As readers of this blog may know, my favorite sport is baseball.
Part of the reason for this, I think, is I enjoy the game's rich history.
So I was delighted to discover an online exhibit from the Baseball Hall of Fame, on baseball uniforms.
Yes it is exciting!
Through this exhibit, you can learn about the "parts of the uniform" or the history of baseball uniforms or best of all you can find out what uniforms players were wearing during any year for the past 100 years.
For instance, here's what American League players were wearing in 1901.
Cool eh?
And I am no fashion expert, but perusing all this info, it seems to me the worst uniform look of all time was the Houston Astros of 1975 a close second was the Chicago White Sox of 1977. Mind you just about all the uniforms were bad in the 1970s.
Some say the 1939 Washington Senators had the most boring uniforms of all time.
As for me, I love the classic look: white uniforms at home, grey on the road.
Just check out the New York Yankees, for instance, haven't changed since 1936.
Now that's tradition and tradition is what baseball is all about.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Friday, September 29, 2006
Cut the Government's Fat Not Mine
According to the Globe and Mail, the federal Conservative government is thinking about bringing back Participaction, a "fitness awareness" program the Liberals first dreamed up back in 1971.
What "fitness awareness" really means, of course, is the government spends millions of dollars on advertising aimed at getting us fat Canadians into some sort of physical activity.
Here's how Michael Chong, the Minister for Amateur Sport puts it:
"We have a serious, significant, long-term challenge facing the country in rising obesity and lack of physical activity. Our view is that we, as a government, have to tackle this challenge. We're looking at ways to make Canadians aware, through a public-awareness campaign, of the need for greater physical fitness, the need to live active, healthy lifestyles. So one of the ways that we're looking at delivering this message to Canadians is through the revitalization of Participaction.”
Hmm, I thought the Tories were about getting government out of people's lives.
If I want to be a slob, that's my God-given right. It seems to me the government should be more concerned about cutting its fat, not mine.
Besides government PR campaigns designed to change our lifestyles never work.
Anybody remember the One Tonne Challenge?
What "fitness awareness" really means, of course, is the government spends millions of dollars on advertising aimed at getting us fat Canadians into some sort of physical activity.
Here's how Michael Chong, the Minister for Amateur Sport puts it:
"We have a serious, significant, long-term challenge facing the country in rising obesity and lack of physical activity. Our view is that we, as a government, have to tackle this challenge. We're looking at ways to make Canadians aware, through a public-awareness campaign, of the need for greater physical fitness, the need to live active, healthy lifestyles. So one of the ways that we're looking at delivering this message to Canadians is through the revitalization of Participaction.”
Hmm, I thought the Tories were about getting government out of people's lives.
If I want to be a slob, that's my God-given right. It seems to me the government should be more concerned about cutting its fat, not mine.
Besides government PR campaigns designed to change our lifestyles never work.
Anybody remember the One Tonne Challenge?
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Labour Pains
Once upon a time labour unions were a powerful (and often negative) force in British society.
But then in the 1980s and 1990s, the British Conservative government introduced a series of reforms which both democratized the workforce and defanged the union bosses.
Consequently trade union membership in Britain has declined and not so coincidently, Britain has become one of the top economies in Europe.
So says, Professor Len Shackleton, one of Britain’s foremost experts on the relationship between labour law and the economy, who was speaking yesterday at an event jointly sponsored by the Fraser Institute, LabourWatch and the National Citizens Coalition.
Shackleton also says Canada lags behind the rest of the Western world when it comes to protecting the individual freedoms of unionized employees.
For instance, he says in Canada, unlike in Britain, employees are forced to pay dues even if they don’t belong to the union; also in Canada, unlike in Britain, employees can be punished for crossing a picket line.
Isn’t it about time we caught up?
Professor Shackleton’s Canadian tour continues – he will be in Calgary tonight and in Vancouver tomorrow.
But then in the 1980s and 1990s, the British Conservative government introduced a series of reforms which both democratized the workforce and defanged the union bosses.
Consequently trade union membership in Britain has declined and not so coincidently, Britain has become one of the top economies in Europe.
So says, Professor Len Shackleton, one of Britain’s foremost experts on the relationship between labour law and the economy, who was speaking yesterday at an event jointly sponsored by the Fraser Institute, LabourWatch and the National Citizens Coalition.
Shackleton also says Canada lags behind the rest of the Western world when it comes to protecting the individual freedoms of unionized employees.
For instance, he says in Canada, unlike in Britain, employees are forced to pay dues even if they don’t belong to the union; also in Canada, unlike in Britain, employees can be punished for crossing a picket line.
Isn’t it about time we caught up?
Professor Shackleton’s Canadian tour continues – he will be in Calgary tonight and in Vancouver tomorrow.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
White and Nerdy
Check out this Weird Al video.
It's all about being white and nerdy.
Not that this has anything to do with me, of course.
It's all about being white and nerdy.
Not that this has anything to do with me, of course.
Political Soap Opera
Here's a "Desperate Politicians" billboard the National Citizens Coalition put up last year to protest the Adscam Scandal.
What with the alleged Belinda Stronach-Tie Domi affair, it looks like it was more of a soap opera than we thought!
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
CCP RIP
Yesterday I praised the federal government for scrapping the Court Challenges Program.
But not everybody was as happy as I.
Some people claim we need this $5 million program to help the “poor” launch court challenges.
But in fact, the CCP was not really about helping the poor, it was about helping left-wing special interest groups promote their own pet causes.
Adam Daifallah and Tasha Kheiriddin ably documented this in their book Rescuing Canada’s Right.
The authors point out that, “In some cases, CCP grants appear to have had little to do with financial need and much to do with connections and ideology. Feminist lawyer Beth Symes, received a CCP grant to challenge the fact that she couldn’t deduct the expenses for her nanny. At the time, Symes was earning a six-figure salary and was one of the founders of LEAF.”
Or as columnist Lorne Gunter recently pointed out, “The CCP and its fundees have become a very cozy, close-knit little clan. The program almost never funds cases brought by individuals, only those supported by powerful rights-seeking lobbies, and almost the same dozen or so lobbies.”
Meanwhile, conservatives were routinely shut out of the process.
The CCP was not only overtly ideological, it was also unfair.
Good riddance.
But not everybody was as happy as I.
Some people claim we need this $5 million program to help the “poor” launch court challenges.
But in fact, the CCP was not really about helping the poor, it was about helping left-wing special interest groups promote their own pet causes.
Adam Daifallah and Tasha Kheiriddin ably documented this in their book Rescuing Canada’s Right.
The authors point out that, “In some cases, CCP grants appear to have had little to do with financial need and much to do with connections and ideology. Feminist lawyer Beth Symes, received a CCP grant to challenge the fact that she couldn’t deduct the expenses for her nanny. At the time, Symes was earning a six-figure salary and was one of the founders of LEAF.”
Or as columnist Lorne Gunter recently pointed out, “The CCP and its fundees have become a very cozy, close-knit little clan. The program almost never funds cases brought by individuals, only those supported by powerful rights-seeking lobbies, and almost the same dozen or so lobbies.”
Meanwhile, conservatives were routinely shut out of the process.
The CCP was not only overtly ideological, it was also unfair.
Good riddance.
Monday, September 25, 2006
NCC Applauds the Scrapping of CCP
Just sent out this news release:
(September 25, 2006)The National Citizens Coalition today praised the federal government for scrapping the Court Challenges Program.
“This is a good move for taxpayers and for democracy,” says NCC vice president Gerry Nicholls. “The CCP was nothing but a subsidy program for left-wing special interest groups.”
Nicholls says if anyone wants to launch a constitutional court challenge they should do so with funds raised voluntarily not with tax dollars.
“Taxpayers should not be forced to finance a court challenge they may not support,” says Nicholls.
The NCC vice president points out that his group has launched several court challenges over the years and has never received one cent in public subsidies to help pay for them.
“If you are launching a court challenge that has public support you can raise money,” says Nicholls. “Taxpayers shouldn’t have to help pay the bill.”
(September 25, 2006)The National Citizens Coalition today praised the federal government for scrapping the Court Challenges Program.
“This is a good move for taxpayers and for democracy,” says NCC vice president Gerry Nicholls. “The CCP was nothing but a subsidy program for left-wing special interest groups.”
Nicholls says if anyone wants to launch a constitutional court challenge they should do so with funds raised voluntarily not with tax dollars.
“Taxpayers should not be forced to finance a court challenge they may not support,” says Nicholls.
The NCC vice president points out that his group has launched several court challenges over the years and has never received one cent in public subsidies to help pay for them.
“If you are launching a court challenge that has public support you can raise money,” says Nicholls. “Taxpayers shouldn’t have to help pay the bill.”
Two and a half Cheers for the Government
Glad to see the federal government using the $13 billion surplus to reduce the national debt.
Also glad to see its cutting back on some spending.
But I am disappointed to see that no tax cuts seem to be on the horizon.
Overburdened taxpayers deserve a break.
Also glad to see its cutting back on some spending.
But I am disappointed to see that no tax cuts seem to be on the horizon.
Overburdened taxpayers deserve a break.
My Hair Peace
A friend of mine sent me this interesting commentary on American presidential hairstyles.
My favorite bit is this paragraph:
"Better than the mediocre hair, to the mind of the Manolo, are the example of those politicians, like the Ike and the Gerry Ford, who gracefully went bald without resorting to the dreadful combovers, or the hair plugs, or the ridiculous and expensive custom “hair systems”. This willingness to stoically face the follicular misfortune is the testament to their personal rectitude and the strength of their characters."
This gives me the courage to stoically face my own follicular misfortune.
My favorite bit is this paragraph:
"Better than the mediocre hair, to the mind of the Manolo, are the example of those politicians, like the Ike and the Gerry Ford, who gracefully went bald without resorting to the dreadful combovers, or the hair plugs, or the ridiculous and expensive custom “hair systems”. This willingness to stoically face the follicular misfortune is the testament to their personal rectitude and the strength of their characters."
This gives me the courage to stoically face my own follicular misfortune.
Clinton vs. the Right Wing Conspiracy
Former U.S. president Bill Clinton lost it recently on FOX news when interviewer Chris Wallace asked him some pointed questions about terrorism.
An enraged Clinton not only went ballistic but he tried to cow Wallace.
I wonder how everybody would be reacting if President George Bush had reacted in such a manner.
And I am not the only one. Over at Redstate.com, Academic Elephant (where do they get these names) was asking the same thing:
"I have to ask, if President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld or even Secretary Rice jabbed a reporter with an angry finger during an interview, how long would it take for the cries of assault to start? Of course, none of them would ever indulge in such crass behavior, so the point is to some extent moot, but it seems to me that far from being so angry at Mr. Wallace for having the nerve to ask him some tough questions, Mr. Clinton might owe him an apology, not to mention some thanks for not pressing charges."
I guess there are different rules for Republicans and Democrats.
An enraged Clinton not only went ballistic but he tried to cow Wallace.
I wonder how everybody would be reacting if President George Bush had reacted in such a manner.
And I am not the only one. Over at Redstate.com, Academic Elephant (where do they get these names) was asking the same thing:
"I have to ask, if President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld or even Secretary Rice jabbed a reporter with an angry finger during an interview, how long would it take for the cries of assault to start? Of course, none of them would ever indulge in such crass behavior, so the point is to some extent moot, but it seems to me that far from being so angry at Mr. Wallace for having the nerve to ask him some tough questions, Mr. Clinton might owe him an apology, not to mention some thanks for not pressing charges."
I guess there are different rules for Republicans and Democrats.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
How to Win a Debate
In a few days I will be participating in a TV debate with a couple of socialists, so I will need to prepare myself for verbal combat.
Luckily, I found this on the internet:
HOW TO ARGUE EFFECTIVELY
Author Unknown
I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:
1. Drink liquor.
Suppose you are at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.
2. Make things up.
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove that Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you'll be damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say instead: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."
Note: Always make up exact figures.
If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published on May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say, "You left your soiled underwear in my bathroom."
3. Use meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases.
Memorize this list:
Let me put it this way
In terms of
Vis-a-vis
Per se
As it were
Qua
So to speak
You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.", "e.g.", and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you don't."
Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say, "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money." You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say, "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D."
Only a fool would challenge that statement.
4. Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:
You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples to oranges.
What are your parameters?
This last one is especially valuable. Nobody (other than engineers and policy wonks) has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means.
Don't forget the classic: YOU'RE SO LINEAR.
Here's how to use your comebacks:
You say: As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873...Your opponent says: Lincoln died in 1865.You say: You're begging the question.
- or -
You say: Liberians, like most Asians...Your opponent says: Liberia is in Africa.You say: You're being defensive.
5. Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.
This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say, "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say," or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."
So that's it. You now know how to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons.
Luckily, I found this on the internet:
HOW TO ARGUE EFFECTIVELY
Author Unknown
I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:
1. Drink liquor.
Suppose you are at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.
2. Make things up.
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove that Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you'll be damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say instead: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."
Note: Always make up exact figures.
If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published on May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say, "You left your soiled underwear in my bathroom."
3. Use meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases.
Memorize this list:
Let me put it this way
In terms of
Vis-a-vis
Per se
As it were
Qua
So to speak
You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.", "e.g.", and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you don't."
Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say, "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money." You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say, "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D."
Only a fool would challenge that statement.
4. Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:
You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples to oranges.
What are your parameters?
This last one is especially valuable. Nobody (other than engineers and policy wonks) has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means.
Don't forget the classic: YOU'RE SO LINEAR.
Here's how to use your comebacks:
You say: As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873...Your opponent says: Lincoln died in 1865.You say: You're begging the question.
- or -
You say: Liberians, like most Asians...Your opponent says: Liberia is in Africa.You say: You're being defensive.
5. Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.
This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say, "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say," or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."
So that's it. You now know how to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons.
It's a mad, mad world
Historian Niall Ferguson offers some excellent insights into what was a crazy week in international politics.
In fact, Ferguson makes the case that we are living in a "mad world".
H/T Wonkitties
In fact, Ferguson makes the case that we are living in a "mad world".
H/T Wonkitties
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Good Battle Movies
One movie sub-genre I really love are films featuring "small beleaguered garrisons holding off hordes of enemies."
Here are my top ten of that variety:
Here are my top ten of that variety:
Beau Geste (1939)
Beau Geste (1966)
Friday, September 22, 2006
I was right on the left . . .
Today's Duce
More and more it looks like Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is taking on the role of Mussolini to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Hitler.
Where as Ahmadinejad is the brooding, fanatic; Chavez is the preening, bombastic, clown.
Yet, clown or not, Chavez's alliance with Islamist extremists represents a serious threat to the United States.
Venezuela, after all, is a lot closer to Florida than Iran is.
See here for more on this threat.
Where as Ahmadinejad is the brooding, fanatic; Chavez is the preening, bombastic, clown.
Yet, clown or not, Chavez's alliance with Islamist extremists represents a serious threat to the United States.
Venezuela, after all, is a lot closer to Florida than Iran is.
See here for more on this threat.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Chavez Helps the GOP
It's interesting to see liberal Democrats taking President George Bush's side after Hugo Chavez's "Bush is the devil" speech at the United Nations.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi even called Chavez a "thug".
What this says to me is the Democrats are worried Chavez's attack speech will likely galvanize Americans around Bush and so help the Republicans.
So it makes sense for Democrats to distance themselves from the Venezuelan leader.
But I wonder if the pro-Bush talk will anger the left-wing Democrats who likely support Chavez's take?
Actually, I'm not wondering about it at all. I know it will anger the left.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi even called Chavez a "thug".
What this says to me is the Democrats are worried Chavez's attack speech will likely galvanize Americans around Bush and so help the Republicans.
So it makes sense for Democrats to distance themselves from the Venezuelan leader.
But I wonder if the pro-Bush talk will anger the left-wing Democrats who likely support Chavez's take?
Actually, I'm not wondering about it at all. I know it will anger the left.
Rae's Ravings
Bob Rae doesn't think his disastrous record as Ontario premier would be an issue should he lead the Liberal Party into the next election.
Indeed, when asked by reporters if the Conservatives would attack that record, here's how he responded:
"I think it absolutely wouldn't work and it would be about as relevant as my spending an entire campaign talking about Stephen Harper's career as president of the National Citizen's Coalition. I don't think that's what the next election is going to be about."
Personally I would hope Rae would talk about Harper's career as president of the National Citizens Coalition -- it would be good advertising for us.
But I doubt he will, because when Harper was our president, he didn't drive our organization into the red and leave it a fiscal disaster area.
And unfortunately, that's how Rae left Ontario.
H/T Political Staples
Indeed, when asked by reporters if the Conservatives would attack that record, here's how he responded:
"I think it absolutely wouldn't work and it would be about as relevant as my spending an entire campaign talking about Stephen Harper's career as president of the National Citizen's Coalition. I don't think that's what the next election is going to be about."
Personally I would hope Rae would talk about Harper's career as president of the National Citizens Coalition -- it would be good advertising for us.
But I doubt he will, because when Harper was our president, he didn't drive our organization into the red and leave it a fiscal disaster area.
And unfortunately, that's how Rae left Ontario.
H/T Political Staples
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
