• About the Author
  • Books
  • Vinyl
  • What the critics say about Jeff

Jeff Halperin

Jeff Halperin

Author Archives: jdhalperin

A defence of snobbery

06 Tuesday Mar 2012

Posted by jdhalperin in Statements

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

Lady Gag, Snobbery as virtue, Stephen King

Snobs have a bad reputation. Most people only think the word is disparaging, but there are at least two kinds of snobs.

The first class of snob is indeed a repulsive creature, egotistical, falsely-self important, and in most cases a total philistine. Their motivations derive from what they think the outside world expects of a quality person. This perception of the outside world, right or wrongly perceived, dominates their inner life.  They don’t love art, but  talking about it with sophisticated sounding jargon makes them appear cultured to people who don’t know better, and owning it allows them to look down on people with less money. They eat at the best restaurants oblivious of the way the food is prepared. Normally, maintaining this false self-importance requires being an asshole to those “lower” than them. This is the quintessential mark of the snob, and these vulgar boors should be denounced everywhere.

Ahh, but this second class of snob deserves a standing ovation! The Noble Snob loves what he loves and refuses to indulge in any artistic or cultural opinion but his own–not because he matters per se, but because the subject matters to him. His internal world directs the external one. He cannot sit idly by while banal, mediocre criticisms tarnish what he loves. He may become excited and brash while describing his loves and hates, and so is more likely to ignore the sense of politeness and decorum which, however well-meaning, is more concerned with preventing people from looking foolish than getting at the truth. The Noble Snob’s willingness to publicly criticize someone else’s opinion can injure egos, so they’re branded a snob in revenge.

Who are you to say? This pathetic sentence is only uttered by idiots who don’t understand that some art is better than other art. Art as “equally valuable so long as you like it” isn’t post-modern or profound, it’s just very stupid. Enjoy what you enjoy, but no amount of preference changes the fact that Bach and Tolstoy are superior artists to Lady Gaga and Stephen King. That’s just fact. Where you are on the hierarchy may be up for debate if the two artists are comparable, but there is a hierarchy.

Now, a Noble Snob becomes an asshole the second he is condescending towards people who like these latter artists. A good melody and a good story is a lovely thing, and I used Gaga and King as examples because they are indeed talented, prolific artists despite their incredible popularity. Popularity has no bearing on the quality in art one way or the other: obscurity doesn’t add value, and popularity is anything but synonymous with quality. Art’s merits are never revealed in statistics, and that’s exactly why the discussion about quality in art needs to be candid, robust, and ongoing.  It’s ridiculous to say that only the best art is worthwhile, so sneering at people who don’t like (but respect) canonical artists makes you the bad kind of snob. There’s tons of wicked artists out there.

Now, being condescending towards people who watch Jersey Shore is noble. Even the cretins who watch it know this, that’s why they excuse themselves and call it a “guilty pleasure.” Indeed, they are guilty: when shows become wildly popular without requiring writers and actors, their fans become enablers of junk and they should be tarred and feathered. When something is obviously made to be both horrible and profitable, from c-rate movies to fast food, it should be ridiculed without fear of being called a snob. But the case of Jersey Shore and its equivalents aren’t really a case at all, since nobody would call it art. But there’s a grey area between good art and trash that can rightly be debated. In order to avoid looking like a fool don’t criticize something you don’t know about, whether it’s high or low brow. But, once you have seen/judged it, feel free to tear it apart if that’s the way you feel. The search for quality depends on honest conversations.

In an age of invasive marketing where “quality” is determined by ratings and YouTube hits, enthusiasts avidly indulging their idiosyncrasies are heroes. People kind of know this now, and that’s why they eagerly, but with an endearing half-hearted reluctance, call themselves “nerds.” Maybe they love food, shaving with an old school straight blade, architecture, coffee, board games, film noir, classic literature, beer, scotch, chess, fashion…whatever. The aspiration towards quality isn’t something to be ashamed about!

The stigma of snobbery hinders people from sharing their actual thoughts and learning more about good stuff. Avoiding all friction in conversation may be a Canadian virtue ingrained in us (“I’m sorry,” “No no, I’m sorry!”), but it’s so boring! So criticize away. Nobody should be on guard about coming off as a snob, so long as they’re the right kind of snob.

What it is to be a Leaf fan: our condition

29 Wednesday Feb 2012

Posted by jdhalperin in Comedy, Sports

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

fire wilson, I ache for past pseudo-glories, playoffs 2012, Toronto Maple Leafs

Weeks ago, Joffrey Lupul said the Leafs should shift their focus and look ahead in the standings instead of anxiously looking over their back. It was good advice and a reassuring sign of leadership for fans who desperately hoped this team had turned a corner. Well, after that the Leafs lost 9 of the next 10 games, but still Lupul’s advice was good. So let’s take it one step further: let’s look past their 19 remaining games to see what life will be like in April when the Leafs are in the playoffs.

Thankfully this doesn’t take any imagination, as from experience we know that only one thing happens in every Leafs post-season: to look forward is to look back.

Leaf Playoffs 2012:

After days of freaking out, sporadic shakes, and ignoring life’s responsibilities in order to mentally prepare for playoffs, it’s finally game day against the senators. You watch all pre-game commentary even though experts have had nothing new to talk about for days. Normally a rational person, you’ve suddenly and unconsciously adopted several bizarre superstitions. You eat some delicious burgers, but overall life around you disappears; there is only the game and it’s still not on. Oh god, they’re dropping the puck. Oh god oh god oh god.

WE KILLED THEM! GOD THE sENS ARE CHEAP! WE MIGHT GO ALL THE WAY THIS YEAR!  Next two of three games are at home. Ahh, things look good and optimism abounds. The day after the game, you’re anxious and terrified. It’s puzzling that all around you, parents, teachers, and similar adults insist on continuing their lives with the unexplainable expectation that you will too, as if there wasn’t any hockey on at all.

It’s game day. You’re nervous and hungry for senator blood. After chicken wings and pizza, Bob McKenzie and others move their mouth but none of it makes sense. The game’s about to start. We’re gonna kill them we’re gonna kill them we’re gonna kill them.

STINKING RATS! OFFSIDE ON THE WINNER! FILTHY CHEATS! Typical. Yes, the Leafs could have used a goal, having lost 5-0. A split on the road. I can live with that. The next day you and your friends recount the incompetent refs, senator sins, and other miscellaneous abominations, each one a monumental scandal nobody else outside your group seemed to noticed. One sleep ‘til game three. You’re so overcome with anticipation and terror you could just rip out your hair and puke.

Naturally, after the highs and lows of five games and the commensurate chicken wings, burgers and pizza, the sens show their true colours and collapse, the ignominy marked by horrendous goaltending, some bizarre miscues that reflect terribly on the sens as both a hockey team and people in life, and especially the disappearance of certain key Swedish senators, or, more aptly put, there’s a hilarious and blazing spotlight on the Swedes’ conspicuous failure to merely appear after he guaranteed success and after flagrantly trouncing upon the unwritten player’s code, to say nothing of the written one. So, to Yonge Street, where the drunk and sober are indistinguishable but windows and cars remain intact, unlike in some cities—the expected behaviour during the well-earned spontaneous parade we’ve all been waiting for.

The days between playoff rounds are characterized by soaring pride, robust glee, and speculative anxiety, and there’s a total departure from the state of consciousness you had before playoffs started. It’s a new series, and Philly is going to be hard—they’re not pathetic wimps.

The daily routine during the series takes on the same shape as the last, only with more relentless gloom and foreboding; we’re getting dramatically outshot again, but we’re not getting shutouts. Optimism is difficult, but you work hard to totally divorce yourself from reality. Still, a debilitating feeling that you can’t shake off day or night keeps creeping in. Mercifully it’s over when the Flyers clinch the series in overtime after the Leafs miraculously tied the game in the final seconds—the greatest feat in 40 years.

Oh, elimination pain! The fog lifts and suddenly life has things to do. People in your life express sympathy, but they seem happy to have you back. You hold this against them—they’re not committed.  It’s impossible to process that your season is done, as your heart yearns to experience once more the restless anxiety and sheer terror of playoffs, but all that’s left is misery and a shame made more acute with the knowledge that redemption has to wait until playoffs next year. Oh, we’ll get ‘em next year!

Personhood: should all persons, including dolphin people, legally be persons?

23 Thursday Feb 2012

Posted by jdhalperin in Statements

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

animal rights, Corporations are people, Dolphins are people, Mitt Romney, National Post

The past couple days the National Post has reported that animal rights activists in the States are trying to get dolphins, and other cetaceans, to legally be called “persons” under the law. According to Emory University neuroscientist Lori Marino, “their basic needs are very much like humans–to be able to stay alive, not to be confined, to make choices and travel, and perhaps foremost to engage in social interaction.”

I laughed at this because I can’t hear the words cetacean and Marino without thinking about Ace Ventura, but her quote got me thinking. Doesn’t her criterion apply to every animal? I know dolphins are really smart, but find me an animal that prefers to die, to be confined, and to remain dormant and isolated from its own kind.

Last year I joked that one day, at the current rate magnanimous human persons bestow rights ever outward, owning a dog will be considered vile and archaic. Consider: we order them around, exert dominance by actually keeping them tethered to a chain around their neck in public, we feed them after they perform tricks, and, worst of all, if it suits us, we cut off their balls. One might say that dogs seem happy in human homes, but it’s just centuries of Stockholm syndrome. Domesticated…what a horrible euphemism for slavery.

Is SeaWorld a concentration camp? It used to be a fun place to take your kids. Ahh, the times are changing. Tasha Kheiriddin from the Post insists the problem with bestowing human rights to animals is they cannot possibly enter into the social contract: “an animal bears no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for its actions. You cannot sue a dolphin if it bites you or wrecks your boat.”

If the dolphin manages to acquire personhood under the law, while at the same time managing to avoid all obligations of the social contract, perhaps they really are smarter than humans. If I bite someone or wreck their boat I’m in trouble. Well played, cetacean.

It’s funny to consider that this discussion is taking place while in the States Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney believes corporations are people. By this he must mean that, just like with human people and with cetacean people, it is incorporations’ nature to stay alive, to not be confined, to make choices and travel, and to engage in social interaction. Well, let’s examine: no corporation wants to die, globalisation is anything but confined, decisions are made, business class is even its own travel designation, and corporations do hold social events like family barbecues and golf tournaments. So corporations are persons too. But since corporation people are made up of human people who can comprehend the social contract, they will be made to uphold it: if a corporation bites you or wrecks your boat, you can sue. Corporations are no cetaceans.

But there is a problem: according to the definition of persons that dolphins and companies have successfully met, human people no longer qualify as people. Consider: increasingly humans have become fatally overweight and cancer-prone, remain confined in office cubicles and 500 sq. foot condos, choice remains elusive as our social systems act upon us, we travel albeit on broken public transit systems and inadequate bike lanes, and anyone who’s seen the zombies on their iPhones in public agrees we are no longer a social species.

So there you have it. Dolphins and companies are people, unlike human beings.

Leafs and senators: sens players, fans, and writers are soft

08 Wednesday Feb 2012

Posted by jdhalperin in Sports

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Battle of Ontario, National Post, Ottawa Senators, sens fans are soft, Toronto Maple Leafs, Wayne Scanlan

As the Leafs move up in the standings (last night’s aberration notwithstanding) and the Senators continue to show their true colours and lose, it seems each team’s fans are also making a parallel divergence: my last piece about the ACC needing more“fury and balls” was contrasted sharply and hilariously by Ottawa writer Wayne Scanlan in yesterday’s National Post, “who wrote about our rival needing “civility.

Scanlan takes up the cause of a “die-hard” senator fan, and season-ticket holder, who wrote to him saying she was disgusted by the behaviour of ottawa and Toronto fans, “but mostly Toronto fans.” She didn’t feel safe attending games alone, as the corridors were bedlam before and after games. “Thugs and hooligans are ruining senators games.” No. Her senators game was ruined by the senators who couldn’t handle the Leafs relentless speed, crisp and elegant passes, and bar-down snipes. If the halls were an insane asylum it was because the senators were crushed to an insane degree. 5-0! Would any die-hard fan in a rival’s building seriously keep their glee to themselves? Can this woman ask that of us?

And besides, what exactly happened? Thugs and hooligans are those who broke windows and looted stores during the G20. If there was violence at the hockey game it would surely be mentioned somewhere, as no writer excludes the main story from their story. It sounds like this fragile woman was upset Leaf fans were loud before and after trouncing her team. If the senators destroyed the Leafs in the ACC and I had to listen to their fans gloat, and no doubt they would, I’d be in despair too. But I’d blame it on the Leafs. Fans all want to cheer and brag and gloat, but it’s impossible when you lose. So while I understand perfectly well this woman’s misery, I hope she continues to suffer it for years unabated.

This “die-hard fan” should save her disgust for her team. As their losing continues she will need all the reserve she can get.

But why did a writer take up this woman’s cause? He writes, “can both sides of this Battle of Ontario clash please grow up enough to lift this debate to the high school level?” What “debate?” We hate your team, you hate ours. The players debate who is best by playing, and we respond with cheers and boos.

Scanlan is sneaky: he spends the first half of his article praising alfredsson without ever qualifying Leaf fans’ hatred. It’s disingenuous to posture like alfredsson’s booing doesn’t have origins in a catalogue of historical provocations. Yet he uses highly charged words without  ever describing what Leaf fans did wrong.

And, what’s childish is the Sens’ fans desperate grasp at symmetry, who, without a villain to offset all theirs, “mercilessly” boo Lupul, who has never done anything to deserve their ire aside from score goals.

Scanlan speculates that Leaf fans were in payback mode, avenging senator fans “behaving badly” during the all-star fantasy draft. Yes, the relentless booing, however predictable and banal, had to be innocuously redressed in the same terms–by booing back. All standard fare, and anything but surprising. But what really got Leaf fans, and what Scanlan scandalously leaves unacknowledged (omitted?) is the senator fan who suggested during the all-star fantasy draft that Lupul’s team should select Wade Belak, the ex-Leaf who was found dead in a hotel room last summer. This vile, morally indefensible outburst, more than any booing or juvenile “Leafs Suck” video created and screened by the organization, was a new low for senator fans, a group never exactly held in great esteem.

To be sure, that person was an idiot and wasn’t acting as the team’s official representative. No doubt most senator fans, Scanlan included, would distance themselves from this moron. But Scanlan’s plea for increased civility between the teams’ fans shouldn’t leave such an atrocious breach of basic decency unacknowledged. Either this is negligence or bias.

Anyway, to complain about Leaf fans cheering on their team and booing their hated rival is totally futile. Not only is this not news, but, as I argued just before reading this article, hockey arenas are the rabid hockey fan’s should natural habitat, and nobody should be told how to pray in their temple. Also revealing, while the Leafs proudly exalt “truculence, belligerence and a high threshold for pain”, die-hard senator fans submit tear filled letters about the volume of their arena’s corridors causing them high anxiety. Their writers apparently sympathize. 

The last thing I’d like is to relieve senator fans of their misery, but can they lend to us for our home games these detested Leaf fans to teach ours how to act?

That would be civil.

Leaf games are way, way too quiet. The ACC needs NOISE! FURY! BALLS!

03 Friday Feb 2012

Posted by jdhalperin in Sports

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

ACC, alfredsson as gutless puke, hockey arenas, Toronto Maple Leafs, Toronto sports

There’s something about the atmosphere of the Air Canada Centre during hockey games that discourages rowdiness, chirping, belligerence, and other harmless fun that used to be standard fare at Maple Leaf Gardens. Perhaps you don’t need to look much further than the names of each building to see what’s changed: one’s named after a detestable corporation and the other after the actual team it housed. “AC” is even built into the current name, suggesting its chilly atmosphere. Perhaps that’s a stretch. Maybe not.

If you colourfully voice your displeasure at the refs, or any number of the gutless pukes we routinely play against, you’re liable to arouse the ire of fans sitting next to you. But why? Aren’t we all on the same team here? Is this a hockey arena or a church? I don’t care if you’re with your child: between our collapses, refereeing travesties and the opponents’ various abominations, I freak out watching games on TV in a room by myself–I can’t be expected to suppress my rage for a perfect stranger after paying just as much as them for tickets. Kids should be introduced to real hockey fans at hockey games. Like religion: get ’em while they’re young. In fact, I am offended by silent emotionless fans. This is the detestable behaviour. If you want dignified silence take your child to Disney On Ice. Real fans should have the right of way. We have a license to be vulgar in our home arena. Up to a point. Here’s where the line is.

As a kid in the Gardens I heard a fantastic chirp aimed at one of our frictionless defenceman: “Hit ’em with your purse Murphy!” Great use of colourful language to express a point. The mild sexism was offset by the cleverness of the chirp, delivered inevitably from the nosebleeds by a drunken fan. It showed passion, if not hockey wisdom–Larry Murphy only went on to win a couple Stanley Cups with Detroit, that team who never fails to make something of our discarded players (see Ian White).

So it’s perfectly acceptable to be a boor so long as you’re drunk, somewhat clever, your voice carries conviction, or the right circumstance arises. Anyone who saw alfredsson hit Tucker from behind and score the winner of game 5 after going unimpeded to the net (that timeless demonstration of the spirit of hockey debased in full: alfredsson’s magnum opus) couldn’t have possibly been sufficiently vulgar. A crowd of Andrew Dice Clay’s might have got the right note.

Next item. If there’s a fan beside you from the wrong team and you come to severe disagreement after some beers, you should be the bigger man and avoid punching him in the face. This is pure class. It’ll wound him to the core going home having to admit that, while he suffered some chirps and other appropriate abuse, Leaf fans are fundamentally civilized.

In addition to being classy for its own sake, shouting matches give the fans in neighbouring seats a colourful story. It enhances their overall experience and they should be grateful: there’s nothing quite like the overflow of unbridled passion expressed in mellifluous swear words. That’s authentic spirit. Polite clapping grates on my ears.

But there’s one reason that trumps all others: rowdy crowds encourage the home team. They feed off it. It makes a tangible difference in the outcome of the game, and after missing playoffs several times by a single point perhaps it cost us a shot at the Stanley Cup. Ask foreign junior teams what it’s like to enter a Canadian barn full of maniacal fans. Ask an NHL player what it’s like to play in Philly. We have on obligation towards our team to give them any advantage possible, and if there’s even a 1% chance their play will be enhanced by the fury of the vociferously hostile mob, we can’t in good conscience stay quiet. And no team ever started playing better because fans suddenly cheered when prompted by a routine video of Wendell Clark. It has to be raw, uncontrived enthusiasm to inspire a team or unnerve the opponent.

I’m not the first to say the ACC is a cold hockey building, and from what I understand soccer fans in this city bang drums and have no problem freaking out at TTC games, or whatever that team is called. Voicing unrestrained passion shouldn’t be a hard sell for a team whose slogan is “spirit is everything.”

So when confronted by an ACC patron demanding silence, whether with child or clad in a suit or normal civilian clothing, remind them that they’re acting as an agent of the opponent, and kindly direct them to this article so they can feel ashamed of their tacit anti-Leafs behaviour.  Perhaps they will reconsider their prudish attitude and begin anew, hurling obscenities at loud volume like a proper Torontonian.

Let’s take back our arena.

Constructive Scholarly Disagreement on Robertson Davies

27 Friday Jan 2012

Posted by jdhalperin in Comedy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Deptford trilogy, Fifth Business, Philistinism, Robertson Davies, the Manticore, World of Wonders

A contemporary conversazione between Prof. David Wright and Dr. Phil Stein, two well-respected academics, about Robertson Davies’ Deptford trilogy.

Prof. Wright: The Deptford Trilogy by Robertson Davies is a first-rate literary masterpiece, a unique accomplishment in the annals of Canadian literature. It is a strong testament to the power of both magic and wonder. It reminds us of the vitality of sensory experience over cold rationality, and it’s a convincing argument against history as merely a subjectively reconstructed document made of paper.  The psychological insights continually bowl us over–the Jungian especially–and even the dismissals of Freud are well laid out broadsides. The dialogue sparkles and crackles like the magic of Magnus Eisengrim.

Dr. Stein: Robertson Davies has a natural place in the canon of Eurocentric, patronizing dead white male authors. But surely Davies, the world-class elitist, would have considered this a tremendous compliment.  All the psychological talk talk talk and not even one positive reference to a gay character. Only coerced child buggery. The latent homophobia was palpable. What’s the author afraid of?

Prof. Wright: Davies isn’t scared of homosexuality, he’s just more interested in the myriad ways our inner lives fall into patterns or archetypes. Especially in the trilogy’s second book, the Manticore, psychologist Dr. Von Haller applies Jungian ideas, even some Adler, to unpeel the universal consciousness and lay it bare before the reader.

Dr. Stein: Yes yes, and after examination, or even well before, what do we find? A spoiled Anglo-Saxon brat given to cavalier dismissals of prideful, small Canadian towns as parochial backwater. We find a class war monger. A parasitic capitalist and unabashed colonialist. Best of all, the whole thing takes place behind the backdrop of a splendid castle in Zurich Switzerland, gained by inheritance no less. The whole thing is a bourgeois Marxist nightmare, and we hardly need a prescient psychologist to understand the character’s pathologies. This is the great Canadian writer?

Prof. Wright: I’m afraid you’re missing the point.

Dr. Stein: Oh yes, the rural bashing was too subtle, “villages as rotten with vice…incest, sodomy, bestiality, sadism, masochism.” David Staunton has adult problems because growing up his servants were sooo inadequate, wah wah wah. Do you know how many people in this city live below the poverty line?

Prof. Wright: Are we going to talk about the book?

Dr. Stein: How can we, when great chunks of our population have no access to medicare?

Prof. Wright: Well, In Dr. Von Haller’s words, when your unsophisticated feeling is aroused you talk like that. I wonder, what woman inside you talks that way? Can I help you find your anima?

Dr. Stein: You’re a priggish snob.

Prof. Wright: Come come now! We’re making progress. You go through life with an awareness of others, their wants and needs. You’re a sensitive man! But your antennae is only used for negative purposes.

Dr. Stein: You think social justice is negative? Are you a monster?

Prof. Wright: You’re projecting your pet cause on whatever comes before you. A distortion, no matter how compassionate its origin, is a distortion nonetheless. Reducing a writer, a vast thinker like Davies, to existing only on your fetishized level is false: You can’t read a piece of art with the critical lens you’d apply to a Marxist pamphlet.

Dr. Stein: “Critical lens”…the pomposity of the learned! Education is a great shield against experience.  

Prof. Wright: I know you’re quoting Davies there, confirming you’ve actually read the book, making your brutal interpretation yet more enigmatic and perverse, but I’m not apologizing for my education. And your sneer seems out of place for a man holding a doctorate.

Dr. Stein: Distract all you want. How are you missing the focus on class structures?

Prof. Wright: Hardly any book can avoid mentioning class concern, but it’s not what spurned the writing. You’re applying inorganic criterion. You’re judging apples using the standards you’d apply to judge oranges. This is literature, not politics. You’re in the wrong field, sir.

Dr. Stein: Now I’ve spent my life moving in the wrong direction?

Prof. Wright: I can’t get through to this guy. It’s hopeless. There’s nothing more I can do.

Dr. Stein: Egoist!

A small but important change to NHL statistics

13 Friday Jan 2012

Posted by jdhalperin in Sports

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

ESPN PP rankings, NHL rules, NHL team power play rankings, PP statistics

I propose the need to change one aspect of NHL statistics in a small but important way that I don’t think anybody has previously considered. I write here in the unlikely hope that this humble message in a bottle reaches the shore of some influential NHL type.

Currently, if team A receives a power play, only to take a penalty five seconds later (as happens after face offs), no team really enjoys a man advantage, yet stats will indicate that both teams failed to score on a power play opportunity. Each team is 0-1 on the PP. This is wrong.

Also, if team A, in that same game let’s say, receives a power play in the game’s final seconds (as happens in those silly, harmless scrums during lopsided games where a losing team, hopeless for 59 minutes, suddenly finds their courage and “makes a statement”), they might have a ten second power play, yet the stats won’t bear this out. They may be 0-2 now, despite only having well under a minute of power play time. Also, the other team must not get 2 minutes of credit for ten seconds of penalty killing.

On the flip side, if team A fails to score on a five minute man advantage, the stats do not distinguish between this glorious opportunity and the severely abbreviated power plays mentioned above. One is five minutes, one may be five seconds, but they both count as 0-1. This is obviously not the same failure. This is very misleading.

This may seem insignificant, but consider how central statistics are to general managers and coaches in baseball and football. In hockey, it’s said you win or lose with special teams, so we ought to know precisely how they’re faring. Despite how much emphasis is put on a team’s power play, league-wide percentages seem kind of negligible: only 4.5% separates the first from the tenth best power play, and only 3.5% separates the eleventh best from the twentieth. You would expect a wider disparity, as anyone who watches hockey knows that whoever beats their opponent on special teams has a far from negligible advantage. This truth very well might be borne out in the statistics if only they were more accurate.

The solution requires a discussion. All fully served two minute power plays, or those resulting in a goal, should be recorded as before, but interrupted power plays should be tallied up at the end of the game and rounded to the nearest two minutes. Example: if a team has a 45 and a 30 second power play in the same game, and fails to score on each, it should count as going 0-1. As of now, it would register 0-2, even though this time doesn’t even add up to the length of one full power play, let alone two.

On the other hand, a 30 second power play alone would register as 0-0 on the PP; while it seems wrong to round it down out of existence, this is more accurate than calling it a full two minute power play. The injustice of not putting a brief power play on the record is offset by no longer giving full credit to the other team for killing an abbreviated penalty.

Five minute penalties should perhaps count as more than one power play, or at least must categorized differently because more than one goal can be scored during it. Whatever the solution here, and in all these examples, these PP stats should be changed.

The ramifications for the way NHL teams are assessed could be considerable, and even if the increased accuracy is only slightly beneficial it is still worth adjusting. Statistics should always aspire to be more accurate whenever possible, and there are currently some glaring problems. 

I hope that someone reading this finds it a worthy idea and is in a position to take it up. In this most unlikely event, my sincerest thanks!

NHL hockey: give me back some pre-lockout rules!

10 Tuesday Jan 2012

Posted by jdhalperin in Sports

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

NHL hockey, Post lockout, Toronto Maple Leafs

NHL hockey has improved since the lockout due to the fast young talent that’s allowed to skate now that clutching and grabbing have diminished and two-line passes are allowed.  With this, the league rewarded speed, vision, offence and defence, and made life harder for brutish slugs. Very good! But all the other post lockout changes have cheapened hockey because they represented nothing more than undignified pandering to Americans, who incidentally rank the great sport of hockey below circuitous driving and arena football.

The NHL wanted to give teams incentive to play reckless pond hockey in overtime, that fertile ground for exciting highlights, so they decided to award a team one point for losing in OT. It’s wrong that this cheap perspective has altered our game. Like an ageing Hollywood star going under the knife to once more look appealing, the NHL underwent plastic surgery to change its face to look sexier for Americans. One result is the unnatural traces of botox found embedded in the standings, warping their appearance. Consider: Florida is currently third in the East and if playoffs began today they’d have home ice advantage, but remove their eight points awarded for losing in overtime, and adjust everyone else’s, and they’d be out of a playoff position! Teams are making playoffs by losing games at the right time. The NHL slyly acknowledged this and reversed the bad optics years ago by changing the term “overtime loss” to “regulation tie.” Currently, something in the stats is synthetic, and doesn’t look right. I look at the standings and see Joan Rivers.

The NHL’s contrived and sleazy infusion of excitement, as represented by three point games, might not only be fatal to teams (the Leafs missed the playoffs in 2007 because the team ahead succeeded in losing more in overtime), but it actually makes the hockey less exciting. I give a huge sigh of relief when the game finally reaches overtime and a point is safely deposited in the bank. Shouldn’t this tension be prolonged? The real exciting time is just before OT, when there’s a chance to win and lose two points.  Anyway, improvement was never necessary, as overtime was always the best part of a game. Now the NHL’s exciting solution to a non-existent problem has created a new problem which I hope gets redressed one day. Like economic inflation, precious points are being printed out of thin air and handed out for failure. Put us back on the gold standard, please.

The shootout, though exciting, is nothing but a trashy sacrifice of the spirit of the game (that elusive thing!) that disproportionately rewards one- dimensional offensive players and only privileges one singular aspect of the sport.  As Canadians who revere skilled players who also back check we should understand this. Abolish shootouts! It’s wrong that those wise and nobly built defensive teams, of which the Leafs are tragically not, can’t use their biggest asset in the game’s deciding moments. One point should be awarded to each team for a tie. Hockey is fundamentally a team game, and must remain so.

Not that any of this is currently in any mainstream discussion, so fixated is everybody, quite reasonably, on the players’ brains, but it’s problematic that a team might win the Stanley Cup after worming their way into the playoffs on the strength of accumulating a high number of OT losses. Our most exalted trophy deserves better.

I hope these issues get taken up one day.

Political language: combing for clichés

06 Friday Jan 2012

Posted by jdhalperin in Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

George Orwell, Liberal party, National Post, Sheila Copps

No politician is free of platitudes, but some seem more blatantly devoid of meaning than others.  As someone who cares about the meaning of words, hollow-speak of any kind offends me, and I have a hard time looking past the breathtaking abuse words suffer at the hands of federal politicians publishing in national newspapers.

In today’s National Post, Sheila Copps amply demonstrates that she is just another Liberal lemming, continuing the parties’ predictable script that, adjusted only in the wake of defeat, has been changed in word but not in essence.  But my main contention is her constant violation of Orwell’s rules of good writing.

First, she explains the Latin root of the word “manifesto,” as deriving from manifestus, “clear or readily apparent.” As a political writer and a heavyweight politician running for presidency of the Liberals, such a violation of Orwell’s caution against using foreign language is inadvisable, yet she seems to dwell, soak and luxuriate in it, setting the tone for the horrors to come. Anyway, is there a worse way to begin a piece about evolving to modern times than invoking Latin etymology?

No Liberal today can begin a speech without addressing the parties’ recent demise. Next, a self-righteous assessment of what went wrong is followed in turn by a way forward invariably laden with the same hubris-ridden entitlement that caused their defeat in the first place. Of this, Copps’ is guilty.

A Liberal who believes “we have been dining out for too long on former glories” can’t also write in the same article “the values of our beautiful Canada were shaped by the Liberal party. Canada is a Liberal country.”  These statements are incompatible: she professes to understand that the meal is over, yet she can’t stop stuffing her face.

Here is a prolix sentence trying to assume grandeur by using needlessly puffed-up words: “We must use technology to continually interconnect so that we operate as a unified organization to protect the values of all reasonable Canadians.”

Without changing the meaning, this could read: “We must use technology effectively to connect with Canadians.” Hardly a profound or impressive statement in an age defined by social media, though her assumption that only Liberal Canadians are “reasonable” is typically patronizing, condescending, and more evidence of hubris.

Copps hands out clichés like Halloween candy with the expectation we will eat them up just as readily, but, just like devouring too much candy, consuming her hackneyed speech in one sitting sickens my stomach. The offences bleed one into another. Addressing and redressing each example of brutal writing requires an elephantine effort that’s unnecessary. The point is clear.

Copps ends where she begins, with one final Orwellian violation: “winners never quit and quitters never win.” If it were me, I’d conclude with something lucid and powerful.  This common aphorism is irrelevant and vague. It can mean different things. Does she mean that the Liberals lost last May because the quit? No. Presumably, she means she will work tenaciously to get into power–hardly a unique trait in politics, the natural home and breeding grounds for cut-throat opportunists. She doesn’t say what she means. Unlike her Latin definition of manifestus, her conclusion, and everything else, is anything but “clear or readily apparent.”

Post Script:

Every party and politician is guilty of using similar barbarous language. I oppose it everywhere. I hope to alert my very small, noble readership to the dangers of this pernicious breed of writing, not to denounce Liberals in general, though in this case it’s hard to do one and not the other.  Copps was the unfortunate victim of this entry because I happened to fall upon her article today and the mood struck me.

ORWELL’S 6 RULES OF WRITING:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

4. Never use a passive voice where you can use the active.

5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

–From, “Politics and the English Language”

A complete history of music in under 500 words

27 Tuesday Dec 2011

Posted by jdhalperin in Comedy

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

auto tune, bach, History of music, jazz, music history, rock

As a devoted historian I went to great lengths to untangle a long, complicated mess of history in order to compile a narrative that’s easy to understand, but, first and foremost, factually accurate.

THE HISTORY OF MUSIC:

Before Bach there was no music.  This seriously hampered the soundtracks of movies.  Bach’s music required specially commissioned music halls and churches with perfect acoustics.  For hundreds of years, Italians sang Opera and various European composers arranged notes this way and that.

This lasted until Black slaves sang while being exploited in fields, paving the way for blues, jazz, and rock & roll. This was by far the most positive thing to come out of slavery, though some countries that got rich may disagree.  At about the same time, deep in the backwoods of various small American towns, hillbillies played guitars, banjos, and had sex with their immediate relatives.  Elvis was a revelation because he showed White people could sing like Black people, even if they couldn’t yet drink from the same water fountains.  Then, psychedelic drugs rendered Black music trippy enough and sufficiently different to be considered not really Black music anymore.

Strangely, glam rock took off at the same time as heavy metal. Wardrobes were weird.  Then, musicians traded instruments for turntables, and the machine that used to play music started creating it.  Rap was a perfect medium for protesting and lamenting the sad state of affairs in Black America. White people ate it up in droves.  Simultaneously, grunge became the perfect medium for White people to vent about all the hardships suffered by the unoppressed.  Seattle became internationally renowned for rain, coffee, and angst.

The internet allowed everyone everywhere to hear everything, and we haven’t seen a distinct style of music since.  Modern bands are accurately described with paradoxical composite adjectives: “They’re a soul, poppy, jam band, with blues roots and an old-school urban, rural, new-wave feel.”

Sexy music videos brought in money, so the highest paid musicians no longer burdened themselves with bothersome time-consuming things like writing songs, singing, or playing their own music.  Auto tune could put a goat in perfect pitch. Computers liberated musicians from those old historical obstacles like money, instruments, and talent.  Rhythms and melodic samples could be found ready-made for click and drag stitching together. Yes, music has evolved to great heights where being a musician no longer requires being a musician. And all this on little speakers that fit inside our ears.

We went from Bach to this.

(An exhaustive list of bibliographical sources available upon request.)

This article is also published on Vivoscene.com, a home for me and other music writers.

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Twitter

Follow @JDhalperin
Tweet

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,020 other subscribers

Essential sites

  • Grateful Dead Chords/Tabs
  • Neil Young Chords/Tabs

My Writing

  • Huffington Post
  • Maclean's
  • Music Writing
  • The Star
  • the Walrus Laughs
  • Toronto Review of Books
  • Toronto Standard
  • World Is One News

Topics

  • Comedy (18)
  • Literature (13)
  • Politics (26)
  • Sports (16)
  • Statements (35)
  • Uncategorized (40)

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Jeff Halperin
    • Join 50 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Jeff Halperin
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar