http://sports.espn.go.com/olympics/winter/2010/icehockey/news/story?id=4947716
One of the greatest celebrations I've ever heard. I take back every negative thing I've ever said about women's hockey. And fuck the IOC for giving the women grief over this.
Well said. It's a natural human reaction to celebrate to a degree commensurate with all the effort, training, dedication, expectations, and pressure leading up to this event. If it weren't for the digital age we live in, so much of the "scandalous" behavior of our sports superstars would go unknown. Anyway, Party On, Canada.
Perhaps Rebecca Johnston knew that Dave the Zamboni driver at Lynah nearly lost his job, and wants to be ready in case the position opens again.
Quote from: dbilmesPerhaps Rebecca Johnston knew that Dave the Zamboni driver at Lynah nearly lost his job, and wants to be ready in case the position opens again.
Must be a work-study position as financial aid.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: dbilmesPerhaps Rebecca Johnston knew that Dave the Zamboni driver at Lynah nearly lost his job, and wants to be ready in case the position opens again.
Must be a work-study position as financial aid.
Doesn't she have an athletic scholarship? I read that most Canadian athletes at Cornell do.
Quote from: tretiakhttp://sports.espn.go.com/olympics/winter/2010/icehockey/news/story?id=4947716
One of the greatest celebrations I've ever heard. I take back every negative thing I've ever said about women's hockey. And fuck the IOC for giving the women grief over this.
Underage drinking is still illegal. Poor form.
Quote from: Jim HylaUnderage drinking is still illegal. Poor form.
I'm not sure it's fair to apply US expectations (cultural or legal) about what constitutes "underage" to a Canadian team playing on Canadian soil. I think BC drinking age is either 18 or 19, right? If so, then I'm not sure any of those women were doing anything illegal (maybe Poulin?) -- just tacky.
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: dbilmesPerhaps Rebecca Johnston knew that Dave the Zamboni driver at Lynah nearly lost his job, and wants to be ready in case the position opens again.
Must be a work-study position as financial aid.
Doesn't she have an athletic scholarship? I read that most Canadian athletes at Cornell do.
I thought Cornell doesnt give athletic scholarships?
Quote from: Jim HylaUnderage drinking is still illegal. Poor form.
Because we all know that being illegal is equivalent to being wrong.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: Jim HylaUnderage drinking is still illegal. Poor form.
Because we all know that being illegal is equivalent to being wrong.
And we do want to make everything in life a teaching moment. Bad Canadians! Bad, bad Canadians! Enjoying a moment? For shame!
Quote from: phillysportsfanQuote from: SwampyQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: dbilmesPerhaps Rebecca Johnston knew that Dave the Zamboni driver at Lynah nearly lost his job, and wants to be ready in case the position opens again.
Must be a work-study position as financial aid.
Doesn't she have an athletic scholarship? I read that most Canadian athletes at Cornell do.
I thought Cornell doesnt give athletic scholarships?
Swampy was making a joke, based on this oft-repeated misrepresentation in the Canadian media when talking about Ivy recruits.
Drinking age is 19 in BC, 18 in Alberta where they trained. Marie-Philip Poulin, the goal-scorer, is a month from being 19, says the Associated Press. Illegal - barely. Tacky - in the minds of the beholder or because they didn't uphold the IOC's image of how the winning women's team should exhibit itself. The problem with teens drinking is if they drive, and really the fatality rate doesn't start downward until age 25 not 21 or 19.
For Canada, the mortal sin would have been if they were drinking Bud or Coors Lite. Forunately, it was Molson, which is a Hockey Canada sponsor. So they were simply supporting a sponsor.
As a Cornellian, it was easy to be happy if either team won although this way there were golds for two Cornellians - Rebecca Johnston and ex-coach Melody Davidson. Seeing Team USA flounder on 5x3 PPs did have a vaguely Cornell feel.
While not worthy of an apology or a reprimand, that type of celebration does seem a little out of place at the Olympics. I didn't see any other gold medal winners take to their field with post-match beers and stogies.
It's pretty silly that anyone cares about this at all and that people are making such a big deal about it. The celebration is well deserved especially in a sport where the pinnacle prize is only handed out every 4 years.
There was already this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWgZkUcC9hM and the curling medals have yet to be awarded.
Quote from: Tom ToneIt's pretty silly that anyone cares about this at all and that people are making such a big deal about it. The celebration is well deserved especially in a sport where the pinnacle prize is only handed out every 4 years.
There was already this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWgZkUcC9hM and the curling medals have yet to be awarded.
So, somebody handed him a drink as he was walking, that's not quite the same. While this was not as bad, we do remember the Olympic Hotel trashing, don't we? The Olympics, like it or not, are considered different than other pro sports.
Quote from: Tom Tonehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWgZkUcC9hM
That's awesome!
Whther or not it was in poor taste (I tend to think yes), the celebration seems way over the top for what the Canadian women actually accomplished. Say what you want about all the training, preparation, yada yada yada. They still only played one team that could even compete with them. So they beat the US team in a single game with a whole bunch of maningless prelude. Big deal.
I'm trying to picture the original US Dream Team celebrating like that after winning the gold in Barcelona '92.
I'm going to stop reading this buzzkill of a thread before I break something.
Scandal: Young People Enjoy Victory. News at 11.
Quote from: tretiakhttp://sports.espn.go.com/olympics/winter/2010/icehockey/news/story?id=4947716
One of the greatest celebrations I've ever heard. I take back every negative thing I've ever said about women's hockey. And fuck the IOC for giving the women grief over this.
The day that celebrations cannot be had, is the day the terrorists have won!
Quote from: KeithKWhther or not it was in poor taste (I tend to think yes), the celebration seems way over the top for what the Canadian women actually accomplished. Say what you want about all the training, preparation, yada yada yada. They still only played one team that could even compete with them. So they beat the US team in a single game with a whole bunch of maningless prelude. Big deal.
I'm trying to picture the original US Dream Team celebrating like that after winning the gold in Barcelona '92.
For these women, this is the highest pinnacle of their sport, and they have pretty much devoted their lives to training for the olympics and the women's world championship. They do not an NHL team and dreams of a Stanley Cup to return to on Monday morning. So they had beers and cigars on the ice to celebrate. Yes, the previous games leading up to the finals with the US were formalities, but the expectations to win this game in a "one and done" scenario (rather than the best of 3, 5 or 7) were very high. They have earned all the beer, champagne and cigars they want.
I really don't think they needed to apologize for anything. They did not destroy the arena, they were not out drunk driving around Vancouver. They were just continuing to enjoy their accomplishment where they earned it,on the ice. I wish someone would body check the IOC memmbers into the glass real hard. Maybe it would dislodge the stick they have up their collective butts.
Quote from: ugarteScandal: Young People Enjoy Victory. News at 11.
FTW.
The various soulless corporate and political institutional interests have to be "shocked, shocked do you hear?" That's expected, the lawyers must be appeased, and nobody takes them seriously.
People who actually get their panties in a bunch over it should work in a soup kitchen for a day -- take that energy and do some good. They win the STFU Award.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: Jim HylaUnderage drinking is still illegal. Poor form.
Because we all know that being illegal is equivalent to being wrong.
No what I said was poor form. And seemingly in the eyes of the Olympics it's wrong. All sorts of people, including athletes, have stronger restrictions than the usual jerks like us have. They have to live by it, too bad.
Cornell told me to not throw candy at Lynah. I think they are wrong, but I don't do it.
Quote from: While this was not as bad, we do remember the Olympic Hotel trashing, don't we? The Olympics, like it or not, are considered different than other pro sports.
Wow, even Roy Williams (the UNC coach) thinks this is an over-exaggeration. You're seriously trying to compare the US men's hockey team trashing a hotel room because they were sore losers to a couple of girls celebrating a gold medal? There was no property damage, no injuries, just hockey players having fun. I guess this is a generational gap thing because what the girls did is one of the coolest things ever. They just won a gold medal in their home country - they have every right to go batshit insane. Ugarte summed it up perfectly.
Quote from: tretiakQuote from: While this was not as bad, we do remember the Olympic Hotel trashing, don't we? The Olympics, like it or not, are considered different than other pro sports.
Wow, even Roy Williams (the UNC coach) thinks this is an over-exaggeration. You're seriously trying to compare the US men's hockey team trashing a hotel room because they were sore losers to a couple of girls celebrating a gold medal? There was no property damage, no injuries, just hockey players having fun. I guess this is a generational gap thing because what the girls did is one of the coolest things ever. They just won a gold medal in their home country - they have every right to go batshit insane. Ugarte summed it up perfectly.
I wasn't comparing them, that's why I said "While this was not as bad". I was just pointing out that celebrations can get out of hand.
As to whether they have every right, that's not up to us to say, as we don't employ them.
I'm pretty sure they'll be fine since they're Canadian. If the US had won and behaved in such a matter I suspect the USOC would have insisted the IOC go Lago.
Everybody who ever opened a beer in the locker room after winning an adult hockey tournament [or even playing a game in an adult league] raise your hand....That will probably be every adult male in Canada and a good number of the women. And a lot of men and women here in the sober and perfect US of A. So what these young women did was not at all unusual; they just made the tactical error of bringing the party out of the locker room so that the rest of the world could find out how one traditionally celebrates winning hockey games.
Quote from: Jim HylaI was just pointing out that celebrations can get out of hand.
In his defense, McKee wasn't even there... ::whistle::
Quote from: dag14Everybody who ever opened a beer in the locker room after winning an adult hockey tournament [or even playing a game in an adult league] raise your hand....That will probably be every adult male in Canada and a good number of the women. And a lot of men and women here in the sober and perfect US of A.
I guarantee that only a very small fraction of people in the US of A have ever done what you've described.
(You did say hockey, after all.)
Looks like Molson wanted some publicity photos. I can see some exec saying "Hey you know what would fun? If you'd go party it up on the ice and take this magnum of Molson Canadian with ya." Very spontaneous like.
Though I think it was in poor taste, having looked at the photos, i'd say it wasn't a big deal. Fans had left the US team was gone. IOC should sound off on it but no action against team Canada should be taken.
Quote from: I wasn't comparing them, that's why I said "While this was not as bad". I was just pointing out that celebrations can get out of hand.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/longterm/olympics1998/sport/hockey/articles/trash20.htm
By bringing up the Nagano incident, you are comparing them. Additionally, I don't think you remember the Nagano incident correctly. The American hockey players were celebrating getting eliminated and not medaling? ::wtf:: They got drunk and trashed a room because they were pissed. Alcohol doesn't make something a celebration.
Then, you have the Canadian women celebrating a gold medal by drinking. How exactly could it have gotten out of hand - was Rebecca Johnston going to get a DUI for driving the zamboni? Were the women going to one-up Brandi Chastain and have sex on the ice?
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: tretiakQuote from: While this was not as bad, we do remember the Olympic Hotel trashing, don't we? The Olympics, like it or not, are considered different than other pro sports.
Wow, even Roy Williams (the UNC coach) thinks this is an over-exaggeration. You're seriously trying to compare the US men's hockey team trashing a hotel room because they were sore losers to a couple of girls celebrating a gold medal? There was no property damage, no injuries, just hockey players having fun. I guess this is a generational gap thing because what the girls did is one of the coolest things ever. They just won a gold medal in their home country - they have every right to go batshit insane. Ugarte summed it up perfectly.
I wasn't comparing them, that's why I said "While this was not as bad". I was just pointing out that celebrations can get out of hand.
As to whether they have every right, that's not up to us to say, as we don't employ them.
Here's the thing, Jim: They didn't do anything wrong. AT ALL. Not "what they did wasn't a big deal" or "other people have done worse": They did
nothing wrong. After a win, they went back into an EMPTY arena and had a bit of fun. Zeroing in on the incredibly minor drinking age violation - a difference of Provincial law, not "morals" - says a lot more about the "zeroer" [sic] than it does about her. This controversy is almost as stupid as Scotty Lago getting sent home for partying at a club with his medal on (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20345956,00.html). And only because there haven't actually been any repercussions yet. As soon as there are, this zooms straight to the gold in the fake-controversy Olympics.
The Olympics has a disproportionate sense of its own solemnity. There is no reason that the rest of the world has to jump on board. Casting ANY blame on the women of the Canadian hockey team buys into that bullshit.
I can't believe I came back to this thread. And I can't believe that I probably will again.
I agree the IOC should take the stick out. If they want to punish the team then the doddering old fools should put on skates and embarrass the Canadian Women at their own game. I would pay real good money to see that.
The IOC is just trying to protect its commercial interests that is all. I will raise a beer to the Canadian women tonight and a finger to the IOC.
I understand there are a lot of libertarians here who think you can do what you want, as long as you don't harm others. I tend to agree, but not when you're employed by someone. Then you need to follow their guidelines. What the Canadian OC rules are I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me that they have a statement pertaining to this. Look we've all done stupid things and I consider this to be that. So what.
And yes I do know they that Nagano was after a loss, and yes it was also trashing, and so yes maybe my "comparison" was too strong. So now can you all just go have a beer and let the Canadians handle this. They are their employer.
Quote from: tretiakThen, you have the Canadian women celebrating a gold medal by drinking. How exactly could it have gotten out of hand - was Rebecca Johnston going to get a DUI for driving the zamboni?
Technically driving the zamboni while intoxicated is probably a criminal offense. If she was actually drunk then it would be dangerous. Alcohol and operating heavy machinery don't mix.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: tretiakThen, you have the Canadian women celebrating a gold medal by drinking. How exactly could it have gotten out of hand - was Rebecca Johnston going to get a DUI for driving the zamboni?
Technically driving the zamboni while intoxicated is probably a criminal offense. If she was actually drunk then it would be dangerous. Alcohol and operating heavy machinery don't mix.
Well it isn't like she took it out on the streets in order to get a burger to go along with that beer (http://boiseguardian.com/2006/11/21/zamboni-joy-riders-fired/).
In Canada, is a zamboni considered a vehicle? (http://www.loweringthebar.net/2007/04/definition_of_v.html)
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: tretiakQuote from: While this was not as bad, we do remember the Olympic Hotel trashing, don't we? The Olympics, like it or not, are considered different than other pro sports.
Wow, even Roy Williams (the UNC coach) thinks this is an over-exaggeration. You're seriously trying to compare the US men's hockey team trashing a hotel room because they were sore losers to a couple of girls celebrating a gold medal? There was no property damage, no injuries, just hockey players having fun. I guess this is a generational gap thing because what the girls did is one of the coolest things ever. They just won a gold medal in their home country - they have every right to go batshit insane. Ugarte summed it up perfectly.
I wasn't comparing them, that's why I said "While this was not as bad". I was just pointing out that celebrations can get out of hand.
As to whether they have every right, that's not up to us to say, as we don't employ them.
Here's the thing, Jim: They didn't do anything wrong. AT ALL. Not "what they did wasn't a big deal" or "other people have done worse": They did nothing wrong. After a win, they went back into an EMPTY arena and had a bit of fun. Zeroing in on the incredibly minor drinking age violation - a difference of Provincial law, not "morals" - says a lot more about the "zeroer" [sic] than it does about her. This controversy is almost as stupid as Scotty Lago getting sent home for partying at a club with his medal on (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20345956,00.html). And only because there haven't actually been any repercussions yet. As soon as there are, this zooms straight to the gold in the fake-controversy Olympics.
The Olympics has a disproportionate sense of its own solemnity. There is no reason that the rest of the world has to jump on board. Casting ANY blame on the women of the Canadian hockey team buys into that bullshit.
I can't believe I came back to this thread. And I can't believe that I probably will again.
Whether they did anything wrong is not for us to say, we don't employ them. When Michael Phelps smoked pot I didn't think he did anything wrong, but his employers did. Tiger didn't do anything wrong, legally as far as we know, but his employers did. So they have a right to do what's in the contract; I don't know what is in there, neither do any of the rest of you.
Come back under threat of ???.::deadhorse::
Quote from: RitaIn Canada, is a zamboni considered a vehicle? (http://www.loweringthebar.net/2007/04/definition_of_v.html)
In Canada, a zamboni is considered a marital aid.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: tretiakQuote from: While this was not as bad, we do remember the Olympic Hotel trashing, don't we? The Olympics, like it or not, are considered different than other pro sports.
Wow, even Roy Williams (the UNC coach) thinks this is an over-exaggeration. You're seriously trying to compare the US men's hockey team trashing a hotel room because they were sore losers to a couple of girls celebrating a gold medal? There was no property damage, no injuries, just hockey players having fun. I guess this is a generational gap thing because what the girls did is one of the coolest things ever. They just won a gold medal in their home country - they have every right to go batshit insane. Ugarte summed it up perfectly.
I wasn't comparing them, that's why I said "While this was not as bad". I was just pointing out that celebrations can get out of hand.
As to whether they have every right, that's not up to us to say, as we don't employ them.
Here's the thing, Jim: They didn't do anything wrong. AT ALL. Not "what they did wasn't a big deal" or "other people have done worse": They did nothing wrong. After a win, they went back into an EMPTY arena and had a bit of fun. Zeroing in on the incredibly minor drinking age violation - a difference of Provincial law, not "morals" - says a lot more about the "zeroer" [sic] than it does about her. This controversy is almost as stupid as Scotty Lago getting sent home for partying at a club with his medal on (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20345956,00.html). And only because there haven't actually been any repercussions yet. As soon as there are, this zooms straight to the gold in the fake-controversy Olympics.
The Olympics has a disproportionate sense of its own solemnity. There is no reason that the rest of the world has to jump on board. Casting ANY blame on the women of the Canadian hockey team buys into that bullshit.
I can't believe I came back to this thread. And I can't believe that I probably will again.
Whether they did anything wrong is not for us to say, we don't employ them. When Michael Phelps smoked pot I didn't think he did anything wrong, but his employers did. Tiger didn't do anything wrong, legally as far as we know, but his employers did. So they have a right to do what's in the contract; I don't know what is in there, neither do any of the rest of you.
Come back under threat of ???.::deadhorse::
If their "terms of employment" said anything, it was "Don't do anything embarrassing, a term that we will define unilaterally and arbitrarily at some time in the future." Good luck living under that regime because it apparently includes "being too happy."
The COC - and other Helen Lovejoy's - don't need defending. The victims of their outlandish moralizing do. You may think you are taking a neutral position - that the employer chooses the terms of employment - but the position you are taking is that all such terms are equally worthy of respect when exercised. Do you sincerely believe that anything these women did violated any rational "job requirement"? If not, please stop defending the IOC/COC. If you do, stop hiding behind the employer's prerogative so that you may be properly mocked.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: tretiakThen, you have the Canadian women celebrating a gold medal by drinking. How exactly could it have gotten out of hand - was Rebecca Johnston going to get a DUI for driving the zamboni?
Technically driving the zamboni while intoxicated is probably a criminal offense. If she was actually drunk then it would be dangerous. Alcohol and operating heavy machinery don't mix.
This is the only thing I have any problem with: It's all fun until somebody gets run over by a Zamboni. ::drive::
Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: KeithKQuote from: tretiakThen, you have the Canadian women celebrating a gold medal by drinking. How exactly could it have gotten out of hand - was Rebecca Johnston going to get a DUI for driving the zamboni?
Technically driving the zamboni while intoxicated is probably a criminal offense. If she was actually drunk then it would be dangerous. Alcohol and operating heavy machinery don't mix.
This is the only thing I have any problem with: It's all fun until somebody gets run over by a Zamboni. ::drive::
From what I read, she didn't DRIVE the Zamboni. She climbed on the Zamboni and honked the horn. If HWI is illegal the whole world is fucked.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: RitaIn Canada, is a zamboni considered a vehicle? (http://www.loweringthebar.net/2007/04/definition_of_v.html)
In Canada, a zamboni is considered a marital aid.
Quote from: ugarteShe climbed on the Zamboni and honked the horn.
...then climbing on it and honking the horn is a signal of breeding-season territoriality.
In other news, the team Johnston returns to next year is up 2-0 at the end of 2 against 'gate in Game 1 of the ECAC QF
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: KeithKQuote from: tretiakThen, you have the Canadian women celebrating a gold medal by drinking. How exactly could it have gotten out of hand - was Rebecca Johnston going to get a DUI for driving the zamboni?
Technically driving the zamboni while intoxicated is probably a criminal offense. If she was actually drunk then it would be dangerous. Alcohol and operating heavy machinery don't mix.
This is the only thing I have any problem with: It's all fun until somebody gets run over by a Zamboni. ::drive::
From what I read, she didn't DRIVE the Zamboni. She climbed on the Zamboni and honked the horn. If HWI is illegal the whole world is fucked.
I just wish honking (sober or while intoxicated) was illegal. In Miami, people honk ALL the time and for no apparent (to me) reason. It still startles me and I try to figure out what I did wrong, be it if I'm in my car or just standing on the sidewalk with my dog. (off soapbox and back to work).
Quote from: Hillel HoffmannQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: RitaIn Canada, is a zamboni considered a vehicle? (http://www.loweringthebar.net/2007/04/definition_of_v.html)
In Canada, a zamboni is considered a marital aid.
Quote from: ugarteShe climbed on the Zamboni and honked the horn.
...then climbing on it and honking the horn is a signal of breeding-season territoriality.
LOL. thanks. **]
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: tretiakQuote from: While this was not as bad, we do remember the Olympic Hotel trashing, don't we? The Olympics, like it or not, are considered different than other pro sports.
Wow, even Roy Williams (the UNC coach) thinks this is an over-exaggeration. You're seriously trying to compare the US men's hockey team trashing a hotel room because they were sore losers to a couple of girls celebrating a gold medal? There was no property damage, no injuries, just hockey players having fun. I guess this is a generational gap thing because what the girls did is one of the coolest things ever. They just won a gold medal in their home country - they have every right to go batshit insane. Ugarte summed it up perfectly.
I wasn't comparing them, that's why I said "While this was not as bad". I was just pointing out that celebrations can get out of hand.
As to whether they have every right, that's not up to us to say, as we don't employ them.
Here's the thing, Jim: They didn't do anything wrong. AT ALL. Not "what they did wasn't a big deal" or "other people have done worse": They did nothing wrong. After a win, they went back into an EMPTY arena and had a bit of fun. Zeroing in on the incredibly minor drinking age violation - a difference of Provincial law, not "morals" - says a lot more about the "zeroer" [sic] than it does about her. This controversy is almost as stupid as Scotty Lago getting sent home for partying at a club with his medal on (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20345956,00.html). And only because there haven't actually been any repercussions yet. As soon as there are, this zooms straight to the gold in the fake-controversy Olympics.
The Olympics has a disproportionate sense of its own solemnity. There is no reason that the rest of the world has to jump on board. Casting ANY blame on the women of the Canadian hockey team buys into that bullshit.
I can't believe I came back to this thread. And I can't believe that I probably will again.
Whether they did anything wrong is not for us to say, we don't employ them. When Michael Phelps smoked pot I didn't think he did anything wrong, but his employers did. Tiger didn't do anything wrong, legally as far as we know, but his employers did. So they have a right to do what's in the contract; I don't know what is in there, neither do any of the rest of you.
Come back under threat of ???.::deadhorse::
If their "terms of employment" said anything, it was "Don't do anything embarrassing, a term that we will define unilaterally and arbitrarily at some time in the future." Good luck living under that regime because it apparently includes "being too happy."
The COC - and other Helen Lovejoy's - don't need defending. The victims of their outlandish moralizing do. You may think you are taking a neutral position - that the employer chooses the terms of employment - but the position you are taking is that all such terms are equally worthy of respect when exercised. Do you sincerely believe that anything these women did violated any rational "job requirement"? If not, please stop defending the IOC/COC. If you do, stop hiding behind the employer's prerogative so that you may be properly mocked.
If you wish, start mocking; it won't bother me.
If you look back at my posts, about the worst I said they did was stupid and poor form. If their contract said don't, so be it. Now if you want to enlarge that to the thought that I think anything that an employer wants is OK, well then you don't know me well. So start mocking, I'm ready for it.
Almost 50 posts and nobody used "cigar" and "Freud" in the same post. That's maturity of a sort.
Quote from: Jim HylaCornell told me to not throw candy at Lynah. I think they are wrong, but I don't do it.
You are comparing the two scenarios at different points: a better comparison would be between your throwing candy at Lynah prior to their asking you to stop and the girls celebrating with stogies and champagne on the ice, presumably prior to anyone telling them not to do it. I suspect both are much less likely now that attention is being paid to it.
But the issue for me is a whole lot simpler: in both cases I think there are just too many people with sticks up their asses complaining about something that is harmless fun. These people are known as "killjoys" and should just STFU and either appreciate the fun or get out of the way.
Quote from: billhowardAlmost 50 posts and nobody used "cigar" and "Freud" in the same post. That's maturity of a sort.
Well, when tretiak mentioned Brandi Chastain, I thought about sports-bras and giggled. Does that help?
Also, Molson & Coors are the same company today.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: Jim HylaCornell told me to not throw candy at Lynah. I think they are wrong, but I don't do it.
You are comparing the two scenarios at different points: a better comparison would be between your throwing candy at Lynah prior to their asking you to stop and the girls celebrating with stogies and champagne on the ice, presumably prior to anyone telling them not to do it. I suspect both are much less likely now that attention is being paid to it.
But the issue for me is a whole lot simpler: in both cases I think there are just too many people with sticks up their asses complaining about something that is harmless fun. These people are known as "killjoys" and should just STFU and either appreciate the fun or get out of the way.
That's my point, they probably have been told some ideas about behavior, none of us knows what. If they were told before, and after other incidents in Olympics I'm assuming something has been said, then they are similar.
As I said about Phelps, I don't think any of these things were terrible, but when you accept the big time, and you're getting paid, then some things are expected. But again I think I'm ::deadhorse:: and none of you are apt to change your opinion.
The IOC is "investigating" and presumably they investigate all complaints about unseemly behavior by athletes - that's part of their responsibility.
That said, I wonder how much negative press this is getting in Canada. I'm guessing little to none, and here's why - after she got bounced from medal position in her last race, Julia Mancuso popped a champagne bottle *on the slopes* in front of the crowd and started drinking and sharing it with friends. Where's the outrage? Why isn't this being investigated? Why isn't the media making a big deal of it? I mean, it was on NBC (in HD!), on the tape-delayed broadcast no less, so there's definitely footage.
If the story here was a one-liner of the form "the team celebrated but one of the players was underage according to BC law so the IOC is investigating" then I don't think we'd be having this huge discussion, and I'm guessing that's the main story outside of the US. But with our sensationalist media and our collective puritanical and inconsistently applied standards for behavior, this story gets blown out of proportion. Now it's not about a simple violation of drinking laws, which is really the only story here, it's about standards of decorum and the relative evils of stogies (*gasp*) and beer (*the horror*) on the ice (*OMGWTFBBQ*).
They won a freaking gold medal. Was the celebration the height of class and decorum? No, but it wasn't crass and boorish either. They didn't destroy anything, they didn't hurt anyone, they didn't rub the US team's collective faces in the outcome. It was a bunch of happy women celebrating something they worked for years to achieve. The fact that there's no depth in Olympic women's hockey doesn't diminish their effort or make a celebration of their accomplishment unreasonable - remember, a silver medal would have been a failure and bronze would have been a disaster, and the US team didn't reach the finals in Torino so the earlier games weren't guaranteed to be a formality.
It's the typical media tempest in a teapot. Nobody will care about this next week, at worst the IOC will wag its finger at the Canadian women and next time they'll keep it in the locker room. Meh. I think the only thing anybody should be getting worked up about is just how bad our media has gotten, but I think I'm mostly numb to that by now.
Quote from: Tom Lento... and next time they'll keep it in the locker room. ...
And we'll be the worse for it. It was a fun moment, one I'm glad that someone documented.
Quote from: Tom LentoThe IOC is "investigating" and presumably they investigate all complaints about unseemly behavior by athletes - that's part of their responsibility.
That said, I wonder how much negative press this is getting in Canada. I'm guessing little to none, and here's why - after she got bounced from medal position in her last race, Julia Mancuso popped a champagne bottle *on the slopes* in front of the crowd and started drinking and sharing it with friends. Where's the outrage? Why isn't this being investigated? Why isn't the media making a big deal of it? I mean, it was on NBC (in HD!), on the tape-delayed broadcast no less, so there's definitely footage.
If the story here was a one-liner of the form "the team celebrated but one of the players was underage according to BC law so the IOC is investigating" then I don't think we'd be having this huge discussion, and I'm guessing that's the main story outside of the US. But with our sensationalist media and our collective puritanical and inconsistently applied standards for behavior, this story gets blown out of proportion. Now it's not about a simple violation of drinking laws, which is really the only story here, it's about standards of decorum and the relative evils of stogies (*gasp*) and beer (*the horror*) on the ice (*OMGWTFBBQ*).
They won a freaking gold medal. Was the celebration the height of class and decorum? No, but it wasn't crass and boorish either. They didn't destroy anything, they didn't hurt anyone, they didn't rub the US team's collective faces in the outcome. It was a bunch of happy women celebrating something they worked for years to achieve. The fact that there's no depth in Olympic women's hockey doesn't diminish their effort or make a celebration of their accomplishment unreasonable - remember, a silver medal would have been a failure and bronze would have been a disaster, and the US team didn't reach the finals in Torino so the earlier games weren't guaranteed to be a formality.
It's the typical media tempest in a teapot. Nobody will care about this next week, at worst the IOC will wag its finger at the Canadian women and next time they'll keep it in the locker room. Meh. I think the only thing anybody should be getting worked up about is just how bad our media has gotten, but I think I'm mostly numb to that by now.
Well, here's the CTV discussion (http://www.ctvolympics.ca/hockey/news/newsid=52960.html#ioc+wont+investigate+womens+hockey+celebration) of the IOC "investigation". It doesn't exist. Their headline is
QuoteIOC won't investigate women's hockey celebration.
The IOC spokesman clearly says the US press is at fault;-)
Quote"because the scrutiny isn't coming from the IOC, the scrutiny is coming from most or all of the front pages of all of the Canadian press and television," he said.
It's funny what you can find with a little work.=]
Even horses' asses sometimes recognize themselves in the mirror and the IOC is backpedaling quickly, saying only that they're asking for further details. The media helped the IOC recognize there are things that are worse problems in Vancouver, starting with a luge track that killed a competitor, and they approved the plans for it.
Leno or Letterman or Conan should get a one-liner out of it. It kind of writes itself. Half the humor is watching the host's eyebrows.
Quote from: billhowardLeno or Letterman or Conan should get a one-liner out of it. It kind of writes itself. Half the humor is watching the host's eyebrows.
Reminds me of a Kramer line from Seinfeld when he is imitating Jerry and Jerry asks what is the punch line, Kramer says something like its all in the attitude or expression
Thanks Jim. All that proves to me is the Canadian media is just as dumb as ours.
Edit - Actually, after reading some of the coverage I stand by the entirety of my original statement. The IOC announced an investigation and then backed off, which seems reasonable - investigating when necessary and backing off when there's nothing worth investigating is what they're supposed to do. The coverage I've seen from the US media has ranged from neutral to highly negative. The coverage from the Canadian media was mostly neutral (although admittedly I only scanned a few articles), and apparently actual Canadians were pretty supportive of their women's hockey team during the whole thing. http://www.torontosun.com/sports/vancouver2010/hockey/2010/02/26/13037636.html
The jury's still out on whether or not the Canadian media is as dumb as ours, but I'm guessing it's close but no cigar. Or Zamboni rides. Ack ack.
If the Canadian media is dumping on Team Canada, it's a national inferiority complex that is unnecessary. So the luge run killed a person, one of the flame pillars didn't go erect, and there was an ugly chain link fence around the outdoor flame. The Olympics have been great once they trucked in snow, Canada has done well in the medals department, and Vancouver is a world-class city we should have stolen in the 1800s rather than mess around trying to nip away a bit of Cuba. I think Vancouver should run more ads showing the 14-year-old hookers and homeless and say, 'The Real Vancouver. Go Someplace Else. [Meanwhile, We're Keeping the Good Parts to Ourselves.' Sort of a Don't Californicate Oregon campaign.
Quote from: billhowardIf the Canadian media is dumping on Team Canada, it's a national inferiority complex that is unnecessary. So the luge run killed a person, one of the flame pillars didn't go erect, and there was an ugly chain link fence around the outdoor flame. The Olympics have been great once they trucked in snow, Canada has done well in the medals department, and Vancouver is a world-class city we should have stolen in the 1800s rather than mess around trying to nip away a bit of Cuba. I think Vancouver should run more ads showing the 14-year-old hookers and homeless and say, 'The Real Vancouver. Go Someplace Else. [Meanwhile, We're Keeping the Good Parts to Ourselves.' Sort of a Don't Californicate Oregon campaign.
Bill,
You have to put these things in historical context. Vancouver was hardly a world-class city in the 1800s. It was incorporated only in 1886 and had a population of around 20,000 by 1900. In contrast, Havana had been the major transhipment point for Spanish gold and silver stolen from the Americas and was one of the richest cities in the New World for much of that time. None other than Ben Franklin had proposed annexing Cuba, and we warned Bolivar to stay away. (Before the Civil War, it was better to have a Spanish colony than another independent country run by freed former slaves.) On the other hand, we seemed to give up on Canada after the War of 1812. Cuba was a country of blacks and Hispanics, and our tradition since the Monroe Doctrine, the Mexican war, and Good Neighbor policy has always held non-Anglos in a special place ::pain:: After we figured out there was no Northwest Passage, Canada was just another forest with too many people named Gordon or McKenzie. If you were Meyer Lanski looking for a place to build your casino and run your prostitution, where would you choose: some banana republic with a two-bit dictator where the climate is wonderful except during hurricane season, the people impoverished, and labor is therefore cheap, or some god-forsaken place in the Pacific Northwest, reachable only by a 4-day train trip from NY, the weather often rainy or overcast, and where everyone stops at 4 for tea? After 1959, Cuba became the official U.S. boogie man (before Lee Atwater (http://www.boogiemanfilm.com/)). How else could we so easily prove that Socialism causes poverty? Surely not by pointing to Canada! Since most U.S. citizens never visited Haiti, never got out of their hotels in Jamaica, and never went outside Havana before 1959, post-1959 Cuba is perfect proof of the natural superiority of the capitalist system. It would therefore be logically inconsistent if we didn't want to bring the benefits of capitalism to Cuba (and the benefits of Cuba to capitalism) by annexing it. (Or "transitioning" as in the latest euphemism (http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/).) Canada, on the other hand, would just be a big pain in the ::moon::. Imagine the confusion if we told the Canadians they now had the benefits of the best health care system in the world instead of their current socialist system. (Or imagine telling this to the Cubans, for that matter, but they're not white, so people here wouldn't take them seriously.) There's hardly any comparison!
Quote from: SwampyYou have to put these things in historical context. Vancouver was hardly a world-class city in the 1800s. It was incorporated only in 1886 and had a population of around 20,000 by 1900.
Vancouver might still be a backwater if Charles Melville Hays, General Manager of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, hadn't gone down with the Titanic along with his plans to make Prince Rupert--Grand Trunk's western terminus--the primary Canadian port for shipping to and from the far east.
Man, this is why I like being a Cornellian.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: SwampyYou have to put these things in historical context. Vancouver was hardly a world-class city in the 1800s. It was incorporated only in 1886 and had a population of around 20,000 by 1900.
Vancouver might still be a backwater if Charles Melville Hays, General Manager of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, hadn't gone down with the Titanic along with his plans to make Prince Rupert--Grand Trunk's western terminus--the primary Canadian port for shipping to and from the far east.
IINM, Prince Rupert and Portland, OR are actually better choices than Vancouver and Seattle, respectively, as they are deep water ports. But the railroad barons had other plans.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: SwampyYou have to put these things in historical context. Vancouver was hardly a world-class city in the 1800s. It was incorporated only in 1886 and had a population of around 20,000 by 1900.
Vancouver might still be a backwater if Charles Melville Hays, General Manager of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, hadn't gone down with the Titanic along with his plans to make Prince Rupert--Grand Trunk's western terminus--the primary Canadian port for shipping to and from the far east.
IINM, Prince Rupert and Portland, OR are actually better choices than Vancouver and Seattle, respectively, as they are deep water ports. But the railroad barons had other plans.
From Wikipedia: "Prince Rupert's sheltered harbour is the deepest ice-free natural harbour in North America." It's also spectacularly beautiful.
Good points. We did have no qualms about taking on Alaska when Russia listed it on eBay.
Quote from: Jim HylaMan, this is why I like being a Cornellian.
Seriously, that was an amazing exchange even for this forum.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: SwampyYou have to put these things in historical context. Vancouver was hardly a world-class city in the 1800s. It was incorporated only in 1886 and had a population of around 20,000 by 1900.
Vancouver might still be a backwater if Charles Melville Hays, General Manager of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, hadn't gone down with the Titanic along with his plans to make Prince Rupert--Grand Trunk's western terminus--the primary Canadian port for shipping to and from the far east.
IINM, Prince Rupert and Portland, OR are actually better choices than Vancouver and Seattle, respectively, as they are deep water ports. But the railroad barons had other plans.
From Wikipedia: "Prince Rupert's sheltered harbour is the deepest ice-free natural harbour in North America." It's also spectacularly beautiful.
Wait, so the Columbia/Willamette basin is deeper than the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Puget Sound? I had thought that navigating into the Columbia was very tricky.
Quote from: mnagowskiWait, so the Columbia/Willamette basin is deeper than the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Puget Sound? I had thought that navigating into the Columbia was very tricky.
Maybe because of soil erosion. When I was living there they were just starting the equivalent of a "Big Dig" to undo about 40 years of silting of the harbor.
But what I always heard is that Portland harbor is the point at which the Columbia become difficult, so ocean shipping stops there and unloads onto trains for the trip into the interior. There are certainly heavy freight lines running night and day on both banks of the Columbia for as far east as I've been.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: mnagowskiWait, so the Columbia/Willamette basin is deeper than the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Puget Sound? I had thought that navigating into the Columbia was very tricky.
Maybe because of soil erosion. When I was living there they were just starting the equivalent of a "Big Dig" to undo about 40 years of silting of the harbor.
But what I always heard is that Portland harbor is the point at which the Columbia become difficult, so ocean shipping stops there and unloads onto trains for the trip into the interior. There are certainly heavy freight lines running night and day on both banks of the Columbia for as far east as I've been.
The trickiest part about the Columbia is getting past the bar in Astoria. You're required to have a pilot to do so.
http://www.columbiariverbarpilots.com/index.html
Quote from: WederThe trickiest part about the Columbia is getting past the bar in Astoria. You're required to have a pilot to do so.
http://www.columbiariverbarpilots.com/index.html
And no reciprocity for California lawyers relocating.
Quote from: WederThe trickiest part about the Columbia is getting past the bar in Astoria. You're required to have a pilot to do so.
http://www.columbiariverbarpilots.com/index.html
Lovely: government granted monopoly? Check. Incumbent union (i.e. cartel) with artificially limited membership? Check? Rates set by the cartel under the cover of "safety"? Check.
I'll give them one thing: the website does a very good job at making it seem like they're performing a public service by withholding the lube.
If you are ever in Astoria Oregon - visit the museum and light ship on the river front there - very worth about 3-5 hours as the history and exhibits are extensive and interesting.
The pilots earn there pay much of the year!
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: WederThe trickiest part about the Columbia is getting past the bar in Astoria. You're required to have a pilot to do so.
http://www.columbiariverbarpilots.com/index.html
Lovely: government granted monopoly? Check. Incumbent union (i.e. cartel) with artificially limited membership? Check? Rates set by the cartel under the cover of "safety"? Check.
I'll give them one thing: the website does a very good job at making it seem like they're performing a public service by withholding the lube.
You're right, Kyle. I have a much better idea: The shipping companies can navigate their own ships through the treacherous waters however they damn well please, but presumably cheaply to placate their shareholders.
Then when one of their oil tankers crashes and causes an oil spill to spread over 150 miles of pristine Pacific coastline, causing all sorts of environmental and health repercussions for millions of people, the management can declare corporate bankruptcy and absolve themselves and their employees of any further liability. They will, of course, leave the U.S. taxpayers to pay for the costly clean-up and decades of lingering health bills.
Quote from: mnagowskiThen when one of their oil tankers crashes and causes an oil spill to spread over 150 miles of pristine Pacific coastline, causing all sorts of environmental and health repercussions for millions of people, the management can declare corporate bankruptcy and absolve themselves and their employees of any further liability. They will, of course, leave the U.S. taxpayers to pay for the costly clean-up and decades of lingering health bills.
It seems like requiring shippers to carry a certain amount of insurance coverage would be sufficient, and certainly a solution that is far less amenable to government-union collusion.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: mnagowskiThen when one of their oil tankers crashes and causes an oil spill to spread over 150 miles of pristine Pacific coastline, causing all sorts of environmental and health repercussions for millions of people, the management can declare corporate bankruptcy and absolve themselves and their employees of any further liability. They will, of course, leave the U.S. taxpayers to pay for the costly clean-up and decades of lingering health bills.
It seems like requiring shippers to carry a certain amount of insurance coverage would be sufficient, and certainly a solution that is far less amenable to government-union collusion.
Not really. All the insurance contract does is (attempt to) price out the expected cost of the risk -- not to curb the risky activity itself. And tail risk is notoriously difficult to price. Given this risk, what you really want to be able to do is take all reasonable efforts to ensure that the ships make it through the most deadly sandbar in the world in one piece. The insurance contract will not be able to do that, unless the company has a keen sense of the skill of every ship's captain and can effectively force a company to go out of business (through high premiums).
So it is easier (and more effective and cheaper) just to helicopter in fifteen highly trained professionals to do the job.
Quote from: mnagowskiNot really. All the insurance contract does is (attempt to) price out the expected cost of the risk -- not to curb the risky activity itself. And tail risk is notoriously difficult to price. Given this risk, what you really want to be able to do is take all reasonable efforts to ensure that the ships make it through the most deadly sandbar in the world in one piece. The insurance contract will not be able to do that, unless the company has a keen sense of the skill of every ship's captain and can effectively force a company to go out of business (through high premiums).
So it is easier (and more effective and cheaper) just to helicopter in fifteen highly trained professionals to do the job.
Yeah, probably. See, I'm not completely recalcitrant. :-) I just reflexively bristle at such obvious collusion between a cartel and the government. But given the unique nature of this particular danger, producers do have other choices, like shipping the goods elsewhere. I presume the service is priced sufficiently low that producers and shippers can still make a profit, or this waterway would go unused; and presumably the local residents are happy enough with this arrangement that they are willing to trade paying higher prices for goods for a much lower probability of an environmental disaster.
Man this thread has it all.
Quote from: French RageMan this thread has it all.
Almost there. Do a search for "syphilis" and when it returns "No match found: 'Clarkson hockey'," you can see it needs fleshing out. And we didn't mention Dryden's unbeaten senior season though we did hit on Cornell hockey scholarships. But otherwise, yeah, we've done a good job drifting without going more than one std dev away.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: mnagowskiThen when one of their oil tankers crashes and causes an oil spill to spread over 150 miles of pristine Pacific coastline, causing all sorts of environmental and health repercussions for millions of people, the management can declare corporate bankruptcy and absolve themselves and their employees of any further liability. They will, of course, leave the U.S. taxpayers to pay for the costly clean-up and decades of lingering health bills.
It seems like requiring shippers to carry a certain amount of insurance coverage would be sufficient, and certainly a solution that is far less amenable to government-union collusion.
But not government-insurance company-shipping company collusion.
Also, if the hypothesis is that corporate bankruptcy can be used as an out to avoid accountability, won't insurance companies have recourse to this too?
The insurance option also presupposes that the insurer will provide just compensation for not only the damages but also the grief involved in collecting for them. On what planet does this happen?
To move beyond one standard deviation, let's return to Bill Howard's point that U.S. interests would be better served if we'd had a policy of annexing parts of Canada rather than of Cuba. There's more here than meets the eye.
If that commie FDR had not gotten rid of the Platt Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment#Aftermath), all this talk about annexing parts of Cuba would be moot. The U.S. effectively annexed Cuba from 1898 to 1934. In modern corporate parlance, it was like a wholly owned subsidiary. After FDR undid his cousin's good work, Cuba became sort of like one of Toyota's legally dependent but in fact wholly dependent suppliers, and we all know how poorly the Toyota model performs. It was just a matter of time before the chief subcontractor, that buffoon Batista, would blow the whole thing. By then it was 1959, and Ike was already a lame duck, not to mention a Republican and an ex-general. So naturally we should blame that com-symp JFK for not using Guantanamo the way it was intended. Had he done so, we'd still be able to get decent cigars in this country (and good kosher deli in Miami).
Cigars? What kind of stogies did the Canadian women have? This really does call for an IOC investigation. The thought of all those young women sucking on phallus-shaped objects no doubt picked and rolled by black and brown communists is disgusting. As the U.S. of A., we cannot allow our neighbor to the north to be subverted by internationally communism. Didn't you see the RED uniforms at the closing ceremonies? Isn't Sidney Crosby a weapon of mass destruction? (Or chips served with vinegar?) I say we declare the Canadian women to be terrorists and invade now before it's too late! ::panic::
Let's hope the maiden name of Rebecca Johnson's mom isn't Milo. else the family would go ballistic over the tone and lack of dignity of this thread. Isn't a cigar sometimes just a cigar? And aren't Cuban cigars legal in most of the world with one or two exceptions?
Quote from: billhowardLet's hope the maiden name of Rebecca Johnson's mom isn't Milo. else the family would go ballistic over the tone and lack of dignity of this thread. Isn't a cigar sometimes just a cigar? And aren't Cuban cigars legal in most of the world with one or two exceptions?
Sorry, didn't mean to offend. I was just trying to be sarcastic and poke well-deserved ridicule at U.S. sanctimony.
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: mnagowskiThen when one of their oil tankers crashes and causes an oil spill to spread over 150 miles of pristine Pacific coastline, causing all sorts of environmental and health repercussions for millions of people, the management can declare corporate bankruptcy and absolve themselves and their employees of any further liability. They will, of course, leave the U.S. taxpayers to pay for the costly clean-up and decades of lingering health bills.
It seems like requiring shippers to carry a certain amount of insurance coverage would be sufficient, and certainly a solution that is far less amenable to government-union collusion.
But not government-insurance company-shipping company collusion.
Also, if the hypothesis is that corporate bankruptcy can be used as an out to avoid accountability, won't insurance companies have recourse to this too?
The insurance option also presupposes that the insurer will provide just compensation for not only the damages but also the grief involved in collecting for them. On what planet does this happen?
Love it! I nominate the Canadian women's hockey team to be harbor pilots on the Columbia River in Astoria.
Quote from: tretiakQuote from: While this was not as bad, we do remember the Olympic Hotel trashing, don't we? The Olympics, like it or not, are considered different than other pro sports.
Wow, even Roy Williams (the UNC coach) thinks this is an over-exaggeration...
I guess I mis-underestimated him.::deadhorse::
Back on topic, article in The Sun on Rebecca Johnston. (http://www.cornelldailysun.com/section/sports/content/2010/03/04/catching-olympic-gold-medalist-rebecca-johnston-12) A nice quote about Cornell and coach Derraugh.
QuoteSun: Did playing for Cornell help get you to the level you're at today?
R.J.: I've really enjoyed my two years so far. My coach Doug Derraugh '91, I think has played a really big part and taught me a lot already because he was a forward too and he played at Cornell, and he's just a really good hockey player. He's taught me a lot of individual skills. I'd always go out on the ice with him in the mornings, and I'd stay out after practice, and he'd always be up for anything no matter what time it was to help me out. So he was a big part in that, and the facilities — I was always able to go on when I wanted, use the treadmills, all that kind of stuff. The whole atmosphere at Cornell. My teammates. Everything has helped me improve as a player.
Quote from: Jim HylaBack on topic,
Wait. What??
Quote from: RichHQuote from: Jim HylaBack on topic,
Wait. What??
How is this on topic? I don't see anything in that article about establishing a union cartel to pilot a Zamboni down the Columbia in order to smuggle Cuban cigars into the U.S. :p