Olympian prostitutes, London 2012

Tags

, ,

As London prepares for the Olympics–where the world forgets international conflict and enjoys for a brief moment the pure spirit and high ideals of sportsmanship–British authorities should have a plan in place for their hookers. Today’s National Post describes the difficulty of the situation.

BC researchers found that stepped-up police effort during the Vancouver Olympics in 2010 had the adverse effect of separating hookers from their usual places of work, exposing them to more violence and disease than usual. To redress this, a potential plan for this year’s Olympics might include the creation of brothels that operate parallel to the sporting events this summer, says a nameless author of a new study on “the sex trade and the 2010 Olympics.” No mention yet on whether the brothels will be physically located within the athletes village proper, or perhaps whether they’ll go one inclusive step further and make prostitution a new Olympic event. There is room in this Olympics, after all, since the IOC dropped women’s baseball. It’s clear what organizers think is more popular.

There are two separate forces here: health advocates are concerned for the well being of hookers, while the Olympic committee is more concerned with, hello hello, the optics and public relations. I’m not sure what the law is in the UK, but thankfully at least all parties seem equally unconcerned.

Advocates are trying to develop a strategy based on past mistakes. Apparently, before the Vancouver Olympics the media warned that there would be a “prostitution explosion” expected to descend on Vancouver, and hordes of entrepreneurial-minded sex workers the world over would flock to this veritable Klondike gold rush. None of this happened, however, only incidents of police harassment increased.

This story interests me for a couple reasons. One, it seems Olympic organizers and the media expect that when the world is invited somewhere, the world inevitably wants hookers. Even if this is apparently not true. Personally, I do what I can to welcome and oblige my house guests, but Olympic organizers don’t share my sense of hospitality. Two, hooker showdowns force us to reveal our moral hand.  How do we reconcile Judeo-Christian values with reality? What trumps?

The question I’m interested in isn’t really whether prostitution is good or bad–a worthwhile but more complex issue beyond my scope–but whether abstract moral posturing is more important than harming real people.

Also, Olympic stories tend to be of the uplifting human overcoming the odds, national glory, or stoic acceptance and better-luck-next-year variety. I like that there’s already some sordid down-to-earth muck in the mix, a tangle of thorns to be worked out before the eyes of the world. Deal with that Olympic organizers!

JD Halperin is looking for an intern! Apply within. Click here for details.

Tags

, , , , ,

JD Halperin, one of the internet’s premier writers, is looking to hire a team of interns! What’s that rumble? Oh, that’s people clamouring for the hippest, most creative gig in the city. If you’re looking to be a cog in the wheel or work in a sterile cube farm, look elsewhere! We here at JDHalperin.com work hard and play hard because we’re young and cool. So, if you’re a university student looking to increase your portfolio, a professional writer/editor whose career needs a boost, or a reprobate trying to turn his life around, apply herein.

To be my ideal intern, you must have:

• Belligerence, truculence, testosterone and a high threshold for pain.

• A scepticism of shamans, witch doctors, and advocates of social justice.

• Scorn for child-rapists, politicians, religious figures and the masses.

• Food and whiskey.

Currently there are big plans in the works for monetization, but as of now remuneration for this internship is non-fungible. So, if you’re a highly-motivated and creative self-starter who works well with little or no supervision, don’t miss this wonderful opportunity to land a position with a great brand in a dynamic work environment (my kitchen) where there are lots of opportunities for growth and expansion (namely into other sections of my living room).

Since resumes are boring and banal, please apply by writing a 3000 word response to one of these five topics:

1. Contemporary gender roles and sexual identity is a fluid concept constantly on guard against patriarchal stereotypes. Discuss as it pertains to the case of Ray Finkle and Lois Einhorn.

2. “A philistine is a full-grown person whose interests are of a material and commonplace nature, and whose mentality is formed of the stock ideas and conventional ideals of his or her group and time.” Apply and unpack Nabokov’s definition of the philistine as it pertains to the OISE administration.

3. Can horror be quantified? Compare and contrast the destruction during the German blitz of London 1940, the RAF bombing of Dresden 1945, and the self destruction of the Leafs’ season during February & March 2012.

4. “Race is purely a human construction.” Would Ralph Ellison’s novel be different if the nameless invisible man was white?

5. “Could it be possible? This old saint in the forest has not heard anything of this, that God is dead!” Using textual support and three critical secondary sources, answer: was Zarathustra being sarcastic?

Responses can be emailed to Halperin.Jeff@gmail.com–serious applicants only. Unfortunately, due to the volume of expected incoming traffic we can only respond to those being strongly considered.

Best of luck. Love,

-JD

A defence of snobbery

Tags

, ,

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

Tags

, , ,

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?

Tags

, , , ,

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

Tags

, , , , ,

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 morefury 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!

Tags

, , , ,

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

Tags

, , , , ,

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

Tags

, , ,

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!

Tags

, ,

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.