when you get the chance because he’s not a great defender and if they can pick up some fouls against him then Dallas loses a massive part of their team.

Eddie House’s irrational confidence has gotten too irrational. Chalmers should be one in that role for the Heat.

Everyone has criticized The Brawn for his last game but he almost had a triple-double. This leads me to believe that triple-doubles are overrated.

I wish the Raptors had Chandler. Dunks and rebounds, baby, dunks and rebounds.

It’s the all-Chalmers offense! He's draining threes, he's shooting techs! Of course, this raises an important question: Why is Rick Carlisle calling a timeout when the Heat are running their offence through Chalmers and they have one field goal in the last 4 minutes?

Why can’t players untuck their jerseys while they play? What purpose does that rule serve?


Third Quarter

[mostly spent playing video games]

It must offend Nowitzki that his replacement is Cardinal.

Why is Spolestra always smiling? This is serious business!


Fourth Quarter

Breen: “The zone has been effective against Miami in this series.” The zone has been effective against Miami all season.

Nice finish by Bosh. Breen has really clued into Bosh being left-handed now and is pointing out when he finishes with his right, which no doubt sounds weird to casual fans who do not realize Bosh is left-handed.

Until Bosh scored there, Miami had four players with fifteen points: Bosh, Wade, LeBron, ... and Chalmers.

LeBron is one rebound and three assists away from a triple-double but this performance is still going to catch him some flack.

More Wade-Haslem PnRs, please.

7 minutes left: LeBron needs two more assists to get a triple-double now.

Has there been a double-digit lead yet in this series?

6:20 left: Nice pass by LeBron to get to 9 assists.

Defence leads to offence!

Dallas should cover that Haslem guy.

Egad! Stop jumping forward so much to block Nowitzki’s shot! You are not going to block it. Jump straight up or put your hand forward in his face.

That was cool to see Nowitzki become exasperated and rip into Chandler. You don't see the big German become expressive very often.

What happened to Dallas’s defence? More big guys open underneath the basket in this quarter than I have seen in the rest of the series.

Kidd guarding James in the post and James does not even take a crab dribble to get close to the hoop. He just waits, turns and fires while drifting away. Unsurprisingly, this leads to a miss.

I’ve never seen a white guy sky more for rebounds than Mike Miller.

Terry is one of those guys that shoots better the more difficult the shot is. It’s just not productive to cover him tightly.


Post-game

Dallas wins. Stat of the game: LeBron James got a triple-double and 0 people cared.

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Chess & Flags

I'm not much of one for nationalism but I like that when grandmasters play competitive chess they usually have their country's miniature flag on the table next to them. It just looks cool.
Israel vs. Russia sounds much more interesting than Gelfand vs. Grischuk or 2733 vs. 2726

Average-first-line-center -- a post with too many hyphens

There has been a lot of discussion amongst Buffalo Sabres fans recently -- actually, for a long time -- about the Sabres (putative) need for a first-line center. I am sure many other teams' fanbases are having the same discussion because the demand for first-line centers somehow manages to always outstrip the supply of first-line centers, at least in the minds of fans. That may sound nonsensical, but you have to understand that when hockey fans use the term "first-line center", they don't mean someone who plays on the first line as a center, they mean someone who plays center and is awesome. That means there are really only 10 or 15 first-line centers to go around in a 30-team league.

But I was curious what the average first-line center would look like if you defined first-line centers to be the group of 30 centers that had the highest point totals at their position last year. Essentially, I am making the assumption that there is one first-line center out there for each team although they may not be evenly distributed.* I realize that the 30 centers with the highest point production are not necessarily the 30 best centers in the sport but the use of points does give us some idea who fits the bill. Here are their averages:

Games Played: 75.2
Goals: 25.57
Assists: 40.87
Points: 66.43
Even-strength points: 43.57
Power-play points: 20.8
Short-handed points: 1.2
Points-per-game: 0.898
Age: 25.8

More than other positions, centers are judged by points, but there is more than one way to rank point-production. For example, rather than use the top-30 point totals, we can look at the top-30 points-per-game (PPG) centers and see how that tweaks the numbers: 

Games Played: 70.1
Goals: 24.13
Assists: 39.67
Points: 63.8
Even-strength points: 41.03
Power-play points: 20.9
Short-handed points: 11
Points-per-game: 0.921
Age: 26.5

Lastly, what if instead of taking the top-30 point-producers across the league regardless of distribution amongst teams, we instead took the number-one centers from each team (based on PPG) and calculated their averages? Well, here is what you get:

Games Played: 70.7
Goals: 21.97
Assists:37.77
Points:59.73
Even-strength points: 40.03
Power-play points: 18.8
Short-handed points: 0.9
Points-per-game: 0.861
Age: 26.67

In conclusion, the average first-line center scores goals is a twenty-goal scorer and has around 40 assists. About 40 of the player's points came at even-strength and he scored another half as much on the power-play. He played between 70 and 80 games while producing at around .9 points-per-game over that span, and he recently entered celebrated his quarter-century. The player who probably comes closest to those numbers is ...

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Why is Canada Leaving Afghanistan Now?

Paul Martin deployed Canadians to Kandahar in 2005. So why are we leaving now? Have we accomplished our goals? Or has the burden of war become too great to bear? Stephen Harper claims both conditions exist; we have accomplished our goals at the same time that the mission became too much of a burden for the military to continue. I would like to examine both rationales.


1) According to Harper, Afghanistan no longer represents "a geo-strategic risk to the world. It is no longer a source of global terrorism.” That may be true now but I would suggest it was just as true before the Canadian mission in Kandahar started. The geo-strategic risk of global terrorism once posed by Afghanistan was the Taliban running a country where terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda were free to operate without state interference. As soon as the Taliban was deposed back in 2001, this goal was essentially achieved. Now, there were still good humanitarian reasons for remaining in Afghanistan after 2001 and there is still an ongoing need for NATO to maintain the capability to strike at terrorist bases that are discovered in Afghanistan (and Pakistan), but the unique danger created by the Taliban government was essentially eliminated five years before the Kandahar mission started.

 

2) When Harper was giving his speech this week on the end of the Canadian combat mission in Afghanistan this week, he noted that Canadian troops have been in combat roles in Afghanistan longer than the two world wars combined. That is not yet true, but even if it was the comparison would still be spurious.

144 Canadian Forces personnel have died in Afghanistan since the Kandahar mission started. Since September 2010, only three Canadians have died in Afghanistan, a number which includes one suspected suicide. In contrast, a total of 113,633 Canadians died in the two world wars. So, if we were to use 'number of deaths' to compare Afghanistan to the world wars instead of 'duration' then we would find that Canada has only lost 1.3% as much as it did in those two wars. That means Canada would have to stay in Afghanistan for approximately another 750 years before it matched the losses in WWI and WWII.

Of course, we should not expect or allow the military to suffer the same sorts of casualties as it did in the world wars; the point is that it is absurd to compare the two of them to Afghanistan.


I believe the real reason Canada is leaving Afghanistan is public opinion. If my suspicion that polls are driving the decision to end the combat mission is correct then I guess we at least have some form of democratic government in that it represents the wishes of the people. On the other hand, it would also imply that the government cannot be upfront about its decision-making process, which is lamentably undemocratic.

As a bonus to the Harper government, shutting down the Afghanistan combat mission will prevent any more pesky detainee abuse scandals from occurring. That's just good politics.