Poaching In Baseball

The aftermath of the Boston Red Sox's epic miss-the-playoffs collapse is still a hot story.

Today two stories have emerged. First to be announced was the signing of Ben Cherington as the GM replacement for outgoing Theo Epstein. Epstein may have left on a decidedly low note but he leaves big shoes to be filled having won two World Series after an 86-year drought. Epstein has gone on to the Chicago Cubs and subsequently poached the General Manager of the San Diego Padres, Jed Hoyer, for the same position with the Cubs, making it a lateral move. Lateral moves are frowned upon in sport in general and particularly in baseball. The Cubs were required to pay compensation to the Red Sox for Epstein since he was still under contract. Presumably the Cubs will have to pay the Padres further compensation for Hoyer. Fans in Chicago should worry about the state of the farm system with all this compensation being paid out for front office staff.

Boston has yet to fill the managerial position vacated by Terry Francona. There will always be speculation over whether he left of his own accord or was pushed out by owner John Henry but the official story is that he resigned. Regardless, there have been rumours and speculation about the likely candidates to fill the position.

That's where things get a bit sticky. The Boston Globe reported that the Boston Red Sox had internal discussions about hiring Toronto Blue Jays manager John Farrell. Farrell had spent four years as the pitching coach for the BoSox before taking the Toronto manager position last year. Leaving after only one year on the job is still taboo even in this age without loyalty or respect for signed contracts.

The Blue Jays have an extremely friendly policy regarding non-player personnel. Specifically, they allow any employee to break their contract if they want to leave for another position elsewhere. Presumably, this policy is meant to enhance the reputation of the ballclub within the culture of Major League Baseball. Such a employee-friendly policy has the potential to influence future players and personnel decision regarding accepting employment with the Blue Jays organization. Their policy goes even further and states that they won't seek compensation for staff poached while still under contract.

This is ludicrous! Loyalty has been dead in major leagues sports for quite some time. Employment decisions are almost always based on two things: money and winning. Money generally means signing the most lucrative contract offered but this can be tempered by a desire to be in a large media market where their income from advertising and endorsements will be maximized. Still, the bottom line is paramount for today's athletes. The other factor, winning, can influence the decision as well, especially for people nearing the end of their peak years or the end of their careers and especially for people who have not had the privilege of having won before. Winning also impacts potential income from ads and endorsements so there is financial synergy here. Not much remains after these two factors are considered. The only significant exception to this rule is Philadelphia Phillies pitcher Cliff Lee who stated that his decision to sign with Philly was strongly influenced by the availability of a first rate children's hospital -- Lee's son Jaxon had leukemia and is currently in remission. Lee had previously played with the Phillies in 2009 having been a trade deadline acquisition.

Players demand trades on a regular basis. One interesting example occurred last year when Kansas City Royals pitching ace Zack Greinke demanded a trade. Greinke has an issue with anxiety and stipulated that he not be traded to big market teams where the pressure is intense. This is another example of a player that did not place money and winning as the deciding factor in employmenr. The Royals ended up trading him to the Milwaukee, home of Bud Selig's Brewers, which happens to be the smallest market in Major League Baseball.

The Toronto Raptors has had to deal with multiple players that simply refused to play for the team, forcing them to make a trade from a position of weakness, to outright release the player from their contract via buy out. There appears to be a significant cultural bias against playing for the NBA's sole Canadian team. Some say this is due to the fact that the team lacks a reputation for competitiveness in its short history. Others point to passport hassles, lack of availability of ESPN, reduced exposure to the American media which reduces potential future income, and the tiny differences in culture between Toronto and similar American cities. Apparently this tiny difference is particularly significant as it pertains to African American culture. It has been suggested that Toronto's Black community is different than in America. This is not surprising given that racism has always been less prevalent in Canada than in America, but one would think that a good thing. Apparently not as players seem to prefer familiarity over equality.

Given that loyalty is dead the Blue Jays' policy seems naïve or worse, makes them seem like pushovers that aren't committed to winning. Nothing could be further from the proof but perception is everything when it comes to predicting human behaviour.

The Blue Jays need to change this policy.  It is one thing to allow staff to leave when they no longer want to stay.  After all, what kind of job performance would you expect from a disgruntled employee?   It is quite another to allow carte blanche movement without compensation.  This policy makes the franchise seem like a minor league development team for the big market teams.  This is already becoming true with respect to players given the lack of a salary cap in MLB.  The Pittsburghs, Tampa Bays and Kansas Citys of MLB have little to no chance of retaining their emerging star players who instead move to the big markets following the big money.  No team can afford to extend this impotence to front office staff.

It seems that Blue Jays management has come to their senses as there is a press conference scheduled for today.  At least I hope they have.  Presumably they will change their policy to place restrictions on personnel movement.  This might include a policy of demanding compensation and/or may include restrictions on lateral movement or movement within the American League East Division.

I guess we'll see.

Sounding Dumb When Trying To Sound Smart

One of my pet peeves is the misuse of the English language.  It is completely forgivable when the speaker/writer is not a native English speaker, but what is everyone else's excuse?  People do this for lots of reasons but it usually just lazy or sloppy usage from people who know better.  Often it is merely the mispronunciation of words, like 'ta' instead of 'to', or  'lookit' instead of 'look at it' or ' look here', but sometimes it is more about using the wrong word.

One extremely common written mistake is using 'loose', meaning slack or free, instead of 'lose' which means fail or  'not win'.  More often than not the misuse is just that, misuse as opposed to a typographical error.  A more complicated example is the word 'decimated'.  Decimated means 'reduced by one tenth'.  Mathematically, this means you would have 90% of what you started with after it has been 'decimated'.  When a person 'tithes' to the church (by definition that means giving one tenth of one's wealth/income) their available funds have been decimated.  It is almost never used in this context anymore but it is very frequently used nonetheless.  Instead, people use it to imply 'almost completely eliminated', or 'nearly wiped out'.  It's just plain wrong, but so few people know what it really means that the misuse goes on unchecked and no one ever gets corrected or educated.  Eventually, the dictionary will reflect the misuse and the original meaning will be lost.  They tell me this is called 'progress' or 'evolution'.  Garbage is what it is and I don't like it.   Stupidity and/or ignorance should never be chosen over knowledge and yet it is.  is it any wonder we have so much hatred in our world when ignorance is rewarded and intelligence is shunned?  (Perhaps it is coincidence that the word tithe itself has almost lost its original meaning in favour of meaning any charitable donation of any size or ratio.  Perhaps not.)

Given that this is a pet peeve of mine you can just imagine how close to wit's end I was during the Presidency of George W. Bush.  He absolutely butchered the English language.  He wouldn't merely misuse words, he would invent new ones when he lacked for the appropriate word.  There are dozens of 'Bushisms' and I won't dignify any of them by repeating them.

To this day 'scaremonger' drives me crazy!  Yes, its first recorded use was in 1888 but had generally fallen into disuse in favour of the newer term (first used in 1939) 'fearmonger'.  Why is fearmonger the better word?  'Fear' is an emotion that can be spread.  To monger is to sell or spread.  'Scare' is not an emotion.  It is used as both a verb (to startle) and a noun (as in "you really put a scare into him").  In neither case does it imply something that can be spread.  See my point?

To give you an idea of how screwed up this is, now that a President has used the word 'scaremonger' it is back in vogue even though it is an inferior word.  What's worse is the fact that my spellchecker accepts scaremonger and flags fearmonger as a misspelling!  That really shows how powerful a cultural icon the President of the United States of America is, even when they aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin managed to utter a few Bushisms of her own during the 2008 Presidential Election campaign season.  In at least one case, her word was a meld of two perfectly good words (repudiate and refute) creating a new, non-English word (refudiate).  Some linguists and lexicography experts (I'm looking at you New Oxford American Dictionary!) decided that neither of the words she melded actually suited the context of her sentence and decided that her invention should be a new word to fill the 'void'.  The fact that the 'void' could be filled with the accepted word 'reject' is apparently not relevant, we need a new word!  So, even being a candidate for the Vice Presidency gives you enormous power over a language used by billions, and perhaps by trillions more in year to come.

If anyone else had used Bush's or Palin's non-words publicly they would have been derided endlessly and that would be the end of things.  Instead, we are stuck with their legacy while perfectly good words fall to the wayside simply because too many people couldn't be bothered to use them correctly.


Sometimes misuse occurs due to a person trying to sound smarter than they really are, and ending up sounding stupid instead.  They use vocabulary that they haven't yet mastered, thinking their word means one thing when it actually means quite another.  So, instead of sounding smart they sound pretentious at best and stupid or ignorant at worst.

I get particularly irate when misuse is perpetrated by people who have been placed in positions of linguistic authority.  That means the media, particularly TV & radio reporters and anchors but includes print reporters and columnists too.  Their words reach millions of readers/listeners and let's face it, these days people choose to learn from the media more than from books.  So, an 'innocent' misuse ends up being echoed by the masses, most never knowing that they are mangling English.

[Tangent time!]
I get even more upset when they propagate misinformation which they do much more frequently then you would imagine.  Discussions around global warming are an extremely common source of misinformation.  Members of the media will often utter a throwaway like "We got clobbered with a ton of snow this weekend. So much for that global warming theory!"  I've heard and seen well-respected weathermen do this!

If they had bothered to educate themselves in the slightest about 'that global warming theory' a.k.a. climate change, they would discover that it predicts rotten winter weather including cold snaps and snowstorms!  Actually, it predicts more bad weather of all kinds, so the event that caused the pundit to dismiss global warming offhand actually helps prove that it is real!

Why does the theory predict bad weather?  When you add heat to any system, like Earth's atmosphere, its behaviour becomes more erratic/chaotic.  Consider a pot of water.  When you put it on the stove it is completely still.  Leave it on a hot element for a while and bubbles begin forming at the bottom of the water (on the surface of the pot) and eventually start floating to the surface.  Finally, after sufficient heat is added, the water boils and as a result it roils, churns and gives of steam due to that additional heat.  That's what's happening to the atmosphere.

Global warming means there will be more frequent and more intense extremes in additional to the overall average increase in temperature.  What are does more frequent and more intense extremes mean in terms of weather?  It means more frequent and intense damaging wind events (up to and including tornadoes), droughts, storms that bring heavy precipitation (which includes the snowstorms alluded to above as well as hurricanes and other cyclonic storms), lightning, wildfires, heat waves and cold snaps.  These effects would also cause famines due to drought and disease due to standing, stagnant water resulting from flooding after heavy rains.  There will also be a loss of land as the sea level rises due to reduction or elimination of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic zones.  Changes in precipitation, temperature and wind will render some farmland unusable and others to have to change crops to suit the new conditions.  The new areas that receive the weather we used to expect in the most productive farm areas may not have sufficient quality soil for effective farming.  The Canadian Shield is an example of land that might gain an ideal farming climate but is too rocky to be used efficiently for crops.

So, in general, were in for a wild and bumpy ride, particularly since the prevailing attitude is to do nothing while the process simply accelerates due to ever increasing consumption and emissions from the now 7 billion and counting souls crushing Earth's biosphere.
[end tangent]

Anyway, back to language use.  I've recently come across a classic example of misuse of language while listening to ads on the radio.  There is a current radio spot airing for Toronto Pearson's (referring to Toronto's  Lester B. Pearson International Airport) Value Park Garage.  It includes the following line spoken by someone who is lamenting how long it takes for a shuttle to arrive to take them to the airport:

                    "Some say waiting for it feels like many moons, even a fortnight!"

The response to this is "you talk funny", which is entirely fair in this case.  Not only is the language archaic, it doesn't make sense!  Translated to modern English the sentence reads:


                    "Some say waiting for it feels like many months, even two weeks!"

There's one problem with that statement.  If it takes months, of course it also takes fourteen days!  That's a logical/mathematical guarantee!  It's a complete given, because two weeks is shorter than many months!  To make any sense the archaic references to time need to be reversed.

How the advertising agency and the advertised company failed to notice this is beyond me.  I find it ludicrous that this kind of mistake makes it to the airwaves.  The only explanation I can find is that one or more ad execs thought it would be cute to include archaic, somewhat poetic English and didn't bother to fact check the meanings of the terms used.  In other words, they thought they were smarter than they actually are.

This is grossly unprofessional!  If I was the owner of Toronto Pearson's Value Park Garage I would be livid that these slacking buffoons made my company look bad.  If I was the boss of those responsible for this mistake I would rake them over the coals.  Depending on what their previous performance looked like as well as a few  other issues, I might even feel forced to let somebody go!

The moral of the story is that none of us are nearly as smart as we think we are, unless of course you are the embodiment of humility and I can't think of anyone short of the Dalai Lama that might fit that bill.  Being humble is often discussed but seldom practiced.  Maybe I'll blog about that someday, but not today.

Governor Perry [Doesn't] Have Any Idea

I suppose that statement could be about virtually anything and still be true, but in this case these words were uttered by Texas Governor Rick Perry who was referring to the authenticity, or lack thereof, of Barack Obama's birth certificate.  The certificate was recently made public proving that Obama is American-born and eligible for the office of President of the United States of America...as if there was any real doubt!  The only people who put any merit in the manufactured 'birtherism' scandal were hard core, right wing staunch politicos and even they were considered to be 'fringers' or 'too far right' by many Republicans and supporters. Sadly, there are enough of these people in every State in the Union to sway an election.

Of all people, Rick Perry should be careful which conspiracy theories he throws his weight behind.  His political past and constant political incorrectness make him an easy target for ridicule when he takes such outlandish positions.  Still, he could be the next POTUSA, and every human being on the planet should find that extremely scary.

Who is there to stand in his way?  Michelle Bachmann?  The two of them are neck and neck in the sanity department, each being worse than the other.  Both are doing an excellent job of whitewashing their true beliefs with beliefs that the voting public will find more palatable.  We expect this from politicians since they all do it to some degree, but the magnitude of the obfuscation for these two 'candidates' is astounding.

So who else is a 'credible' candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination?  I guess that would be former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.   Unfortunately, the liability he carried into the 2008 race for the Republican Presidential nomination is still with him: his membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, familiarly known as the Mormon Church.  A great many Americans see Mormonism as a cult rather than a legitimate schism/sect of Christianity and that effectively eliminates Romney from consideration from their viewpoint.

If being a Mormon keeps Americans from supporting Romney, what hope do Jews, Muslims, adherents of non-Western religions and women have of becoming President?  I suppose 3 years ago the same could have been said about African-Americans, and look how that turned out.  I'm not sure if Obama won on his own merits or if he was the lucky beneficiary of a perfect political storm.

In 2008 there was a significant backlash against the Republican Party for the events and policies around the Presidency of George W. Bush.  It has been suggested that the second President Bush was the worst and least intelligent President in American history.  The predictable knee-jerk reaction steered many centrist Republican and Independents over to the Democratic banner.  There was also the flawed candidacy of the Republican nominee John McCain and his choice for Vice President, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.  Why was this ticket flawed?  Let me count the ways.

1. McCain was too centrist for many staunch conservative Republicans.  This likely lead to votes going to fringe candidates, spoiled ballots and abstention from voting.
2. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which technically is not part of the United States. According to law, this makes McCain ineligible to be President.  It took a bipartisan review and a Senate resolution to 'declare' McCain a natural-born citizen.  I'm sure there were many Americans who did not agree with this decision and voted for a 'legitimate' American-born citizen instead of supporting McCain.
   It's interesting that this happened with relatively little fanfare but a huge production has been manufactured about President Obama's birth status.  This is just one example (of many) of the expert manipulation of the media by the Right Wing marketing machine.
3. McCain would have been the oldest President elected in history.  (Ronald Reagan was 1 1/2 years older at the time of his second inauguration.)  Ageism is quite real in American society and this alone would have deterred some voters.  The fact that John McCain had a history of skin cancer made matters worse.  The fact that Ronald Reagan descended into dementia due to Alzheimer's Disease shortly after his term ended would deter still more voters. (Some would point to his testimony during the Iran-Contra affair as evidence that the first indications of his descent into dementia occurred during his Presidency, not after.)
4. Sarah Palin as the running mate lost more votes due to sexism which, like it or not, is still rampant.
5. Sarah Palin was portrayed as rather daft and as not very worldly.  Things Palin did and said threw fuel on this already burning fire, and cost the ticket yet more votes.

With this many reasons not to vote McCain-Palin perhaps it is surprising that Obama didn't win more handily?

Back to Romney...he should be the slam dunk Republican nominee but nothing in American politics is ever that cut and dry.  He is a successful businessman in legitimate business.  He is pious and he is fiscally and to a lesser degree socially conservative.  He is practically a cookie-cutter candidate, but there is that darned stigma associated with ill-understood Mormonism.  Perhaps his best hope is to let Bachmann and Perry go at each other and watch them self-destruct, but the political spin machines have been working overtime for those two and it is remotely possible that they might not self destruct.  If that's the case, Romney, America and the entire world will be lost.

For now, Perry's comments relating to birtherism should cost him.  Even Karl Rove, the mastermind behind eight years of Bush-Cheney chastised Perry!  He said, "You associate yourself with a nutty view like that and you damage yourself."  He's right.  When it comes to political popularity he usually is.  Too bad he was wrong about most everything else, IMHO.   Why would he openly chastise Perry.  I imagine there are two reasons.  First, it is sound advice that Perry clearly needs.  Second, Perry is too much of a loose cannon to be a Rove-ish candidate, meaning he can't be molded and manipulated as easily as Dubya was.   This makes him less than a completely viable candidate.  If only Bachmann and Perry would speak more often and more freely sane citizens would no longer have to worry about them being mistaken for serious candidates.

Regardless of who ultimately wins the Republican nomination, can they stand up to Obama's bid for reelection?  Unfortunately, yes they can.

The media, as usual, has regurgitated the  garbage spewed by the Republican PR pundits.  Obama has been portrayed as a bad President, which is incredibly ironic given who he succeeded as President.  (Incidentally, I support Amnesty International's effort to have Bush & Cheney put on trial in the International Court for having committed war crimes.   It'll never happen.  America seldom (if ever) pays for its mistakes and for that reason more than any other that the rest of the world hates and/or derides it.)

Obama made one mistake, and the responsibility for the rest of the events that garnered bad press fall on other shoulders. 

His mistake was trying to actually follow up on his promise of bipartisanship.  The White House decided that their first major challenge would be to reform health care.  It was badly overdue and eventually someone had to do it or the country would face some serious repercussions.  At the time, Democrats controlled both Houses.  There was no reason for him to almost endlessly negotiate and amend the bill in order to satisfy Republicans, but he wanted to remain true to his bipartisan promise.  Sadly, he stood alone as the Congressmen and Senators were more partisan than ever.  By the time this was done, the country had already rescinded its support of the Democratic Party in spite of the fact that there had been no real opportunity to do much of anything.  The Democrats received their mandate but were granted no time to achieve it.   Both Houses shifted to the Right with the balance of power changing in the House of Representatives.  Now, due to unprecedented partisanship Obama would be hard pressed to pass even the most benign bills.

Frankly, I'm surprised the American people haven't called for the heads of their elected Tea Party officials.  Their behaviour during the debt ceiling crisis was tantamount to treason!  They ignored the best interest of the country in order to further their own agenda/platform/ideals and in doing so nearly destroyed the country.  As it was, the U.S. Government's credit rating was downgraded by one step by Standard & Poor's.

This is incredibly ironic since Standard & Poor's  had assigned the top AAA rating to even the riskiest collateralized debt obligations.   This ultimately led to the global financial crisis in 2008.  Apparently, so long as you pay Standard & Poor's to rate you highly (which is astonishingly how the system works) they will, and S&P clearly isn't on the Government's payroll.  The groundwork for this disaster, meaning the lack of meaningful regulation of the financial sector, and the obvious complete lack of ethics by those heading the financial sector, was laid long before Obama took office.   Deregulation is a Republican thing.  And in spite of this, Obama is held responsible by the American public for 'allowing' the crisis to occur and how it was subsequently handled.  The fact that handling it any other way would likely have crippled the American and possibly global economy is lost on these people.

Getting back to the debt ceiling crisis...  All this happened because Tea Party politicians decided that they were more important and powerful than the President.  As a result of their united hijacking if the American economy, they were.  At this point, I don't know why the American people bother electing a President given that the Houses can completely block the wishes of White House.  It seems that in the face of ever-increasing partisanship the President is powerless and obsolete.

So, other than being exactly what he was elected to be, namely a bipartisan President working towards a bipartisan Washington, the only problem with the Obama presidency and administration is that they had the misfortune of being in power when the Republicans could hold the government and country hostage.  However, instead of the blame falling on the true villains of the situation, Obama wears the egg on his face, another successful spin job by the Republican media moguls.  This leads me to believe that we may be heading for another Republican Presidency, which is probably not a good thing, at least if you aren't among the financial elite.   If only there was a viable (and ethical) candidate...

Too Poor To Win?

Did you know that it's possible to be too poor to win prizes?  Everyone knows that this is 100% true in the USA, where you are responsible for paying taxes on the value of any prize won. Often, this can be more than the prize winner can afford.  If they are lucky, they can sell or trade the prize for cash which will allow them to pay the taxes and hopefully have something left over.  But did you know that you can be too poor to win in Canada?

Here are some recent examples from Sportsnet Radio the FAN590, an all-sports radio station in Toronto, Ontario.

1. Last month they had an awesome contest, the Man Cave Contest, where you could win a big screen TV, media centre and some sports memorabilia to decorate your 'man cave'.  All you had to do to qualify was submit a photo of your man cave as of right now.  Presumably, the owner of the most pathetic (or at least interesting) man cave would be declared the winner.
   
   Last I checked, poor people don't have digital cameras, nor do they have cell phones which conveniently do double duty as digital cameras.  Further, poor people tend to have lots of poor friends and not many, if any, affluent friends, so borrowing a camera is most likely out of the question.  So by insisting on this 'simple' condition of entry poor people are excluded from the contest.
   
2. The FAN590 just concluded a contest for tickets and travel arrangements to see a World Series game.  This wasn't a problem until last year when passports became mandatory for all forms of travel into the United States.  To obtain a minimal passport one has to shell out at least $87 and wait.  And wait.  And wait.  Expediting the process costs extra.  $87 may not sound like much...unless you're poor in which case it is likely prohibitive.  Once again this contest is of no use to the poor.
   
3. The FAN590 is currently running a contest called The Bucket List.  Listeners are supposed to contact the station and arrange an on air interview with one of 30 famous personalities that show hosts Greg Brady and Jim Lang have on their 'bucket list' of celebrity interviews.  Listeners may also arrange for interviews with other celebrities that are not on the bucket list, but this is solely at the discretion of the station.  In other words, they may accept your unlisted celebrity if the celebrity is sufficiently famous or interesting...at their discretion.
   
   Last I checked, celebrities and poor people almost never interact, and their relationships are even less likely to be close enough to be able to negotiate an on air interview.  This is a contest for the well-to-do.  The prize is a vacation to Honduras so the passport issue comes up again.  This one is a double exclusion for the poor.

Is this surprising?

Not really.

Organizations that run contests are doing so to boost (or at least maintain) market share.  High ratings help secure more and better sponsors for more lucrative contracts.  If your demographic skews rich, advertisers are even more rabid to buy ad time/space as you are reaching people with disposable income that are more likely to buy their product, whatever it is.  That's called reaching your target market.  On the other hand, if your demographic skews poor, advertisers will almost always bypass you entirely.  In other words, the poor have no value to for-profit organizations, and that should come as no surprise.  When they engage in charitable causes, it tends to be a business decision rather than a true act of charity.  Stated another way, that means that for them charity is more about tax deductions and good publicity, not some magnanimous attitude towards the poor, needy or disadvantaged.  If it was the latter, people and corporations would donate well beyond the tax credit limit for their income and by a wide margin most don't.

For me the real killer in these examples is the first one.  There was no poverty-based barrier inherent in the prize (short of homelessness, in which case you have bigger problems than winning TVs) -- everyone can use a (better) TV.  Instead, the station invented an unnecessary barrier that excluded the poor.

I for one, have one TV, but it is about 45 years old and has a broken 8-inch B&W picture tube which is probably impossible to fix or replace in the 21st century.  So, basically I don't have a TV.  My radio broke last week when it fell from a height (I have rambunctious cats), so I really don't have a man cave at all.  My submission would have been of the empty space where my man cave would be if I had a man cave.   I really wanted to win this prize since it was the only way I was going to get a TV with a digital tuner at any point in the foreseeable future.  (With all broadcasters having switched to digital signals, older TVs with analog tuners require the purchase or rental of additional hardware to receive any kind of coherent signal.)  I eventually did scrape together the money for a very cheap camera, but by then the contest had closed.  It took me more time to amass $40 than it took to run the contest.  I'll be ready next time, unless they find a new way to exclude me.  For what it's worth, I'm paying for the splurge as I am currently in a major cash flow dilemma.

If I am disappointed or upset, I have no one to blame but myself.  No one ever said that life was fair, and it isn't, yet somehow, I keep expecting it to be -- entirely my fault.

Greens Not Given Their Due

The media portrays itself in a number of ways.  First, they are impartial conveyors of facts. Second, they are instruments of change.

In theory.

In fact, they are often tools of the establishment for the maintenance of the status quo.

Here is one example.

On October 6th, Ontario went to the polls in a provincial election.  107 provincial parliamentary seats were up for grabs and all of them, not surprisingly, went to the 3 'traditional' parties: the Liberal Party, the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party.  All the coverage after the election was focused on them and perhaps rightly so.

There were many, many other parties that ran a candidate in at least one electoral district -- we like to call them fringe parties -- but only one ran a candidate in every riding: the Green Party.  Does this mean they deserved some coverage?  Absolutely!  The Greens are conspicuous in their absence because they are the only fully represented party that wasn't covered!  They have already won a seat federally.  What do they have to do to be taken seriously?

Perhaps you see it differently and in your opinion running a candidate in every district isn't really newsworthy.  There had to be more to the story to give them some coverage.

Well how about this.  The Green Party finished no lower than 4th in 102 of the 107 districts.  The only exceptions were: Sarnia-Lambton (Independent); Scarborough—Rouge River (Libertarian) by a mere 2 votes; Timiskaming-Cochrane (Northern Ontario Heritage); Vaughan (Libertarian) which had the 4th highest fringe turnout in the province; and York Centre (Libertarian).  In Timiskaming-Cochrane the only female candidate finished last -- you guessed it, the Green Party candidate.  That might be an actual case of gender discrimination.  (It's conceivable that the Scarborough—Rouge River result might flip-flop when the vote counts become official.)

On the other hand, the Green Party actually beat out the NDP candidate in Dufferin-Caledon by more than 1300 votes in order to finish 3rd.

Furthermore, in the collective popular vote the Greens garnered more votes than all the fringe parties, including Independents, combined.  What's even more impressive is that this held true in 90 of 107 districts. The 17 where it didn't hold true...

Bramalea—Gore—Malton: (51% of the fringe total)  The Big 3 all ran persons of South Asian extraction.  None of the other 4 candidates were of similar ethnicity.  As it turns out, this was a poor decision, politically speaking.  93% of the votes went South Asian, as might be expected by the local demographics and by party popularity.

Burlington: (96% of the fringe total)  The retirement of the incumbent PC MPP left a tight race fought between the PCs and Liberals.  Tight races tend to minimize voting for non-traditional parties.

Etobicoke North: (67% of the fringe total)  The Ford family stomping grounds.  Not in the least bit surprising.

Hamilton Centre: (86% of the fringe total)  Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath's district and a decisive victory with over 61% of the votes.  This is made all the more impressive given that Hamilton Centre was also the district with the most candidates (10).

Hamilton Mountain: (94% of the fringe total)  I can see no obvious reason here for the relatively poor performance of the Green candidate.

Huron—Bruce: (90% of the fringe total)  The only thing I can see here is a surprising turn out for the Family Coalition Party, close to their best in the province, if not the best.

Mississauga-Brampton South: (94% of the fringe total)  M-BS was the only district with 2 officially "Independent" candidates.  The Libertarian Party also had an outstanding showing here.  As in Bramalea—Gore—Malton, the Big 3 also ran 3 South Asians here.  One of the Independents was also South Asian.  The Green Party candidate was not.

Oak Ridges-Markham: (99.2% of the fringe total)  This was the only district to cast more than 1000 votes for any one fringe party, in this case, the Libertarians.  Another 600 votes cast for an Independent and that edges out the Green Party by the slimmest of margins.

Sarnia-Lambton: (46% of the fringe total)  One of the worst vote totals and the worst relative showing in the province.

Scarborough-Agincourt: (76% of the fringe total)  For some reason, Scarborough seems to be immune to the Green Party's influence.  Their performance is poor across the entire city.

Scarborough-Guildwood: (76% of the fringe total)  Another Scarborough slap-in-the-face.

Scarborough—Rouge River: (59% of the fringe total)  Yet more evidence that the Green Party has some work to do in Scarborough.

Thornhill: (98% of the fringe total)  The Libertarians and Freedom Party just edged out the Greens for total fringe vote.  A male dominated result with a female Green Party candidate. This apparent gender bias may not be significant.

Timiskaming-Cochran: (80% of the fringe total)  There's as good a chance that this was due to gender discrimination as it was due to a strong NOH showing.

Vaughan: (47% of the fringe total)  The second worst relative fringe turnout in Ontario.  This has as much to do with poor Green results as it does with excellent support for other parties (4th highest fringe vote in Ontario).

York Centre: (49% of fringe total)  One of the Libertarians strongest showings.

York West: (92% of fringe total)  The district with the 3rd lowest support for nontraditional parties and one of the lowest vote counts for the Greens in the province.

These are the unofficial results as of today as they pertain to nontraditional parties.

Party Abbreviation Legend (alphabetical order):
CCP: Canadians' Choice Party
COM: Communist
COR: Confederation of Regions
FCP: Family Coalition Party
FP: Freedom Party
IND: Independent
LTN: Libertarian Party
NA: Non-Affiliated
NOH: Northern Ontario Heritage
PCP: Paramount Canadians Party
PHR: Party For Human Rights
PSN: Party For People With Special Needs
PPO: Pauper Party
PFR: People First Republic Party
PPP: People's Political Party
REF: Reform Party
SPO: Socialist Party
TOP: The Only Party
VEP: Vegan Environmental Party

Ajax—Pickering -- margin: 182% more votes
Green: 843          Others (LTN): 299

Algoma—Manitoulin -- margin: 215% more votes
Green: 684          Others (FCP): 217

Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale -- margin: 93% more votes
Green: 1,477          Others (FCP, LTN, Freedom, Communist): 765

Barrie -- margin: 284% more votes
Green: 1,909          Others (LTN, FP): 497

Beaches—East York -- margin: 442% more votes
Green: 1,025          Others (FP, TOP): 189

Bramalea—Gore—Malton -- margin: 49% fewer votes
Green: 1,034          Others (LTN, FCP, IND) 2033

Brampton—Springdale -- margin: 60% more votes
Green: 900          Others (FCP, COM, PCP, COR) 562

Brampton West -- margin: 181% more votes
Green: 1,432          Others (FP) 509

Brant -- margin: 7% more votes
Green: 957          Others (IND, FCP, LTN, FP, PPO) 893

Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound -- margin: 29% more votes
Green: 2,654          Others (IND, FCP, LTN) 2063

Burlington -- margin: 4% fewer votes
Green: 1,129          Others (LTN, FCP, FP) 1175

Cambridge -- margin: 17% more votes
Green: 1,056          Others (LTN, IND) 900

Carleton-Mississippi Mills -- margin: 238% more votes
Green: 1,857          Others (FCP) 549

Chatham-Kent-Essex -- margin: (infintely) more votes
Green: 1,027          Others (none) 0

Davenport -- margin: 37% more votes
Green: 855          Others (IND, COM, FP, PHR, TOP) 624

Don Valley-East -- margin: 134% more votes
Green: 702          Others (FCP, FP) 300

Don Valley-West -- margin: 134% more votes
Green: 718          Others (COM, VEP, FP) 307

Dufferin—Caledon -- margin: % more votes
Green: 5,540          Others (LTN) 250

Durham -- margin: 106% more votes
Green: 1,221          Others (LTN, FP) 593

Eglinton-Lawrence -- margin: 53% more votes
Green: 575          Others (FP, IND, PSN) 377

Elgin-Middlesex-London -- margin: 247% more votes
Green: 981          Others (FP) 283

Essex -- margin: (infinitely) more votes
Green: 860          Others (none) 0

Etobicoke-Centre -- margin: 10% more votes
Green: 837          Others (LTN, FCP, FP) 761

Etobicoke-Lakeshore -- margin: 67% more votes
Green: 1,164          Others (FP, LTN, SPO, IND, NA) 697

Etobicoke North -- margin: 33% fewer votes
Green: 541          Others (FCP, FP, PCP) 811

Glengarry-Prescott-Russell -- margin: 112% more votes
Green: 770          Others (LTN, FP) 363

Guelph -- margin: 494% more votes
Green: 3,234          Others (LTN, COM, IND) 544

Haldimand-Norfolk -- margin: 259% more votes
Green: 868          Others (FCP) 242

Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock -- margin: 538% more votes
Green: 1,562          Others (FP) 245

Halton -- margin: 104% more votes
Green: 1,286          Others (FCP, FP, NA) 630

Hamilton Centre -- margin: 14% fewer votes
Green: 1,249          Others (LTN, IND, FCP, FP, COM, REF) 1450

Hamilton East-Stoney Creek -- margin: 15% more votes
Green: 692          Others (LT, FCP, FP) 601

Hamilton Mountain -- margin: 6% fewer votes
Green: 748          Others (FCP, LTN, FP) 798

Huron-Bruce -- margin: 10% fewer votes
Green: 772          Others (FCP, IND) 856

Kenora-Rainy River -- margin: 81% more votes
Green: 391          Others (NOH) 216

Kingston and the Islands -- margin: 176% more votes
Green: 1,594          Others (FCP, LTN, FP, PFR) 578

Kitchener Centre -- margin: 106% more votes
Green: 938          Others (LTN, IND, FP) 454

Kitchener-Conestoga -- margin: (infinitely) more votes
Green: 1,121          Others (none) 0

Kitchener-Waterloo -- margin: 198% more votes
Green: 1,308          Others (IND, FP) 439

Lambton-Kent-Middlesex -- margin: 41% more votes
Green: 987          Others (FCP, REF, FP) 701

Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington -- margin: (infintely) more votes
Green: 1,754          Others (none) 0

Leeds-Grenville -- margin: 1,088% more votes!
Green: 1,319          Others (SPO) 111

London-Fanshawe -- margin: 28% more votes
Green: 852          Others (LTN, IND, FP) 667

London North Centre -- margin: 195% more votes
Green: 1,451          Others (FP, LTN, PPO) 492

London West -- margin: 231% more votes
Green: 1,194          Others (FP, PFR) 361

Markham-Unionville -- margin: 326% more votes
Green: 1,104          Others (LTN) 259

Mississauga-Brampton South -- margin: 6% fewer votes
Green: 1,247          Others (LTN, IND, IND) 1307

Mississauga East-Cooksville -- margin: 86% more votes
Green: 932          Others (IND, FP, PCP) 500

Mississauga-Erindale -- margin: 385% more votes
Green: 853          Others (FP) 176

Mississauga South -- margin: 114% more votes
Green: 860          Others (FP, VEP) 401

Mississauga-Streetsville -- margin: (infinitely) more votes
Green: 1,329          Others (none) 0

Nepean-Carleton -- margin: 373% more votes
Green: 1,641          Others (LTN, FP) 440

Newmarket-Aurora -- margin: (infinitely) more votes
Green: 1,256          Others (none) 0

Niagara Falls -- margin: 19% more votes
Green: 759          Others (LTN, FCP, IND, NA) 639

Niagara West-Glanbrook -- margin: 64% more votes
Green: 1,372          Others (FCP, LTN, PPP, REF, FP) 835

Nickel Belt -- margin: (infinitely) more votes
Green: 810          Others (none) 0

Nipissing -- margin: (infinitely) more votes
Green: 971          Others (none) 0

Northumberland-Quinte West -- margin: 187% more votes
Green: 1,484          Others (LTN, IND) 517

Oak Ridges-Markham -- margin: 0.8% fewer votes
Green: 1,731          Others (LTN, IND) 1745

Oakville -- margin: 10% more votes
Green: 878          Others (IND, FCP, FP) 801

Oshawa -- margin: 78% more votes
Green: 1,035          Others (LTN, FP) 582

Ottawa Centre -- margin: 208% more votes
Green: 2,184          Others (IND, LTN, COM) 709

Ottawa-Orléans -- margin: 163% more votes
Green: 886          Others (FP, LTN) 337

Ottawa South -- margin: 194% more votes
Green: 1,442          Others (LTN, PSN) 490

Ottawa-Vanier -- margin: 388% more votes
Green: 1,719          Others (FCP) 352

Ottawa West-Nepean -- margin: 275% more votes
Green: 1,485          Others (FCP) 396

Oxford -- margin: 272% more votes
Green: 1,336          Others (FCP) 359

Parkdale-High Park -- margin: 156% more votes
Green: 1,325          Others (LTN, NA, NA, IND, PPP, IND) 517

Parry Sound-Muskoka -- margin: 1,847% more votes
Green: 3,251          Others (FP) 167

Perth-Wellington -- margin: 16% more votes
Green: 918          Others (FCP, FP) 791

Peterborough -- margin: 488% more votes
Green: 1,235          Others (FP, SPO) 210

Pickering-Scarborough East -- margin: 335% more votes
Green: 1,096          Others (LTN) 252

Prince Edward-Hastings -- margin: 258% more votes
Green: 2,049          Others (FCP, LTN, PFR) 573

Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke -- margin: 86% more votes
Green: 574          Others (COR) 309

Richmond Hill -- margin: 222% more votes
Green: 1,268          Others (LTN) 394

St. Catharines -- margin: 182% more votes
Green: 1,066          Others (FCP, COM, CCP, FP) 378

St. Paul's -- margin: 106% more votes
Green: 1,180          Others (LTN, FP, SPO, NOH) 573

Sarnia-Lambton -- margin: 54% fewer votes
Green: 567          Others (IND, LTN) 1237

Sault Ste. Marie -- margin: 202% more votes
Green: 519          Others (FCP) 172

Scarborough-Agincourt -- margin: 24% fewer votes
Green: 722          Others (LT, PCP, FP) 948

Scarborough Centre -- margin: 85% more votes
Green: 558          Others (FP) 301

Scarborough-Guildwood -- margin: 24% fewer votes
Green: 413          Others (LTN, FP) 543

Scarborough-Rouge River -- margin: 41% fewer votes
Green: 455          Others (LTN, FCP, FP) 773

Scarborough Southwest -- margin: 211% more votes
Green: 777          Others (FP) 250

Simcoe-Grey -- margin: (infinitely) more votes
Green: 4,057          Others (none) 0

Simcoe North -- margin: (infinitely) more votes
Green: 2,488          Others (none) 0

Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry -- margin: 39% more votes
Green: 551          Others (LTN) 396

Sudbury -- margin: 318% more votes
Green: 870          Others (FCP, IND) 208

Thornhill -- margin: 2% fewer votes
Green: 756          Others (LTN, FP) 772

Thunder Bay-Atikokan -- margin: 341% more votes
Green: 379          Others (IND) 86

Thunder Bay-Superior North -- margin: 317% more votes
Green: 555          Others (LTN) 133

Timiskaming-Cochrane -- margin: 20% fewer votes
Green: 312          Others (NOH) 391

Timmins-James Bay -- margin: 115% more votes
Green: 233          Others (FP) 108

Toronto Centre -- margin: 37% more votes
Green: 1,123          Others (LTN, COM, VEP, FP, PPP, CCP) 820

Toronto-Danforth -- margin: 55% more votes
Green: 1,354          Others (LTN, PPP, TOP, FP, CCP) 875

Trinity-Spadina -- margin: 414% more votes
Green: 2,415          Others (PSN, FP, SPO, PHR) 470

Vaughan -- margin: 53% fewer votes
Green: 694          Others (LTN, REF, IND, COR) 1,485

Welland -- margin: 99% more votes
Green: 1,005          Others (LTN) 505

Wellington-Halton Hills -- margin: (infintely) more votes
Green: 1,309          Others (none) 0

Whitby-Oshawa -- margin: 207% more votes
Green: 1,139          Others (PSN, FP) 371

Willowdale -- margin: 194% more votes
Green: 874          Others (FP) 297

Windsor-Tecumseh -- margin: 74% more votes
Green: 830          Others (LTN) 476

Windsor West -- margin: (infinitely) more votes
Green: 1,051          Others (none) 0

York Centre -- margin: 51% fewer votes
Green: 535          Others (LTN, IND, FP) 1,081

York-Simcoe -- margin: 114% more votes
Green: 1,479          Others (LTN, FP) 690

York South-Weston -- margin: 114% more votes
Green: 477          Others (FP, NA) 223

York West -- margin: 8% fewer votes
Green: 286          Others (NA, FP, IND) 310

---

The highest Independent tally was 1,478 in Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound.

The best fringe party performances were all put in by the Libertarians.  1,115 votes in Oak Ridges-Markham, 929 votes in Vaughan, 846 votes in York Centre and 840 in Bramalea—Gore—Malton.

Highest Green tally: 5,540 (Dufferin—Caledon)

Number of Green candidates with 1,000+ votes: 56
Number of Green candidates with 1,115+ votes (to beat the Libertarians' best showing): 46
Number of Green candidates with 1,478+ votes (to beat all other nontraditional candidates): 20
Number of Green candidates with 2,000+ votes: 9
Number of Green candidates with 3,000+ votes: 4
Number of Green candidates with 4,000+ votes: 2
Number of Green candidates with 5,000+ votes: 1

Total Green votes: 126,127
Total 'Other' votes: 54,332
ratio 2.32 : 1

In other words, the Green Party received significantly more than double the amount of votes of all the other nontraditional party, independent and non-affiliated candidates combined.

If Ontario had opted for the Mixed Proportional representation model proposed a few years ago, the Green Party would likely have earned their first provincial seat!

Mean Green tally (rounded to nearest vote): 1,179

In other words, the average Green Party candidate beat all but two nontraditional candidates (both Independents).

These numbers make it pretty clear that the Green Party has transcended its 'fringe' party status.  The only thing standing between full recognition as a traditional or legitimate party is the media who still lump them in with the 'others'.

Actually, it's worse than that. When listing the abbreviations used for political parties in tables and graphics in the Toronto Star, the editors make a value judgement.  They do not list them alphabetically. They list the traditional three parties first but not alphabetically. Instead they list the by seats won or percentage of popular vote, i.e. LIB, PC, NDP. So they set a precedent that they aren't listing the parties in alphabetical order but by popularity.

Then they do something baffling and list Independents next. Somehow, they think that being Independent is more legitimate than being a Green Party candidate.  As I've shown above, 20 Green Party candidates received more votes than the most popular Independent in the province!  Clearly, if the intent was to cite parties by popularity then the Green Party should have been listed 4th, right after the NDP.

But they weren't.  They were listed 11th.  The 'other' parties were listed from 5th to last (23rd) in a very poor attempt at alphabetical order.  Both times this list was published (once for the GTA and once for the rest of Ontario) the Libertarians somehow leaped ahead of the alphabetically superior Green Party.  There were a few other alphabetic anomalies but the point is that the Star is clearly disrespecting the Green Party, and probably intentionally.

It's time the media took a look at the numbers and changed their attitude toward the Green Party.  By burying the Greens' significant leap forward against the backdrop of fringe parties the media (in this case the Toronto Star) is deceiving the public in a way that ensures the continued monopoly on parliamentary seats held by the so called traditional parties.  Stop being an agent for the establishment and embrace your role as an agent of change!  Recognize the Greens' breakthrough!  Start treating the Green Party as a peer to the 'Big 3', or at he very least stop lumping them in with the sundry others as they clearly no longer belong with them.

Go Green!

No More Motor Sports

I think the time is long overdue for a global moratorium on motor sports.  Do I say this because Dan Wheldon was killed yesterday in the final race of the IndyCar series?  While his death is tragic it is not the reason why I think that the age of motor sport should be ended.  Drivers know the risks when they enter the profession and occasionally risk becomes reality.

No, the reason I think motor sports should be banned is that they are no longer worth the trouble they cause.  Today, they serve only one function -- entertainment.  I don't even consider racing a sport.  It's merely a spectacle, like a circus.  Drivers are just like trapeze artists who can be considered athletes, as can astronauts.  Certainly the rigours of their trade require extreme levels of fitness and skill.  That isn't enough to make flying through the air with the greatest of ease or launching into orbit a sport, so why racing?

And all this spectacle costs us is massive amounts of pollution.  How much?  A Formula-1 race car burns about 225 litres of fuel in a single race.  That's about 1 1/2 barrels of petrol. There were 19 races in the 2011 season each roughly 300km  in length.  Between 20 and 24 cars (twelve teams of 2 cars apiece) start each race.  Using the lower of these numbers (to make a conservative estimate and) to account for cars that do not finish the race, the races themselves consume almost 550 barrels of oil.  Doesn't sound like much to you?  It can be restated in terms of tons of oil, more than 68, actually.  If you count all the practice sessions, qualifying sessions and testing sessions, each of the 12 teams use about 200,000 L of fuel.  That's almost 2000 TONS of fuel per racing season.

2000 tons seems like an awful lot, but that number is just for Formula-1 racing.  If you include the other forms of racing and regulating racing bodies (including 'minor leagues'), like IndyCar, NASCAR, Formula-3, or the National Hot Rod Association, and touring car, sports car, endurance,  production car*, one-make, stock car,  rallying, drag, off-road, kart, motocross, motorcycle, monster truck, demolition derby... really the list is almost endless!  It would not surprise me in the slightest if millions of tons of fuel were burned each year in the name of racing.  Even if it was only one million it would be equivalent to 2-4 supertanker ships at full deadweight capacity.  (It is also worth noting that some racing series do not burn gasoline or even necessarily petroleum derivatives, but fuels like ethanol which can be produced from biomass.  This is mostly irrelevant since the issue is not about 'dependence upon foreign oil' but air pollution which is produced by burning any hydrocarbon regardless of its origins.)

* I have nothing against production car racing.  What is learned in this activity is directly translatable to everyday life and can be considered research...with a paying audience.


Before the gearheads out there slam me for not putting these numbers in perspective, 1 million tons of fuel isn't an enormous amount in terms of global consumption.  Based on 2005 estimates, the entirety of Spain and the United Kingdom would only take 2-3 days to burn a million tons of oil.  You might conclude that this means that the carbon output of the racing industry was insignificant.  You're entitled to your opinion, but I think that people that make this conclusion are either ignoring a lot of details or looking at the issue in a highly subjective manner, one where the goal is to justify racing.

That million tons of fuel allowed (about) 100 million people to go about their daily lives, conduct their businesses and heat their homes for two to three days.  In economic terms, roughly between $17.4 and $26.1 billion (production parity) was produced in the UK and Spain for an average 2-3 day period in 2005.  So 1 million tons of fuel allowed 100 million people to conduct their lives and allowed them to produce between 17 and 26 billion dollars worth of goods and services.  That seems like a reasonable return on investment for the use of the fuel.  In contrast, racing provides entertainment.  There are an infinite number of other forms of entertainment that the people that watched those races could have spent their time doing that they would have found just as entertaining if they no longer had racing as an entertainment option.  In other words, racing could end today and ultimately no one would really notice.  Quality of life would remain completely unchanged, with the one exception being that a million tons of fuel wasn't consumed and wasn't converted into pollution.  (It should be noted that humanity enormously overemphasizes the importance of entertainment as a whole and is even worse when it considers the value of specific forms of entertainment.)

"What about the other benefits of racing," you may ask.  Sure, in earlier days all the efforts put into engineering the race cars resulted in some advances that would benefit the world at large.  Other than the few racing series that use basic production cars I don't think the innovations being made are that useful in everyday life anymore.

The primary engineering innovations in racing are of more and more efficient engines, but it's not the kind of efficiency that the public needs.  Racing efficiency is measured in terms of power -- how much power/acceleration can be squeezed out of each unit of fuel.  Everyday efficiency is a measure of distance traveled per unit of fuel.  Increasing power efficiency usually lowers traditional fuel efficiency, so this really doesn't help the real world at all.

Advances in materials science are limited mostly because the regulatory boards keep having to slow the cars down!  As such, advances in materials science are usually banned preventing further testing and further advancement.

Advances in aerodynamics are of limited utility since the dynamics are contingent upon rate of speed.  Fortunately (for safety reasons), everyday use vehicles do not go anywhere near as fast as most race cars so these advances are more useful to aerospace engineers than automobile engineers.

The one area where advances could be made that would directly translate to real life would be in terms of braking.  Most of the brake force at extremely high speeds comes from (aerodynamic & friction) drag, bot from mechanical brakes but it is still possible that something might be learned about making better brakes for everyday use vehicles.  I would love to know how much of today's braking systems have their origins in professional racing.

The question then becomes "Is all this pollution worth the limited number of practical advances in technology that arise from the activity?"  I doubt it.  I'd love to be shown to be wrong.

Is there anything else that racing provides that could justify its continued existence?  I can only think of one thing.  Racing provides a venue for incorrigible speed demons to indulge in their addiction.  Stated that way it doesn't sound very positive, but it saves lives.  Inexplicably, many humans revel in speed so completely that one would think life itself depended upon it.  Hollywood knows it --  just look at the number of movies and television shows that have come out in the last 20 years with racing, speed or race cars as the main theme.  By and large, they were all significant financial successes too which goes to show how widespread this primal urge is.  These people will simply not be denied.  If they are not provided with safe venues for going as fast as technology will allow them they will do it wherever it is convenient for them.  That means (your) public roads where more sensible, less impulsive people, including children, are just waiting to become innocent bystanders and unfortunate statistics.  Keeping these nut bars off the road possibly the only non-technological benefit of having organized racing.  However, the extent of the benefit is not really measurable, in large part because the spectacle/sport itself encourages this dangerous behaviour at the same time that it provides an outlet for it.  In other words, we don't really know whether lives would be saved or lost in the long term if racing was eliminated, so I guess we can't really call this a benefit with any confidence.

So, I call for an end to all racing that does not directly contribute to engineering advancements applicable to everyday driving.  I know it will never happen.  As I stated earlier, humans ridiculously overvalue entertainment, it is even more highly valued than health, so virtually no one will admit the logic in this argument. It conflicts with their choice of entertainment and that is all that matters to them.  The inmates are running the asylum, let all beware!

Early Election Results

It looks like almost everybody wins tonight.  Was there a big win for anybody, no.  Maybe it's best this way.

The Liberals will once again form the government of Ontario, missing a majority by one seat.  Could it have been better?  Sure, losing the majority government status is painful!  Still, that counts as a win, particularly given how low they were in the polls early in the election run-up.  They lost a whole lot of seats, but they are still the government and that counts for something.

The PCs gained about dozen seats and that's a win.  Sure, they didn't form the government and that's probably disappointing to them, but their gains are enough to qualify as a victory.  Anyway, I think Ontario is better off with the PCs as a strong opposition party than as a government.  In general, minority governments accomplish less, but what they do accomplish tends to be better for the entire constituency as ideological legislative moves are mostly eliminated.  As far as I'm concerned, crisis averted.  The Evil Empire did not win. (Incidentally, the New York Yankees were eliminated from  the Major League Baseball playoffs on this very same night -- another Evil Empire defeated.)

The New Democrats gained about 7 seats in the legislature, which is a 70% increase over what they had coming into the election.  With an election this close (the polls showed the Libs and PCs almost neck and neck in the popular vote) it was going to be difficult for the NDP to make significant gains as many voters jockey to try and affect the resulting government rather than support their favorite party.  They made these gains in spite of this dynamic which is a huge victory!

The sole losers, and I am not entirely comfortable using that word, is the Green Party.  Since they are just an emerging party (rather than an established party) the closeness of the election worked against them in a very bad way.  People had to ignore the fact that they were most likely 'throwing their vote away' in a close election to cast a ballot for the Greens.  In several ridings the margin of victory over the 2nd place candidate was less than the handful of votes that went to the Green Party.  If the pre-election polls had indicated a majority of some colour there would have been many, many more people that felt free to vote with their conscience and vote Green.  I was hoping that they would break through with a seat or two, but realistically did not expect it to happen today.  The deck was stacked against them and their results should surprise no one.

All that remains to be seen now is whether this government can last the full four year term or whether it will be defeated in a non-confidence vote some time before that.  We just had that happen federally and the results were disastrous (IMHO), so I hope this doesn't happen provincially, too.  Having election after election is an expensive proposition both in terms of dollars and in terms of democracy.  With so many complaining about how tax dollars are spent it seems ludicrous to burn money in that fashion.

Given the 'happy' news for so many parties (and Parties) I'd say "Congratulations" except for one thing.  Apparently this was the poorest voter turn out in Ontario history.  How, in such a close race, apathy ran rampant I don't understand.  The only conclusion I can make is that this is a huge indictment of politics, or perhaps politicians, in general.  People are tired of interchangeable candidates spouting false promises, lies, half-truths, slander, ideological nonsense and all the rest of the typical B.S.  The fact that you vote for both a candidate and a leader with a single vote doesn't help things.  The best candidate for your riding may or may not wear the same colour tie as the best possible leader for the province, and it's possible that neither of these people represent the party that you think would do the best job, but we have just one vote to select the best compromise for all three decisions.  Clearly, that's enough to disillusion a lot of people sufficiently for them to abdicate their right and responsibility to vote.

How do we fix this problem?  I wish I knew.

Democracy is apparently dying a slow death before our very eyes and we seem powerless to stop it.  And it's not a local phenomenon, either.  Through extreme ideological posturing/behaviour and a complete refusal to negotiate (or be remotely reasonable, or act in the best interests of the country), the Tea Party south of the border is doing a fine job of killing democracy in America, too.  They came close to bringing down the country itself along with democracy, and I doubt that they are done -- they seem to have learned nothing from what little backlash there was against their near treasonous taking hostage of America's economy except perhaps that they can get away with anything at all and in the process manage to put all the egg (and blame) on President Obama whose sole 'crime' is having been in Office when the People elected scads of charismatic but completely incompetent, ideologically motivated politicians to both houses.

Maybe some brilliant person or people will suggest something feasible in the comments here -- there have to be people reading this out there smarter than I am -- but I'm not holding my breath.  I figure that any solution would have to come from the grassroots as the politicians and parties are too close to the problem to have any insight or objectivity.  However, I pretty much only expect flaming from trolls.  In the world today, no one seems interested in doing anything constructive anymore, not when they can be anonymously destructive.  Apparently they feel crime pays when there's no chance of being caught.  Actually, I suspect that they would go so far as to claim that "it isn't illegal unless you get caught", which of course is completely asinine and completely wrong.  It's scary how little most people get out of their education.

Election Day in Ontario

It's election day in Ontario and I haven't blogged nearly enough about the issues and smokescreens that have been bandied about by the politicians vying for your vote.  This post is likely too late for you, but there's always the next election.

I see no rational reasons to vote for the Progressive Conservative Party (or the Conservative Party federally) other than pure unadulterated greed.  Yes, the PCs have successfully branded themselves as champions to various special interest groups and religions but that branding is largely based on fiction.  I'm sorry if you fall under that category and you voted PC -- don't expect any return on your electoral investment because it won't be coming.

Last I checked, greed is one of the Seven Deadly Sins of Man.  If you're OK with having a Deadly Sin as your motivation for voting then you probably don't deserve a vote.  Still, you have one, and you've exercised your right to do as you please.  Unfortunately, we all pay for your selfishness and folly.  I hope you don't consider yourself a good person because you just failed that test.

If you're looking for a Centre-Right party to put your vote behind and don't want to buy into the ridiculous agenda of the PCs look no further than the Green Party.  Surprised?  The Green Party actually has a Centre-Right fiscal policy behind their environmentalist central theme.  The Green Party has been looking for a break in Canadian politics but our stupid First-Past-The-Post system makes it next to impossible for them to do so. Instead, this system gives us majority governments that received support from about 20% of eligible Canadian voters.  What's worse is they call this 20% 'landslide' a mandate for their Right Wing agenda.  Of those that actually voted, about 70% said 'Hell no!' to the Conservative Party, yet they have received their fictitious 'mandate' and they are now equipped to muscle through absolutely anything.

If you are more pragmatic and insist that your vote have a chance of affecting the outcome of the election, I have two pieces of advice.

First, leave Ontario.  While you're at it, leave Canada.  The electoral system here does not empower the voter to make a difference in the outcome of the election.  In my 25 years of adult life I have never cast a ballot that mattered in the slightest.  By that I mean that in none of the elections of the past 25 years, at any level of government, have I voted for the winner in an even remotely close election.  Either my candidate wins by a landslide making my vote superfluous, or my candidate lost meaning my vote had no part at all in affecting the ultimate outcome at all.  At least federally each vote translated into funding dollars, until the Conservatives squashed that, which of course was in their best interest to do given the fact that their supporters are mostly rich people and corporations who have the means to donate generously while the other parties have supporters of more moderate means and have to scratch and claw to pull together party money.  Was it in the best interest of Canadians?  Not even close!  So much for fairness, hello to pure ideology, on our way to pseudo-dictatorship?

Even if/when you do get lucky enough to affect the outcome in your riding/ward/district/constituency you still have virtually no say in the outcome as a whole.  Case in point, in past elections more than 50% of Torontonians voted Liberal compared to about 25% (Progressive) Conservative support -- an overwhelming result.  Unfortunately, the rest of Ontario/Canada had results predominantly for (Progressive) Conservatives with most of these results close races.  Taken to the extreme, it is quite possible in our electoral system to handily win the popular vote and lose the election by a landslide.  The fact that the Centre-Left vote is split between two parties and the Centre-Right is wholly represented by one (until the Greens break through, whenever that is) biases the system for (Progressive) Conservative results.  The fact that Liberal and New Democratic governments have been elected at all says much our overall political leanings.  All it takes for the (P)Cs to win are a few people here and there swayed by charismatic figures, lies, borderline slander and promises of tax cuts... tax cuts which along with a flood of service cuts will see them worse off than before they cast a ballot for big Blue.  Unless of course you own a significant chunk of  a major corporation or two, and/or happen to be among the very top earners in the province/country -- then, the tax cuts pay off in spades, as if the loopholes/tax shelters you are afforded weren't already enough for you to (largely) shirk your responsibility to the community as a whole.

Second, vote for a party that actually cares about the country/province as a whole and not just what their country/province can do for them.  By and large, we have two of them to choose from: the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party.  If you live in Quebec and have a separatist preference the Bloc/Parti Quebecois is a better, more responsible choice than the plutocrats and oligarchs that make up the (P)C Party.  These parties have shown the willingness to temporarily carry policies that run counter to their general ideological framework if doing so is in the best interest of the province/country.  It was the Liberals that balanced the budget and orchestrated surpluses.  It was (mainly) the (P)Cs that squandered those surpluses and turned them into record deficits and debts.  Perhaps we can give ALL the political parties a free pass for the events of the past several years.  If you weren't paying attention, the entire global economy has tanked in historic fashion and our provinces & country were not immune to this phenomenon.  Deficits were strategic buffers against bigger, deeper recessions.  (And if ALL western governments of the past 40 years hadn't been in the back pocket of corporations, slowly but surely killing the economy by eroding the wealth and earnings of labour and the Middle Class down, while at the same time creating ever more profitable environments for corporations, this strategy might have worked.)

Not so for the (Progressive) Conservatives.  They are married to their ideology regardless of what might result from sticking to their guns (pun intended).  The abolition of the long gun registry in spite of every police force across the country being in support of maintaining the registry is a prime example.  What do the police know anyway?  So what if the registry has actually helped in solving crimes?  Only the convenience of the gun owners matters.  And, after their gun is stolen/lost/sold it's no loner their concern so they don't care at all.  The police do.  And they would too if they were the victims of the crimes committed with their long guns.  Sadly, the gun owners largely live in the burbs and in 'God's country' whereas the crimes committed using their guns largely happen in the cities.  NIMBY at its best.  Thank you sportsmen/hunters for absolving yourselves of responsibility for gun ownership.  I have no respect at all for people who are all up in arms (pun intended) about their rights but are nowhere to be found when it comes to responsibilities. Here's an idea.  Love you gun so much?  Move South where guns are the state religion.  You'll fit right in and our society will be better off for your absence.

So, now that you've heard my take on Ontario & Canadian politics.  Go vote if you haven't already.  (And if the ballots haven't closed.)  I predict a tiny majority government for the Progressive Conservatives because they market themselves better than Apple, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Microsoft and Nike combined and most voters are sheep, following the most obvious carrot -- even when they know it is poisoned.  Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your point of view, this government will last less than a year before a non-confidence situation forces another election.  Just what we needed was to spend more money deciding which incompetent, egotistical and self-interested boob we want to represent us.  Sadly, this is the best system we can can come up with... at least for now.

No Chance Hudak! With Apologies to N. Ashford, V. Simpson, M. Gaye & T. Terrell

Ain't no promise big enough
Ain't no tax break deep enough
No way that you can lie enough
To get me to vote for Hudak.

(Sung to the tune of the chorus from Ain't No Mountain High Enough, written by Nickolas Ashford & Valerie Simpson, first recorded by Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrell.)

The Fix Is In - NFL Version

What a bizarre game today between the Buffalo Bills and Cincinnati Bengals.  Every single call the officials made favored the Bengals.  The Bengals were the home team so that isn't too surprising if taken at face value.  But it's the kind of calls that make this game exceptional.

It wasn't merely judgment calls that favored the Bengals.  Rules interpretations favored the Bengals.  A Buffalo touchdown was disallowed.  A phantom time out was assessed to Buffalo at the end of the first half, giving the Bengals the opportunity for one more play. (This didn't contribute to the score but it does contribute to the whitewash.)  A Bills reception was ruled an incomplete pass.  The video of the play tells a different story.

Finally, near the end of the game the officials ruled a 3rd down carry short of the first down by inches.  I was surprised -- given the tenor of the game I actually expected the officials to make a very favorable for the Bengals ball placement for the first down measurement.  Based on what the field officials saw, perhaps they did.  As soon as the ruling was made, the call came from upstairs that the play was under revue.  And wouldn't you know it, the decision  was reversed, granting the first down to Cincinnati.  They made the most of it, moving the football another 20 yards and kicking the game winning field goal with time expiring.

Was this a bad call?  It seems so.  It looks as though the video review officials allowed some forward progress after the player's hip was grounded out of bounds.  Would the correct call changed the outcome?  We'll never know.  Cincinnati would have been forced to punt, unless they could successfully draw the Bills into committing a penalty that would result in yards assessed and/or an automatic first down.  Given the fact that Buffalo knew that this was the case, it is unlikely that they would have been dupe.  Possible, but unlikely. If the Bengals retain the football, they game unfolds in exactly the same way that it actually did.  If they are forced to actually punt the ball Buffalo would have had bad field position with 45 seconds on the clock with 2 time outs.  They might have been able to orchestrate a field goal or (less likely) a touchdown but the most likely outcome would have been taking the game to overtime.  Who wins in overtime is anybody's guess but please recall that the Bills lost 3 consecutive games by overtime field goals.  What does that mean?  Nothing really.  You can say that it shows a pattern and the Cincinnati would have won.  Or, you can chalk it up as experience gained and providing a resolution to not let it happen again, which tips things in Buffalo's favor.

So, did the ref take the victory from the Bills and hand it to the Bengals?  That depends on your point of view.

If you look at the performance of the officials and assess whether they took yards and points away from Buffalo and contributed to / enabled points being scored by Cincinnati you can't come to any other conclusion than "yes, they did!"  By my definition, that constitutes the officials deciding the outcome of the game.  I consider this an absolute regardless of other factors.  (See below.)

If you believe that bad officiating is part of the game and you have to suck it up and overcome, then you will clearly say "no, they didn't!"

That doesn't help us decide things does it?  We need another perspective.

If you examine the play of the Buffalo Bills you would have to admit that they didn't play particularly well -- certainly not as well as the had in the previous three weeks!  If they had played well then these officiating errors and /or biases wouldn't have affected the outcome.  (This is, unless you believe that the game really was fixed, in which case you would believe that the officials would merely have exerted more control over the outcome of the game, just enough to change the outcome, or at the very least, enough to give the Bengals every opportunity to win a game they had no business winning.)  So, the Bills certainly have to take some ownership in the loss.  The macho view, which is openly held by nearly everyone even remotely affiliated with the NFL, is to take ownership and treat the officiating as just another factor to be overcome like wind, rain or snow.  (Generally speaking, wind, rain and snow don't play favorites, though Mother Nature can be fickle and change conditions at crucial moments in games.)

To me the question is "Should a team be expected to beat the other team or the other team and the officials?" In contrast to the generally held view of the NFL I say the officials shouldn't be this involved in the outcome of a game.  Don't expect any repercussions from this game.  The officials won't even be questioned regardless of how much video evidence disagrees with their calls.  Welcome to the NFL.  Now suck it up!

I wonder how much the big players in the gambling community (casinos, 'whales', the mob, etc.) made on this game/upset?

Caveat:  I took in this game by radio.  I can only tell you what the commentators saw, not what I saw.