Money - A Follow Up

So a rich man, Donte Stallworth, kills a pedestrian and gets 30 days in jail and a whole bunch of probation. One crime, one victim.

Bernie Madoff steals millions from many and gets 150 years in prison. One crime as well, though I understand there were many charges (one for each victim of his scheme).

This leaves a really sour taste in my mouth. It isn't fair that Madoff gets more jail time than Stallworth. Listen, I think Madoff should be punished, but isn't a crime that results in the death of a person a worse crime than stealing? Shouldn't Stallworth get more jail time for driving drunk and killing a pedestrian than Madoff gets for stealing?

The manhattan judge Chin said he wanted to send a message. The message I'm getting is that stealing money is a worse crime than driving drunk and killing someone.

2009 NHL Entry Draft Diary

One of my favourite columnists is Bill Simmons. Occasionally, Bill will post a running diary for an event, whether it’s the SuperBowl, the NBA draft or the season finale of Real World. In fact, he did one last night for the NBA draft. I thought I’d pay homage (I think people say homage when they really mean I stole this idea from so and so) to Bill with my running diary of the 2009 NHL Entry Draft, or as they say in Montreal "2009 Repechage". Also, I’ve got nothing better to do tonight and I’ll be watching the draft, so why not?

5:14 – I’m home from work, the draft is 1:46 away and I’m watching Around the Horn. I’m guessing they won’t mention the draft. I am also curious about Garth Snow. Have you seen him on TV this week? The guy is huge. He has broad shoulders which makes me wonder if all that talk about him wearing oversized pads was founded (it probably was). So I’m going to Google Garth Snow.

He’s 6ft 3, 200 lbs, or was during his playing career. So maybe these pads were his size:


Wow, also found this photo:



I’m guessing that’s not Garth’s family. See, it’s not just the young Habs that like to have some fun.

5:17 – I’m starting to re-taste that shawarma. I should have gone to the rib festival instead. The GM ad is on. Does that GM restart, rebuild, we’re all better now annoy anyone else? You know how I feel about the GM thing.

5:20 – Fox Harbour, NS is spectacular, if you can afford the $325/night room plus $225 green fee. You have to be a guest at the resort to golf. It’s not as bad as I thought. Plus, you gotta prop up that economy.

5:28 – The new Cowboys stadium kinda looks like a bike helmet:


5:29 – No NHL draft mention on Around the Horn, let’s see what the PTI guys have to say.

5:50 – An ad for the NHL draft summarizing Vinny Lecavalier’s career just came on. Why are you teasing me? We all know he won’t be a Hab.

5:59 – No NHL draft mention on PTI, a sports talk show, but a 2 minute segment on Michael Jackson. REALLY? And Wilbon chooses to remember him pre 1984. Come on Wilbon. His history is his history. You can’t just separate the good from the bad.

I’m surprised about the lack of NHL content. They chatted about the NHL every night during the playoffs. I thought the league turned a corner with the PTI guys. Oh, they just said, more coming up including the NHL draft, but only the Americans get to see it. Blast! No more updates until the draft starts, unless there’s something important on SportsCentre.

7:00 – TSN’s 2009 NHL Entry Draft coverage begins with everyone asking “who will Garth Snow select first overall?” My money’s on John Tavares. TSN, the Toronto Sports Network has been building this guy up for years (he’s from the greater Bippity area © GValentino). My guess is he’ll be a Jason Spezza type; lots of offensive talent, but mistake prone and a defensive liability.

7:02 – Victor Hedman baby pictures?!?!.

7:04 – First trade of the night? Pronger to the Flyers? He’s just what the Flyers need to get dirtier. TSN is saying it happened, but nothing confirmed yet.

7:13 – Bettman’s on stage with Henri Richard and Cournoyer in an obvious attempt to not get booed. The crowd doesn’t boo, until Bettman speaks, in broken French. Even Helen Keller could speak French better than the Weasel.

7:18 – The New York Islanders select Tavares. Biggest non-surprise of the year. I like that Snow tried to build suspense, but everyone knew they’d pick Tavares (even though Hedman is the better choice). They need a poster boy to get a new arena build and with 10,000 plus fans in Nassau waiting, and wanting Tavares, there was no way he wasn’t going to be their first selection.

Blob Mackenzie is going over Tavares’ OHL stats. I may eat my words about his talent; he broke Gretzky’s record as a 16 year old and is the OHL all time leading goal scorer (though he played 4 years).

7:25 – It’s confirmed, the Flyers send Sbisa, Lupul and 2 first round picks to Anaheim for Pronger. I hate the Flyers. I hate Pronger. I hate them both more now.

7:26 – Brian Lawton (first overall pick in 1983 – I thought it was Yzerman, have to look that up – Stevie Y was 4th) selects Victor Hedman. Another non-surprise…Duchene will go next to the Avs.

Hedman sounds like he’ll be a good D man. 6 foot 6. He was a great player at the World Junior Championships this year and has been playing against men in Sweden for a year already. 7:35 - No more pick-by-pick updates.

I’ll update for trades, Habs picks/news and any other interesting items (like how many times the Toronto Sports Network cuts to Brian Burke (4 and counting).

7:40 – Duchene is from the same city – Haliburton – as Bernie Nicholls. Bernie won’t make the Hall of Fame, but he was a great player. AND Duchene was a hug Avs fan growing up, with signed Sakic and Roy (the greatest goalie ever) jerseys. Good for him. He fist pumped when Hedman went to Tampa, knowing he’d end up an Av.

7:51 – Evander Kane has 7% body fat. I think I ate 7% body fat in the pig’s cheeks we had at Play on Sunday night.

8:02 – Columbus trades its 2 picks for 4 Islander picks. The Isles move up their next two picks up (next being 16th) and the Jackets get 2 extra picks. Smart move by Columbus. According to Brian “great hair” Lawton, picks 5 to 50 are pretty much a coin toss. Must be one of those crazy Dungeon and Dragons coins that have 45 sides.

8:09 – Leafs GM Burke gets booed. Excellent. They select Nazem Kadri, another GTA local, and Pierre McGuire thinks that Bryan Murray, Sens GM, is incensed. Pierre thinks the Sens wanted Kadri.

Holy shit. Burke is wired for TSN. Of course. I shouldn’t be surprised anymore but it’s so blatant that I’m watching the Toronto Sports Network. I wonder if this is on RDS. Yes it is, but not in HD (I hate Rogers cable). But hey, it’s Jacques Demers. My friend dated his daughter, in grade 3.

Kadri’s favourite team used to be the Montreal Canadiens. Now it’s the Leafs (according to Kadri). A true Habs fan would not have put on that Leafs jersey. A true Habs fan would have pulled an Eric Lindros. I think I hate Kadri.

(That last line was obviously a joke, but I have to write a post one day about cheering for a jersey. That’s pretty much what we do. And being friends with me because we cheer for the same jersey. Throw in some Chomsky and drunken talk at Scotiabank Place. BAM! There’s your post.)

8:27 – Speaking of Scotiabank Place, the Sens pick Jared Cowen. The 6 foot 5, 216 pound Jared Cowen. That should fill a part of the void left by Chara’s departure. Some, Chara is 6 foot 9. Murray tells Duthie he can’t see a Heatley trade happening tonight. And I’m telling you, I don’t see a Lecavalier to Montreal trade happening ever.

8:38 – Alright, it’s Friday night. I’m outta here. Check out TSN for more picks. And let me know if Lecavalier ends up in MTL.

Money Can't Buy Happiness But It Can Beat a Murder Charge

I've always thought that people who say money can't buy happiness never had any money. Sure, it doesn't guarantee that you'll be happy, but it helps you buy bthings that go a long way to helping you be happy. It can also help to get you out of trouble.

Just last week, Donte Stallworth was found guilty of killing a pedestrian while driving drunk in Florida. Murder in my books, but the state of Florida allowed him to plea down to a charge of manslaughter. Donte (he doesn’t deserve the word Mr.) was sentenced to 30 days in jail and 2 years probation. Yes, 30 days in jail.

30.

Days.

One month for taking a life while driving drunk. Do you think if you were found guilty of taking someone’s life while intoxicated that you would only get 30 days in jail? I doubt you would because you don’t have the kind of money or celebrity status that Donte does.

I’m sure Donte didn’t just throw money at the court to make this all go away, but he did throw a lot of money at a defense team and who knows, maybe he threw a lot of money at the victim's family since they factored into Donte's settlement.

The fact that he was even driving drunk in the first place is beyond me. Just that day, Donte received a $4.5 million roster bonus from the Cleveland Browns. If I had $4.5 million I can assure you I wouldn't be driving my own ass around town, especially if I were out celebrating getting a fat pay cheque. I'd hire the biggest, toughest looking personal driver/bouncer around Florida to get me where I want to go and protect me from myself and drunk fans that like to pick fights with athletes.

Donte's not the first rich guy to get away with murder or other heinous crimes, the following is a list, just off the top of my head:

• OJ


• Michael Jackson


• Ray Lewis


• Ted Kennedy


• William Shatner (look it up. Ok, it's a conspiracy, but I had to do it)

I'm sure I'm missing some easy ones, but I'm lazy right now. That doesn't even include the rich folks that we don't know about, CEOs, Princes, diplomats, etc. This seems to be a recurring issue with people with cash. They can pretty much do whatever they want because they can buy their way out of it.

This all reminds me of an episode of South Park where the kids went to visit Magic Johnson. They found that he slept with his bed full of money. Scientists studied this and discovered that money can cure aids, a $180,000 injection of cash could keep the virus at bay. While this is obviously satire, it's not far from the truth. Money can't buy you happiness, but it cure a lot of problems.

In Bob we Trust(?)

A friend of mine is as big a Habs fan as I know. He entertains me with his Hab puns. For example, he has nicknames for most players, such as Greek Lightning for Tom Kostopoulos and the Tenderness for Guillaum Latendresse. I once lamented Bob Gainey's choice of forcing Guy Carbonneau to start Carey Price so early in the young goaltender's career and my friend said "In Bob we trust". The Canadiens went on to finish first in the eastern conference and made it to the second round of the playoffs. It seemed everything Bob Gainey did worked. In Bob I trusted.

But now, I'm starting to have some doubts. Here's why:

• Giving Price the starter's role didn't look like the greatest decision last year.
  
  
• The Habs were falling in the standings last season and just as they started to turn things around with a few wins, Bob Gainey fires head coach Guy Carbonneau. Bob took over behind the bench and didn't fare much better as the Habs snuck into the playoffs and were swept by the hated Bruins.
  


• Last month Bob hired Jacques Martin as head coach (I've lamented on this already here) and informed the assistant coaches and media that they'll have a full staff in place by June 15th, 2009. Bob has yet to announce the hiring of the full coaching staff, though it has been announced that Roland Melanson, Don Lever, Ron Wilson, and Doug Jarvis will not be returning and that Kirk Muller will remain as an assistant. Bob failed to meet his self-imposed deadline.
  


• The Habs had 10 players due to become unrestricted free agents during the last season and Bob signed a total of 0 to an extension. Bob missed out on signing the potential UFAs during the season.
  


• The Habs had 4 players due to become restricted free agents during the last season and Bob signed a total of 0 to an extension. Bob missed out on signing the potential RFAs during the season.
  


• The Habs still have 10 players that are due to become UFAs and 4 players due to become RFAs with less than a week to go to the beginning of the free agency period. Bob is running out of time to deal with the 14 UFA and RFAs and, according to Pat Hickey, Bob has no plans to sign any UFAs or RFAs until after the draft.
  

• The Habs are heavily rumoured to acquire Vincent Lecavalier in a trade with Tampa Bay, but Bob publicly chastised the Lightning's GM, calling his actions "disgraceful". Bob's comments can't be good for his relationship with Tampa's GM Brian Lawton and his chances of acquiring Lecavalier.

I doubted Bob before and he reaffirmed my trust. He stalked the cupboards full of young talent through the draft, he turned Kovalev's season around at the end of this year and he proved that starting Price early was a good move (2 years ago anyway). I also know that Bob keeps his cards pretty close to the vest, but I'm having a hard time trusting Bob now. Here's hoping that Bob will prove me wrong, but he's got a tough road ahead of him.

It's all Your Fault

Want to know why we're currently in a recession? Take a look in the mirror, the answer is probably staring you in the face. Now I know that the world economy is way too complex to point the finger at all of you good readers, but there are a few reasons that you should shoulder some of the blame.

First, one of the main reasons for the financial crisis/recession/there will be blood situation that we are currently in is banks lending money to people for houses they couldn't afford. Banks are in the business of lending money and maybe they should have known better than to lend Johnny Poorboy $500,000 when he only makes $50,000 a year. But maybe Johnny Poorboy shouldn't have tried to buy that $500,000 McMansion. Maybe Johnny Poorboy should have settled for a more suitable home for his income, maybe a $200,000 town house or bungalow.

But the banks lent Johnny the money. Johnny couldn't afford the payments. The house isn't worth what the bank though it was and we're all in a mess. Everybody is blaming the banks and while they deserve a lot of the blame, I'm also blaming Johnny Poorboy. He should have chosen a more affordable home, but given the state of the economy at the time, Johnny went out and bought a house beyond his means, which was the way things were done.

We lived through the most prosperous time in, well, ever (note, this is not based on any research, though I do recall reading it in MacLeans at the dentist the other day). During our time of prosperity, we began living high on the hog. Buying $300 blue jeans, $500 ipods, $3,000 TVs, $60,000 cars, $1,000 suits, and who knows how much on shoes that Carrie Bradshaw wore or t-shirts that Johnny Drama wore. Basically, we were accustomed to living beyond our means. Credit was readily available so we used it.

Now, in the current state of affairs, frugal is the new black. Credit is not so readily available. People are finding ways to save money, buying less expensive cuts of meat, taking staycations, shopping at thrift stores, and generally getting a kick out of finding ways to save money. Google "frugal is the new" and you'll find over 1,000,000 hits for ...new black ...new cool ...new chic. What I've been doing all my life is now en vogue. Some people used to call me cheap. My uncle joked that difference between cheap and frugal is that the word cheap is reserved for people you don't like. My definition is that a frugal person will spend money, but spend it wisely, always finding a deal. A cheap person is tight with money. A classic example is tipping. A cheap person is a bad tipper. A frugal person tips well, but doesn't eat out a lot.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that you all have joined my frugal-edge lifestyle. But I believe if you had always been frugal, or at least less spendaholicy, this recession wouldn't be so drastic or last as long. I'm not so arrogant to say that if you all lived like me that we wouldn't be in a recession, but one of the main drivers of the economy is consumer spending. If we spend more, the economy does well. If we spend less the economy does worse. This is well known, and best exemplified after those planes hit those buildings and that often mocked president urged Americans to go shopping to beat the terrorists. It sounded kind of silly, but when you boil it down, it was pretty smart and had its basis in sound economics.

When you were all living high on the hog, consumer spending was beyond what it should have been. It created an economy that was over-inflated. Now that we're all being frugal, the economy is probably somewhere below where it should be and is over-deflated (I may include over-deflated in my Me Fail English post). Had we all exercised a bit of restraint and spent only within our means in the past, we'd have more money saved today to even out the spending through the good and bad times. You wouldn't have to be as frugal as you are today. The economy may not have tanked as much as it did and would likely recover faster since consumer spending wouldn't have taken the drastic drop it did.

Some of you may not have changed your spending habits. Good for you. But this recent Globe and Mail article says otherwise of the general populace. Hoarding cash is not a good way combat the recession.

There are others to blame, like the banks and the press for their "the sky is falling" headlines. There actually was an article in the Globe and Mail saying that the recession would end in a civil war. Great job guys, way to keep consumer confidence high.

My advice to all of you is to be frugal, not only now, but in the future as well when times get better. But my guess is that you are being overly frugal now, spend a bit more today and a bit less when things get better. Smooth out your spending habits. You'll do your savings some good and the economy some good at the same time.

Cyclists and Drivers (a related post by my man G)

Head on over to GValentino's blog to read a post related to my cycling post from earlier this week. Living in Bippity Town (i.e., Toronto) can only increase the dangers for cyclists.

Here's the link: http://www.gvalentinoisrandom.com/2009/06/love-riding-his-bicycle-loves-riding.html

For Rachelle (or in Defense of me)

I got an email the other day from my friend Rachelle. It read:

You should blog about bad cyclists!

I could tell she was adamant about it because she used an exclamation point. Rachelle can get excited about things, but I've rarely seen exclamation points in her emails (side note, is it e-mail or email? I like hyphens, but it seems unnecessary).

So I responded with:

I blogged about the ones on the bike path, sort of, in The Most Important Lesson I Ever Learned.

Do you mean the street ones? I’m probably one of them.

She said:

Yes.

Not stopping at red lights
Driving on the sidewalk
Driving the opposite direction on a one way street
Driving the opposite direction on a one way street on the sidewalk or in a bike lane

I hate that

I responded to her that I did all those things so I didn't think I'd blog about it. She said URGH!

So after work tonight, I hopped on my bike, biked the wrong way down a one way street, hopped on the sidewalk for a spell (biking the wrong way), then sped down Bay Street running red lights and stop signs. Then I see this pretty girl with a big red/grey dog wave at me. It was Rachelle. She caught me (though maybe she didn't realize it) in the middle of my biggest streak of running red lights/stop signs. So then I thought maybe I should blog about it.

I get where Rachelle is coming from. The rules of the road should apply to cyclists. Though I have my reasons for breaking the rules.

I only bike the wrong way down certain one way streets; the ones I live on. I live on the corner of two one way streets. So if I want to get to Bank street, I have to go two blocks out of my way to get somewhere that is half a block a way. I think it's OK to bike the wrong way down the street here. Plus, there is very little traffic on my street.

I only bike on sidewalks for my own safety (and ensure the safety of others when I do). For example, when I'm biking down O'Connor (a one way street I bike the proper direction on), there are plenty of cars taking sudden turns, opening doors unexpectedly or blocking your path by inching into a right turn. I like to think I can anticipate what they are going to do (by remembering the world is full of stupid people), so sometimes I hop on to the sidewalk to protect myself, while ensuring I'm not endangering others.

Another time I ride on the sidewalk is when I head to the Ottawa River bike path. I like to ride on the bike paths and sometimes the only way to access them is to ride on the sidewalk for a stretch at first. So I don't see anything wrong with my sidewalk riding.

I also run red lights and stop signs. I do it because I like to ride fast. I think Rachelle may have a point here. I have no reasonable excuse except the Ricky Bobby slogan of "I wanna go fast".

I never bike the wrong way down a bike lane. It annoys me too. I almost hit this guy today riding the wrong way down a bike lane. What ticks me off the most (and I'm guessing Rachelle) is that on the other side of the street or on the next street over there is a bike lane that is heading in the right direction that those people can use.

So Rachelle, it was nice seeing you on my ride today. Sorry I didn't stop to say hi, but I like to ride fast and I was setting a record for fastest speed down Bay street while running all stop signs. I hope you still invite me over to see your new deck.

Surprise! Favre Considers Coming Out of Retirement

Wow, didn't see that coming (hey, what font do you use for sarcasm?). In an interview with Joe Buck, Brett Favre says he's considering playing again. According to TSN (I think they stole it from Joe) he's had talks with the Minnesota Vikings and he will know in several weeks whether his surgically repaired arm will allow him to come out of retirement.

I have a few quick thoughts on this:

1. Did this guy even re-retire? I remember the Jets blowing the season. I remember the Jets cutting him. I don't remember a tear stained Brett Favre on a podium talking about how he'll remember all the fond memories (all 16 weeks) of being a Jet. I don't remember Sal Palantonio saying that Brett should be inducted into the Football Hall of Fame as a Jet.
2. Even if he did re-retire, as the great Jack Russell once sang "my, my, my I'm once bitten twice shy" Brett. I'll believe you are retired when we get through more than one full season with you riding your tractor in your tight little shorts, no shirt and red hat with JP Losman staring on longingly (check out these quotes, scroll about three quarters of the page, JP Losman actually said that. I'm glad he's no longer a Bill).
3. Is there a way to repair an arm other than surgically? I suppose an orthopedic cast repairs an arm. Is that surgery? If it isn't, I wouldn't tell they guy applying the cast. You never know what he'd do.

So Brett, just go away, or sign with the Vikings. It really doesn't matter. I realize that you want to play football and that's great. And I'm glad you let Joe Buck and Joe Public know your intentions. But I really want all this to go away. It's summer and I want to fall asleep listening to baseball highlights.

Are You Smarter Than Malcolm Gladwell?

I recently saw Malcolm Gladwell live at the National Arts Centre. We weren't sure what to expect, but when we took our seats you could see two chairs at centre stage. This immediately told me that it would be an interview.

The CEO for The United Way introduced us to Mr. Gladwell and Mark Sutcliffe, an Ottawa Citizen columnist who would be conducting the interview. The interview was fine, the show was fine. It was nothing mind blowing and really nothing new if you've read Mr. Gladwell's books or his articles in the New Yorker (I haven't, but the CBC radio guys love him so much I feel like I have). At the end of the interview, the CEO for The United Way said a few more words. I'm always surprised when CEOs, presidents, and other people of power in organizations cannot speak in public. This guy was horrible. My friend thinks it likely had to do with the fact that he was reading from notes prepared by someone else. I understand that, but still, it was really uncomfortable watching him and took the whole thing off the rails.

The major theme of the interview was a subject that had recently come up in various forms during discussions with some of my friends; innate talent or skill versus hard work. There are varying ways to frame this theme, like street smart versus book smart, left brain versus right brain, etc. The main point that Mr. Gladwell made was that you need two things to succeed and they have little to do with innate ability, skill, or talent. You need to work hard and you need an opportunity or luck.

Mr. Gladwell had numerous examples of this, such as:

• Tiger Woods has been golfing since he was 3 and had a dad who loved golf with him and supported him through a love of golf (hard work and opportunity);
  

• Dale Carnegie worked hard and was born in the best time of the world to get rich (1935) through the industrial revolution (hard work and luck); and


• Bill Gates worked hard and was born in the best time of the world to get rich in Silicon Valley (hard work and luck).

(A quick aside. Mr. Gladwell doesn't believe in self-made individuals. He thinks that everyone is shaped by their past and their ancestors. He used the extreme example of Jeb Bush. While campaigning in Florida, Jeb Bush positioned himself as the self-made man. The crowd laughed, the son of a former President of the United States is not a self-made man. But, Mr. Gladwell pointed out, the Floridians bought it.)

I agree to an extent with Mr. Gladwell. I've always thought that anyone with a certain degree of aptitude (see below) can learn to do anything they want with enough hard work, practice, study time, etc. I'm good at math, but I'm sure if I studied enough I could excel at physics, computer science, or psychology. I'm not very good at golf, but I'm sure if I practiced everyday that I could become a good golfer.

I think this extends into other areas as well, such as art and creativity. I'm not an artistic type, I'm a math guy (left brain vs. right brain) but I believe that if I studied an art (let's say I wanted to learn about painting) I could learn the history, the techniques, etc. and become a good artist.

For some, the reason they don't excel at school is the way they are taught. They may not be built to learn the same way as their classmates. Mr. Gladwell spoke of how we are all treated the same way in modern society, which seems intrinsically fair, but isn't. I am culturally different than you and may require different treatment, in particular in the way I learn.

This is best illustrated by comparing people that are street smart or book smart. You know the street smart type, they didn't get very good grades in school but they seem to be well versed in life skills. The street smart person can read body language well, is good at spotting scams, may be good at conning people or picking up girls/guys.

On the other end there's the book smart type. This person always had good grades, is good at math, sciences or some other difficult subject, but is naive and easily conned. He or she is not street smart.

Both street smart and book smart people are smart. Also, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. The difference is the subject matter and perhaps how the knowledge was accumulated. A book smart person can gather the street smart person's knowledge, though it generally doesn't come from a book. The book smart person may have to learn how to gather that knowledge. The street smart person can learn math or physics, they just have to put the time and effort into the learning process or find the right way for them to soak up the information. Reading a book may not be the best method for them to learn.

Where I disagree with Mr. Gladwell is the importance of aptitude or ability. I think you need a certain degree of innate ability or talent to become exceptional. Using Mr. Gladwell's example of Tiger Woods, I'm sure if I golfed everyday since I was 3 that I'd be a much better golfer than I am today (I am not very good). But I don't know that I'd be as good as Tiger Woods.

There are people who are exceptionally built or wired for what they do that allows them to excel in certain endeavours. I remember reading an article about Michael Phelps during the Summer Olympics and a swim expert said something like "if you wanted to build the perfect human to be a swimmer, you'd build Michael Phelps".

While I don't necessarily disagree with Mr. Gladwell's view that hard work can help you succeed, I think he understated the value of aptitude. I think you need some skill to succeed. I previously posted about how the world is full of stupid people. I sort of believe that, but I think maybe the world is full of people that do stupid things. People are generally smarter than they give themselves credit for. If they only put in the effort, they could learn new things or get better at golf. However, there are people who are better equipped to do a certain thing than others. And there are stupid people. I don't think a stupid person can be taught integral calculus. Put simply, stupid people can't become smart with hard work.

Minute Car Wash on Catherine Street

I hope I don't have to make many posts like this but I am really angry with the Minute Car Wash on Catherine street.

A couple of weeks ago I drove to Vankleek Hill to buy some Beau's beer. A beer broke in my trunk and spilled so I needed to get that cleaned up. I decided to go to the Catherine Street Car Wash, an old school car wash that does shampoos as well.

I was happy with the inside detailing and didn't pay much attention to the outside, it seemed clean. But now, as I driving my car for the first time in about a week, I notice numerous scratches on the trunk, the front of the car, the door, everywhere. These scratches didn't exist before.

Thank you Catherine Street Car Wash, I don't have to worry about the first scratch on my car now (or the first 20).

Carbon Market

Your governing PC party detailed its carbon market plan on Wednesday. No, not carbonite market, the carbon market. They are trying to show you all that they are concerned about the environment and trying to reduce carbon emissions. Given that the world is full of stupid people, it will probably work.

The following is a summary for those who don't want to read on (I know you don't like politics).

Environment Minister Prentice to voters:

We are placing caps on carbon emissions for all polluters in Canada.

Environment Minister Prentice to polluters:

Don't worry, you can buy your way out of it.

I shouldn't be so critical, but like the polar bear with the big paws, I was born that way. So the plan, as outlined in this Globe and Mail article, is to put a cap on carbon emissions. You can only emit up to a certain upper limit. Great idea by the way, at least 10 years too late (and the Liberals have their share of the blame in that) but great idea. But, if you emit beyond carbon beyond that cap, don't worry about it, you can buy credits on the open market.

How do I buy credits you ask? Easy, somebody is going to be such a good reducer of carbon emissions that they'll be far under the cap, you can buy the surplus from them. And in the event that no polluter has reduced emissions (worst case, but conceivable), there will be carbon projects that you can buy credits from to get you under the cap by offsetting your emissions.

This really ticks me off. Buying credits doesn't reduce a polluter's emissions. Rather, it helps to create projects that offset the emissions. Don't get me wrong, I understand that carbon offsets are a good thing. While they don't reduce emissions, they compensate for the emissions by making reductions somewhere else.

According to Mr. Prentice, the goal is to gradually reduce the ceiling of the cap to control emissions, but what if actual emissions never go down? What if, instead, polluters just buy more and more credits because it's easier and cheaper? Does this really solve the problem?

I know this is a step in the right direction, it just doesn't feel like enough. I'd prefer a hard cap and a mandatory credit system to offset emissions under the cap. But I suppose if I were in power, we'd be faced with a record setting deficit.

The Heat is Off

Dany Heatley has requested a trade from the Ottawa Senators. TSN is reporting that they have confirmed that Heatley informed the Sens that he wishes to play elsewhere. The reason stated is Heatley's concern regarding the apparent limiting of his ice time and, according to Darren Dreger, a conflict with head coach Cory Clouston.

The Sens traded for Heatley in 2005 after he requested a trade from the Atlanta Thrashers. At the time, Heatley felt there were too many reminders of the tragic event that took teammate Dan Snyder's life. Heatley was welcomed to Ottawa with open arms (with the exception of yours truly), had 2 great seasons with the Sens and was rewarded with a $7.5 million per year, 6 year contract. After a coaching change and his belief that his ice time is limited (Heatley averaged 4th in ice time behind Kuba, Phillips, and Alfredsson), he wants to be moved again.

Go ahead, move the guy. A head coach comes in with a system that produces better results than the last two coaches (based on winning percentage) and turns the team around. Heatley sees his ice time dwindle as a result of the system and starts whining about his ice time. He sounds pretty selfish to me, not the kind of team player you need to win. And who needs a player who skates around with his stick in the air half the time waiting for a pass?

This is probably a good thing for the Sens. They should be able to get a good return for Heatley and the rumours about Spezza being traded should go away. Knowing my luck, Gainey will sell the farm for Heatley.

If It's Not Scottish It's Crap!

There's been a long fight between Cape Breton's Glenora Distillers and the Scotch Whisky Association. The crux of the fight is the name of Glenora's whisky; Glen Breton. The battle began nine years ago when the Scotch Whisky Association, a representative of Scotch Whisky distillers from Scotland, took action against Glenora for using the term "Glen" in its name. The Association is continuing the battle, asking the Supreme Court of Canada for permission to appeal a lower court ruling in favour of Glenora.

First, some background. Whisky can only be referred to as Scotch whisky if it is distilled in Scotland. This is similar to how only sparkling wine from Champagne in France can be referred to as Champagne. Glenora does not refer to its whisky as Scotch whiskey, they refer to it as a Canadian single malt whisky. But the Association fears that including "Glen" in the name of the whisky will mislead potential international buyers into thinking the Whisky is, in fact, Scotch.

This is stupid on many levels. First, the word "glen" has no direct link to Scotch other than the common, and, to be fair, almost specific practice among Scotch whisky distillers to name their product Glen something; Glenmorangie, Glenlivet, Glenfiddich, Glendronach, etc. But a glen has no specific link to Scotch. A glen is a valley. So why should Scottish distillers have a monopoly on the word "glen"? There are glens all around the world. A quick Wikipedia search will show you glens in New York State, Ireland, Canada, and Australia.

Next, the reason they are objecting makes zero sense to me. Scotch drinkers are notoriously snobby. They are the snobbiest drinkers I know. They generally won't buy a bottle of blended Scotch whisky let alone a bottle of whisky that isn't even Scotch. While this may not be true for all Scotch drinkers (and especially the cheap Mills'), most Scotch drinkers take their whisky very seriously. They know exactly what they are buying before they buy it. They can even tell you the difference in flavour and aroma between two Scotches from different regions. It is very unlikely that they'll mistake a bottle of booze from Cape Breton for a bottle from Scotland.

But to make extra sure that a buyer isn't confused, the label on the bottle specifically identifies the contents as Canadian single malt whisky. Caveat emptor anyone? Buyer beware. If you are stupid enough to think a bottle of whisky from Cape Breton is Scotch, then you deserve to buy the crap. I have yet to try Glen Breton, but I assume it's crap, because it's not Scottish.

Is it misleading to call a Canadian single malt whisky Glen Breton? Well, I suppose if you have no idea about Scotch, you may be mislead, but then again, you probably won't be buying Scotch anyway. So I see no harm whatsoever.

Me Fail English? Quick Follow Up

There are correct and incorrect ways to pronounce the following words:

• aunt;
• scallops;
• iron; and
  
• tournament.
  

Aunt is not pronounced in such a way to confuse the word with an insect. It is pronounced the same way as haunt, gaunt, and taunt.

Scallops is pronounced the way Maritime fishermen who gather them for you pronounce it; the same way you pronounce mall, stall or ball.

Iron has 2 syllables. I and ron. My friends say I pronounce it like I Ron, but they're just stupid. It is not I-earn; the O is there for a reason.

Tour. Nament. Tour. Nament. Tour nament. Tournament. Not Ternament.

Me Fail English? That's Unpossible

I love me my Ralph Wiggum and couldn't wait to use a Wiggism in a post. This post is a bit of an old gripe to those of you who know me. I've even tweeted about it a bit. What grinds my gears today is the misuse of vocabulary in the English language (I'm staying away from grammar since bad grammar is something I will put up with).

There are three general vocabulary mistakes that irk me:

1. using words that don't exist;
2. malapropisms; and
3. 10 cent words.

I'm going to go into a bit more detail about each, but I'd also like you to contribute any you've come across by posting a comment. I'll add each to the list below. I've heard so many that I've forgotten many of them.

Words that Don't Exist

This first category is my favourite (if you can have a favourite irk). I have more examples of this error than of the rest. It all started a few years ago when I was chatting with a colleague. Said colleague was partially responsible for reviewing documents prior to sending the documents out to the world. She said:

The quality of the writing here is marginable at best.

I wanted to say to her that the quality would improve if we had people reviewing documents who had more than a marginal understanding of English. Since that day I've had numerous discussions with friends and the practice of using words that do not exist is more common than you think.

The following is a list of real world examples (I've left out George W. Bush, too easy):

• I want to politefully tell this person they are wrong.
• I ran out of money, subsequentially I could not buy the goods.
• Irregardless of the rules, I want to use that word (note, it does show up in dictionaries now, but by sheer force of its use rather than it being a word).
• I think Argentinia is going to win the game.
• He is supposably the best in the world.
  

Malapropisms

These ones are fun and probably the most common. Somebody says something that is a word that generally sounds like what they are trying to say but isn't correct. The most common example being "for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes".
Again, here are some real world example:

• The pain is decapitating (this one makes me laugh every time I hear it).
• Take a moment to flush out your ideas (should be flesh).
• Revert back (to revert is to go back, the use of back is redundant).

10 Cent Words

10 cent words are words that do exist, but the reason for their existence appears solely to annoy me. For example, there is never a situation where you can't substitute the word use for utilize. Why would you ever use utilize? I don't come across these often, but there are two others that I hear almost daily: in respect of and with respect to. Can't we just say of, or about?

• Acclimatized (just use acclimated, you're driving AA crazy).

People who use words that don't exist, malapropisms and 10 cent words are probably trying to sound intelligent. Your vocabulary doesn't make you sound more intelligent, your ideas do. But your vocabulary can make you sound stupid.

The Most Important Lesson I've Ever Learned

It was 1996, I was in my third year of university and MuchMusic was still playing videos (yea kids, MuchMusic used to play music videos, you didn't have to use YouTube). A single from a band called the Refreshments was in heavy rotation. That single, "Banditos", taught me the most important thing I've ever learned: the world is full of stupid people.

For example, it's 19 degrees Celsius, there's a 4 km/h wind, it's a beautiful day for a bike ride. So you hop on your bike and head where? Well to the bike path of course. The bike path is very much like a road or a highway. It is paved, it has a yellow line running down the middle and people always stay on the right hand side of the yellow line. Seems pretty straight forward, just like in a car right? But, the world is full of stupid people. So you see things like man on bike on left side of yellow line heading straight toward you, which in and of itself isn't so bad but man on bike on left side of yellow line is looking backwards talking to his friends while biking forward.

You don't have to be a cyclist (or whatever cyclists call me) to appreciate that the world is full of stupid people. If you have a car, take a drive to your local big box store shopping mall. Drive around in the parking lot using the ordinary rules of the road (signal lights, stay on the right hand side, pedestrians have the right of way, and so on). It won't take you too long to figure out that the world is full of stupid people.

If you don't have a car, head to a shopping mall during a busy time of year, particularly Christmas (yea, Christmas, F You! holiday season). Walk though that crowd long enough and you'll find people stopping mid-stride and causing train wrecks of rushed shoppers. If you're lucky, you'll see a gang of people congregating right at the bottom of an escalator or at the door of an elevator (The Luddite Times has a great elevator suggestion).

Don't think that I'm immune from the stupid virus. I erased my entire hard drive when I tried to reformat a single partition. I didn't read what the screen was telling me and wiped the wrong one. I also didn't pack my trunk properly and busted a tasty bottle of Beaus Beaver River. The world is full of stupid people. I'm sure you all have a few stupid people stories about other people and about yourself.

Why is this lesson so important you ask? The main reason this lesson is so important is that if you ever need to predict the behaviour of a person (whether you are biking and there is a person ahead of you or coming towards you, in a parking lot, walking in a mall, or doing anything else that requires you to predict another's behaviour) you'll be safe to assume that person is stupid and take the appropriate course of action.

Now I'm going to wrap this post up back where I started. I'm not sure if this is ironic or not, I'd ask Alanis Morisette, but she's stupid. The Refreshments went on to record the King of the Hill theme song, an animated tv show about a man and his family dealing with various stupid people in Arlen, Texas (see Gribble, Dale; Platter, Luane; Dauterive, Bill; and Lucky).

Offensive Martin

Jacques Martin said this at the news conference introducing him as the new head coach of the habs:

I believe in attacking when you have the puck and retrieving it when you don't have it. I certainly don't try to stifle creativity. If you look at the teams I've coached, I've had creative players like Marian Hossa, Daniel Alfredsson and Martin Havlat, and we've been among the highest-scoring teams in the league.

Unfortunately, the Habs do not have an Alfredsson, Havlat, or a Hossa. Noticeably absent in his comment was Yashin. Yashin is a Russian superstar who is amazing to watch, when he shows up. Sound familiar?

Martin to Coach Habs

Today (June 1, 2009) Jacques Martin became the 8th head coach of the Montreal Canadiens since their last Stanley Cup win in 1992-1993 (if you count Bob Gainey twice). I think Martin is a fine coach, but I don't think he was the best choice.

First, some points in favour of Martin. Martin has a 517-406-119-56 regular season record as a head coach (W-L-T-OL) amassing 1209 points. That translates into a 0.551 point percentage (a measure of total points accumulated over total points possible). It is an impressive regular season record, 72nd all time according to hockey-reference.com and 13th among active coaches who have coached at least 1 full season.

He also has a 38-47 postseason record with a 0.447 winning percentage. That isn't too shabby either, ranking him 93rd all time (hockey-reference.com again) and 13th among active coaches who have coached at least 1 full season as well (weird).

He turned the Ottawa Senators franchise around. Martin brought stability and defensive responsibility to a talented team and took them to the playoffs for the first time in 1996-1997. The Senators would not miss the playoffs again during his tenure (and not until this past season), culminating in a heartbreaking game 7 loss against the Devils in the 2002-2003 Eastern Conference Finals (the Devils would go on to beat the Ducks and win The Cup).

Now some cons. Martin coaches a boring defensive system. The Sens won games under Martin but they weren't exactly exciting to watch (certainly not compared to Bryan Murray's style) playing a trapping style.

While Martin has a decent playoff winning percentage, 5 out of 7 of his visits to the playoffs with the Sens resulted in first round exits (mostly at the hands of the hated Leafs).

Finally, Martin's trapping style seems better suited for the clutch and grab era of the NHL rather than the current young and fast salary cap era.

So who would I choose? I'm glad you asked. Looking at the available coaches, I can come up with a list of 5 that would have been better choices than Martin based on statistics alone (ah, the magic of numbers) plus 1 that is better based on most statistics and is a fan favourite. Some are francophone and some are not. The following is a list of unemployed coaches who have:

• coached within the past 5 years;
• a better regular season points percentage (Pts%);
  
• a better post season winning percentage (PS%); and
  
• more Stanley Cup wins (and some other relevant info).
  

1. Bob Hartley (francophone) 0.579 Pts%, 0.583 PS%, 1 Cup (coached Tanguay).
   
2. Mike Keenan (assumed anglophone) 0.551 Pts%, 0.559 PS%, 1 Cup (coached Kovalev).
3. Peter Laviolette (american, assumed anglophone) 0.562 Pts%, 0.541 PS%, 1 Cup.
4. Jacques Lemaire (francophone, former Hab) 0.556 Pts%, 0.536 PS%, 1 Cup (legend in MTL).
5. Marc Crawford (bilingual) 0.555 Pts%, 0.518 PS%, 1 Cup (coached Nords and may have insight into hockey mad MTL media).

I'd also consider Larry Robinson, who has a better PS% than Martin and a cup but a worse Pts %. The fans and media would presumably love him (as they did Carbo at first), I believe he's bilingual, and it has been rumoured that he would be interested in the position.

5 + 1 coaches that I think are better choices than Jacques Martin. Let's take a closer look at each of them.

Hartley and Crawford won because of the team they were coaching (the Avs for the most part) and the best goalie EVER! (yes, the best EVER!). Keenan is a disciplinarian whose time has passed and won because of Messier (See Flames, Calgary). Laviolette may make a fine choice, but he's an anglophone and Pierre Boivin wanted a francophone. That leaves Lemaire, Robinson and Martin. I assume Lemaire is done with coaching. So that leaves Robinson and Martin. (I can't believe I just talked myself into Robinson or Martin, didn't see that coming).

So, is Martin a bad choice? After all that, I suppose not. While Martin's Habs won't be fun to watch, they'll likely win in the regular season. They'll be defensively responsible, they won't lose games because of the system, and he's French, so the media won't have a conniption fit. Let's just hope the Leafs don't scrape into the playoffs.