I figured I had to say something about the recent scandals in the NHL and God love the media, they're all fired up about hockey starting again, as we all are, (at least those of us full-blooded Canadians with maple syrup running through our poutine-clogged arteries), and all the hockey pundits have so far is this watered down, rookie shinny to report on. But geez, do they have to make stories where there aren't any? The season is just a few days away. We aren't going to have a strike or a lock-out, (touch Sher-wood), and hockey will give you guys plenty to write about then. Just be patient.
Dustin Byfuglien overweight and boating under the alfluence of incahol. First of all, boating while drinking, IN MINNESOTA. That's not a crime, it's a state sport. I think it actually says on their licence plates, "Minnesota: land of 10,000 booze-cruisin' lakes," or something like that. Secondly he was reportedly 286. The talk was that he was a sloppy 40+ lbs overweight. The fact is even in mid-season he stresses the load cells at a crease-filling, teeth-rattling 265. A lot of guys will need to trim 20 pounds or so. For Buffs it'll be easier since it's a much lower percentage of his weight. Just a couple of unimpaired fishing trips ought to do it.
Then Sept. 22nd some jackass threw a banana peel at Wayne Simmonds during an overtime shootout attempt. This was perceived by sensationalist media as a "racially motivated action." Now come on! Banana-->monkey-->black guy? Is that what was really going through his head? Or do you suppose the fact that Simmonds had previously scored the game tying goal to force the shootout had something to do with it. Maybe the fan just threw what was handy hoping to distract him so he didn't also score the game WINNING goal. I mean if it had any underlying message, any metaphorical significance, any allusionary merit, my first thought would be an homage to slapstick comedy's slipping on a banana peel gag. This is going to get graphic here and some of you who have been brought up on the weak, politically correct, "pinko" borsht they are calling public opinion nowadays will not be able to handle it but, for crying out loud if I wanted to make a racist ice toss a banana peel would not be high on the list. Why not a piece of fried chicken, a black-eyed pea, some collared greens, grits or any kind of soul food? Why not some malt liquor or orange Fanta? Hell a banana wouldnt even be number one on the list of racist FRUITS to throw, although a watermelon might present some logistical problems. The fan has been named, caught and charged but only with interfering with the game. Not with any kind of hate crime. I think that's the right thing to do. Reports say he expressed remorse for his action. What they don't say is that he probably doesn't admit to his action being racist in intent. And you have to give him the benefit of the doubt. No matter how much you might want to commit reverse racism, (which is just as bad), and protect all black people against racist behaviour, real or imagined, it just gets a little bit dangerous when the courts start thinking they know what people are thinking. Wayne Simmonds is taking the high road and shrugging the whole incident off. Good for him. I call that class. The race riot-inciting, hyperbolic media who have made this the most over-analyzed piece of fruit since Eve's pear or mango or apple or whatever it was... not so much.
Then, less than a week later the movement to have Wayne Simmonds canonized as a martyr took a solid body check when he reportedly made a "homophobic slur that included a three-letter word that begins with the letter F." In his defence he directed it toward Sean Avery who is a player that everyone with the possible, (but maybe not probable), exception of his teammates, has called much worse. Last year James Wisniewski said, "Blow me" to Avery to the thunderous applause of fans at the game and watching on TV. Earlier in 2010, Avery magnanimously offered to stand by any NHLer who decided to come out of the closet. So I suppose overreaction to the word "fag" was necessary to back up his promise. Anyway, now there's talk of regulating the trashtalk between players on the ice.
Every season there's talk about getting rid of fighting. This year I've heard the idea thrown around that a penalty should be assessed if a player so much as touches the head of another. Are hockey fans REALLY this sensative? HOCKEY FANS? No. In fact this year in NHL '12 one of the most popular additions was the goalie fight. I absolutely have no doubt at all that a hockey broadcast in which the announcers were allowed to swear would be immensely popular!
As is almost ALWAYS the case, I agree with Don Cherry on this.
Nuff said.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Therapeutic Chick Fights
You don't see a lot of physical fights between two girls. And although this is a tragedy to most men, none of us know just how tragic it really is. Women need to fight more. Whether it's in bikinis and chocolate pudding or not, that's up to them, but I reckon the world would be a darn site better with more hair-pulling, eye-scratching, blouse-tearing entertai - uh, girl fighting.
Why, you ask, oh curious onlooker waiting to see how I dig myself out of this hole, (and secretly titillated by the prospect of my actually digging myself deeper into it). Because women are so rarely violent physically, they get BRUTAL verbally. Terribly violent verbally and should you suggest this to most women being starved of physical stress relief as they are, they will argue for hours with you, or AT you. I have known a few women, unBiblically, who, in moments of alcoholically induced unguardedness have admitted it. They ARE like the Mean Girls in Tina Fey's movie. By the way, Tina, if you're reading, I still want to marry you.
I wanted to see how far I could get in this entry without using the simplistic, dismissive, overused term, "bitch" in any of its forms and as it turns out this is how far. Women can be absolute BITCHES to each other. And out of this there arise a few phenomena, one of them being the tomboy. We all know some of these. Girls who are more like guys. They hang out with mostly guys, talk like dudes, dress like them, cuss like them, fix cars, chug beer, pee standing up, fear commitment, understand the blueline trap and, yes, occasionally have a scrap. I think one of the reasons why tomboys prefer the company of men is because they are just tired of verbally violent bitches.
There are also, from what I can see, an increasing number of non-masculine girls who just prefer the company of men as a form of non-sexual, non-commercial, friendly recreation. The "just one of the boys" girls. Some of these gals have little or nothing to do with the ladies. Why would they? Think of what they get. If they are in ANY way attractive, or even not, they have a prolonged first date, job interview, chair pulling, door opening lapdog loyalty that comes from the perception in the hormone-addled brains of the boys, no matter how miniscule the reality might be, that there just might be a chance of tappin' dat!
Now the Sally to that Harry is that there are plenty of married or otherwise unavailable gals and fellas who are in relationships like this. But there's always cheating. For those of you who are naysaying right now, let me be quick to remind you, Harry DID bang Sally in that movie.
But back to the verbal violence. Recent changes all over the world, specifically regarding women in workplaces have been a blast of WD40 to female verbal violence viscosity. Women, either through legislation or merit, have risen to positions in the workplace where traditionally there had always been men. The perception of the public, co-workers, employees, peers and most importantly in the minds of these women, that it wasn't just qualifications that landed them their jobs makes them bound and determined to change that perception. Usually they hammer their workers and/or superiors into shape with the same tactics they use on their girlfriends to prove they are just as tough - FUCK THAT - twice as tough as any dude... thereby possibly undermining any legitimate strategy there might have been to have a woman in the position rather than a man.
I think it's interesting to look at some of the varying tactics, wiles and warfare used by women waging verbal battles on girlfriends, male-friends or co-workers. And these are not exclusive to women, just what I'm noticing in a lot more women.
1. The Bubbler- This is the gal who thinks she can be as Machiavellian as she wants so long as she does it in a sweet, giggly, chipmunk voice. And she's probably right. At least with her male co-workers because we don't leave our libidos at home when we go to work, and some people find the violin squeaking, bagpipe caterwauling voice attractive.
2. The Admitter- This is the chick who thinks we actually forgive her when she says things like, "I have a pretty big ego," "I don't allow other people to disagree with me," or even, "I am a bit of a bitch," and says them with PRIDE! Is there such a thing as genuine self-deprication?
3. The Guilter- Aparently crafted from its infancy to the manipulative collosus it now is by Jewish mothers, the rest of the world now knows about this. And it's perfectly fine if the world doesn't thank them. No they have much more important things to do, the world does. The Jewish mothers completely understand...
4. The BEEATCH- Aparently crafted from its infancy to the manipulative collosus it now is by head-bobbing, stop-sign-brandishing, finger-snapping black women. It's SO effective that you will notice I had to include it AFTER the thing about the Jewish women just so black beeatches don't think I'm singling them out due to their race. Well it's not just the black ladies any more. These women don't just tell you they're bitches, they do all they can to fortify their personal legend of bitchitudinous behaviour. With pride!
5. The Blitzer- Taken from the German military strategy known as the blitzkrieg in which the enemy is overwhelmed by high speed attack. These are the women with whom even non-work-related conversation is nothing but a battle for a short burst of air time. They can respond to the simplest of questions with a 5-minute barrage of verbocity that does nothing to address your concern but leaves you too exhausted to ask again. They will often just increase the volume of their non-stop harangue if they hear or even see hints of an interchange of ideas arising.
6. The Analyst- Due largely to Cosmopolitan magazine, Oprah and Dr. Phil, most women are unpapered psychoanalysts who are very willing to give pro-bono analysis even where it is not requested. They are skilled at psychological warfare and the methods and devices of its practice are well honed through chick flicks, Jane Austen, girls' night outs, pajama parties, sleepovers, pillow fights, sloppy, sexy mud wrestling... uh I digress.
7. And finally, the most dangerous of verbal villains, the Combo Girl. This is actually the norm. There aren't many girls who fall into just one of the above six categories. They like to diversify. The combinations are almost natural.
The problem I always have when I am dealing with these ladies is that I KNOW it's all just carefully studied, mimmicked and perfected behaviour and that they are still just the little sweethearts their parents know them as. The worst thing you can do is make them feel like they are unconvincing in their acts. Then they start getting malicious and subversive. You DON'T want them singling you out and trying to sabotage your career let me tell you! And the worst thing you can do is see through their act if you don't want to encur the wrath of the career woman. They say hell hath no fury like a woman scorned but I think a woman revealed or debunked is MUCH more furious! I've learned that you're probably safer just to play along.
So to all the bosses, co-workers, and verbally violent women I have known past or present, may your next figurative kick to the crotch fly true and may your next girl fight come sooner than later. Get out and beat up some other bitch. You know you want to. Start a female fight club. Give yourself Tyler Durdenesque assignments like starting and then LOSING a fight. You will thank yourself for the stress it relieves. And everyone around you will benefit.
Friday, September 16, 2011
How The Canucks Can Win The Cup (finally)
With the recent, (and sudden), change in the weather around here I have hockey on the brain. I went for a walk across the road to drop off an application for homestay students at the local schoolboard office and the crisp Vancouver Island air, and the sight of one of the neighbors' hockey nets in the driveway, gave me an uncontrollable itch to bust out the hockey stick and blast a few tennis balls at it. I wonder if they would mind...
For those of you who haven't read this stuff from time to time on one of my many blogs, I think I have a few good strategies that could make the Canucks good enough to win this year. Although they will be without Ehrhoff, Torres, Raymond and Kesler, (the last two indefinitely, the first two via the trade), I think they can do it. I am looking forward to seeing the effect Marco Sturm has on the club. He's got some offensive pop and can put the puck in the net. Should be good for 25 goals. He's very similar to Higgins, who I think will settle in with the new club this year and get 25 goals also. It's going to be a breakout year for Hansen, who will get more ice time with the loss of Kesler and Raymond. I am gonna stay consistant and predict 25 goals from him too. I would like to see a bit more of Hodgson this year. He was a scorer in jrs. and we could use him between Higgins and Hansen for the Triple H line. (Copywright D.MacCannell 2011).
I think we will see a more offensive year from Danny Hamhuis this year since Ehrhoff is gone. More goals and fewer hipchecks. I am making my pick for breakout player of the year to be the young blueliner Chris Tanev. I think he will still be considered a rookie this upcoming season and at 21 he's still a baby but he sure plays some seasoned D out there! It's tough to find defencemen who develop so fast. He's pure gold and he's a Canuck. I'd like to see Bieksa and Hamhuis as the top defence team and Tanev replacing Ehrhoff across the ice from Edler as the second duo.
I think I'm with EVERYBODY else when I say I'd like to see more of Schneider and less of Luongo. If you read my stuff I have NEVER been on the Luongo bandwagon and to all you folks who put all your hopes in him as the franchise player and scoffed at me for many years for saying he was overrated, I told you so. In an interview with Henrik last season he didn't quite say it outright but he hinted at what every Canuck spectator can see: the club plays a more entertaining, more successful, more offensive game in front of Schneider because they aren't worried as much about him letting in a bad goal. It'll be interesting to see how Manny Legace figures into the equation. Will the Canucks take a 5 mil. cap hit and just turf Luongo? Will ANY other team take him? We shall see. But as for those tactics that will enhance the Canucks play enough to win them the cup this year, here we go...
This is no joke, folks. The title should actually say, (or any OTHER team for that matter). But I’m trying to give the Canucks my advice so they can use it and maybe win a Stanley Cup before the rest of the teams in the league start copying them.
The NHL is a constantly changing league and professional hockey has been anything but static throughout its history. It’s only been 80 years or so that hockey players have been allowed to pass the puck forward for crying out loud. There have been all kinds of equipment, style and rule changes during that time too. And they are still happening. The trick is to jump on one of those changes before it becomes a band wagon. That requires some keen observation of the game, which I, ahem, am about to offer.
Goalies are no longer the guys who make saves so much as they are the guys who get into position so they will be in the way of the puck. In that way they can more accurately be called “blockers” nowadays. This is not a new thing. The butterfly style, the big equipment, the big bodies, the paddle down technique, are all methods that help goalies more effectively block shots rather than react to them and make saves. How does a sagacious coach adapt to this? There are a couple of ways that have been used successfully, though in blissful ignorance. What I’m saying is there are success stories out there but people haven’t yet caught on to the real reasons for the success and started employing them regularly.
The best method to beat the blockers is by deflections. The goalie will be in position to stop the original shot but will not have the time, reaction speed or in some cases, even the inclination to adjust and stop the deflection. This is not a new technique. It even worked on the reaction goalies of not so long ago. However, in the whole process of the deflection there is a key element that 90 percent of the teams in the greatest league in the world are doing wrong. That’s right, WRONG. Taking a slap shot from the point in hopes that it will be deflected is wrong for a few reasons and it baffles me that they are not being noticed. 1. The crappy, but expensive sticks that are used these days. Every single game has multiple stick disintegrations whereas 10 years ago you could watch a week of hockey without seeing ONE. I’ve seen these untempered twigs shatter on wrist shots and even passes, but generally the slap shot is the major cause of blue line breakage and the point shot for the deflection is the major use for slap shots. One solution would be to revert to the tried and true wooden stick, if you could find an old timer on a rockin’ chair to whittle one for ye.
My solution is this: wrist shots from the point. Another major way our beloved game is changing is the blocked shot. They didn’t even keep this stat until just recently. And it might as well be called “blocked SLAP shots.” Players don’t block wrist shots. Not on purpose. They can’t. It’s the wind-up of the slap shot that allows the goalie to get set, the defenseman to block and the stick to shatter. Not to mention the cold, hard fact that a wrist shot is going slower enough than the slap shot to make it easier to deflect but not nearly slow enough to render that deflection any less effective than a deflected slap shot. And, not mentioning any names, (Salo), but there are players with really hard slap shots that never seem to end up where they aim them. Wrist shots are much more accurate.
Only a few teams have picked up on this idea and one is the Canucks. They WERE using the point wrist shot to get them to the finals but their pointmen seemed to abandon the wrist shot against the Bruins. I’ll move on.
Staying with the best ways to beat the blockers we have to mention the one-timer. A pass moves faster than any goalie, but especially the burly, equipment-laden blockers of today. If you have the goalie set up for the save and you pass to a guy, he’ll have a completely different angle to shoot and a goalie who is out of position to block the shot, IF he can let it go in a hurry. The one-timer is rare in today’s dump and chase, cycle in the corner style of game. But boy it was fun to watch in the days when players were skating up and down the ice all game long. I have no statistical back-up for this but I’d bet there are less than half the average of rushes down the ice nowadays than there were in the average games of the 80’s. That’s when hockey was FUN! Fun to play for the players and SOOO much more fun to watch. It’s my understanding that “the trap” stopped that but now “the trap” has been legislated away by the league, right? Let’s get back to some scoring on the rush. At least give it a try.
When you think of pure goal scorers what names come to mind? Ovechkin, Selanne, Heatley, Iginla, Daniel Sedin, Cory Perry, Stamkos, Getzlaf, Vanek, Kovalchuk, Gaborik. How many of them are left wingers who shoot right handed? Or right wingers who shoot left handed? You could even throw Crosby’s name in there though he’s a center. But not on the power play. He is a lefty playing the right side. How many of the massive total of goals between these players have been of the one-timer variety? If a guy is playing his “off wing” the puck doesn’t have to cross his body before he can take a one-timer shot. This is such a deadly offensive weapon to have in a team arsenal! Many teams actually have it but don’t use it.
Imagine a line with Ovechkin shooting right on the left side, with Semin shooting left on the right side. With any serviceable centre on that line it should be deadly on the rush. What about Daniel shooting left on the right side, with Henrik playing centre and Kesler shooting right on the left wing? Again, deadly on the rush! But that’s not what they do is it? The Sedins, and the Canucks, would score even MORE if they would cycle less. No question in my mind. All around the league the one-timer is something that seems to have been relegated to power play use only. If that.
My final piece of information won’t actually get the Canucks more goals but it will make the extra goals they get more valuable. It’s not so much about how to beat the goalies, it’s about the goalies themselves. In this time of positional goaltending where, as mentioned, goalies are beefy, bumbling blockers who are just trying to stay in the optimum positions to get in the way of pucks heading to the goal, WHY are they skating out of their nets and handling the puck all the time? Isn’t this the exact opposite of every other strategy they are using? It seems simplistic to say but leaving the net empty is just not a good way to be in a position to block shots at it.
How many games were lost by one goal last season? I don’t know but a LOT. There was a point in the playoffs when excluding empty net goals ALL 13 games played were decided by one goal. I’ve been watching this for a while and I am noticing in ALMOST EVERY game I see a goal caused by one goalie or another straying to stop the puck behind the net, or a bungled pass by a goalie leading to a goal by the other team. Regular occurrences both of them. And in a league where one goal is usually the difference between winning and losing tell the damn goalie to stay in the goal! I love Corey Schneider but his one and only weakness is puck handling. Just don’t do it! How much does it really help when the goalie handles the puck? I know for absolute certain it doesn’t help teams as much as it hurts them. And the Canucks are no exception to this rule.
So there you have it: 1. Wrist shots from the point; 2. Decent lumber; 3. Off-wing one timers; 4. More rushing and less cycling; 5. Stay-at-home goaltending. These combined will get the Canucks a goal a game more, (and maybe save them as many). And in a league where most games are within a goal, this should be enough to get them the cup. As payment I would be willing to accept my name on the cup after the Canucks win it. Thank you very much.
For those of you who haven't read this stuff from time to time on one of my many blogs, I think I have a few good strategies that could make the Canucks good enough to win this year. Although they will be without Ehrhoff, Torres, Raymond and Kesler, (the last two indefinitely, the first two via the trade), I think they can do it. I am looking forward to seeing the effect Marco Sturm has on the club. He's got some offensive pop and can put the puck in the net. Should be good for 25 goals. He's very similar to Higgins, who I think will settle in with the new club this year and get 25 goals also. It's going to be a breakout year for Hansen, who will get more ice time with the loss of Kesler and Raymond. I am gonna stay consistant and predict 25 goals from him too. I would like to see a bit more of Hodgson this year. He was a scorer in jrs. and we could use him between Higgins and Hansen for the Triple H line. (Copywright D.MacCannell 2011).
I think we will see a more offensive year from Danny Hamhuis this year since Ehrhoff is gone. More goals and fewer hipchecks. I am making my pick for breakout player of the year to be the young blueliner Chris Tanev. I think he will still be considered a rookie this upcoming season and at 21 he's still a baby but he sure plays some seasoned D out there! It's tough to find defencemen who develop so fast. He's pure gold and he's a Canuck. I'd like to see Bieksa and Hamhuis as the top defence team and Tanev replacing Ehrhoff across the ice from Edler as the second duo.
I think I'm with EVERYBODY else when I say I'd like to see more of Schneider and less of Luongo. If you read my stuff I have NEVER been on the Luongo bandwagon and to all you folks who put all your hopes in him as the franchise player and scoffed at me for many years for saying he was overrated, I told you so. In an interview with Henrik last season he didn't quite say it outright but he hinted at what every Canuck spectator can see: the club plays a more entertaining, more successful, more offensive game in front of Schneider because they aren't worried as much about him letting in a bad goal. It'll be interesting to see how Manny Legace figures into the equation. Will the Canucks take a 5 mil. cap hit and just turf Luongo? Will ANY other team take him? We shall see. But as for those tactics that will enhance the Canucks play enough to win them the cup this year, here we go...
This is no joke, folks. The title should actually say, (or any OTHER team for that matter). But I’m trying to give the Canucks my advice so they can use it and maybe win a Stanley Cup before the rest of the teams in the league start copying them.
The NHL is a constantly changing league and professional hockey has been anything but static throughout its history. It’s only been 80 years or so that hockey players have been allowed to pass the puck forward for crying out loud. There have been all kinds of equipment, style and rule changes during that time too. And they are still happening. The trick is to jump on one of those changes before it becomes a band wagon. That requires some keen observation of the game, which I, ahem, am about to offer.
Goalies are no longer the guys who make saves so much as they are the guys who get into position so they will be in the way of the puck. In that way they can more accurately be called “blockers” nowadays. This is not a new thing. The butterfly style, the big equipment, the big bodies, the paddle down technique, are all methods that help goalies more effectively block shots rather than react to them and make saves. How does a sagacious coach adapt to this? There are a couple of ways that have been used successfully, though in blissful ignorance. What I’m saying is there are success stories out there but people haven’t yet caught on to the real reasons for the success and started employing them regularly.
The best method to beat the blockers is by deflections. The goalie will be in position to stop the original shot but will not have the time, reaction speed or in some cases, even the inclination to adjust and stop the deflection. This is not a new technique. It even worked on the reaction goalies of not so long ago. However, in the whole process of the deflection there is a key element that 90 percent of the teams in the greatest league in the world are doing wrong. That’s right, WRONG. Taking a slap shot from the point in hopes that it will be deflected is wrong for a few reasons and it baffles me that they are not being noticed. 1. The crappy, but expensive sticks that are used these days. Every single game has multiple stick disintegrations whereas 10 years ago you could watch a week of hockey without seeing ONE. I’ve seen these untempered twigs shatter on wrist shots and even passes, but generally the slap shot is the major cause of blue line breakage and the point shot for the deflection is the major use for slap shots. One solution would be to revert to the tried and true wooden stick, if you could find an old timer on a rockin’ chair to whittle one for ye.
My solution is this: wrist shots from the point. Another major way our beloved game is changing is the blocked shot. They didn’t even keep this stat until just recently. And it might as well be called “blocked SLAP shots.” Players don’t block wrist shots. Not on purpose. They can’t. It’s the wind-up of the slap shot that allows the goalie to get set, the defenseman to block and the stick to shatter. Not to mention the cold, hard fact that a wrist shot is going slower enough than the slap shot to make it easier to deflect but not nearly slow enough to render that deflection any less effective than a deflected slap shot. And, not mentioning any names, (Salo), but there are players with really hard slap shots that never seem to end up where they aim them. Wrist shots are much more accurate.
Only a few teams have picked up on this idea and one is the Canucks. They WERE using the point wrist shot to get them to the finals but their pointmen seemed to abandon the wrist shot against the Bruins. I’ll move on.
Staying with the best ways to beat the blockers we have to mention the one-timer. A pass moves faster than any goalie, but especially the burly, equipment-laden blockers of today. If you have the goalie set up for the save and you pass to a guy, he’ll have a completely different angle to shoot and a goalie who is out of position to block the shot, IF he can let it go in a hurry. The one-timer is rare in today’s dump and chase, cycle in the corner style of game. But boy it was fun to watch in the days when players were skating up and down the ice all game long. I have no statistical back-up for this but I’d bet there are less than half the average of rushes down the ice nowadays than there were in the average games of the 80’s. That’s when hockey was FUN! Fun to play for the players and SOOO much more fun to watch. It’s my understanding that “the trap” stopped that but now “the trap” has been legislated away by the league, right? Let’s get back to some scoring on the rush. At least give it a try.
When you think of pure goal scorers what names come to mind? Ovechkin, Selanne, Heatley, Iginla, Daniel Sedin, Cory Perry, Stamkos, Getzlaf, Vanek, Kovalchuk, Gaborik. How many of them are left wingers who shoot right handed? Or right wingers who shoot left handed? You could even throw Crosby’s name in there though he’s a center. But not on the power play. He is a lefty playing the right side. How many of the massive total of goals between these players have been of the one-timer variety? If a guy is playing his “off wing” the puck doesn’t have to cross his body before he can take a one-timer shot. This is such a deadly offensive weapon to have in a team arsenal! Many teams actually have it but don’t use it.
Imagine a line with Ovechkin shooting right on the left side, with Semin shooting left on the right side. With any serviceable centre on that line it should be deadly on the rush. What about Daniel shooting left on the right side, with Henrik playing centre and Kesler shooting right on the left wing? Again, deadly on the rush! But that’s not what they do is it? The Sedins, and the Canucks, would score even MORE if they would cycle less. No question in my mind. All around the league the one-timer is something that seems to have been relegated to power play use only. If that.
My final piece of information won’t actually get the Canucks more goals but it will make the extra goals they get more valuable. It’s not so much about how to beat the goalies, it’s about the goalies themselves. In this time of positional goaltending where, as mentioned, goalies are beefy, bumbling blockers who are just trying to stay in the optimum positions to get in the way of pucks heading to the goal, WHY are they skating out of their nets and handling the puck all the time? Isn’t this the exact opposite of every other strategy they are using? It seems simplistic to say but leaving the net empty is just not a good way to be in a position to block shots at it.
How many games were lost by one goal last season? I don’t know but a LOT. There was a point in the playoffs when excluding empty net goals ALL 13 games played were decided by one goal. I’ve been watching this for a while and I am noticing in ALMOST EVERY game I see a goal caused by one goalie or another straying to stop the puck behind the net, or a bungled pass by a goalie leading to a goal by the other team. Regular occurrences both of them. And in a league where one goal is usually the difference between winning and losing tell the damn goalie to stay in the goal! I love Corey Schneider but his one and only weakness is puck handling. Just don’t do it! How much does it really help when the goalie handles the puck? I know for absolute certain it doesn’t help teams as much as it hurts them. And the Canucks are no exception to this rule.
So there you have it: 1. Wrist shots from the point; 2. Decent lumber; 3. Off-wing one timers; 4. More rushing and less cycling; 5. Stay-at-home goaltending. These combined will get the Canucks a goal a game more, (and maybe save them as many). And in a league where most games are within a goal, this should be enough to get them the cup. As payment I would be willing to accept my name on the cup after the Canucks win it. Thank you very much.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Human Nature
Did you hear about this? Is it a dog's nature to attack humans? How bout EAT one? How bout EAT its owner? Most of the comments I read about this story are from people saying that they hope the dogs won't be put to sleep. It's not their fault. Even that the owner got what he deserved.
I'm not so sure pet neglect should be punishable by death but I wasn't feeling sorry for the guy either. I can't cheer for the Philadelphia Eagles even though they have some players that I like. Michael Vick is a ball-hoggin, overrated, dog-abusing, can't pass, glory hound and I won't cheer for a team he plays for. A person who participates in dogfighting is assuming a place of superiority over the beasts that are savagely murdered for his/her pleasure, and by that very action proving that he/she is not superior to the dogs at all.
South Koreans hang dogs up and beat them just before killing them so that the adrenalin softens the meat and makes it taste better. This is the reason that, to my knowledge I never ate any poshintang, (dog stew), while I was in Korea, though it was offered to me a few times. Who are the more evolved creatures in this scenario, the dogs or the Korean people who torture and then eat them? And how many of us wish we could hear a story similar to the Indonesian one coming out of the dog farms of Korea?
Who do I like better, those Indonesian dogs or Michael Vick? No contest. Although I'd be a little nervous that they had developed a taste for human flesh, I'd rather play fetch the frisbee with those two dogs any day than hang with Vick playing, I dunno, throw the kittens into the hot oil. I could see Vick's defence for that, "What? I'm not harming any dogs! Make up your minds, people!"
I don't think it's natural for a dog to eat a human any more than I think it's natural for a human to eat a dog. Most of us will forgive the Indonesian dogs for eating their master because he was a douchebag and they were starving because of him. We generally CAN'T forgive Koreans for continuing to farm their soupdogs in the manner that they do because it's just not necessary. In the old days when they were starving, fine, eat what you can get. That can be forgiven. The torture probably developed after dog meat was eaten as a necessity only further illustrating the point I'm making. And here it is: Starving, torturing and killing dogs = pretty much unforgivable right? Unless there is some demonstrable necessity. And there's no way of proving this, but to me it just seems unnatural.
Now, why is it that every time you debate the necessity of the, (sorry for this), dog-eat-dog business environment of today where HUMANS are bought, sold, starved, tortured and killed, (though usually indirectly), by businesses and governments regularly, some good little capitalist will pipe up and say, "It's human nature."
If you throw two starving dogs a steak they might fight to the death over it. That's natural. If you throw two starving humans a hundred dollar bill, the same might occur. Even that could be called natural although being blessed with intellect the two should be smart enough to keep 50 bucks each. What is completely UN-fucking-natural is when people who are not starving, people who are a LONG way from starving, behave like starving dogs. When companies are paying employees 25 cents an hour to sew footballs or something for 12 hours a day every day, then selling them for 75 bucks apiece, calling it human nature is incredibly tolerant of people to my way of thinking. How much worse are the stories we hear all the time of people being impoverished or killed for business purposes?
Even if it were natural. Even if I could stretch my brain far enough to accomodate such an absurdity, so what? It's natural for people to be naked, right? We're born naked so it only makes sense to be naked all the time. What would the world be like if we did everything that was natural? Imagine everyone naked all the time. You go to visit your parents and they come down the stairs to greet you in the buff. Naked parents! I suppose we could get used to that, no? How about GRANDparents in their birthday suits? (shiver)
There'd be no such thing as flashers so that's a good thing isn't it? Of course I'd kinda miss strippers. Where would we keep car keys and spare change? And what if you didn't have a car and had to take the bus. The 500 previous users of the seat you are about to sit in were buck nekkid! I'd say it's over all a good thing that we don't behave naturally on this count though some nudists disagree.
But back to the point, it's sometimes better to behave unnaturally. If we were totally natural all the time women would be getting clubbed over the head and dragged to bedrooms every Saturday night. Forget the wining and dining. That's just not natural. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.
And what about the Khmers of Cambodia? What about the Inuit? Native North Americans?I imagine there are tribes out there in the world today who have no concept of ownership. These were very successful societies intellectually, artistically, socially, even technologically, (no, people don't just lay around doing nothing without the motivation of money to keep them inventing shit). In Chinese when they were searching for a superlative for rich they used to say, "As rich as Cambodia." These societies ALL knew stuff that we still can't figure out today. Funny thing though, acquisitive, ownership-based societies tend to have highly developed militaries used for forcefully taking other societies's shit. They tend to be more "successful", but are they more developed, more NATURAL? Absolutely not.
In this day and age where there is WAYYY more than enough stuff for everybody to not only survive but be wealthy, people who run their businesses by the inexplicably almost universally tolerated, (and LEGAL), corporate philosophy of "profit at all cost," are cannibals. They're dog-fighters. They are people who are revered but really should be seen in the same light as the dog torturers, or worse. Let's go back a bit and do some word substitution: A person who participates in dog-fighting, (literal or figurative), is assuming a place of superiority over the beasts, (or employees, or customers, or competitors), that are savagely murdered for his/her pleasure, and by that very action proving that he/she is NOT superior to the dogs, (employees, customers, competitors), at all.
In the documentary, "The Corporation," the corporate ideals that are used for business are examined and a psychological evaluation is done as if that business were a person. The result: psychopath. Antisocial and dangerous deviant. About as far away from NATURAL as the East is from the West.
So, call me a socialist if that tired, old retort still gives you comfort. Call me a dreamer, an optimist, even unrealistic. But please don't tell me lying, cheating, stealing, fighting, torturing and killing over the bazillions of dollars in money and resources on the earth is "human nature" and wanting to share it isn't. These aren't the normal people in the world. THESE are.
Least that's what I reckon.
I'm not so sure pet neglect should be punishable by death but I wasn't feeling sorry for the guy either. I can't cheer for the Philadelphia Eagles even though they have some players that I like. Michael Vick is a ball-hoggin, overrated, dog-abusing, can't pass, glory hound and I won't cheer for a team he plays for. A person who participates in dogfighting is assuming a place of superiority over the beasts that are savagely murdered for his/her pleasure, and by that very action proving that he/she is not superior to the dogs at all.
South Koreans hang dogs up and beat them just before killing them so that the adrenalin softens the meat and makes it taste better. This is the reason that, to my knowledge I never ate any poshintang, (dog stew), while I was in Korea, though it was offered to me a few times. Who are the more evolved creatures in this scenario, the dogs or the Korean people who torture and then eat them? And how many of us wish we could hear a story similar to the Indonesian one coming out of the dog farms of Korea?
Who do I like better, those Indonesian dogs or Michael Vick? No contest. Although I'd be a little nervous that they had developed a taste for human flesh, I'd rather play fetch the frisbee with those two dogs any day than hang with Vick playing, I dunno, throw the kittens into the hot oil. I could see Vick's defence for that, "What? I'm not harming any dogs! Make up your minds, people!"
I don't think it's natural for a dog to eat a human any more than I think it's natural for a human to eat a dog. Most of us will forgive the Indonesian dogs for eating their master because he was a douchebag and they were starving because of him. We generally CAN'T forgive Koreans for continuing to farm their soupdogs in the manner that they do because it's just not necessary. In the old days when they were starving, fine, eat what you can get. That can be forgiven. The torture probably developed after dog meat was eaten as a necessity only further illustrating the point I'm making. And here it is: Starving, torturing and killing dogs = pretty much unforgivable right? Unless there is some demonstrable necessity. And there's no way of proving this, but to me it just seems unnatural.
Now, why is it that every time you debate the necessity of the, (sorry for this), dog-eat-dog business environment of today where HUMANS are bought, sold, starved, tortured and killed, (though usually indirectly), by businesses and governments regularly, some good little capitalist will pipe up and say, "It's human nature."
If you throw two starving dogs a steak they might fight to the death over it. That's natural. If you throw two starving humans a hundred dollar bill, the same might occur. Even that could be called natural although being blessed with intellect the two should be smart enough to keep 50 bucks each. What is completely UN-fucking-natural is when people who are not starving, people who are a LONG way from starving, behave like starving dogs. When companies are paying employees 25 cents an hour to sew footballs or something for 12 hours a day every day, then selling them for 75 bucks apiece, calling it human nature is incredibly tolerant of people to my way of thinking. How much worse are the stories we hear all the time of people being impoverished or killed for business purposes?
Even if it were natural. Even if I could stretch my brain far enough to accomodate such an absurdity, so what? It's natural for people to be naked, right? We're born naked so it only makes sense to be naked all the time. What would the world be like if we did everything that was natural? Imagine everyone naked all the time. You go to visit your parents and they come down the stairs to greet you in the buff. Naked parents! I suppose we could get used to that, no? How about GRANDparents in their birthday suits? (shiver)
There'd be no such thing as flashers so that's a good thing isn't it? Of course I'd kinda miss strippers. Where would we keep car keys and spare change? And what if you didn't have a car and had to take the bus. The 500 previous users of the seat you are about to sit in were buck nekkid! I'd say it's over all a good thing that we don't behave naturally on this count though some nudists disagree.
But back to the point, it's sometimes better to behave unnaturally. If we were totally natural all the time women would be getting clubbed over the head and dragged to bedrooms every Saturday night. Forget the wining and dining. That's just not natural. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.
And what about the Khmers of Cambodia? What about the Inuit? Native North Americans?I imagine there are tribes out there in the world today who have no concept of ownership. These were very successful societies intellectually, artistically, socially, even technologically, (no, people don't just lay around doing nothing without the motivation of money to keep them inventing shit). In Chinese when they were searching for a superlative for rich they used to say, "As rich as Cambodia." These societies ALL knew stuff that we still can't figure out today. Funny thing though, acquisitive, ownership-based societies tend to have highly developed militaries used for forcefully taking other societies's shit. They tend to be more "successful", but are they more developed, more NATURAL? Absolutely not.
In this day and age where there is WAYYY more than enough stuff for everybody to not only survive but be wealthy, people who run their businesses by the inexplicably almost universally tolerated, (and LEGAL), corporate philosophy of "profit at all cost," are cannibals. They're dog-fighters. They are people who are revered but really should be seen in the same light as the dog torturers, or worse. Let's go back a bit and do some word substitution: A person who participates in dog-fighting, (literal or figurative), is assuming a place of superiority over the beasts, (or employees, or customers, or competitors), that are savagely murdered for his/her pleasure, and by that very action proving that he/she is NOT superior to the dogs, (employees, customers, competitors), at all.
In the documentary, "The Corporation," the corporate ideals that are used for business are examined and a psychological evaluation is done as if that business were a person. The result: psychopath. Antisocial and dangerous deviant. About as far away from NATURAL as the East is from the West.
So, call me a socialist if that tired, old retort still gives you comfort. Call me a dreamer, an optimist, even unrealistic. But please don't tell me lying, cheating, stealing, fighting, torturing and killing over the bazillions of dollars in money and resources on the earth is "human nature" and wanting to share it isn't. These aren't the normal people in the world. THESE are.
Least that's what I reckon.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Walksafe B.C.
Walksafe B.C.
Some chilling statistics from last year in British Columbia:
- Percentage of pedestrians struck and killed by automobiles while walking: 100
- Percentage of pedestrian fatalities in which the victim was not Walksafe B.C. certified: 100
- Percentage of horrible deaths in which the deceased was not Walksafe B.C. certified: 100
- Percentage of pedestrian traffic violations charged to Walksafe B.C. certified citizens: 0
- Percentage of Walksafe certified people who did not win the lottery: 0
- Reasons why the B.C. government should not have refused to allow the denial of legislation blocking the passing of the "NO" vote for the enactment of mandatory Walksafe B.C. certification cancellation approval disapproval: 0
Wake up, British Columbia!!! Motorists are not the only ones on our streets and sidewalks. Are you willing to walk them unprepared? Are your children? Or your puppies or kittens? Do you know how many people and adorable pets are being messily mowed down by automobiles in our province every year? Well, there are loads and loads, believe me! And who knows how many hideously awkward head on collisions occur between uncertified pedestrians every day that aren't even reported? We need to put an end to this senseless waste of life and social isolation due to uneducated pedestrian traffic year after year. With the enactment of mandatory Walksafe B.C. certification legislation literally tens of lives will be saved in our generation alone! Why wait until that day? Walksafe B.C. certificates are now available! For the low, low price of only $2500.00 (applicable taxes may be doubled) here's what you get:
- Unwheeled vehicle hand signal training
- Unlimited pedestrian parking practice
- Helmet and padding purchase and application instruction
- Easy to read pamphlet on clothing transformation: hazardous ---> reflective
- Advanced sidewalk right-of-way certification
- Defensive ambulation diploma
- Safety insured, government inspected classrooms with only round-edged surfaces, non-slip floor, non-squeak chalkboard, esthetically inoffensive instructor, and ultra filtered, low germ-count, climate controlled environment
- Coupon for 50% off your next socially mandated, idiot-induced bogus course on overprotection