Last week, the Onion Sports Network had an article called "Jesus Says Tebow Will Never Make it as a Starting NFL Quarterback". Jesus, who apparently has considerable football knowledge, was quoted extensively throughout the article on Tebow's slow throwing motion and poor technque on certain kinds of passes. He concluded by saying, in reference to Tebow's chances of being a long term starting NFL quarterback, that "it's never going to fuckin happen".
The Onion publishes a weekly Canadian version which is available in hard copy at the Coffee Time down the street from me. The most recent issue was entirely focused on sports and, in addition to the Tebow piece, featured articles entitled "Tiger Woods Wonders if he Should Tell People He's Still Getting Laid" and, beside a photo of Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith wearing his headset on the sidelines, "Bears Coach Says Voices in Headset Keep Calling him an Idiot". I love the Onion. The most fun job I can imagine would be as a staff writer for them.
Bengals wide receiver Jerome Simpson made a spectacular play on Saturday by leaping up and over an oncoming defender, turning exactly 360 degrees in the air - literally head over heals - and landing with both feet just inside the goal line for a touchdown. As Chris Berman said, he "stuck the landing better than Mary Lou Retton". Then he showed a split screen of Simpson's touchdown and Mary Lou Retton doing a vault with both of them sticking the landing at the same time. Simpson was drafted in 2008 out of little known Coastal Carolina and has only 66 catches in his NFL career. That could explain why he might want to diversify his sources of income. This past September, Kentucky police must have been thinking the same thing as they intercepted a package addressed to his house which contained two and a half pounds of marijuana. They then found another six pounds in the house but, according to three different reports I read, no charges were laid. I would think that after Simpson's gymnastic touchdown which has probably earned him a place on the all-time NFL highlight reel, the investigation should now be closed.
The Bills Christmas Eve victory over Denver was their first on American soil since October 9th. CJ Spiller had his best game as a pro, gaining over 100 yards for the first time and generating speculation on WGR that his success only helps the Bills in their negotiations with Fred Jackson. Let's hope that they recognize that Jackson has earned a new contract and that they think in terms of the goal being to have them both next year. And they need to sign Stevie Johnson too. And draft an edge rushing linebacker.
On Thursday December 22nd, my cousin Pete and I paddled around our lake in Muskoka. There was ice in the small bays and along the north facing shoreline but the lake was 75% open. Not a trace of snow either. We would have been skiing and chopping open our ice hole by this time in almost any other year. The fall of 2011 has lasted a full month longer than normal and I'm ready for winter.
Monday, 26 December 2011
Monday, 19 December 2011
Dolphins 30, Bills 23
I spent another Sunday afternoon working on firewood and listening to John Murphy and Mark Kelso tell me about another Bills loss - their seventh straight. The Washington game at Rogers Centre seems like it was about three football seasons ago. Thankfully, there are only two games left in what has become another train wreck of a season. Eventhough Tim Tebow's luck ran out yesterday against the Patriots, amazingly, my Christmas Eve Denver Broncos tickets sold yesterday after I reduced the price a little on NFL TicketExchange. The NFL prides itself on being a league with parity. I can think of a great example. Remember week one of this season? The Bills travelled to Kansas City and demolished the favoured Chiefs. Yesterday, the Chiefs handed Green Bay their first loss of the season.
Driving to Muskoka on Saturday morning, I was listening to The House. Reporters Greg Weston and Joan Bryden were asked to make a list of who has been naughty and who has been nice in federal politics this past year. Weston's naughty choice was Defence Minister Peter Mackay whose use of military helicopters and private jets has been widely reported and, last week, we learned that he stayed in a $1,400 per night hotel at a security conference in Munich last year. The Conservatives spent considerable time in opposition digging up examples of such government largesse. His nice list included two non-elected federal officials who are widely respected and represent, he says, what many Canadians look for in their political leadership: Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney and Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page.
Joan Bryden's naughty choice was the Conservative Party. She chose the party because of its attutude toward certain court rulings. She gave two examples and a third occured to me as well. During the 2006 federal election campaign, the Conservatives used what became known as the "in and out" move where national campaign funds were distributed to certain ridings and then funnelled back to the national campaign, allowing them to spend more on the national campaign than the rules permitted. The party plead guilty recently and was ordered to pay a $52,000 fine but the Conservatives claimed victory anyway, reiterating their position that the strategy is actually legal. They plead guilty, I presume, because they were not confident that they could convince a judge of its legality.
The second example Bryden gave was the court ruling about the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board. The court ruled that the government was required to have formally consulted with farmers before proceeding to change the Wheat Board's mandate. Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz responded by saying that the important thing is that Canadian farmers will now have the ability to sell their wheat wherever they want. He went on to say that in the event that an injunction is obtained in the future, they will ignore it. Ignore it. Should the rest of us take the same approach and simply ignore court rulings we don't like?
Just before the May, 2011 election, the Speaker of the House found the government to be in contempt of Parliament for not disclosing the cost of its crime legislation, corporate tax cuts and the purchase of fighter jets. In the leaders debate, the Prime Minister referred to this as a "technicality" and the result of partisan "bickering". In keeping with the Conservatives philosophy, there clearly should be a mandatory minimum sentence for being found to be in contempt of Parliament. And for growing six pot plants. It only makes sense.
Driving to Muskoka on Saturday morning, I was listening to The House. Reporters Greg Weston and Joan Bryden were asked to make a list of who has been naughty and who has been nice in federal politics this past year. Weston's naughty choice was Defence Minister Peter Mackay whose use of military helicopters and private jets has been widely reported and, last week, we learned that he stayed in a $1,400 per night hotel at a security conference in Munich last year. The Conservatives spent considerable time in opposition digging up examples of such government largesse. His nice list included two non-elected federal officials who are widely respected and represent, he says, what many Canadians look for in their political leadership: Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney and Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page.
Joan Bryden's naughty choice was the Conservative Party. She chose the party because of its attutude toward certain court rulings. She gave two examples and a third occured to me as well. During the 2006 federal election campaign, the Conservatives used what became known as the "in and out" move where national campaign funds were distributed to certain ridings and then funnelled back to the national campaign, allowing them to spend more on the national campaign than the rules permitted. The party plead guilty recently and was ordered to pay a $52,000 fine but the Conservatives claimed victory anyway, reiterating their position that the strategy is actually legal. They plead guilty, I presume, because they were not confident that they could convince a judge of its legality.
The second example Bryden gave was the court ruling about the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board. The court ruled that the government was required to have formally consulted with farmers before proceeding to change the Wheat Board's mandate. Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz responded by saying that the important thing is that Canadian farmers will now have the ability to sell their wheat wherever they want. He went on to say that in the event that an injunction is obtained in the future, they will ignore it. Ignore it. Should the rest of us take the same approach and simply ignore court rulings we don't like?
Just before the May, 2011 election, the Speaker of the House found the government to be in contempt of Parliament for not disclosing the cost of its crime legislation, corporate tax cuts and the purchase of fighter jets. In the leaders debate, the Prime Minister referred to this as a "technicality" and the result of partisan "bickering". In keeping with the Conservatives philosophy, there clearly should be a mandatory minimum sentence for being found to be in contempt of Parliament. And for growing six pot plants. It only makes sense.
Monday, 12 December 2011
Chargers 37, Bills 10
A large White Ash tree came down at the top of our driveway a few weeks ago and my cousin and I bucked it up and carted the chunks down to the woodshed two weeks ago. I have spent the past two Sunday afternoons splitting and stacking the wood while listening to John Murphy and Mark Kelso on the Bills radio network. The Tennessee game was blacked out but yesterday's game in San Diego was just not available on our Shaw Direct service so I chopped and listened as the Bills turned in another sad effort and lost their sixth straight game. I got the fire in the sauna going just before 6pm and gave up on the Bills when the score was 30-10. Just before 7pm, I went into the sauna. Just before that, as I was putting on my water sandals, the Denver/Chicago game was on. It was 10-0 Bears with three minutes left. I watched for a minute as Tebow led the Broncos to a touchdown with a bit more than 2 minutes left. With no timeouts, Denver then tried an onside kick which almost succeeded but didn't. Game over. I went out to the sauna. I obviously gave up too early as Denver pulled out another miraculous win with a 59 yard field goal to tie and and a 51 yarder to win in overtime. The potential value of my Christmas Eve tickets may be rising. I have listed them on NFL TicketExchange so we'll see.
My 13 year old twin nieces are lobbying their parents full time for cell phones. They have the use of one from time to time but they seem to think that this Christmas will finally bring them each their very own phones. I was chatting with them about this on Saturday morning and one of them asked me how old I was when I got my first cell phone. "39" I said. Due to the fact that I continually test their ability to identify things which are not true by saying things which are not true, they thought that this statement was another of these tests. "I got my first cell phone in April, 2002 when I was 39", I reiterated. "Why didn't you get one when you were our age?", one of them asked. "Cell phones didn't exist when I was your age" I replied. It took another few emphatic statements before they realized that this was not another of my false statement tests. Made me feel old. As with many children, they will have to wait until Christmas morning to see if they get their phones.
After the MLSE deal was announced and the press conferences and interviews were winding down, someone on CBC pointed out that both Nadir Mohammed and George Cope focused more on the potential for fans to watch live HD video of the Leafs and Raptors on their smart phones than on their commitment to bring a Stanley Cup or an NBA Championship to Toronto. The content play, from the perspective of Bell and Rogers, is why they did this deal. As a fan, if I had the choice of watching these teams play live on my Blackberry or watching either of them play for a championship, it's an easy choice. In fairness, the fact that the Teachers Pension Plan, with their embedded fiduciary duty to maximize returns, has found a buyer for their position is probably good for fans.These telecom companies have similar responsibilities to their shareholders but, if they can bring success on the ice and the court and the soccer pitch to Toronto, they probably can justify additional spending in the name of building their brands. The Leafs spend pretty much to the salary cap anyway so maybe it's the basketball team which could benefit the most from these new owners. I really try not to say things like this but I just don't get the appeal of watching anything on a three inch screen - especially live sports. I like watching sports on my big plasma screen. My Blackberry screen is fine for reading emails but I can not imagine a time when I would watch a live Leaf game on it. It sounds like Bell and Rogers are going to make sure that I have plenty of opportunity to do so whether I want to or not.
Despite the MLSE deal, the Durban climate agreement, the ongoing tragedy in Atiwapiskat, the European debt debacle and the continuing shameful right wing ways of our federal government, the most remarkable story from this past week, for me, was the emergence of the details of the behaviour of two RIM executives on an Air Canada flight from Toronto to Bejing. They were drunk when they boarded the plane and continued drinking until they became so unruly that the Captain ordered that they be restrained and then landed the plane in Vancouver. The part that I just can not believe is that, after being restrained with tape and electrical cords, they chewed through those restraints. Chewed. Like animals. Amazing. Now, if the footage existed, that is something that I would watch on a three inch screen - preferably a Blackberry.
My 13 year old twin nieces are lobbying their parents full time for cell phones. They have the use of one from time to time but they seem to think that this Christmas will finally bring them each their very own phones. I was chatting with them about this on Saturday morning and one of them asked me how old I was when I got my first cell phone. "39" I said. Due to the fact that I continually test their ability to identify things which are not true by saying things which are not true, they thought that this statement was another of these tests. "I got my first cell phone in April, 2002 when I was 39", I reiterated. "Why didn't you get one when you were our age?", one of them asked. "Cell phones didn't exist when I was your age" I replied. It took another few emphatic statements before they realized that this was not another of my false statement tests. Made me feel old. As with many children, they will have to wait until Christmas morning to see if they get their phones.
After the MLSE deal was announced and the press conferences and interviews were winding down, someone on CBC pointed out that both Nadir Mohammed and George Cope focused more on the potential for fans to watch live HD video of the Leafs and Raptors on their smart phones than on their commitment to bring a Stanley Cup or an NBA Championship to Toronto. The content play, from the perspective of Bell and Rogers, is why they did this deal. As a fan, if I had the choice of watching these teams play live on my Blackberry or watching either of them play for a championship, it's an easy choice. In fairness, the fact that the Teachers Pension Plan, with their embedded fiduciary duty to maximize returns, has found a buyer for their position is probably good for fans.These telecom companies have similar responsibilities to their shareholders but, if they can bring success on the ice and the court and the soccer pitch to Toronto, they probably can justify additional spending in the name of building their brands. The Leafs spend pretty much to the salary cap anyway so maybe it's the basketball team which could benefit the most from these new owners. I really try not to say things like this but I just don't get the appeal of watching anything on a three inch screen - especially live sports. I like watching sports on my big plasma screen. My Blackberry screen is fine for reading emails but I can not imagine a time when I would watch a live Leaf game on it. It sounds like Bell and Rogers are going to make sure that I have plenty of opportunity to do so whether I want to or not.
Despite the MLSE deal, the Durban climate agreement, the ongoing tragedy in Atiwapiskat, the European debt debacle and the continuing shameful right wing ways of our federal government, the most remarkable story from this past week, for me, was the emergence of the details of the behaviour of two RIM executives on an Air Canada flight from Toronto to Bejing. They were drunk when they boarded the plane and continued drinking until they became so unruly that the Captain ordered that they be restrained and then landed the plane in Vancouver. The part that I just can not believe is that, after being restrained with tape and electrical cords, they chewed through those restraints. Chewed. Like animals. Amazing. Now, if the footage existed, that is something that I would watch on a three inch screen - preferably a Blackberry.
Monday, 5 December 2011
Titans 23, Bills 17
A week ago, the Bills had some 12,000 unsold tickets to yesterday's game against Tennessee, about 18,000 tickets for the December 18th game against the Miami Dolphins and a staggering 24,000 tickets for the Christmas Eve game against Tim Tebow and the Denver Broncos. It's been a tale of two seasons in many ways: the Bills first three home games - against Oakland, New England and Philadelphia - each featured spectacular summer-like weather, sold out boisterous crowds, explosive offensive performances by the home team, and wins. These last three games seem destined to feature typical December Buffalo weather, thousands of empty seats, mostly second stringers on the field for the home team, and irrelevant outcomes (except for the visiting team) as they play out the string and await yet another high draft pick.
Think back to 2004 - the last winning season for the Bills. They started 0-4 then won 8 of 9 and had a shot to make the playoffs before losing to the Steelers on the last day of the season. This season began in such a promising way but, with the team suffering devastating injuries and not having won since the Toronto game in October, all hope is now lost. I'm not sure which of these scenarios I prefer.
On my bike ride in the rain today, I stopped in at the Otter Creek rink. The ice is in but the rain was taking its toll although the rink was still "open". Tomorrow may be a great day for skating as it's going to cool off tonight. I had a chat with the staff at the rink about the upcoming labour showdown. I've known them for years as I organize our outdoor hockey there every Thursday night. The guy who is responsible for the ice does a fantastic job and takes great pride in maintaining the best possible ice surface. I compliment him on it regularly and it seems to make his day every time.
The collective agreements for CUPE locals 416 and 79 - representing outside and inside workers respectively - expire on December 31st. If the City chooses to lock out employees, there is a 17 day notice period which can not begin before January 2nd, the first "business" day of the new year. So, the lock out could begin as early as January 19th. Apparently, the City intends to keep the rinks open with management operating the zambonis etc. Not surprisingly, the staff seem skeptical about their ability to do this. Otter Creek is surely one of the most heavily used rinks in the city and is located within the very affluent Lawrence Park neighbourhood. My prediction is that if they are going to try to keep a few rinks operating during a lock out, this will be one of them. The City appears to be dead set on winning some key concessions from the union and both sides are preparing for a lock out which could last months.
One concession which mayor Rob Ford wants badly is the elimination of the so-called "jobs for life" clause. At least, that's how it's referred to by those who want it removed from any future agreement. It simply says that City employees with 10 or more years of service will be guaranteed a job with the City if their current job is outsourced to the private sector. City garbage collectors west of Yonge Street (with 10 or more years of service), for example, will be offered another job with the City when private garbage collection begins later next year. On its face, this seems like a typical union contract benefit which can turn public opinion against the union, especially when it is repeatedly brought up as the kind of thing which we just can't afford any more.
This reminds me of the issue related to the benefit which allows city employees to "bank" unused sick days. This was widely publicized by management during the strike in the summer of 2009. At the time, the way it was reported, it did seem a little excessive to me (as we heard stories of workers who had accumulated many months worth of sick days) but I then discovered that, as part of the overall collective agreement, the banking of sick days was negotiated by the union in exchange for giving up short term disability benefits within the workers benefit plan. Well, in that context, it seems much more reasonable, doesn't it? Short term disability is a pretty common feature of benefit plans in the public and private sectors. I know that it was part of the plan I had with my private sector employer. To draw attention to one element of an entire collective bargaining agreement, in isolation, can be misleading. The benefit of job protection for those with 10 or more years of service with the City is the current "whipping boy" for the anti-union side in this dispute.
I always try to understand the entire picture in any labour dispute before taking sides (except for professional sports labour disputes where I always support the players with the fastest possible knee-jerk reaction). The City of Toronto has a severe structural deficit problem. I don't think anyone really disputes that. It will, sooner or later, have to be addressed in part with new revenues - yes, taxes - as well as cost cutting. The lock out of 2012 will probably be a long one. Let's make sure we understand both sides and let's hope that they can resolve it. I want my outdoor hockey season.
Think back to 2004 - the last winning season for the Bills. They started 0-4 then won 8 of 9 and had a shot to make the playoffs before losing to the Steelers on the last day of the season. This season began in such a promising way but, with the team suffering devastating injuries and not having won since the Toronto game in October, all hope is now lost. I'm not sure which of these scenarios I prefer.
On my bike ride in the rain today, I stopped in at the Otter Creek rink. The ice is in but the rain was taking its toll although the rink was still "open". Tomorrow may be a great day for skating as it's going to cool off tonight. I had a chat with the staff at the rink about the upcoming labour showdown. I've known them for years as I organize our outdoor hockey there every Thursday night. The guy who is responsible for the ice does a fantastic job and takes great pride in maintaining the best possible ice surface. I compliment him on it regularly and it seems to make his day every time.
The collective agreements for CUPE locals 416 and 79 - representing outside and inside workers respectively - expire on December 31st. If the City chooses to lock out employees, there is a 17 day notice period which can not begin before January 2nd, the first "business" day of the new year. So, the lock out could begin as early as January 19th. Apparently, the City intends to keep the rinks open with management operating the zambonis etc. Not surprisingly, the staff seem skeptical about their ability to do this. Otter Creek is surely one of the most heavily used rinks in the city and is located within the very affluent Lawrence Park neighbourhood. My prediction is that if they are going to try to keep a few rinks operating during a lock out, this will be one of them. The City appears to be dead set on winning some key concessions from the union and both sides are preparing for a lock out which could last months.
One concession which mayor Rob Ford wants badly is the elimination of the so-called "jobs for life" clause. At least, that's how it's referred to by those who want it removed from any future agreement. It simply says that City employees with 10 or more years of service will be guaranteed a job with the City if their current job is outsourced to the private sector. City garbage collectors west of Yonge Street (with 10 or more years of service), for example, will be offered another job with the City when private garbage collection begins later next year. On its face, this seems like a typical union contract benefit which can turn public opinion against the union, especially when it is repeatedly brought up as the kind of thing which we just can't afford any more.
This reminds me of the issue related to the benefit which allows city employees to "bank" unused sick days. This was widely publicized by management during the strike in the summer of 2009. At the time, the way it was reported, it did seem a little excessive to me (as we heard stories of workers who had accumulated many months worth of sick days) but I then discovered that, as part of the overall collective agreement, the banking of sick days was negotiated by the union in exchange for giving up short term disability benefits within the workers benefit plan. Well, in that context, it seems much more reasonable, doesn't it? Short term disability is a pretty common feature of benefit plans in the public and private sectors. I know that it was part of the plan I had with my private sector employer. To draw attention to one element of an entire collective bargaining agreement, in isolation, can be misleading. The benefit of job protection for those with 10 or more years of service with the City is the current "whipping boy" for the anti-union side in this dispute.
I always try to understand the entire picture in any labour dispute before taking sides (except for professional sports labour disputes where I always support the players with the fastest possible knee-jerk reaction). The City of Toronto has a severe structural deficit problem. I don't think anyone really disputes that. It will, sooner or later, have to be addressed in part with new revenues - yes, taxes - as well as cost cutting. The lock out of 2012 will probably be a long one. Let's make sure we understand both sides and let's hope that they can resolve it. I want my outdoor hockey season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)