Day 353: In Praise Of The Olympics

I've got Olympic Fever

I touched on the upcoming Olympics in a recent hockey blog and received commentary from various readers, not all of it looking at the Olympics as fondly as I do. So I'll come right out and admit it: I love the Olympics! There may be a lot wrong with the Olympics, but there is a lot more right with them. The Olympics are a great spectacle of sporting excellence that I look forward to every four years (and not just for the hockey). I am definitely looking forward to having the Olympics here in 2010, although I'm not sure that Vancouver is nearly snowy enough to look good for the cameras as a compelling winter spot.

Of course, I don't love every sport at the Olympics. The Winter Games are generally better than the Summer Games because there are fewer sports to follow, and it is easier not to overlook entire categories as is done in summer (e.g. archery). But the problem sports for me are those that involving judging. I don't like figure skating and especially ice dancing because of the of the idiocy of having a sporting event determined by judges. I believe that a sport needs to have objective measurements to qualify as a proper sport. The outcome must be measurable in time, height, distance, etc. so that any objective observer can easily agree with the outcome. Otherwise controversy must result and you are watching a pseudo-sport.

What about speed skating? I love it! I even think the short-track speed skating is pretty cool. Biathlon is probably my favourite sport though. It is a great concept and I look forward to watching it each year. I like bobsled, but they probably went too far when they added skeleton. And as all good Canadians must know: curling is fantastic.

I like seeing the athletes from all over the world. I enjoy hearing the anthems of the other countries. I like watching the Opening Ceremonies (for the most part). I like seeing Canadians do well, but I think that the local coverage is way too Canada focused. I'd rather see the profile of a world-class Belarus ski jumper than some heartfelt profile of the 38th ranked Canadian luger.

So I'm looking forward to watching the games, even though I'll be in Finland for the second half of it. But fortunately Finland is a winter country, so I'm hoping I can catch many hours of the Finnish telecasts in my lonely hotel room.

Go Canada!

Day 352: The Observer

I love math!

I haven't discussed poker for a while on this blog, and you may have hoped that I had forgotten about it and had moved on to other more interesting subjects. But sadly this is not the case. I love poker because it's pure math (at least the way I play it), and I love math! My favourite subjects in high school were Algebra 12 (where I scored an improbable 100% on the final) and more interestingly Prob&Stat 12. What did we do in Prob&Stat, you may ask? Well, most of it was card hand analysis. I sometimes can't believe it took me 15 years to move on from that to see possibilities in poker.

Anyways, December and early January were lean months for me combining personal sickness, disinterest in constantly losing at poker, Christmas, and an odd fatigue incurred from actually working full workdays. I may not have lost money at poker in 2005, but it's fair to say that I didn't earn enough to cause me to consider giving up my day job (hang on - my company is doing that for me...). Since computer poker is essentially the same skill set I use during the day (problem solving, thinking, decision making), it made good sense not to overdose on it and to spend my spare time doing other things. I'd love to say that I was working out and preparing for the upcoming grynde season, but really I've just been watching a lot of TV.

But my long break from playing poker was not unproductive. Not in the slightest! I took the time away from the stress of playing to do something that befits my obvious categorization as Type 5 in the enneagram: I observed. I constantly watched good players play my favourite game: the 10-player Sit-n-Go (which pays Top 3), and accumulated statistics in my local database.

I observed hundreds of these games at levels above what I feel comfortable playing ($100, $200). The names of the good players became known to me, and like my hero John Nash before me, I waded through the mountains of raw data to detect the underlying patterns in the way that these "good players" played, to see what they did differently from the way I played.

The conclusions are shown below. I am not really commenting on why these strategies work (that is beyond my level of expertise and is best left as an exercise for the reader). No - I am just saying that this is the way that good players play. I may well be a fool, but I think that it is better to emulate good players than bad players.

Snowy Cat's Sit-n-Go Strategy Guide

Conclusion 1: Good players play very tight early.
Good players did not even raise out of position with good but non-perfect hands (JJ, QQ, AK) at the low levels (e.g. 10/15). They waited until they hit a flop and then put their money in.

Conclusion 2: Good players play very aggressively late.
Good players constantly steal the blinds with marginal hands (QT, T9s) at high levels (e.g. 100/200). The value of picking up the blinds on a fold outweighs the likelihood of losing a showdown.

Conclusion 3: Good players play for first place.
Weak players get to the final 4, and then protect their chips to ensure that they can come 3rd or possibly 2nd to ensure a payday. As a result, they win less than their share. But a strong player risks coming 4th in order to take a better run at 1st. Sure they miss out on the money every now and then, but they win more than their share. These extra wins add up to a significant edge.


Results: Good!
I must remain cautious, but utilizing the strategic changes I witnessed in my Sit-n-Go play has already improved my bottom line in just the ten days that have elapsed since I starting playing seriously again. There is no reason to think that I have not found a winning strategy and can continue to beat up the games at the low limits. Huzzah!

Now my general poker play is not really any better: I still play scared in a ring-game and lose more than I win. And this is why I don't play ring games. Because poker is not just about your cards, and is not even just about your opponent's cards. No poker is mostly about understanding the situation. And my situational analysis is now outstanding because I watched those who knew what they were doing, and am trying to do the same.

Day 351: Hockey vs. America

Canada cares	America doesn't

With the Olympics coming up, attention in Canada is squarely focused on the fortunes of our men's hockey team, who should contend for the gold despite some nagging injuries to key players including Ed Jovanovski. But south of the border, it's as though the Olympics aren't even happening. The typical sports fan gives not a fig towards their men's team (who won silver last time), hockey in general, or even the Olympics itself. Is this a problem? (Note: Many non-sports fans do care about the Olympics, but this is a different and stranger issue.)

Every now and then the discussion turns towards the question of how to increase American interest in the game of hockey, as if this was important. Last year during the lockout, networks like ESPN found that their hockey replacement programming (e.g. Poker) badly outdrew the hockey programming - and with no rights fees to worry about. ESPN has understandably decided that they don't need hockey. They're right.

But there's another side of the equation. Hockey doesn't need the USA.

The way that sentence is written is very important. I am not saying "The NHL doesn't need the USA" - because it certainly does if it wants to be "big league". I am also not saying "Hockey players don't need the USA" - because they obviously rely on American money for their fat salaries. So what am I saying?

The game of hockey doesn't need the USA. An NHL without marginal US cities would be a better league for Canadian fans like you and me. We will gladly keep the American "real hockey cities" like Detroit, Boston, Philadelphia, and Columbus and lose those useless places like Carolina and Tampa Bay that will never care, even when they have a great team. Let's happily contract to a smaller NHL with 8 Canadian teams and 16 American teams.

Advantages:
1) Fewer teams - therefore better teams
2) Lower player salaries - so likely lower ticket prices
3) Same great players - a reduced NHL would still be the best league around.

So I hope that the NHL fails to make further inroads into the American consciousness. The game of hockey (and more specifically Canadian hockey) will be better for it.

But the thorn in the side of my downward slide projection is the growth of HDTV. HDTV is on the verge of EXPLODING in North America, especially among serious sports fans. I've never actually watched it, but those who have quite confidently say that the technology is so good that even a non-hockey fan can follow and enjoy the sport once they can follow the puck. So HDTV may yet save the NHL's Southern American experiment, which would be a shame. A smaller, more Canadian NHL would be good for Canada, and good for hockey!

Day 350: Finland Dreaming, Part Two

A Finnish worker's morning routine

One of the more enjoyable things about my impending layoff is listening to family and friends suggest career alternatives. The suggestions are many, but few are along the lines of my probable path: a summer spent doing nothing except golfing and playing online poker. A common suggestion that I have heard is to secure a contract with my current company in Finland, along the lines pioneered by the master of the harmonica, Tin Foiled. I have to admit that this is probably something I could do (or could have done if I'd started sooner), but I haven't looked into it. My mum is particularly keen to see me accomplish something useful in my limited time on this planet, and does not understand why I would not be interested in such an opportunity. Even friends consider it a good idea and offer to help me pack and drive me to the airport (like a young Finland-bound Peter Schaefer).

But I don't want to do it. Many of my friends (and most of my readers) have fled for jobs in parts unknown for short, long, or even infinite stretches (and some readers are still in these parts foreign). Did it rejuvenate and invigorate them? Almost certainly. Would I benefit from a change of scenery? Quite possibly. But on balance, I don't think it will work for me.

I like Vancouver. I like the weather in the summer, I like the hockey in the winter, and I love the year-round golfing opportunities. I like my cats, I like my friends, and I like seeing my nearby family frequently.

So I'm sorry, but you are probably all stuck with me. Will I regret this missed opportunity? Time will tell, but I do not play the regret game.

Day 349: Finland Dreaming

I have officially purchased my plane ticket to Oulu, Finland for Feb. 17 - Mar. 4, 2006. Two weeks in Northern Finland in February helping transition my work to replacements so that I can be laid off on April 1st: what could be better? My only concern is thus: Who will look after Chance and Slippers? Though I have a variety of offers, I am looking for the situation that will be best for them. Their preference is for a boarding stay at Gilman's house, but that may prove difficult to negotiate with the powers-that-be.

Exactly like Glenn discussed in his infamous 5 Weird Things post, I also have a tendency to not want to go on a trip as the travel date approaches. This problem seems to disappear once I've begun the trip itself. I can specifically schedule a vacation, shed a lot of money doing it, but then I'll spend the night before wondering if I can just stay home. Now I'm not sure why this is, but it is curious that Glenn manifests similar behaviour, and does prove that we are not the opposites many surmise. Of course my take on his #2 weird thing is the opposite...

My version reads:
2. I don't like cold food. I don't mean lack of spice (which is good), I mean temperature. In fact, I prefer food to be in the warm to hot range. When I eat leftovers, I always reheat them: I never eat them straight out of the fridge. I have never owned a lunch bag because what could be in there except disgusting cold food? Doesn't matter what it is. And nothing is grosser than cold coffee. I like toast not bread because it's hotter.

That's all for today.

Happy Birthday Glenn!

Day 348: Seahawk Dominance!

The Vancouver Canucks just lost consecutive games to St. Louis and Columbus, two of the worst teams in the league. Is this a crisis? I think not, for the effort was there yesterday, and they did have a solid homestand beforehand. I think that the problem with the Canucks is... oh who cares:
THE SEAHAWKS ARE GOING TO THE SUPER BOWL!

SUPER BOWL XL MATCHUP

THE SEATTLE SEAHAWKS	pittsburgh

This past Sunday, our beloved losers, the Seattle Seahawks dominated the Carolina Panthers 34-14. A lot of clever eastern wags thought that Seattle would be exposed by a solid Carolina team, because after all - who has Seattle beat this year? Are they not pretenders? But they were forced to eat crow as Seattle steamrolled the Panthers and showed they are the elite team the Seattle fans have always known them to be. The Seahawks were the class of the NFC, so when we diagnose their strengths below, it will be easy to overlook some.

Quarterback. Matt Hasselbeck had a solid game against Carolina after a very solid season: he was 20-28, 2TDs, 0 Ints. These stats remind one of New England and could be called Bradyesque, but I prefer to quote "The Seahawk" and instead call them HASSELBECK-ESQUE. The maturity he has shown this year make it clear that he is a different quarterback: a better one. Expect continuing good decisions and a great outing in Detroit.

Running back. Shaun Alexander was the offensive MVP in the NFL in 2005, and he showed why on Sunday. Rushing for 132 yards despite the previous week's concussion was useful in and of itself, but his excellent play helped set up the passing game. Can anyone stop a team with a super running game and a super passing game? Not unless they are very lucky with turnovers, and even Washington couldn't beat Seattle despite receiving many lucky turnovers.

Offensive Line. It's been talked about a lot this year, but it bears repeating. The Seattle O-Line is the best in the NFL! And a solid O-Line is hugely important to the success of a team. It gives the QB time (just ask Peyton how useful that is), and it allows a team to establish the run early and often. Seattle can't be stopped because of their O-Line - they dictate the pace of the game and allow the team to score at will. Pittsburgh cannot stop them.

Defence. Seattle completely shut down Steve Smith, the overlooked MVP candidate that many have noted. And they made Carolina QB Jake Delhomme look like Jake Delhomme. Carolina mustered no offence except for a late TD and a fluky punt return as Seattle dominated both sides of the ball all day. And there's no recent to suspect that they can't continue this in the Super Bowl.

But what of the Super Bowl? What about that Seahawk opponent, the skilled and venerable Pittsburgh Steelers, who have inexplicably been granted favourite status for the big game, with an astounding 4-point spread? Are they not a good team too?

Yes - it is true: Pittsburgh is a good team. They showed this by beating three great teams: Indianapolis, Denver, and Cincinnati: though they were certainly lucky that Cincinnati lost its QB seconds into the contest. But how do they match up with Seattle? Is there any way for Pittsburgh to win? I think it unlikely.

Quarterback. Ben Roethlisberger has looked very good of late, and I'll grant that he's not likely to be the Steeler problem. His passing is effective if the Steelers can establish the run, but they're not likely to succeed in this (see below).

Running back. Let's not joke around here. I love the Bus, but he is no Shaun Alexander. He is old and slow and can only run if the line has done all the work and given him space. But the Steelers will not be able to establish the run in the Super Bowl against a focused Seattle D, and the Bus will be stuck in neutral.

Defence Pittsburgh certainly has a good defence - but good defences cannot stop a team that can run and pass better than everyone else. And Seattle is that team. No - Seattle has far too many weapons to neutralize, and Pittsburgh will come up short.

Coaching. In this category and only in this category will I give Pittsburgh the edge. Bill Cowher has definitely impressed with his strategies and play-calling during this playoff run. Everyone knows the Steelers run more than anyone else, so he starts off each playoff game passing: thereby confusing the easily confused, and when the Steelers get their well-earned lead, they run 24 consecutive times completely killing the clock. A great plan - but it won't work since the Seahawks will SEE IT COMING and stop it!

Intangibles. Pittsburgh comes from a winning tradition that has created fans from the easily impressed and bandwagon-jumpers nationwide. The franchise has won 4 Super Bowls (but none since the 70s), whereas Seattle had never even previously made it to a Super Bowl. Seattle's playoff record is laughable - I will not pretend otherwise. But let's take stock of reality: Seattle is a #1 seed - the best team in the NFC. Pittsburgh is a #6 seed - the worst playoff team in the AFC, lucky to just be in the playoffs. And although the AFC is unquestionably stronger than the NFC - it's not that much stronger. Pittsburgh has had a good run and should be very happy to have gotten as far as they have. But Seattle is the better team, and they are on an even bigger roll. The Seahawks have more strengths and fewer weaknesses. Seattle will not finish 8-8 this year. They will be SUPER BOWL CHAMPS!

Prediction:
SEAHAWKS 42
STEELERS 13

GO SEAHAWKS!

Day 347: Why I Blog

If you're reading this, you will have noticed that I like to blog. In fact I blog frequently, far more often than some of the links you see to the side. Why on earth do I do it?

A faithful reader recently sent me a query:
Blogging is interesting. Do you do it for you, for your readers, or for a combination of the two? If it is a combination, what is the balance? I suspect the answer is that it is a combination, and the balance depends on your mood each day.

The answer must be: I do it for me.

Why is this? Because blogging is a lot of effort with almost no payoff. Nothing is more annoying than to write some entry and get either no comments - or more maddeningly some stupid one-line flippant comment. So the trick is to not care what anyone thinks. Then when you do get feedback and interest, it is gravy.

If I wanted greater readership, I would focus on a specific topic or point of view to ensure that my readers agreed with me and weren't bored or annoyed. For example, if I had a hockey blog or a golf blog (and there are many) - then hockey and golf readers could read knowing they would see something they care about. But now my readers never know when I might have an entry on something they care nothing about it (and sadly for many, this is Chance and Slippers).

My main goal is to amuse myself; sticking to this accomplishes two things:
1) I stay interested in my blog. If I did the blog for others, it would be easy to lose interest when you realize it's a one-way relationship.
2) I always have something to say. If I can decide "Bob Hope - that's a blog!", I will always have material. The fact that no one else agrees with me in this decision does not trouble me.

Having said that, I do sometimes edit myself and NOT publish something because I realize it doesn't meet quality control standards.

So in summary, I enjoy my blogging - regardless of what anyone else thinks. And the more entertained I am, the more likely my readers are to be entertained too.

My final note is a call for you, gentle reader, to blog as well. It's good for the soul, and may even give some small amount of amusement to your readers, who certainly deserve it.

Day 346: Chance and Slippers Meet Ariette

Gned and Miss Muppet now have a cat, and her name is Ariette. I went to visit her the other day with BumblyBee, and can report that she is very cute indeed, but does veer a little to the "Chancey" side in the weight department. She has claws (unlike Chance and Slippers) and did perform the occasional "gutting" of my sock - but only in a playful way. Like all cats, she greatly enjoyed chasing a mouse at the end of a string. Cat-owners: if you do not own a mouse fishing rod, please buy one today - they are the more popular cat toy in cat history.


Ariette

Chance and Slippers were intrigued when I told them of their new neighbour, and asked to take a look at some internet photos. I obliged. They hope to meet her one day and give her a proper feline welcome to Kerrisdale.


Chance Watches Ariette



Slippers Watches Ariette

Day 345: Election Results: Canada 2006

The Canadian Federal Election (2006 edition) is over and the results are in. Congratulations to everyone who voted both in the election and on this blog.

It is now time to celebrate the winners:
Stephen Harper and Steel Curtain

Election Pool Standings:
1. Steel Curtain 29
2. Gned 72
3. The Seahawk 83
4. Glenn 88
5. Dad 109
6. Mum 111
7. Snowy 122
8. Oaf 123
9. Roggles 160
10. Bumbly Bee 192


ACTUAL RESULT

1. Election Result
CONSERVATIVE MINORITY

2. Seat Tally
CON: 124, LIB: 103, BQ: 51, NDP: 29, OTH: 1

3. Popular Vote
CON: 36, LIB: 30, BQ: 10, NDP: 17, OTH: 6
Note: This adds up to 99%. Who could have predicted that?

4. Provincial Winners
Conservative: BC, Alta, Sask, Man
Liberal: Ont, Terr, NB, NS, Nfld, PEI
BQ: Quebec

5. Bonus Questions
a) Do the Conservatives win a seat in Quebec? YES
b) Do the Liberals win a seat in Alberta? NO
c) Who wins Vancouver-Centre? Liberal
d) Who wins Victoria? NDP
e) Who wins Vancouver-Quadra? Liberal
f) Who wins Saanich-GulfIslands? Conservative
g) Who wins Burnaby-Douglas? NDP



Individual Results

1. Steel Curtain: 29 points
1. Election Result: : 0 points
2. Seat Tally: CON: 1 LIB: 6 BQ: 6 NDP: 0 OTH: 1
: 14 points
3. Popular vote: CON: 3 LIB: 3 BQ: 3 NDP: 3 OTH: 3
: 15 points
4. Provincial Winners: 0 points
5. Bonus Questions: 0 points

2. Gned: 72 points
1. Election Result: 0 points
2. Seat Tally: CON: 10 LIB: 17 BQ: 7 NDP: 1 OTH: 1
: 36 points
3. Popular vote: CON: 6 LIB: 3 BQ: 9 NDP: 0 OTH: 3
: 21 points
4. Provincial Winners: 10 points (Ontario)
5. Bonus Questions: 5 points (Vancouver-Centre)

3. The Seahawk: 83 points
1. Election Result: : 0 points
2. Seat Tally: CON: 23 LIB: 28 BQ: 4 NDP: 2 OTH: 1
: 58 points
3. Popular vote: CON: 3 LIB: 0 BQ: 6 NDP: 3 OTH: 3
: 15 points
4. Provincial Winners: 10 points (Ontario)
5. Bonus Questions: 0 points

4. Glenn: 88 points
1. Election Result: 0 points
2. Seat Tally: CON: 21 LIB: 23 BQ: 1 NDP: 2 OTH: 1
: 47 points
3. Popular vote: CON: 6 LIB: 3 BQ: 6 NDP: 0 OTH: 6
: 21 points
4. Provincial Winners: 20 points (NB, NS)
5. Bonus Questions: 0 points

5. Dad: 109 points
1. Election Result: : 15 points (Conservative Majority)
2. Seat Tally: CON: 31 LIB: 20 BQ: 4 NDP: 6 OTH: 1
: 62 points
3. Popular vote: CON: 9 LIB: 9 BQ: 6 NDP: 0 OTH: 3
: 27 points
4. Provincial Winners: 0 points
5. Bonus Questions: 5 points (Vancouver-Centre)

6. Mum: 111 points
1. Election Result: 0 points
2. Seat Tally: CON: 22 LIB: 28 BQ: 3 NDP: 2 OTH: 1
: 56 points
3. Popular vote: CON: 0 LIB: 0 BQ: 0 NDP: 9 OTH: 6
: 15 points
4. Provincial Winners: 30 points (Sask, NB, NS)
5. Bonus Questions: 10 points (Vancouver-Centre, Vancouver-Quadra)

7. Snowy: 122 points
1. Election Result: : 15 points (Conservative Majority)
2. Seat Tally: CON: 33 LIB: 37 BQ: 1 NDP: 4 OTH: 1
: 76 points
3. Popular vote: CON: 9 LIB: 9 BQ: 3 NDP: 0 OTH: 0
: 21 points
4. Provincial Winners: 10 points (Ontario)
5. Bonus Questions: 0 points

8. Oaf: 123 points
1. Election Result: : 0 points
2. Seat Tally: CON: 23 LIB: 38 BQ: 12 NDP: 2 OTH: 1
: 76 points
3. Popular vote: CON: 0 LIB: 9 BQ: 6 NDP: 9 OTH: 3
: 27 points
4. Provincial Winners: 10 points (Ontario)
5. Bonus Questions: 10 points (Quebec, Alberta)

9. Roggles: 160 points
1. Election Result: : 15 points (Conservative Majority)
2. Seat Tally: CON: 34 LIB: 36 BQ: 2 NDP: 5 OTH: 1
: 78 points
3. Popular vote: CON: 9 LIB: 12 BQ: 0 NDP: 6 OTH: 0
: 27 points
4. Provincial Winners: 30 points (Ontario, NB, NS)
5. Bonus Questions: 10 points (Burnaby-Douglas,Vancouver-Centre)

10. Bumbly Bee: 192 points
1. Election Result: : 25 points (Conservative Minority)
2. Seat Tally: CON: 16 LIB: 17 BQ: 11 NDP: 11 OTH: 1
: 56 points
3. Popular vote: CON: 27 LIB: 24 BQ: 15 NDP: 6 OTH: 9
: 81 points
4. Provincial Winners: 20 points (BC, Ontario)
5. Bonus Questions: 10 points (Quebec, Victoria)

Day 344: Election Predictions: Canada 2006

All readers of this blog are encouraged to submit election predictions for the Canadian Federal Election, which takes place Monday January 23, 2006. Simply add your predictions as a comment (or email me) - I will remove the comment and add your predictions to the main article. If you prefer that I refrain from posting your predictions until the last minute, I will oblige (though I have already posted my picks).

This is for glory only - and is not a money contest. Only picks submitted before the first polls close will be included.

Please pick:
1) Government Result
2) Seat Tally
3) Popular Vote
4) Provincial Winners
5) Special Bonus Questions

Scoring works as follows:
Points (which are bad) are given for results that diverge from reality. The person with the fewest accumulated points wins. Results will be posted in a followup blog entry.

1) Government Result
- receive 25 points if you get the wrong winner
- receive 15 points if you get the government type wrong (e.g. majority vs. minority)

2) Seat Tally
- receive 1 point for each seat you are off for each of the 5 main parties

3) Popular Vote
- receive 3 points for each % you are off each party's final vote count

4) Provincial Winners
- receive 10 points if you get the province winner wrong
Note: Yukon/NWT/Nunavut are grouped together as "Territories".

5) Bonus Questions
- receive 5 points if you get a bonus question wrong
a) Do the Conservatives win a seat in Quebec?
b) Do the Liberals win a seat in Alberta?
c) Who wins Vancouver-Centre?
d) Who wins Victoria?
e) Who wins Vancouver-Quadra?
f) Who wins Saanich-GulfIslands?
g) Who wins Burnaby-Douglas?



POOL PARTICIPANTS

A. Snowy

1. Election Result
CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY

2. Seat Tally
CON: 157, LIB: 66, BQ: 52, NDP: 33, OTH: 0

3. Popular Vote
CON: 39, LIB: 27, BQ: 11, NDP: 17, OTH: 6

4. Provincial Winners
Conservative: BC, Alta, Sask, Man, Ont
Liberal: Terr, NB, NS, Nfld, PEI
BQ: Quebec

5. Bonus Questions
a) Do the Conservatives win a seat in Quebec? YES
b) Do the Liberals win a seat in Alberta? NO
c) Who wins Vancouver-Centre? Liberal
d) Who wins Victoria? NDP
e) Who wins Vancouver-Quadra? Liberal
f) Who wins Saanich-GulfIslands? Conservative
g) Who wins Burnaby-Douglas? NDP


B. Glenn

1. Election Result
CONSERVATIVE MINORITY

2. Seat Tally
CON: 145, LIB: 80, BQ: 52, NDP: 31, OTH: 0

3. Popular Vote
CON: 38, LIB: 29, BQ: 12, NDP: 17, OTH: 4

4. Provincial Winners
Conservative: BC, Alta, Sask, Man, NB, NS
Liberal: Terr, Ont, Nfld, PEI
BQ: Quebec

5. Bonus Questions
a) Do the Conservatives win a seat in Quebec? YES
b) Do the Liberals win a seat in Alberta? NO
c) Who wins Vancouver-Centre? Liberal
d) Who wins Victoria? NDP
e) Who wins Vancouver-Quadra? Liberal
f) Who wins Saanich-GulfIslands? Conservative
g) Who wins Burnaby-Douglas? NDP


C. The Seahawk

1. Election Result
CONSERVATIVE MINORITY

2. Seat Tally
CON: 147, LIB: 75, BQ: 55, NDP: 31, OTH: 0

3. Popular Vote
CON: 37, LIB: 30, BQ: 12, NDP: 16, OTH: 5

4. Provincial Winners
Conservative: BC, Alta, Sask, Man, Ont
Liberal: Terr, NB, NS, Nfld, PEI
BQ: Quebec

5. Bonus Questions
a) Do the Conservatives win a seat in Quebec? YES
b) Do the Liberals win a seat in Alberta? NO
c) Who wins Vancouver-Centre? Liberal
d) Who wins Victoria? NDP
e) Who wins Vancouver-Quadra? Liberal
f) Who wins Saanich-GulfIslands? Conservative
g) Who wins Burnaby-Douglas? NDP


D. Dad

1. Election Result
CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY

2. Seat Tally
CON: 155, LIB: 83, BQ: 47, NDP: 23, OTH: 0

3. Popular Vote
CON: 39, LIB: 27, BQ: 12, NDP: 17, OTH: 5

4. Provincial Winners
Conservative: BC, Alta, Sask, Man, NB
Liberal: Ont, Terr, NS, Nfld, PEI
BQ: Quebec

5. Bonus Questions
a) Do the Conservatives win a seat in Quebec? YES
b) Do the Liberals win a seat in Alberta? NO
c) Who wins Vancouver-Centre? NDP
d) Who wins Victoria? NDP
e) Who wins Vancouver-Quadra? Liberal
f) Who wins Saanich-GulfIslands? Conservative
g) Who wins Burnaby-Douglas? NDP


E. Mum

1. Election Result
CONSERVATIVE MINORITY

2. Seat Tally
CON: 146, LIB: 75, BQ: 48, NDP: 29, OTH: 0

3. Popular Vote
CON: 36, LIB: 30, BQ: 10, NDP: 20, OTH: 4

4. Provincial Winners
Conservative: BC, Alta, Man, Ont
Liberal: Terr, NB, NS, Nfld, PEI
NDP: Sask
BQ: Quebec

5. Bonus Questions
a) Do the Conservatives win a seat in Quebec? YES
b) Do the Liberals win a seat in Alberta? NO
c) Who wins Vancouver-Centre? NDP
d) Who wins Victoria? NDP
e) Who wins Vancouver-Quadra? NDP
f) Who wins Saanich-GulfIslands? Conservative
g) Who wins Burnaby-Douglas? NDP


F. Oaf

1. Election Result
CONSERVATIVE MINORITY

2. Seat Tally
CON: 147, LIB: 65, BQ: 63, NDP: 33, OTH: 0

3. Popular Vote
CON: 36, LIB: 27, BQ: 12, NDP: 20, OTH: 5

4. Provincial Winners
Conservative: BC, Alta, Sask, Man, Ont
Liberal: Terr, NB, NS, Nfld, PEI
BQ: Quebec

5. Bonus Questions
a) Do the Conservatives win a seat in Quebec? NO
b) Do the Liberals win a seat in Alberta? YES
c) Who wins Vancouver-Centre? Liberal
d) Who wins Victoria? NDP
e) Who wins Vancouver-Quadra? Liberal
f) Who wins Saanich-GulfIslands? Conservative
g) Who wins Burnaby-Douglas? NDP


G. Bumbly Bee

1. Election Result
LIBERAL MINORITY

2. Seat Tally
CON: 108, LIB: 120, BQ: 40, NDP: 40, OTH: 0

3. Popular Vote
CON: 27, LIB: 38, BQ: 15, NDP: 15, OTH: 3

4. Provincial Winners
Conservative: Alta, Sask, Man, Ont
Liberal: BC, Terr, NB, NS, Nfld, PEI
BQ: Quebec

5. Bonus Questions
a) Do the Conservatives win a seat in Quebec? NO
b) Do the Liberals win a seat in Alberta? NO
c) Who wins Vancouver-Centre? Liberal
d) Who wins Victoria? Conservative
e) Who wins Vancouver-Quadra? Liberal
f) Who wins Saanich-GulfIslands? Conservative
g) Who wins Burnaby-Douglas? NDP


H. Steel Curtain

1. Election Result
CONSERVATIVE MINORITY

2. Seat Tally
CON: 125, LIB: 97, BQ: 57, NDP: 29, OTH: 0

3. Popular Vote
CON: 37, LIB: 29, BQ: 11, NDP: 18, OTH: 5

4. Provincial Winners
Conservative: BC, Alta, Sask, Man
Liberal: Ont, Terr, NB, NS, Nfld, PEI
BQ: Quebec

5. Bonus Questions
a) Do the Conservatives win a seat in Quebec? YES
b) Do the Liberals win a seat in Alberta? NO
c) Who wins Vancouver-Centre? Liberal
d) Who wins Victoria? NDP
e) Who wins Vancouver-Quadra? Liberal
f) Who wins Saanich-GulfIslands? Conservative
g) Who wins Burnaby-Douglas? NDP


I. Gned

1. Election Result
CONSERVATIVE MINORITY

2. Seat Tally
CON: 134, LIB: 86, BQ: 58, NDP: 30, OTH: 0

3. Popular Vote
CON: 34, LIB: 31, BQ: 13, NDP: 17, OTH: 5

4. Provincial Winners
Conservative: BC, Alta, Sask, Man, Ont
Liberal: Terr, NB, NS, Nfld, PEI
BQ: Quebec

5. Bonus Questions
a) Do the Conservatives win a seat in Quebec? YES
b) Do the Liberals win a seat in Alberta? NO
c) Who wins Vancouver-Centre? NDP
d) Who wins Victoria? NDP
e) Who wins Vancouver-Quadra? Liberal
f) Who wins Saanich-GulfIslands? Conservative
g) Who wins Burnaby-Douglas? NDP


J. Roggles

1. Election Result
CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY

2. Seat Tally
CON: 158, LIB: 67, BQ: 49, NDP: 34, OTH: 0

3. Popular Vote
CON: 39, LIB: 26, BQ: 10, NDP: 19, OTH: 6

4. Provincial Winners
Conservative: BC, Alta, Sask, Man, Ont, NB, NS
Liberal: Terr, Nfld, PEI
BQ: Quebec

5. Bonus Questions
a) Do the Conservatives win a seat in Quebec? YES
b) Do the Liberals win a seat in Alberta? NO
c) Who wins Vancouver-Centre? NDP
d) Who wins Victoria? NDP
e) Who wins Vancouver-Quadra? Liberal
f) Who wins Saanich-GulfIslands? Conservative
g) Who wins Barnaby Douglas? Conservative

Day 343: Why I Vote

I've always considered it important to vote (as does Nutmilk), and can often be seen urging apathetic friends (both valued new friends and trusted old friends) to do the dirty deed. Although I'll admit that I vote mostly for psychological reasons (it forces me to choose sides), there are real reasons why I vote.

1) One vote can make a difference
Not all ridings are close, but many are settled by less than a hundred votes. And in a election where the makeup of parliament veers between a minority vs. majority situation, one vote can make a difference. Just ask some young liberals in Florida who didn't bother to vote for Al Gore in 2000 what they think about voting.

2) There are differences between the parties
Many politicians look and smell the same (like untrustworthy salesmen), but the Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP are not the same - no matter how hard some politician tries to convince you otherwise.

3) If you don't vote, you don't matter
Why are government policies more tailored towards seniors than young adults? It's easy. Seniors are organized and seniors vote. Young adults have busier lives and don't vote as often. They suffer as a result.

So I think that everyone should vote, but I do respect the right of every citizen to not vote. You can still show up at my election bash (Elections are fantastic TV!) in just your birthday suit, displaying to all your lack of loyalties.

Me? I'll be clad in Liberal Red. Although Paul Martin may not have done much to earn our respect and the Liberal party has certainly not earned our trust, I am going to hold my nose and vote for the party that still reflects my core values. That party is not the party of Stephen Harper. Let's preserve a solid rump of Liberal MPs and maintain a worthy opposition to Prime Minister Harper.


The author poses in a fetching Liberal Red sweatshirt

Day 342: The Grudge

"Time does not heal all grudges," muses Buffy

People are different. This is one of those seemingly trivial statements that is easy to say but takes a long time to truly understand. I used to be quite insular in my dealings with others and would assume that other people thought about life in a similar manner to myself. But this is not so. I still don't understand other people very well, but at least I know that they aren't necessarily thinking the same way as me, and this is progress of a sort.

I find the best way to understand other people is to look at their essential character and thereby determine their priorities. Once you understand what their motiviation is, it's much easier to understand seemingly inexplicable behaviour.

Some people are "people" people. They actually like meeting new faces and are excited rather than frightened when the phone rings. Strange, I know - but hear me out.

It is a probably a truism that introverts (like myself) don't make new friends very easily. They hang out in comfortable spaces a lot and can have a defensive wall that prevents others from quickly getting to know them. This behaviour can seem quite odd to those who are different - and there are probably therapists working worldwide on "fixing them", but it's easy to see why they do it. Since they don't like going out and making new friends, it's important for them to only have good friends that they don't need to worry about losing, whereas people who make friends easily don't have nearly this same level of concern. Of course nobody particularly likes losing a good friend, but to an extrovert it is not as severe a crisis, for it is also an opportunity to go experience something new and interesting, which is an activity they value highly. So it's easy to see why their barriers to friendship would necessarily be set lower.

One of my more curious characteristics is how many friends I have who have been my friends for a very very long time: some for well over half my life. But if I think back about it, I could ask. "Can I identify some slight or incident that could have caused me to reevaluate this friendship?" In almost all cases (on both sides), the answer would be "Yes" (and I doubt that I am unique here). But this was never done, and this is a good thing for me, as it saved me from having to make new friends, an activity of considerable stress.

So my reflection on myself that "I don't hold grudges" relates mostly to the life-coping strategies subconsciously built up around my immutable basic character. And although I have been sometimes baffled by people who do carry grudges, I probably understand it better now - we're not all the same.

We're not all the same? What a concept!

Day 341: Bob Hope Preview

This weekend sees an exciting confrontation on the PGA Tour that has been overlooked in all the NFL playoff hype. The Bob Hope Desert Classic goes this week in California and because of its traditionally weak field, a couple of golfers who are not getting many PGATour starts these days are in the field: Chris Perry and David Gossett.

Both golfers are former winners on tour and are undoubtedly really nice people, but their form in recent years is astoundingly horrific. So forecasting who wins this heads-up match should be an entertaining exercise.

Chris Perry

Recent Bob Hope Record: 2003 (WD), 2004 (WD), 2005 (Did not Play)

Chris Perry had a great year in 2000 (after a succession of good years) when he finished 28th on the money list. After falling to a still-respectable 91st in 2001, he battled injury in 2002 and had a dismal season where he only played 5 times and earned $0. I suspected that his injuries had healed in 2003 and in a drunken fury somehow took him as my final pick in the 2003 Skulled Wedge golf pool. But the injuries remained, and he had earned $0 by the time I sobered up and dropped him at the Masters. He has only played two events in the last two years: one WD, one MC.

David Gossett

Recent Bob Hope Record: 2003 (5th), 2004 (MC), 2005 (Did not Play)

David Gossett, the 1999 US Amateur champ, won a tour event in 2001 and had respectable seasons as a rising star in both 2002 and 2003. But the wheels somehow fell off in 2004 when he made only 2 out of 25 cuts and finished last in many tour statistics. He played only 1 tour event in 2005: he shot 84-81=165 at the John Deere Classic (the event he won in 2001).


Predictions:

This is a tough matchup to predict, but I give the advantage to youth and say that Gossett ekes it out. The Bob Hope is a rare tourney that goes for 5 rounds with the cut not coming until after the 4th round. So even if Perry jumps out to an early lead with a couple of 76s, he is likely to WD before playing all 4 rounds, whereas Gossett is probably more persistent and will stick it out, no matter how bad it gets.

Of course, what I am really hoping for is that one (or both!) of them makes the cut. Watching down-and-out golfers revive their games is an inspiration to we hackers, as it demonstrates that there is hope even for the hopelessly lost. On that note, keep an eye on David Duval, also entered in the field. Thanks to his horrific form in recent years, he would have been included in this comparison after making only one cut last year - but he somehow shot a final-round 63 last week in Hawaii to finish T31st. With one more solid week, his slump will have officially ended.

Perhaps Duval's resurgence will inspire Perry and Gossett? Only time will tell.


UPDATE: Chris Perry shot 74-77=151, good for T122 (of 128) through 2 rounds. But this wasn't good enough for Chris so he turned tail and withdrew. Gossett is playing relatively well and is right on the cutline (T71 through 2 rounds). Of course it is still early as the cut is not until 72 holes.

Winner: Gossett

Day 340: Sports Talk - Weekend Edition

It was a great weekend for our Seattle Seahawks, who ended a 22 year playoff drought by defeating the Washington Redskins 20-10. That they won despite an inordinate number of turnovers and with Shaun Alexander, the NFL's offensive MVP, sidelined with a concussion (expect him back next weekend), shows that this is a good team in the act of going places. I am optimistic that a Seahawk Super Bowl victory will be but the first act of a rare Pacific Northwest double, with the followup occuring at GM Place some time in early June...

For the Seahawk road to a Super Bowl title has opened up considerably. Now I don't want to look past Carolina, who will be a worthy opponent that a lot of clever people will undoubtedly pick to win, but I am excited that Indianapolis and New England both lost! Those two teams were probably the #1 and #2 favourites to win the whole thing - and now they're gone. So who's the favourite to win now? Denver? Pittsburgh? Hmmmm.... I'm not sure if I'd favour either of those teams over Seattle. Suddenly, the Seahawk chances of winning in Detroit are looking very good. Go Seahawks!

Indianapolis was the best team in the NFL during the regular season but they looked bad against Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh dominated them all day and was unlucky not to have wrapped the game up before that bizarre/dramatic final five minute comedy of errors that culminated in the Vanderjagt field goal attempt that missed by 6.2 miles. I was very surprised that Indianapolis looked like the second best team all day.

Pittsburgh repeated the strategy that San Diego discovered in Week 15: pressure Peyton Manning. A superstar QB doesn't look very good if he has defenders in his face all the time. Not rocket science, but this strategy worked well and makes me wonder why the Colts staff wasn't able to figure out that Pittsburgh might try this. It reminds me of an interesting Canucks parallel. Sometimes after watching our Canucks lose a close game to the Flames, we'll think "Imagine that the goaltenders were reversed, and we had Kiprusoff and they had Auld: we would have won 5-0". So my NFL analogy is "Imagine that the coaches were reversed, and Cowher was coaching Indianapolis and Dungy was coaching Pittsburgh." Just posing this query makes you appreciate how important coaching is in the NFL - as that game would not even be close. Dungy was seriously outcoached by Cowher and his staff on Sunday and Dungy should not feel safe in his job - a team that good should not look so slow, old, and unprepared in a big playoff game.

And the Canucks beat the Islanders 8-1 on Saturday in a game that I didn't even bother to watch. Could the much-maligned Anson Carter reach 40 goals this year and silence his critics? Can Bertuzzi score occasionally in games other than when he gets a hat trick? Can Auld solidify the Canuck goaltending with a string of solid outings? Look for another blowout today against an imploding Pittsburgh Penguin squad.

Day 339: Nine Million Rainy Days

Vancouver has a well-earned reputation for dismally wet winter weather, but this is completely ridiculous. We are now closing in on the all-time record for consecutive rainy days (currently 29, set in 1953), which we will reach on Monday after another wet weekend.

This is a rotten situation. The incessant rain soaks our area golf courses, meaning that even if the rain one day stops, the courses will still be an unplayable bog. Our lot is to remain miserable and wet, with no hope of warmth, and little to do but search for yawnings under which to crouch. But the real problem with these dark rainclouds is that they obscure the thing we really need - the sun. I don't know what you think about our sun, but I doubt that anyone loves it more than I do. I miss the sun terribly, and want it to return right now, to let us bask in its warm glowing rays.

I will gladly do a sun dance if this will help.

Please return, old sun. Vancouver needs you.


A sunny day in Vancouver - an urban legend?

Day 338: Obviously Harper Will Win

My fans have requested a political blog, and since this has always been a "Fans First" blog, I will oblige. But it is tricky for me to talk about the upcoming federal election as I have not been paying particularly close attention, despite the acknowledged truth that this has been "one of the most stunning Federal campaigns ever". So I will actively encourage my readers to comment on this particular blog entry, explaining what I have got right, and what I have dead wrong. Heated comments are encouraged, but please refrain from mindless name-calling.

Conservative leader Stephen Harper has learned from the mistakes of 2004 and has run a fantastic campaign so far. I am surprised and impressed. The Tories look like winners and the Liberals look like losers (the NDP just look irrelevant). But will it be enough to earn him the keys to 24 Sussex Drive? Yes it will, thanks to a fresh wave of seats in their traditional Southwestern Ontario heartland, which will turn the tide. The Conservatives have been "on message" for the most part, and the campaign has instead been filled with Liberal gaffes, and not Conservative backbenchers musing about a return of corporal punishment to elementary schools.


The outgoing Prime Minister, Paul Martin

Liberal leader Paul Martin may have been a good finance minister under Chretien, but he lacks his former master's magical political savvy and has been a dithering prime minister. Sometimes it looks like he is making things up as he goes along (e.g. that notwithstanding clause promise) and has no plan. This is not a good quality in a leader. And with those incompetent attack ads (with shades of the famous 1993 facial deformity ad), the Liberals are looking completely disorganized and undeserving of government. Paul Martin had his chance and he has blown it.

So it will be a Conservative government - and by a comfortable margin (exact predictions will be solicited next week). I've thought this since before Christmas and wish I'd posted something then when it might have been debatable, now this is just the conventional wisdom. The question is now simply, will Harper get a majority or not? I think he won't reach 155 seats, but it wouldn't surprise me. I think he'll be around 140, and that Martin won't quite reach 100.

The first six months of the upcoming Harper government will be crucial in determining the political future of Canada over the next decade. If Harper looks competent and prime ministerial, then we could see a fresh Tory interregnum. If he looks like a right-wing-nut (as his critics still suspect he will), then the Tory reign will be short indeed, and Canada's natural ruling party, with a young fresh leader, will be waiting in the wings.

But What About Quebec?
The Liberal Sponsorship Program/Scandal has done more to discredit the Liberals and help Quebec sovereigntists than anything the PQ ever did. And since there's no PQ government in Quebec City to drag down the BQ, expect the Liberals to get thrashed. But then again, they always get thrashed and the BQ won't win in Westmount - so will much change in the seat count? Probably not. Harper's riding a wave of respect in Quebec, but will it translate into any seats? I doubt it, but the fact that we're discussing this semi-seriously shows incredible progress for the Tories.

But the Quebec story takes a back seat this year, as this year's Conservative victory will be won in the trenches of Ontario and the West, and we must wait until 2010 and the next referendum under a PQ government to check back on the Quebec scene.

So for everybody who's been asleep over Christmas and missed it - there has been a sea change in the Canadian political scene, and we will all learn about it on January 23rd.


The next Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper

Day 337: Sink Again

There are few constants in life, but one of the few is that my sink will overflow when I least expect it.

As readers of this blog and visitors to my home are aware, my sink has a nasty quality of sending food and grubby water up the wrong way. This is a serious problem that I have reported to the landlord on multiple occasions but he has until now taken a "firefighting maintenance" approach to the problem by fixing it each time (by draining my pipes) but doing nothing to prevent it from recurring (once my pipes are clogged again). So yesterday was a big day, because not one but TWO plumbers visited the apartment to fix the "main line" - which should finally solve the problem (I hope), and allow me to stand outside my door and bellow "These pipes are clean!" completely unironically.

But before they fixed the problem for good, they had to fix my specific problem once again - which they seemed to do before I then went off to work at 9:30am. But when I returned home at 5pm, I discovered that the water they had sent down the sink after unclogging the drain had returned like in a bad zombie movie, and murky water had spilled over my counter and onto my floor. Fortunately, I had moved the base of operations for Chance and Slippers (their food bowl) to my bedroom due to the presence of the plumbers (Slippers had predictably chosen to explore under my brown chair while they were here), so at least the cats were unaffected. But the water had dripped under the cupboard and wet a number of their less popular cat toys. Sigh.


Ho hum, my sink overflows again

As I was in no mood to deal with this &*&*ing sink mess yet again, I emptied a few buckets of sink slop down the toilet, phoned my landlord, and then dashed off to watch the Canucks PPV game vs. Dallas over at PW's - where our Canucks lost for the 8th time in 9 games. Looks like I was wrong, and I guess it is time to panic. We also watched most of the Rose Bowl. Holy cow, that Vince Young is impressive - but will his mad skills translate to the pros?

In other news, I am officially sick again, for at least the 8th time in the last 8 months, initially acquiring this flu-like illness on my birthday no less. I do not think it is a fluke that my putrid state of health is coinciding with my putrid job situation. Is the illness psychosomatic? Not really - as I am actually sick, but I am certain I would be healthier if I was happier - just like in that uplifting Radiohead song.

Anyways, I've come into work early today, planning to dash out equally early, just in time to watch our juniors battle for gold tonight.

Have a great Thursday!

p.s. The PGATour 2006 season starts today.
p.p.s The Conservatives are going to win a minority government, in case you are curious.

Day 336: Snowy vs. China

One of the many treats of working at a company shedding workers like it is going out of style is the frequency of "going-away lunches". I generally dislike such gatherings, partly because I dislike food and do not enjoy watching others eat, but mostly because my tastes are extremely narrow and I get stressed at the thought of being able to find things to eat on an unfamiliar menu. But today would be no problem because we were journeying to a Chinese Restaurant and I love Chinese food - what could possibly go wrong?

As it turns out, what my family and I have enjoyed all these years is not Chinese food at all, but some imitation thereof. This restaurant was Chinese Chinese (not Canadian Chinese) - heck, I think trying to order in English would probably have confused them. The menus were in Chinese, all the announcements were Chinese, and what little English I saw was amusingly misused and misspelled. I sensed trouble right from the start when the dishes were chosen by a couple in the group without consultation. Note: this fear is not a Chinese-specific fear, as I would be equally concerned if I was at Arby's or Pizza Hut and food was ordered this way.

When the food arrived, I kept waiting for the familiar dishes to appear - but they never did. Most of it was noodles and also dumplings, which I usually shun for the reason that I don't like to eat what I can't see: if you can't see what's in the dumpling, how do you know what it is? I still harbour childhood memories of this conversation:
Child: Mum, what is this? (points to strange looking food)
Mother: It's good!
Child: But what is it?
Mother: It's good, try it!
(Child reluctantly and eventually tries a bit of it, but spits it out with a gag.)
Child: This isn't good.

The food itself was unfamiliar with strangely tasting sauces. At one point I grabbed some ham, which seemed promising, and was told to dip it in a sauce. I figured "when in Rome", so I duly tried the dip. What a mistake! It was a vinegar dip, and it tasted like... vinegar. Who wants that? I ate as much as I could (the dough balls were delicious), but I wasn't particularly hungry, and the presence of dishes like pig's ears did not encourage my curiosity or my appetite. I should note that I was the only one who had any issues with the food - very few people over the age of 3 are as foodphobic as I am.

So I think I'm going to have to stick to the traditional western-Chinese hybrid dishes, closer the ones my grandmother might have enjoyed when she lived in Shanghai during the 1930s, and like the ones we all enjoyed during those happy visits to Ming's during the 1980s when we feasted on steamed rice, almond chicken, and sweet&sour pork!

Day 335: Chocolates and Alcohol

Two of my favourite things: chocolates and alcohol

I like chocolates, and I certainly like alcohol: indeed some say that I like alcohol too much (but that is a discussion for another day). But what I do not like is alcohol inside my chocolates. Why anyone would want a teaser of alcohol "just for the taste of it" in an otherwise tasty chocolate treat completely escapes me. Little bits of rum, vodka, or kahlua inside chocolates are completely gross and in no way add to the joy of consuming chocolate (which on its own is invariably delicious).

Alcohol is not tasty and is best enjoyed for other reasons - specifically for its delightfully intoxicating effects. This is why we non-alcoholics prefer tasty girly drinks to the straight shots of 12-year-old scotch enjoyed by red-nosed alcoholics worldwide.

So if you want to drink, then by all means drink and be merry!

And if you want to eat chocolate, then please eat and be equally as merry!

Now if you want to eat, drink, and be merry, then by all means do all three - but don't try to put the alcohol inside the chocolates, for it is a colossal blunder that leads only to disaster.

Day 334: Four Months and Ten Percent

This blog entry is the sad and tragic flipside of a recent Glenn article seen here. Since the summer ended I have done little in the way of physical exercise, playing golf only a handful a times. I realize that golf is hardly the grind, but I hadn't fully appreciated how helpful walking its 5/6 miles a round is to maintaining a proper weight - or rather I hadn't appreciated this until now. Because through my chronic indolence, I have somehow padded 10% to my weight in just these past four months. This is a true crisis: because if I don't watch my figure, how can I expect others to?

I first noticed the problem when I tried to squeeze into my formal "New Year's Pants" for Rob's excellent year-end bash. The pants may have looked good but the fit was not ideal, and I almost passed out from the strain on my mid-section. In truth, I am blessed/cursed with a slight frame for my height, and have never gained weight easily. In fact you wouldn't even notice that I had put on any pounds unless I removed my shirt, which thankfully for all concerned is an event that never happens.

But as New Year's is the traditional time for weight-related resolutions, I will add mine to the fire: I will return to my proper playing weight by July 1st - and may even grind this year in an effort to do so!

In unrelated news, I should note a revision to the blog links. I have instituted the "four month" rule for the maintenance of blog links. As an aid to my loyal readers who should not have to constantly check and recheck dead links, any blog that has seen no updates in four months will be removed from the sidebar. It may be quite fair to not update your blog as often as I do because of life and work concerns, but if you haven't touched your blog at all in over 1/3 of a year, then you are not simply busy, you are no longer an active blogger.

Links will be reinstated when new content is detected.

Day 333: Christmas Kids and Christmas Cats

For Christmas 2005, I returned to the ancestral homestead in Victoria. Chance and Slippers joined me on the trip, and we spent time with my two sisters, one brother, three nieces, one nephew, and two parents.

Here are a couple of photos from the adventure.


Amanda(6), Jack(4), Jade(7), and Paige(5) pose under the tree

I enjoy how Amanda is the only one to realize where the camera is coming from. It's easy to forget about the magic of Christmas when you are a disgruntled oldster (now 33) - so it's good to have wide-eyed youths remind you of what is and what is not important.


Snowy(32), Slippers(8), Oaf(35), and Chance(8) pose under the tree

Slippers wondered what on earth he had done to deserve this fate. The boys actually had a pretty uneventful trip to Victoria - there were no major problems on the ferry (even Roggles didn't seem too allergic), and they were both far less stressed than they were during the same trip last year. But they are happy to be back home again.

Day 332: So This Is The New Year

I am a creature of habit, with outcomes easily predicted. One constant prediction is that I will be especially melancholy and introspective on my birthday - which is today.

Why is this? Having thought about it, I realize it's mostly just garden-variety whining and self-pity, unfortunately. I'm not quite where I expected to be at 33, and I'm not doing all that much about it (and I'm about to lose my job again). Sigh: another year has passed and I'm simply one day closer to death.

Oh - woe is me! (The narrator swoons dramatically as the world yawns).

Complicating things is that the fact that my birthday is January 2nd, which is shortly after the festivities of the New Year (and is the traditional "travel day" for out-of-towners). A phenomenon which I have recently uncovered, and am curious if others see things the same way, is that I find that approximately 24-48 hours after serious drinking (e.g. New Year's Eve), I am peculiarly introspective and self-pitying. This happens a lot - and is almost annoying enough to make me think about not drinking (which is obviously sheer heresy).

The other curious thing? Talking about how I am feeling down always makes me feel better - as I can easily see how pointless "wallowing in depression" can be. My experiences are not uncommon and are certainly no worse than what anyone else goes through. I know this - but it's hard to change how you feel.

So instead let me close by wishing all of you a happy New Year - especially those who I haven't seen in a long time. I am thinking of you this holiday season and wish you all the best in 2006.

Happy New Years!