I'm not here. This isn't happening.
- Thom Yorke, Radiohead
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Quote of the week (Nov. 11, 2007)
I don't want to be lonely. I just want to be alone.
- Daniel Johns, Silverchair
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
The Canadian education system....
Well, here it is. I've been working on this one on and off for about a month now. I still read it over from time to time, and every time I do, I never really know if it makes sense. Be that as it may, I'm sick of trying to make sense of my thoughts on this matter, so I'm just going to throw it out there, and you can form your own opinions about our education system (not that you haven't already). Enjoy!
For a number of weeks now, I've been trying to writing a disparaging report about how screwed up the Canadian education system is compared to other countries. How far behind we are, how students these days lack the proper respect for the free education they're getting, and blah blah blah. I've tried a number of times now, and each time I've stopped short, and I've been trying ever since to get a handle on why I've been unable to complete this post.
For a number of weeks now, I've been trying to writing a disparaging report about how screwed up the Canadian education system is compared to other countries. How far behind we are, how students these days lack the proper respect for the free education they're getting, and blah blah blah. I've tried a number of times now, and each time I've stopped short, and I've been trying ever since to get a handle on why I've been unable to complete this post.
After much thought, careful reflection, and scrutinization, I believe I've finally come to a conclusion. The reason I haven't been able to tell you how completely boned our our education system is, is because in reality, it's not truly a "broken" system per se. While the output of the system may be "damaged goods", the basic rules which govern the system are in perfect working order. Truth be told, if one were to base the success of our education system on the philosophies on which it is based, then the system actually works quite well. We provide a valuable service which is predicated on a system of beliefs that recognizes that not everyone in society is aware of what is best for them, and that education and enlightenment, voluntary or not, is beneficial to all members of society.
That being said, while my original intent to scrutinze the education system may have been fundamentally misguided, it does not mean my feelings were entirely incorrect. While the system may be fundamentally sound, it does by no means acquit the product or the efficacy of the system. This is because many of the most egregious breakdowns in the system do not occur at the fundamental end, but rather on the other end of the spectrum. That is, it is not the rules that govern the system that are in error, but rather the interpretation of those rules that is responsible for this clusterfuck that is the Canadian education system.
This begs the question, where do the rules governing the system end, and the interpretation of the system begin. That is, at what point does the input become the output? The most obvious point would perhaps be at the highest level, as the administration governing any system is most directly responsible for the interpretation of the rules governing that system. Their interpretation in turn guides interpretation at the lower levels. Unfortunately for us, our administrators, particularly at the highest levels, are stupid. One might go so far as to say that it has been their nonsensical mandates and idiotic curriculum design that has singlehandedly alienated thousands of students, while setting others back by failing to prepare them for success at the next level of study. After all, it has been their idiotic initiatives that have moved education away from what has proven to be effective, and blindly forced it into scientifically untested and unproven waters in an attempt to be progressive and win voter favour.
For example, part of the Gr. 2 math curriculum requires students to learn division. Unfortunately, most students at that level cannot proficiently add or subtract, and this gap in numeracy remains until they begin to learn it naturally in Gr. 8 and 9. Since multiplication and division are functions of addition and subtraction, it is virutally impossible for students at this level to conceptually understand division and multiplication when they barely understand addition and subtraction, yet the powers that be insist on using "concrete materials" to help build conceptualization and "making meaning". Correct me if I'm wrong, but a child can calculate that 8/4=2 regardless of whether they understand why. However, according to our administrators, times tables are out, and number grids are in. Mathematics fundamentals are out, "patterns" and "making meaning" are in. Unfortunately, what our administrators fail to understand is that understanding often comes at different times for different children, but it comes nonetheless. Of course, this doesn't do the child any good if they understand why 4x2=8 in Gr. 4, when the curriculum has already moved on to other things. Sorry, Johnny, guess you should have paid more attention in Gr. 2, when we were working with coloured counters, because everyone can understand it when you can "see" it.
And how about the Gr. 10 applied science curriculum? Students who are at the end of the line with science with no intentions of carrying on, or ever returning to science (many whom will simply move into the workplace) are forced to learn how to balance chemical equations, learn about trends in the periodic table, and calculate velocity and acceleration using velocity/time and distance/time graphs. These sorts of concepts, while useful for some students who intend to move on to college (community college for those Americans out there), are uselss for most, and utterly non-sensical for those intending to enter the workforce.
All that being said, these mis-interpretations are not limited to the highest level of administration. The "trickle-down" effect is felt through all levels of administration, and even enters the teaching profession. Principals obsessed with "student success". They initiate programs such as "circles of healing" where students, teachers, and administration get together to talk about how their feelings are affecting the success of the student. Higher levels of government administration forcing students to legally remain in school until the age of 18, so that now they can disrupt the learning of other students for an additional 2 years. "Student sucess" initiatives which make it impossible for administration to remove disruptive influences from the classroom. Teachers who don't understand the value of rules or "memorization", so they teach their students to line up in a circle instead of a straight line, or sacrifice mathematics drills in favour of "hands on" learning.
And how about the Gr. 10 applied science curriculum? Students who are at the end of the line with science with no intentions of carrying on, or ever returning to science (many whom will simply move into the workplace) are forced to learn how to balance chemical equations, learn about trends in the periodic table, and calculate velocity and acceleration using velocity/time and distance/time graphs. These sorts of concepts, while useful for some students who intend to move on to college (community college for those Americans out there), are uselss for most, and utterly non-sensical for those intending to enter the workforce.
All that being said, these mis-interpretations are not limited to the highest level of administration. The "trickle-down" effect is felt through all levels of administration, and even enters the teaching profession. Principals obsessed with "student success". They initiate programs such as "circles of healing" where students, teachers, and administration get together to talk about how their feelings are affecting the success of the student. Higher levels of government administration forcing students to legally remain in school until the age of 18, so that now they can disrupt the learning of other students for an additional 2 years. "Student sucess" initiatives which make it impossible for administration to remove disruptive influences from the classroom. Teachers who don't understand the value of rules or "memorization", so they teach their students to line up in a circle instead of a straight line, or sacrifice mathematics drills in favour of "hands on" learning.
Parents within the general public also have a right to interpret the system. This has led to greater accountability towards teachers, and less accountability for students. Angry parent groups unwittingly raising and lowering standards on a whim have resulted in standardized testing becoming a joke. Instead of increasing the achievement level of our students, we have instead simply lowered the standards of our standardized testing. Curriculum changes in all the wrong places, professional development spearheaded by unqualified personel, cuts to programs which shouldn't be cut, and compromises in areas which should not be compromised. "Math coaches" who design silly "fluff" activities which, not only don't promote learning, but compromise classroom dynamics. And of course, all this is driven by political agendas designed to appease voter temperment. The creation of educational buzz words and phrases, such as "differentiated instruction", "pedagogy", or "think literacy" are all meant to show the voting public the progressive changes the education system has made to improve student success. These educational fads are not only completely ineffective, and in reality quite dumb, hindering the efficacy of teachers more than helping it, but take valuable class time away from structure, practise, and time-tested educational philosophies that educators have employed for hundreds of years. This may come to a shock to many administrators (and I'm not being sarcastic, as I believe that many administrators truly believe this), but teaching a student that x+1 and x+1=0 are different by putting it into a song one day, and then drawing a picture of it the next day doesn't actually make it any easier to learn.
After I had finished teacher's college, and before I actually started teaching, there was a time when I actually considered leaving the profession, simply because of how completely asinine the profession was about being progressive and liberal. However, I have learned a great many things about the teaching profession after being in it for a couple of years now. And one of the most important things I've learned is that, no matter how boned the system may appear, or how bad administration's interpretation of things are, there will always be a host of good honest teachers disobeying the liberal, voter pandering, asinine, complete joke, fad initiatives brought about by the government and their sniveling, sycophantic administration.
And that gives me hope. Hope for a system with noble beliefs. Hope that, while the top of the pyramid may be made of clay, ready to be washed away (and subsequently replaced), the foundation is made of solid rock. It is a system which is built on noble intentions, and built on the backs of teachers who carry those intentions to work every day. No matter how many times the top of the pyramid is washed away, chipped off, or blown down, the system will always maintain it's integrity, which is held firmly on the backs of the people that carry it. I may not be part of the profession for much longer, but I am proud to have been a part of a profession that wears it's heart on it's sleeve.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Edumacation?... GREs?... Writing samples?... Oh my!
This was a piece of writing I did about 2 months ago when I was preparing for my GRE exams. It was a timed essay on a random topic that they give you, and the result of this particular essay was one I was rather pleased with, so I thought I'd post it for your reading enjoyment. The topic was whether or not technology created lonliness...
"Both the development of technological tools and the uses to which humanity has put them have created modern civilizations in which loneliness is ever increasing."
“Both the development of technological tools and the uses to which humanity has put them have created modern civilizations in which loneliness is ever increasing.” The true veracity of this statement is difficult to judge, because it is difficult to judge the value of personal interactions. What is the panacea for loneliness? Many different people experience loneliness in many different ways, and so their “cure” for loneliness will be different from the next person. So how has technology affected these interactions?
The advent of the internet has spawned countless new methods of interaction; cell phones, wireless internet, internet chat rooms, instant messaging, text messaging. The list goes on. What is the value of all these interactions? Teenagers with 200 people listed on their instant messenger window would hardly be considered the constituents of a healthy, deep, and meaningful relationships. Yet the potential for interaction itself is virtually limitless. Perhaps the act of interaction itself is more valuable than the depth of interaction.
While it can be argued that many of these devices have engendered a state of perpetual “superficial” interaction, some of these devices may be more engaging than meets the eye. For example, MMOs (massively multiplayer online games) allow thousands of users to interact via an “avatar” which they control. These avatars have many of the same aspects of human nature. They are able to maintain personal space, they are able to speak and interact with other avatars, they are able to ignore, as well as to turn around and walk away. These particular programs are, in every aspect, a true “virtual reality”. These games allow users to interact on a level which is as close to reality as one can get without actually being there. Web logs, more commonly known as “blogs”, allow users to post diaries for other to read and comment on. These sites allow users to interact with other users on a very personal level. So despite the lack of “face-to-face” interaction which is an impossibility for these programs, the personality and ownership which these interactions take on mimics reality very closely.
But internet technologies are not the only advancements which have led to these lack of “personal” interactions. Automated bank tellers, automatic operators for large companies, and self service quick-pay gas stations have all reduced the need for human to human interaction, replacing it with human to machine interaction. Much technology has obviated the need for a human operator, cutting costs, and maximizing efficiency, both for the company and for the user. Yet one must truly ask oneself if these sorts of interactions were fulfilling in any way. Would more interactions between humans and humans across the countertop to purchase snack items, as opposed to human and machine interaction, be more personally rewarding than flashing a quick-pay card across a reader? Surely the panacea for loneliness does not reside within these ultimately superficial interactions.
The human race is experiencing a technological renaissance; one that has truly changed the face of the world. And as evidenced from the past, the human race will adapt, just as it always has. Telephones, internet, instant messaging, web logs, and video conferencing (just to name a few) have not changed the game, they have only changed the rules. While technology has certainly obviated the need for many face-to-face interactions, either superficial or meaningful, it has not placed barriers on them. Quite the opposite. Technology has made the extraordinary into the prosaic; what was once impossible, such as conferencing with a relative overseas, has now become commonplace and affordable. Anonymity has allowed those diffident people to become gallant heroes and conquerors; it has provided them with power and influence which they would never have in the “real” world. Has technology created civilizations where loneliness is endemic? No. While many former person to person interactions have been made obsolete, technology has not barred these doors completely. Technology has only stacked them in boxes and placed them in storage; always available, but no longer necessary. The rules of the game have indeed changed, but the game itself remains the same.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Commercials
To say that commercials are an annoyance is hardly newsworthy. To say that some are blatantly idiotic, pandering, or just lame is old hat. There are certainly some commercials out there that are funny, eye-catching, and some that might even be considered artistic, but the vast majority can be thrown on the commercial trash heap that is piling higher and higher with advertisement filth that seems to be getting worse and worse.
And now commercials seem to have hit a new low. Just when we think they couldn't get any dumber, the advert execs of the world shock us with their numbingly dim-witted attempt at info-tainment. Now, for those of you who live outside of Canada (and possibly even Ontario, depending on how widespread this latest piece of garbage is), you may not know what I'm talking about, so I will walk you through it. Believe me, it won't take long.
As a brief introduction for those of you not well aquainted with the world of hockey and the NHL, Joe Thornton and Martin St. Louis could be considered amongst Canada's top players, and an argument could certainly be made for being amongst the top 10 players in the world. This particular latest Vector commercial stars the two aforementioned players skating on to a dark rink wearing white Vector jerseys with the Vector crest emblazoned prominently on the chest. Cue hard guitar rock music as 20 - 30 nameless skaters in black jerseys and black helmets with black visors covering the tops of their faces skate onto the ice to face them. Martin St. Louis and Joe Thornton look at each other briefly before skating towards the mob...
Now, at this point, being two of possibly the best players in the world, you might think that the commercial might take advantage of their incredible puck-handling skill, skating, or passing ability, much like Kellogg's did with their previous commercial for Frosted Flakes, which also prominently featuring hockey with Tony the Tiger. In the commercial for Frosted Flakes, nameless kids were featured showing off great little stick tricks, such as picking the puck off the ice with their sticks, whirling and twirling around, and making "eye-popping" dekes.
Back to the Vector commercial. Martin St. Louis and Joe Thornton are skating towards the mob, with hard guitar rock music playing in the background. There is a menacing voice which states, "Before the hits...", at which point the scene changes to a black skater flying into the glass and smashing it in slow motion, "Before the moves..." Scene changes to Joe Thornton puttin ghis head down and ducking forward as Martin St. Louis rolls over him back to back. "Before the goals..." Scene changes behind the net of "team black" where St. Louis simply shoots the puck and scores high gloves side. "You have to get the gear!" Scene changes to Martin St. Louis and Joe Thornton looking at each other, then skating off in opposite directions. And that's it. The end (of course, followed by some shots of a box of Vector cereal, etc.)
Now, my memory of the narrator may not be perfect, but I'm pretty sure I haven't any major artistic details. My first thought, when I saw this commercial, was, "???". The second time I saw it, I watched more carefully, to see if I had missed anything. The third time I saw it, I thought, "What the fuck?!"
Now, I'm no advertising executive, but if you're going to hire two of the best hockey players in the world, shouldn't you exploit their skills a little more effectively? What the hell?! All they did was duck down and roll over the guy's back! Any friggin body could have done that?? Why the hell did you go out and hire Joe friggin Thornton and Martin friggin St. Louis???? They didn't even have any speaking lines!!! They didn't even deke around a single one of those menacing hockey ninjas!!! Their idea of an eye-popping deke was to duck down and roll over the other guy's back!!!! WHAT THE HELL???!!! Pay me 10,000 dollars, and I'll do that for you right now! I don't even need a second player to do it! I'll just do it over top of some inanimate object! God DAMMIT!! The sheer nonsensical "ludicosity" of it hurts my brain. It's so dumb, it just made me completely make up a word to try to describe it. Why the hell would you go out and hire two of the best hockey players in the world, and then make them do something so idiotic??
Ow... my brain hurts. Burnsy.... out.
And now commercials seem to have hit a new low. Just when we think they couldn't get any dumber, the advert execs of the world shock us with their numbingly dim-witted attempt at info-tainment. Now, for those of you who live outside of Canada (and possibly even Ontario, depending on how widespread this latest piece of garbage is), you may not know what I'm talking about, so I will walk you through it. Believe me, it won't take long.
As a brief introduction for those of you not well aquainted with the world of hockey and the NHL, Joe Thornton and Martin St. Louis could be considered amongst Canada's top players, and an argument could certainly be made for being amongst the top 10 players in the world. This particular latest Vector commercial stars the two aforementioned players skating on to a dark rink wearing white Vector jerseys with the Vector crest emblazoned prominently on the chest. Cue hard guitar rock music as 20 - 30 nameless skaters in black jerseys and black helmets with black visors covering the tops of their faces skate onto the ice to face them. Martin St. Louis and Joe Thornton look at each other briefly before skating towards the mob...
Now, at this point, being two of possibly the best players in the world, you might think that the commercial might take advantage of their incredible puck-handling skill, skating, or passing ability, much like Kellogg's did with their previous commercial for Frosted Flakes, which also prominently featuring hockey with Tony the Tiger. In the commercial for Frosted Flakes, nameless kids were featured showing off great little stick tricks, such as picking the puck off the ice with their sticks, whirling and twirling around, and making "eye-popping" dekes.
Back to the Vector commercial. Martin St. Louis and Joe Thornton are skating towards the mob, with hard guitar rock music playing in the background. There is a menacing voice which states, "Before the hits...", at which point the scene changes to a black skater flying into the glass and smashing it in slow motion, "Before the moves..." Scene changes to Joe Thornton puttin ghis head down and ducking forward as Martin St. Louis rolls over him back to back. "Before the goals..." Scene changes behind the net of "team black" where St. Louis simply shoots the puck and scores high gloves side. "You have to get the gear!" Scene changes to Martin St. Louis and Joe Thornton looking at each other, then skating off in opposite directions. And that's it. The end (of course, followed by some shots of a box of Vector cereal, etc.)
Now, my memory of the narrator may not be perfect, but I'm pretty sure I haven't any major artistic details. My first thought, when I saw this commercial, was, "???". The second time I saw it, I watched more carefully, to see if I had missed anything. The third time I saw it, I thought, "What the fuck?!"
Now, I'm no advertising executive, but if you're going to hire two of the best hockey players in the world, shouldn't you exploit their skills a little more effectively? What the hell?! All they did was duck down and roll over the guy's back! Any friggin body could have done that?? Why the hell did you go out and hire Joe friggin Thornton and Martin friggin St. Louis???? They didn't even have any speaking lines!!! They didn't even deke around a single one of those menacing hockey ninjas!!! Their idea of an eye-popping deke was to duck down and roll over the other guy's back!!!! WHAT THE HELL???!!! Pay me 10,000 dollars, and I'll do that for you right now! I don't even need a second player to do it! I'll just do it over top of some inanimate object! God DAMMIT!! The sheer nonsensical "ludicosity" of it hurts my brain. It's so dumb, it just made me completely make up a word to try to describe it. Why the hell would you go out and hire two of the best hockey players in the world, and then make them do something so idiotic??
Ow... my brain hurts. Burnsy.... out.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Quote of the week (Oct. 21, 2007)
Immigants, I KNEW it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them!
-Moe Szyslak on Proposition 24 (deporting illegal immigrants)
-Moe Szyslak on Proposition 24 (deporting illegal immigrants)
Monday, October 15, 2007
Leafs vs. Sabres
For those of you Toronto Maple Leaf fans out there who watched the Leafs/Sabres game (Mon., Oct. 15), you will surely be able to tell me who netted the game winning goal. Yes, indeed it was Bryan McCabe, the "7 million dollar man". Now, we all know that Bryan McCabe, who was recently (and incomprehensibly) selected for the Canadian olympic team, and also re-signed by the Toronto Maple Leafs to a 5-year, $7 mil/year deal, doesn't have the softest hands in the league. We all know that he gives up odd man rushes, even when he's playing the power play. And we all know that he can't really play defence, despite the fact that he plays the blueline, and he's listed as a "defenceman" on the team roster. But all Leaf fans were satisfied with the fact that he could at least put the puck in the net on a relatively consistent basis. They just didn't realize it would be THEIR net. Yes, that's right. Bryan McCabe, in a wild panic in the last 3 seconds of overtime, cleared the puck into his OWN net to win the game for the Buffalo Sabres. *clap....... clap....... .... clap..... .. ......*
So what do the Leafs do now? Winless in their last three games, they play defence like a group of children playing ball hockey, and their offence is now revolving around the red-hot Nik Antropov, who's played like shite the last 8-9 seasons and been rightly crucified for it by the Toronto media. Do they fire head coach Paul Maurice? Do they swallow their pride and embrace the outcast pariah, Nik Antropov? Or do they take team of players that lack any real skill, talent, or potential, and teach them to play defence by committee? There's an old saying in the comp. sci. industry that goes, "garbage in, garbage out". You can't make something out of nothing, and nothing is exactly what th Leafs have.
So what do the Leafs do now? Winless in their last three games, they play defence like a group of children playing ball hockey, and their offence is now revolving around the red-hot Nik Antropov, who's played like shite the last 8-9 seasons and been rightly crucified for it by the Toronto media. Do they fire head coach Paul Maurice? Do they swallow their pride and embrace the outcast pariah, Nik Antropov? Or do they take team of players that lack any real skill, talent, or potential, and teach them to play defence by committee? There's an old saying in the comp. sci. industry that goes, "garbage in, garbage out". You can't make something out of nothing, and nothing is exactly what th Leafs have.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
In the interim
I know it's been a while since my last post. I'm currently in the middle of a review of the Canadian education system, which was inspired by a conversation I had with a friend a few weeks back. However, finishing said post has become a difficult task. Every time I've tried, I didn't like the conclusions that I was coming to, and so started over. Over the past few weeks, it's been a topic that has been a bit of a struggle to finish, as I've come to some interesting conclusions about our system.
Since that post is a work in process, I thought I'd just post a little something in the interim. I've had a few interesting thoughts flying through my head, some of note, others not so much so. I think the more significant ones are deserving of their own topic, and so will post them at a later time. In the meantime, it's the start of a new hockey season. A time when hockey fans and pundits alike can come together and celebrate the start of a new cycle.
So what are the soothsayers saying this year? Many of you don't really care, but since I'm such a great fan of the game, I'm going to discuss it anyway. I had originally intended to breakdown each of the six Canadian teams, but I've decided after a time that it would be of little value. Hockey fans all have their own ideas, and changing their minds can be an arduous task indeed. Instead, I've decided to pick at the major points, and perhaps make some predictions, so that when they actually come true, I can say, "I told you so."
Of course, we can't discuss hockey without discussing the two largest markets in Canada; Toronto and Montreal. Of course, Leafs and Habs fans are loathe to say anything negative about their teams, and if ever asked the question, "How do you think they'll do this year", will unerringly respond with the same response they give every year: "We're goin' all the way, baby!" Of course, for Leafs and Habs fans, that statement has become increasingly less zealous, and increasingly more unsure. And perhaps for good reason. The Leafs have missed the post-season the last two years, and the Habs have missed the post-season last year, and were removed rather unceremoniously the previous two before that. Who could forget Alexei Kovalev's "broken hand", allowing the Boston player (I believe it was Brad Boyes) to walk in unmolested to score the series clinching goal.
So what is it about Toronto and Montreal that have made them so unsuccessful the last few years, and will that trend continue this year? The simple answer to those questions is "shit management" and "yes". While John Ferguson Jr. has made minor improvements over the cesspool that Pat Quinn left behind, the improvements made by Leaf management overall have been marginal at best. While the removal of Robert Reichel and Michal Renberg was one of the best moves they could have made, their refusal to address their immediate problems (or future problems) have been concerning. Additions of mediocre players whilst trading away future prospects has been the downfall of Leaf nation, and we continue to watch as the house they have built on sand continues to crumble.
To perhaps be more positive about their future, the Leafs have, after about 5 years after the departure of Alexander Mogilny, finally decided to give Mats Sundin a winger who can score in Jason Blake. Is he the panacea for their team? Certainly not. While he may prove to be a valuable addition to the top line, and a fine compliment to Sundin, a cursory glance at the Leaf depth chart will immediately tell you what side of the playoff berth they will land. Teams lacking even a set of top six forwards and top four defenceman rarely make it into the playoffs, and while Raycroft and Toskala are both highly skilled goaltenders, the jury is still out on their long-term consistency.
And while they lack depth past their top line, their situation on defence may be even more dire. While scoring from the blueline is always important, a defenceman is, after all is said and done, a defenceman. Bryan "the pylon" McCabe, while able to put up impressive numbers, lacks anything resembling defensive awareness, and his long time partner, Tomas Kaberle, while slightly better, is still less than defensively sound. Their largest defenceman, Hall Gill, is slow and ineffective in containing faster skaters, regardless of size, which leaves the bulk of the defensive consistency on 3rd pairing defenceman Ian White, which is needless to say, not good.
While the Leafs have an outside chance of making the playoffs (and when I say outside, I mean "out the door, down the street, around the corner, and over the bridge"), not only are their short-term prospects suspect, but their is a rather dark shadow lying over their long-term future as well. Being in a division with the Buffalo Sabres and the Ottawa Senators, teams who have both taken steps to secure their future, only makes things that much more difficult. Unless Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment decide to hire someone who actually knows something about hockey, and decide to make a major change in the team's philosophy, capturing a Stanley Cup for the Leafs will be much akin to trying to climb a greased slope with a pitch of about 60 degrees on bare hands and knees.
Tune in next time for... The Montreal Canadiens: Dynasty or Disaster? Dun dun duuunnnnnnn.....
Burnsy.... out.
Since that post is a work in process, I thought I'd just post a little something in the interim. I've had a few interesting thoughts flying through my head, some of note, others not so much so. I think the more significant ones are deserving of their own topic, and so will post them at a later time. In the meantime, it's the start of a new hockey season. A time when hockey fans and pundits alike can come together and celebrate the start of a new cycle.
So what are the soothsayers saying this year? Many of you don't really care, but since I'm such a great fan of the game, I'm going to discuss it anyway. I had originally intended to breakdown each of the six Canadian teams, but I've decided after a time that it would be of little value. Hockey fans all have their own ideas, and changing their minds can be an arduous task indeed. Instead, I've decided to pick at the major points, and perhaps make some predictions, so that when they actually come true, I can say, "I told you so."
Of course, we can't discuss hockey without discussing the two largest markets in Canada; Toronto and Montreal. Of course, Leafs and Habs fans are loathe to say anything negative about their teams, and if ever asked the question, "How do you think they'll do this year", will unerringly respond with the same response they give every year: "We're goin' all the way, baby!" Of course, for Leafs and Habs fans, that statement has become increasingly less zealous, and increasingly more unsure. And perhaps for good reason. The Leafs have missed the post-season the last two years, and the Habs have missed the post-season last year, and were removed rather unceremoniously the previous two before that. Who could forget Alexei Kovalev's "broken hand", allowing the Boston player (I believe it was Brad Boyes) to walk in unmolested to score the series clinching goal.
So what is it about Toronto and Montreal that have made them so unsuccessful the last few years, and will that trend continue this year? The simple answer to those questions is "shit management" and "yes". While John Ferguson Jr. has made minor improvements over the cesspool that Pat Quinn left behind, the improvements made by Leaf management overall have been marginal at best. While the removal of Robert Reichel and Michal Renberg was one of the best moves they could have made, their refusal to address their immediate problems (or future problems) have been concerning. Additions of mediocre players whilst trading away future prospects has been the downfall of Leaf nation, and we continue to watch as the house they have built on sand continues to crumble.
To perhaps be more positive about their future, the Leafs have, after about 5 years after the departure of Alexander Mogilny, finally decided to give Mats Sundin a winger who can score in Jason Blake. Is he the panacea for their team? Certainly not. While he may prove to be a valuable addition to the top line, and a fine compliment to Sundin, a cursory glance at the Leaf depth chart will immediately tell you what side of the playoff berth they will land. Teams lacking even a set of top six forwards and top four defenceman rarely make it into the playoffs, and while Raycroft and Toskala are both highly skilled goaltenders, the jury is still out on their long-term consistency.
And while they lack depth past their top line, their situation on defence may be even more dire. While scoring from the blueline is always important, a defenceman is, after all is said and done, a defenceman. Bryan "the pylon" McCabe, while able to put up impressive numbers, lacks anything resembling defensive awareness, and his long time partner, Tomas Kaberle, while slightly better, is still less than defensively sound. Their largest defenceman, Hall Gill, is slow and ineffective in containing faster skaters, regardless of size, which leaves the bulk of the defensive consistency on 3rd pairing defenceman Ian White, which is needless to say, not good.
While the Leafs have an outside chance of making the playoffs (and when I say outside, I mean "out the door, down the street, around the corner, and over the bridge"), not only are their short-term prospects suspect, but their is a rather dark shadow lying over their long-term future as well. Being in a division with the Buffalo Sabres and the Ottawa Senators, teams who have both taken steps to secure their future, only makes things that much more difficult. Unless Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment decide to hire someone who actually knows something about hockey, and decide to make a major change in the team's philosophy, capturing a Stanley Cup for the Leafs will be much akin to trying to climb a greased slope with a pitch of about 60 degrees on bare hands and knees.
Tune in next time for... The Montreal Canadiens: Dynasty or Disaster? Dun dun duuunnnnnnn.....
Burnsy.... out.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
The Greatest Ever...?
In honour of Roger Federer's latest victory, and fourth straight US Open championship, I thought I'd bring up an issue recently brought forth by a good friend of mine. Of all sports and otherwise ¨athletic ventures¨ who is the greatest athelete in the world? Of course, this question is one which will draw many different opinions from many different people, and it would be difficult to remain objective, particularly coming from places where coverage of different sports varies, so the issue is fairly open to discussion. However, all that being said, in my personal opinion, there is one man who stands above all the others in terms of complete dominance in every facet of his game.
I don't think that anyone can deny the fact that Roger Federer, who is now chasing Pete Sampras' record of 14 Major titles, is talented. However, I am going to take it a step further, and try to say that Roger Federer is so dominant, he may just be the greatest athlete this world has ever seen. So what is it exactly that sets him apart from the likes of Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemiuex, Pete Sampras, Tiger Woods, or Michael Jordan (or perhaps even Mike Tyson, as someone once pointed out, justifiably or not)? Where might one even begin to tackle such an encompassing argument as this? One might think that in order to make a proper comparison, one might have need of a greater knowledge of sports statistics than I currently possess. However, when making a comparison such as this, statistics become a variable indicator, as different equipment, different rules, and different accomplishments in different sports start to cloud the waters of a pond that was clear as glass moments before. If a given sport has a "mercy rule" (for example) that a team may only win by 5 points, regardless of how dominant an athlete is, his/her true greatness will never be illustrated by those statistics, only indicated. That is, what makes an athlete truly great is not the numbers they are able to put on the board, respective of the other players, but rather the ability to adapt and dominate over his/her peers, regardless of the rules of the game, the opponents played, or the equipment used; this is a trait not easily measured by numbers. Greatness is something more intangible; something that can be "felt", not only by the opposing players, but by the people watching the event. Not soley the ability to control the flow of the game using athletic ability, but to mentally dominate the opponent; the amount of palpable fear and utter sense of futility they inspire in their opponents because they (their opponents) realize that no matter what course of action they take, they have already lost.
This is what separates Roger Federer, not only from his inter-sport contemporaries, but from his professional sport (as well as any other form of sport) peers as well. For example, the comparison between Roger Federer and Pete Sampras has been one which tennis pundits and aficionados have been hotly contesting ever since Federer's rise into the tennis elite. While possessing many of the same traits as Pete Sampras, such as his devastating passing shots, accurate and consistent baseline game, deft, artistic vollies, and hard, accurate service game, Federer begins to distinguish himself from Sampras (and the rest of the athletic world) in terms of his intellect. While Federer and Sampras have very similar athletic ability, Federer is able to beat his opponents, not only by striking winners, but by seemingly being able to grasp victory from the hands of defeat time and time again. And this is not in reference to his ability to "serve his way out of trouble", as both men possessed this ability, and it is one that relies more on athletic ability than mental ability. The area in which Federer begins to disinguish himself lies in the fact that, while great players are proven in their ability to defeat their opponents, Federer alone possesses the ability to achieve victory by having his opponent lose. That is, while many great athletes are capable of winning, only rare athletes recognize that an opponent's loss can also lead to victory. While these two methods of play may seem similar, they are quite clearly discrete. It is one thing to aggressively and directly cause victory, but it is entirely another to confound and befuddle your opponent into beating themselves. Roger Federer possesses this ability. Much like Muhammed Ali's "rope-a-dope", when it appears that Federer's opponent is close to achieving victory, he is actually skillfully manoevering them into a position where he can snatch the point away, causing frustration, loss of focus, and a feeling of desperate futility.
No other athlete in any sport possesses the combination of mental poise, athletic ability, and intellectual dominance that Federer does. There is no other athlete in the world that possesses such a thorough understanding of his/her game, and such supreme confidence in his/her abilities that it allows them to divert their focus and intensity away from the belief that the sole way to victory is through defeating your opponent. Federer is unique because he understands this; he is able to sense his opponent's frustration like an open wound and key in on it by playing to their weaknesses, each time tearing the wound wider until the opponent can do nothing more than stop the bleeding. Federer understands that a mentally wounded opponent cannot mount an effective offense. His calm and poised exterior belies a ruthless intensity that can be matched be very few others. He is opportunistic in his strikes, and his vicious and unrelenting execution only compounds his opponent's frustration, for the only feeling worse than playing poorly, is having your opponent play to perfection. And Federer plays to perfection almost every time.
There are many different sports with many different players, many of which are very, very good. Some of them are even great. Roger Federer is not a good athlete, and he is not even a great athlete. Roger Federer has reached the realm of the sublime. His skill must be seen to be believed, and the palpable self-doubt he casts on his opponents can be felt simply by looking into their eyes. Whether or not Roger Federer is the greatest athlete ever in any sport may still be up for debate, but the statistics have spoken, and Federer has made his case. The issue of true greatness may be a difficult one to accurately, and "objectively" be described. Perhaps it is one that can only be understood. And perhaps Federer's case is not one that can be accurately or "objectively" examined, only felt. If this is the case, than do it justice. Watch his brilliance for yourself. They say that "nobody is perfect", but Roger Federer is likely as close to perfection as any man will ever come.
Burnsy... out!
I don't think that anyone can deny the fact that Roger Federer, who is now chasing Pete Sampras' record of 14 Major titles, is talented. However, I am going to take it a step further, and try to say that Roger Federer is so dominant, he may just be the greatest athlete this world has ever seen. So what is it exactly that sets him apart from the likes of Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemiuex, Pete Sampras, Tiger Woods, or Michael Jordan (or perhaps even Mike Tyson, as someone once pointed out, justifiably or not)? Where might one even begin to tackle such an encompassing argument as this? One might think that in order to make a proper comparison, one might have need of a greater knowledge of sports statistics than I currently possess. However, when making a comparison such as this, statistics become a variable indicator, as different equipment, different rules, and different accomplishments in different sports start to cloud the waters of a pond that was clear as glass moments before. If a given sport has a "mercy rule" (for example) that a team may only win by 5 points, regardless of how dominant an athlete is, his/her true greatness will never be illustrated by those statistics, only indicated. That is, what makes an athlete truly great is not the numbers they are able to put on the board, respective of the other players, but rather the ability to adapt and dominate over his/her peers, regardless of the rules of the game, the opponents played, or the equipment used; this is a trait not easily measured by numbers. Greatness is something more intangible; something that can be "felt", not only by the opposing players, but by the people watching the event. Not soley the ability to control the flow of the game using athletic ability, but to mentally dominate the opponent; the amount of palpable fear and utter sense of futility they inspire in their opponents because they (their opponents) realize that no matter what course of action they take, they have already lost.
This is what separates Roger Federer, not only from his inter-sport contemporaries, but from his professional sport (as well as any other form of sport) peers as well. For example, the comparison between Roger Federer and Pete Sampras has been one which tennis pundits and aficionados have been hotly contesting ever since Federer's rise into the tennis elite. While possessing many of the same traits as Pete Sampras, such as his devastating passing shots, accurate and consistent baseline game, deft, artistic vollies, and hard, accurate service game, Federer begins to distinguish himself from Sampras (and the rest of the athletic world) in terms of his intellect. While Federer and Sampras have very similar athletic ability, Federer is able to beat his opponents, not only by striking winners, but by seemingly being able to grasp victory from the hands of defeat time and time again. And this is not in reference to his ability to "serve his way out of trouble", as both men possessed this ability, and it is one that relies more on athletic ability than mental ability. The area in which Federer begins to disinguish himself lies in the fact that, while great players are proven in their ability to defeat their opponents, Federer alone possesses the ability to achieve victory by having his opponent lose. That is, while many great athletes are capable of winning, only rare athletes recognize that an opponent's loss can also lead to victory. While these two methods of play may seem similar, they are quite clearly discrete. It is one thing to aggressively and directly cause victory, but it is entirely another to confound and befuddle your opponent into beating themselves. Roger Federer possesses this ability. Much like Muhammed Ali's "rope-a-dope", when it appears that Federer's opponent is close to achieving victory, he is actually skillfully manoevering them into a position where he can snatch the point away, causing frustration, loss of focus, and a feeling of desperate futility.
No other athlete in any sport possesses the combination of mental poise, athletic ability, and intellectual dominance that Federer does. There is no other athlete in the world that possesses such a thorough understanding of his/her game, and such supreme confidence in his/her abilities that it allows them to divert their focus and intensity away from the belief that the sole way to victory is through defeating your opponent. Federer is unique because he understands this; he is able to sense his opponent's frustration like an open wound and key in on it by playing to their weaknesses, each time tearing the wound wider until the opponent can do nothing more than stop the bleeding. Federer understands that a mentally wounded opponent cannot mount an effective offense. His calm and poised exterior belies a ruthless intensity that can be matched be very few others. He is opportunistic in his strikes, and his vicious and unrelenting execution only compounds his opponent's frustration, for the only feeling worse than playing poorly, is having your opponent play to perfection. And Federer plays to perfection almost every time.
There are many different sports with many different players, many of which are very, very good. Some of them are even great. Roger Federer is not a good athlete, and he is not even a great athlete. Roger Federer has reached the realm of the sublime. His skill must be seen to be believed, and the palpable self-doubt he casts on his opponents can be felt simply by looking into their eyes. Whether or not Roger Federer is the greatest athlete ever in any sport may still be up for debate, but the statistics have spoken, and Federer has made his case. The issue of true greatness may be a difficult one to accurately, and "objectively" be described. Perhaps it is one that can only be understood. And perhaps Federer's case is not one that can be accurately or "objectively" examined, only felt. If this is the case, than do it justice. Watch his brilliance for yourself. They say that "nobody is perfect", but Roger Federer is likely as close to perfection as any man will ever come.
Burnsy... out!
Saturday, September 8, 2007
The start of a new day
This will be my first post in what should hopefully be a long-standing series of tirades and bombastic, pretentious dialogues about basically anything and everything. So how to properly christen such a momentous occasion? I believe this calls for a Psalm:
Watch your thoughts: They become your words.
Watch your words: They become your actions.
Watch your actions: They become your habits.
Watch your habits: They become your character.
Watch your character: It becomes your destiny.
I included this in my first post for three reasons. One, I think it's excessively gay and preachy (and it was aggressively campaigned at the last school I taught at). Two, I hate aggressively campiagned, excessively pretentious, gay slogans/phrases/passages that use conventional, household wisdom, and try to pass it off as original and thought-provoking. Three, although I am apt to become philosophical, emotional, and sometimes downright cheesy; contentious, controversial, and possibly even egotistical, I will never stoop to the depths of what is the literary equivalent of a carnival sideshow. I am sure that, in the future, I will throw out many a phrase that might resemble such mainstream filth, but be reader beware! As the intelligent reader, it is your job to discern the true pieces of literary genius from the dregs of literary sewage.
Now, some of you might be thinking, "...but Mr. Burns, how will I know whether something is truly thought-provoking, or just philosophical filler?" Well, I'm glad you asked that question. Here's a simple little test which is easy to administer and will give you positive results each time you use it: If you can understand what the writer is saying with minimal resources allocated to the "thinking" portion of your brain, it's likely prosaic. The easier literature is to digest, the less thought it takes to digest it. Don't believe the hype!
All that being said, I am hoping to deliver some truly thought-provoking and impassioned speeches in the future from this, my little virtual soapbox. Whether anyone will read them, or whether it will go down as just another blog in the sea of virtual literature remains to be seen. There are no special feature, nor anything particularly original about this blog, so I suppose there is no reason for it to be distinguished above the rest, but that doesn`t make it any less meaningful. In one blog amonst millions, it would take something truly special to be elevated above the rest. Fortunately for me, I have have significantly lower expectations. It's not my goal to gain worldwide acclaim, so read on! (or don`t) because I`m going to rant on regardless.
I believe I will now christen this site properly with a couple words of wisdom from the brain of Burns. Perhaps a little something from my own personal philosophy: This is a passionate site for passionate people. Everyone is passionate about something, it's simply a matter of finding what it is. And when you DO find what it is, don't let anyone tell you that it's lame, stupid, childish, or otherwise unacceptable. Do what you do, and do it with pride. Anyone who poo-poos on your passion is either ignorant, or trying to sell you something. There are exactly 2,350,645 different ways to live life (give or take 2 or 3), and none of them are right. So if you're gonna live life the wrong way, you should at least take pride in f***ing it up in your own way.
There you have it. My first of hopefully many philosophical harangue. Is there any truth to it? Probably not, but then again I never said that there would be. Much like many other things out there, it's just an opinion. Whether you choose to accept it is your own decision.
This sadly ends my first post, but with the the optimism that there will be many more to come, and that this blog will be blessed with many readers, and many ardent and contentious responses. Until then, read on, you lovers of literature. Goodnight my sweet princesses and princes, live long and prosper and all that.
Burnsy... out!
Watch your thoughts: They become your words.
Watch your words: They become your actions.
Watch your actions: They become your habits.
Watch your habits: They become your character.
Watch your character: It becomes your destiny.
I included this in my first post for three reasons. One, I think it's excessively gay and preachy (and it was aggressively campaigned at the last school I taught at). Two, I hate aggressively campiagned, excessively pretentious, gay slogans/phrases/passages that use conventional, household wisdom, and try to pass it off as original and thought-provoking. Three, although I am apt to become philosophical, emotional, and sometimes downright cheesy; contentious, controversial, and possibly even egotistical, I will never stoop to the depths of what is the literary equivalent of a carnival sideshow. I am sure that, in the future, I will throw out many a phrase that might resemble such mainstream filth, but be reader beware! As the intelligent reader, it is your job to discern the true pieces of literary genius from the dregs of literary sewage.
Now, some of you might be thinking, "...but Mr. Burns, how will I know whether something is truly thought-provoking, or just philosophical filler?" Well, I'm glad you asked that question. Here's a simple little test which is easy to administer and will give you positive results each time you use it: If you can understand what the writer is saying with minimal resources allocated to the "thinking" portion of your brain, it's likely prosaic. The easier literature is to digest, the less thought it takes to digest it. Don't believe the hype!
All that being said, I am hoping to deliver some truly thought-provoking and impassioned speeches in the future from this, my little virtual soapbox. Whether anyone will read them, or whether it will go down as just another blog in the sea of virtual literature remains to be seen. There are no special feature, nor anything particularly original about this blog, so I suppose there is no reason for it to be distinguished above the rest, but that doesn`t make it any less meaningful. In one blog amonst millions, it would take something truly special to be elevated above the rest. Fortunately for me, I have have significantly lower expectations. It's not my goal to gain worldwide acclaim, so read on! (or don`t) because I`m going to rant on regardless.
I believe I will now christen this site properly with a couple words of wisdom from the brain of Burns. Perhaps a little something from my own personal philosophy: This is a passionate site for passionate people. Everyone is passionate about something, it's simply a matter of finding what it is. And when you DO find what it is, don't let anyone tell you that it's lame, stupid, childish, or otherwise unacceptable. Do what you do, and do it with pride. Anyone who poo-poos on your passion is either ignorant, or trying to sell you something. There are exactly 2,350,645 different ways to live life (give or take 2 or 3), and none of them are right. So if you're gonna live life the wrong way, you should at least take pride in f***ing it up in your own way.
There you have it. My first of hopefully many philosophical harangue. Is there any truth to it? Probably not, but then again I never said that there would be. Much like many other things out there, it's just an opinion. Whether you choose to accept it is your own decision.
This sadly ends my first post, but with the the optimism that there will be many more to come, and that this blog will be blessed with many readers, and many ardent and contentious responses. Until then, read on, you lovers of literature. Goodnight my sweet princesses and princes, live long and prosper and all that.
Burnsy... out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)