lorem ipsum
Add an image
Add a link
go back to maingo to old version
At least the Roloson thing is true. Maybe even the Pisani thing. And if you consider that Michael Peca hasn't been able to score the gimme goal all season, I guess he's in form, too.
Nice job by the CBC to get that powerplay clock back up. The technical advances you can make in two days are amazing. (I should be fair, though. They spent most of their tech budget creating the emotionless play-by-play automaton they call Mark Lee.)
the 2 goals on Detroit's part were both bullshit goals and even they know it.
By my count, that's now four out of five goals by Detroit that were bullshit goals. I'm perfectly content if that's all they can score, though; how many lucky bounces can you get in one series?
What is the source of this conservative meme? I hear it all the time. "Large surpluses = government taking too much money out of my pocket." It's so ridiculously simplistic that I can't believe that even Lorne Gunter would use it as a self evident truth without some reasonable argument to back it up. I mean, even if it were always true, would the corollary be "deficits = government taking too little of my money"? (I don't think we'll be seeing Lorne Gunter arguing that point in a deficit situation, though.)
"Ah," you say, "but he does use a reasonable argument to back up his ridiculous meme. He has a whole column before he makes that statement." Well, aren't you a cheeky bastard. Now I have to go and explain why he's an idiot.
I would like to say that he makes a few good points. Health premiums are meaningless and probably should be eliminated (Gunter points out that they neither raise required revenue nor "show Albertans how their health-care isn't "free."") And the "Ralphbucks" intermittent cashbacks are way too easily used as a bribe to the public to be left to the government to dole out on its own whim.
That said, he spends the entire first part of his column detailing how resource revenue is stupidly high, and even more stupidly high than the stupidly high projections the province uses, and that natural gas revenue is stupidly higher than the stupidly high oil revenues but that no one even notices how stupidly high natural gas is. But from the argument about resource revenue (which, strangely, completely lacks the use of the term "stupidly high"), Gunter concludes that our taxes are too high? What? "I'm taking in too many calories, and I take in a lot of calories from double fudge ice cream sundaes, so I should start cutting out the vegetables and fruit from my diet."
So, no. Large surpluses do not mean that our taxes are too high. At least not always. Not today, and not in Alberta. They mean we have a huge gift of resources that, up until recently, no one spent a lot of effort extracting (so there remains a large reserve) and are worth a crapload of money today. And to suggest that the best way we can spend the bulk of the money is by simply dispersing it to meaninglessness, rather than using this one-time gift to create a better future, seems depressingly small-minded. I can only hope that the heir to the throne here has a bolder and more inspiring vision than our current monarch, or our friendly neighbourhood Lorne Gunter.
Hmm... sorry about the length there. Didn't mean for it to get so long. If someone would like to answer that question for me, though, that'd be awesome.
load more posts . . .
April 23, 2006 -- 4:20 PM
posted by nobody knows my helmeted face
BTW: they explained what a "suicide pass" is, but what exactly do they mean when they say "saucer pass"? Is that when the players are all non-chalant and slick about it and when you see the pass you're like "damn, that was saucy..."? I sure hope so. I think the Oilers could go all the way this year if Mickey-Tee could get them to play (and just generally live) a little bit saucier. Y'know... like get some grey poupon in the dressing room. Hell, get rid of the dressing room altogether and put in place a nice wood-panelled, subtley-lit "team parlour" where they'd change out of their uniforms and into silk robes to sit in stiff leather chairs smoking cigars and drinking Sherry in front of the fireplace while MacTavish goes over the game (in an English accent) between puffs of his long-stemmed pipe.
"Rollie, old chap, old boy! Jolly fine game!"
April 23, 2006 -- 4:07 PM
posted by nobody knows my cloned face
WHAT!?? ROLOSON IS BOBA HASEK? NO SHIT!!!
Yeah, I didn't see the first game (y'know, no TV and all) so I don't know how bullshit their goals were in game one, but they sure had some horsecunt breaks today.
April 23, 2006 -- 3:09 PM
posted by Par
Haha, nice use of the scanner, alison.
Before the series started, Dave Alexander (I think?) gave his prediction for this series:
Jarred Stoll, Raffi Torres, Ethan Moreau, Fernando Pisani, Marc-Andre Bergeron and Mike Peca all suddenly return to their mid-December form (remember the team that scored almost at will?). A freak disease that only affects Swedes sweeps through Detroit on Friday, felling their second line and half their defence, but meaning Igor Ulanov dresses in place of Dick Tarnstrom for us. Steve Yzerman announces his retirement to focus on his golf game, and Dwayne Roloson pulls off his mask to reveal that he is really a cloned version of late-'90s Dominik Hasek. The New York Times discovers this blog during this miraculous playoff series and offers me a job as a feature writer. On a trip to New York to meet the publisher, I save Scarlett Johansson's dog from being hit by a car, and she offers to buy me dinner as a thank you. OILERS IN 4
At least the Roloson thing is true. Maybe even the Pisani thing. And if you consider that Michael Peca hasn't been able to score the gimme goal all season, I guess he's in form, too.
Nice job by the CBC to get that powerplay clock back up. The technical advances you can make in two days are amazing. (I should be fair, though. They spent most of their tech budget creating the emotionless play-by-play automaton they call Mark Lee.)
the 2 goals on Detroit's part were both bullshit goals and even they know it.
By my count, that's now four out of five goals by Detroit that were bullshit goals. I'm perfectly content if that's all they can score, though; how many lucky bounces can you get in one series?
April 23, 2006 -- 2:53 PM
posted by nobody knows the shape of my face to come
THE REFUSED ARE FUCKING DEAD!!! And I got the DVD to prove it! YEAAAHHH!!!! I can't fuckin wait to watch that shit...
Also, the Oilers played pretty decently this afternoon. Nice goal from the rookie Winchester, plus a solid performance from Rollie. It got shaky when we made some bad passes (Smyth's was brutal), and we were trying to conserve a 1-point lead... but I think we definitely deserved this win. Besides which, the 2 goals on Detroit's part were both bullshit goals and even they know it. If we keep this up I think we've got a decent chance to win this series... but we'll see. I may have already jinxed it.
April 23, 2006 -- 1:48 PM
posted by alison
here's one for those of you planning weddings:
and.... 4-2 woo hoo! (I got two points for my pool too!)
April 23, 2006 -- 12:27 PM
posted by alison
haha, cool, i want one of these!
April 23, 2006 -- 12:24 PM
posted by alison
eremyJay, appyHay irthdayBay!
April 23, 2006 -- 11:43 AM
posted by Beck
Ditto
April 23, 2006 -- 10:14 AM
posted by Al
Happy Birthday Jere!
April 23, 2006 -- 9:48 AM
posted by Par
Notwithstanding that Lorne Gunter can be, at times, an idiot, I still have a question about something he wrote today.
Large surpluses mean taxes too high:
The point, though, is that when a government has large surpluses, its taxes are too high no matter how low its rates.
What is the source of this conservative meme? I hear it all the time. "Large surpluses = government taking too much money out of my pocket." It's so ridiculously simplistic that I can't believe that even Lorne Gunter would use it as a self evident truth without some reasonable argument to back it up. I mean, even if it were always true, would the corollary be "deficits = government taking too little of my money"? (I don't think we'll be seeing Lorne Gunter arguing that point in a deficit situation, though.)
"Ah," you say, "but he does use a reasonable argument to back up his ridiculous meme. He has a whole column before he makes that statement." Well, aren't you a cheeky bastard. Now I have to go and explain why he's an idiot.
I would like to say that he makes a few good points. Health premiums are meaningless and probably should be eliminated (Gunter points out that they neither raise required revenue nor "show Albertans how their health-care isn't "free."") And the "Ralphbucks" intermittent cashbacks are way too easily used as a bribe to the public to be left to the government to dole out on its own whim.
That said, he spends the entire first part of his column detailing how resource revenue is stupidly high, and even more stupidly high than the stupidly high projections the province uses, and that natural gas revenue is stupidly higher than the stupidly high oil revenues but that no one even notices how stupidly high natural gas is. But from the argument about resource revenue (which, strangely, completely lacks the use of the term "stupidly high"), Gunter concludes that our taxes are too high? What? "I'm taking in too many calories, and I take in a lot of calories from double fudge ice cream sundaes, so I should start cutting out the vegetables and fruit from my diet."
So, no. Large surpluses do not mean that our taxes are too high. At least not always. Not today, and not in Alberta. They mean we have a huge gift of resources that, up until recently, no one spent a lot of effort extracting (so there remains a large reserve) and are worth a crapload of money today. And to suggest that the best way we can spend the bulk of the money is by simply dispersing it to meaninglessness, rather than using this one-time gift to create a better future, seems depressingly small-minded. I can only hope that the heir to the throne here has a bolder and more inspiring vision than our current monarch, or our friendly neighbourhood Lorne Gunter.
Hmm... sorry about the length there. Didn't mean for it to get so long. If someone would like to answer that question for me, though, that'd be awesome.
load more posts . . .