UPDATED! UPDATED!
If you really want to see how terrible i did with my last picks, check out the original post. Go ahead. See. Terrible!
Call this a redemption. More of an educated guess really. Here goes:
Second Round
East - two GREAT matchups
Ottawa over Buffalo in 7 - DEAD WRONG!
New Jersey over Carolina in 6 - no chance at this, but Jersey can still win in seven.
West
San Jose over Edmonton in 6 - this could happen.
Colorado over Anaheim in 6 - DEAD WRONG!
Conference Finals
East
New Jersey over Ottawa in 7
West
San Jose over Colorado in 6
Stanley Cup
New Jersey over San Jose
(mind you, given the jinx that my picks had in the last round, perhaps these selections were done to mess up the teams in this round and beyond. maybe i really want the teams i picked to lose. i mean, that is true of the Ottawa pick. this is why i pick Duke in one of my NCAA Basketball pools. picking who you hate is hedging your bets.
(if they win, you picked right; if they lose, they are out of the playoffs. either way, you win.
(hey, if you were a fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs, Toronto Raptors, Detroit Lions, and Detroit Tigers, you would somehow seek happiness in the misfortunes of other teams. schadenfreude is my shield and my sword. it's estoppel, really.)
Thursday, May 04, 2006
if pressed for time, just go to the political ideology handbook
Three months isn't a long time to craft a budget. I struggled with mine for months before allotting the appropriate amount to "entertainment" and "food". On a federal level, it takes even more time. Former Finance Minister Paul Martin agonized over his budgets for most of the year - which is symbolic the very decision-making process that failed him when was PM. The consultations and the data all take time to collect and analyze to ensure the budget addresses the appropriate areas.
I was always under the false assumption that these appropriate areas were fuelled by need and that the policy that drove these choices came reflected the departments and people in real need. The budget was about using logic and a full understanding of issues to make choices to improve the things that truly needed improvement.
Well, that sacred cow was slain on Tuesday, as the Conservative government rolled out a collection of tax breaks that aren't really needed and cut programs that are. Natives? Nope. Environment? Sorry. Soccer moms with children under six? Step right up.
Remember the episode of the Simpsons when Bart is employed at Fat Tony's 'social club' as the bartender and his exposure to this criminal element desensitizes him to his own crimes. When Principal Skinner catches Bart orchestrating a spray paint interpretation of Skinner, Bart yawns and stuffs a wad of money into Skinner's shirt pocket and says "you ain't seen nothing." Skinner refuses the bribe and sentences Bart to detention were he must write "I will not bribe the principal" on the blackboard. Remember that?
Well, it feels like we should be doing the same to Harper and Flaherty for stuffing our pockets with tax credits and asking us to look the other way as they pick on the country's most vulnerable. "I will not pay off the conscience of Canadians" feels like appropriate blackboard fodder. But thanks to party debt and general disorganization by the opposition, Harper isn't going to detention. In fact, he will be the one building detention facilities.
But why is the budget doing this? Well, because the Conservative Party playbook says so. Flaherty towed the party line with a minimalist approach to government - let the provinces do their thing, let the people spend their money, and we will just do less. Bam! Conservative ideology. Do things that defend borders, lock people up, and blow foreigners up. Double bam! Conservative ideology.
And this copy and paste policy making is no surprise given the time crunch for Harper and the gang. Add the reality of the three-plus month minority government, and you have a "make the most potential voters happy while ignoring the rest" way of governing. The appropriate areas for the budget are the ones that vote - well, once you sell the ideas in the Conservative ideology to the masses. "we have crime, so you need prisons." etc., etc.
(It will be interesting to see how the departments choose to apply Flaherty's bullet point direction - how exactly will the military be spending all that money? remember - the difficulty with ideology is that it is surprisingly short on implementation and explicit directions, something Hurricane Katrina and FEMA taught the ideology sharing U.S. well, i don't think they learned anything, so not "taught". more like "demonstrated for". i digress.)
Given the latest budget and the obvious influence of party policy, I understand how the choices made by previous goverments fit into their "grand plan for the country". The trouble is that my understanding of the Conservative Party choices only make me dislike their "grand plan for the country".
I was always under the false assumption that these appropriate areas were fuelled by need and that the policy that drove these choices came reflected the departments and people in real need. The budget was about using logic and a full understanding of issues to make choices to improve the things that truly needed improvement.
Well, that sacred cow was slain on Tuesday, as the Conservative government rolled out a collection of tax breaks that aren't really needed and cut programs that are. Natives? Nope. Environment? Sorry. Soccer moms with children under six? Step right up.
Remember the episode of the Simpsons when Bart is employed at Fat Tony's 'social club' as the bartender and his exposure to this criminal element desensitizes him to his own crimes. When Principal Skinner catches Bart orchestrating a spray paint interpretation of Skinner, Bart yawns and stuffs a wad of money into Skinner's shirt pocket and says "you ain't seen nothing." Skinner refuses the bribe and sentences Bart to detention were he must write "I will not bribe the principal" on the blackboard. Remember that?
Well, it feels like we should be doing the same to Harper and Flaherty for stuffing our pockets with tax credits and asking us to look the other way as they pick on the country's most vulnerable. "I will not pay off the conscience of Canadians" feels like appropriate blackboard fodder. But thanks to party debt and general disorganization by the opposition, Harper isn't going to detention. In fact, he will be the one building detention facilities.
But why is the budget doing this? Well, because the Conservative Party playbook says so. Flaherty towed the party line with a minimalist approach to government - let the provinces do their thing, let the people spend their money, and we will just do less. Bam! Conservative ideology. Do things that defend borders, lock people up, and blow foreigners up. Double bam! Conservative ideology.
And this copy and paste policy making is no surprise given the time crunch for Harper and the gang. Add the reality of the three-plus month minority government, and you have a "make the most potential voters happy while ignoring the rest" way of governing. The appropriate areas for the budget are the ones that vote - well, once you sell the ideas in the Conservative ideology to the masses. "we have crime, so you need prisons." etc., etc.
(It will be interesting to see how the departments choose to apply Flaherty's bullet point direction - how exactly will the military be spending all that money? remember - the difficulty with ideology is that it is surprisingly short on implementation and explicit directions, something Hurricane Katrina and FEMA taught the ideology sharing U.S. well, i don't think they learned anything, so not "taught". more like "demonstrated for". i digress.)
Given the latest budget and the obvious influence of party policy, I understand how the choices made by previous goverments fit into their "grand plan for the country". The trouble is that my understanding of the Conservative Party choices only make me dislike their "grand plan for the country".
Beauchemin made for a less-than-beautiful way for the Flames
One minute and six seconds into game six, Calgary was elmininated from the Stanley Cup Playoffs.
While not actually eliminated - they still had two games to lose - the Flames lost their trademarked intensity and determination by giving up on their style of play that got them to that point in that moment. I say this because at 1:06 of the first period of game six, Jarome Iginla, aware of the five minute penalty that awaited him, decided to take himself out the game by challenging Francois Beauchemin to a fight.
Suddenly the series was as much about one player versus another for the Flames than one team versus another team. The collective passion and discipline that coach Darryl Sutter ingrained in this underachieving team that carried them to the 2004 Stanley Cup Final dissipated at the hands of their own captain. The moral victory of capturing the Northwest Division and the accompanying home ice advantage is fleeting without Sutter's teachings.
I don't want to rag on Iginla. He didn't single-handedly cost them the next two games. But it was that fight symbolized the change in the play of the Flames. The TSN Apple Auto Glass Turning Point if you will. One selfish moment by an otherwise selfless player altered the direction of the series for the Flames in the same vein as Saku Koivu's injury hurt the Canadiens in their series.
But like the Canadiens, the Flames were a fragile team, one that scored the least amount of goals of any of the playoff teams this season. They relied on positional hockey - i.e. a quasi-trap system, dump and chase, etc. - because they lacked the firepower to take over a game. The rest was left up to the often miraculous goaltending of Mikka Kiprusoff - a most deserving Hart Trophy Candidate. The Flames could ill-afford not to have someone with the abilities and credentials of Iginla on the ice. Jarome knows this because we all know this.
Yet, Iginla dropped the gloves. And the Flames dropped the next two games. So, logically he is to blame. Isn't he?
Well, not entirely. The Mighty Ducks outplayed, outworked and outhustled the Flames. They were "monsters" - a la personal favourite hockey colour commentator Pierre Maguire. They earned those two wins. The performance of Anaheim over the last two games legitimizes the adjective 'Mighty' in their Disney-brand of a name.
But it honestly felt like the Flames rolled over and lost the series after Beauchemin surprised Iginla with a flurry of left-hands that knocked the Flames captain to the ice. Calgary just never seemed to get back up again. The players were down. The fans were down. Even the perpetual excitement conveyor Don Wittman was down. The once great series crawled to its anti-climatic finale.
While I will lament the prospects of a Battle of Alberta series with upstart Edmonton, it is the finish of the Flames that is most disappointing. I am sure this a feeling shared across southern Alberta and focused in the locker room of a team that failed to play up to their Stanley Cup contending aspirations.
For the sake of "what might have been", next time, I bet Iginla would keep his gloves on.
(Mind you, in true Gregg Easterbrook fashion, I put the blame squarely on this decision of the Calgary Police. In football, Easterbrook often postulates that the football gods reward the team whose cheerleaders bare the most skin. Perhaps the keeping on of women's tops on the Red Mile was the cause of the Flames demise? Add it to the rest of my data for the graduate school paper I intend to write.)
While not actually eliminated - they still had two games to lose - the Flames lost their trademarked intensity and determination by giving up on their style of play that got them to that point in that moment. I say this because at 1:06 of the first period of game six, Jarome Iginla, aware of the five minute penalty that awaited him, decided to take himself out the game by challenging Francois Beauchemin to a fight.
Suddenly the series was as much about one player versus another for the Flames than one team versus another team. The collective passion and discipline that coach Darryl Sutter ingrained in this underachieving team that carried them to the 2004 Stanley Cup Final dissipated at the hands of their own captain. The moral victory of capturing the Northwest Division and the accompanying home ice advantage is fleeting without Sutter's teachings.
I don't want to rag on Iginla. He didn't single-handedly cost them the next two games. But it was that fight symbolized the change in the play of the Flames. The TSN Apple Auto Glass Turning Point if you will. One selfish moment by an otherwise selfless player altered the direction of the series for the Flames in the same vein as Saku Koivu's injury hurt the Canadiens in their series.
But like the Canadiens, the Flames were a fragile team, one that scored the least amount of goals of any of the playoff teams this season. They relied on positional hockey - i.e. a quasi-trap system, dump and chase, etc. - because they lacked the firepower to take over a game. The rest was left up to the often miraculous goaltending of Mikka Kiprusoff - a most deserving Hart Trophy Candidate. The Flames could ill-afford not to have someone with the abilities and credentials of Iginla on the ice. Jarome knows this because we all know this.
Yet, Iginla dropped the gloves. And the Flames dropped the next two games. So, logically he is to blame. Isn't he?
Well, not entirely. The Mighty Ducks outplayed, outworked and outhustled the Flames. They were "monsters" - a la personal favourite hockey colour commentator Pierre Maguire. They earned those two wins. The performance of Anaheim over the last two games legitimizes the adjective 'Mighty' in their Disney-brand of a name.
But it honestly felt like the Flames rolled over and lost the series after Beauchemin surprised Iginla with a flurry of left-hands that knocked the Flames captain to the ice. Calgary just never seemed to get back up again. The players were down. The fans were down. Even the perpetual excitement conveyor Don Wittman was down. The once great series crawled to its anti-climatic finale.
While I will lament the prospects of a Battle of Alberta series with upstart Edmonton, it is the finish of the Flames that is most disappointing. I am sure this a feeling shared across southern Alberta and focused in the locker room of a team that failed to play up to their Stanley Cup contending aspirations.
For the sake of "what might have been", next time, I bet Iginla would keep his gloves on.
(Mind you, in true Gregg Easterbrook fashion, I put the blame squarely on this decision of the Calgary Police. In football, Easterbrook often postulates that the football gods reward the team whose cheerleaders bare the most skin. Perhaps the keeping on of women's tops on the Red Mile was the cause of the Flames demise? Add it to the rest of my data for the graduate school paper I intend to write.)
Monday, May 01, 2006
Steve Nash is great...but most influential? Did he make James Blunt get the same haircut?
TORONTO (CP) - Four Canadians have made Time magazine's list of the world's 100 most influential people. Basketball star Steve Nash, Flickr website creators Stewart Butterfield and Caterina Fake, and EBay's first employee and president, Jeffrey Skoll, made the list alongside the likes of Pope Benedict, Oprah Winfrey, and George W. Bush.
NBA legend Charles Barkley writes in the magazine about Nash, saying he's taught the world that it pays to be selfless.
Barkley wrote that he enjoys watching Nash "act like a magician on the court."
Taught the world to be selfless? Really, Steve Nash did that? I assume you mean the degradation of the star-focussed team concept? Really? Steve Nash did all that?
I thought the "selfless" trend in basketball boiled down to:
- the success of the San Antonio Spurs structure in terms of the collective focus of all employees in the front office, and the balance of the team on the court;
- the realized limitations of the Kobe-Shaq-centred Lakers Dynasty from egos and politics;
- the further validation of Bill Simmon's Ewing Theory; and
- most importantly, the failing of post-2000 U.S. Men's Basketball at World Championships and the Olympics via their teambuilding patchwork of All-Stars and marketable names at the hands of team-disciplined countries with lesser known players.
Nash's inclusion hardly evokes a response on the level of Roe v. Wade; in fact, i would say that his inclusion is pretty much inconsequential to the entire list. He is probably one of the few players who is accessible to the Time Magazine reader demographic. Maybe that is just it. Demographics. Marketing. Spin. Perhaps, his inclusion is just Time Magazine helping a fellow Time Warner business in TNT boost publicity around their NBA coverage by referencing this floppy-haired, self-effacing point guard that no one can really hate. I mean, he really is just a nice guy, and cross-subsidiary reacharound isn't a new phenomenon in business. Adbusters could probably have a field day with how the Canadian Press is wrong to pick up this PR-based story and, thereby, legitimize it.
What is more interesting is how this story acts as another contributing voice to debate surrounding the MVP coronation of Steve Nash. This is a rather wide-open year with lots of candidates and no real favourite - even though the Arizona Republic reported Nash would win last week. Fans, announcers and writers can endlessly debate the merits of players. Basically, it is the perfect storm for the NBA to gain greater media exposure, while buying time for the playoffs to script storylines of underdogs, matchups, and classic games - components which drive fan interest long after their team is eliminated.
(And if there are doubts as to David Stern's capability of hijacking mainstream media sources with this sort of non-game distraction, his worth was cemented by the NBA Dress Code announcement last October that received equal coverage as the World Series and NFL games.)
I hate to wade into the debate of this award that promotes the league through greater emphasis on the selection process and announcement anticipation than on the recognition of the player. Further, I hate to get into the fact that since the NBA provides no criteria for the award, voters can create their own heuristics and base them entirely on asymmetrical information. Sure team-based components like win-loss record and playoff appearances, and individual-based components like point, assist and rebound averages provide an illusion of objectivity to the selection process; however, completely subjective akin to arguments between columnists often hold greater weight. But no, I don't want to get into that.
So as much as he is a "cultural force" in the "heroes and pioneers" section of influence, Steve Nash isn't my MVP. Dwyane Wade is out because couldn't sort out the Miami Heat - partly because Pat Riley meddled too much too soon. Dirk Nowitzki and Chauncey Billups are both out because of their supporting casts, which like Nash last year, makes their jobs pretty easy.
My MVP Award boils down to two guys:
For his 81 points in one game, 35.4 points per game, and for carrying a borderline-terrible Lakers team to the playoffs, not to mention then putting his nuts in the face of last year's MVP, I gotta go with Kobe. (yeah, i know it was a charge. but still!) His influence is all over this season. Time Magazine should be writing about that.
Hell, given his 8 ppg improvement and his re-emergence as a marketable human being, I woud give him the Most Improved Player as well. Boris Diaw, be damned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)