This week in the world

It is amazing to me that with everything that's going on in the world, Captain Kirk was a headline story for 3 days last week for publicly dissing Mr. Sulu...

Oil prices are plummeting. The fundamental reasons for this are about as vague as the reasons why it went so high in the first place. It's good for the corporations, as it is an excuse for more cuts. What they won't tell you is that if oil was $65 (or whatever it is this moment) a few years ago when they actually were struggling with profit margins, they would have been beyond ecstatic. However, now that they got a taste of the profits at $120+ per barrel, they are crying Poor Boy at a price that would have had them throwing parties a few years ago. Incidentally, why is the price at the pumps considerably higher now than the last time oil was at $65? Why is the "pump price delay" (ie the time it takes the price at the pumps to change after the price of crude changes) a lot slower on the way down than on the way up? How many times have I read on Yahoo! news: "Oil spikes on weather fears" ?  I am still waiting to read: "Oil prices drop as the Farmer's Almanac predicts a warm December?" That just gave me a good idea for a project: To see if there is a correlation between the price of oil the past few years and the farmer's almanac. Wonder if Wall Street has thought of this advanced market analysis method? 

More on this buyout thing: How come this is no longer a story in the news? I mean, $700 billion, you'd think that would still be bigger news than Captain Kirk and Mr. Sulu. And the markets still plummeted. I get a kick out of all these experts saying "we may be in a recession, but we're not sure." When Dow goes from 14,000 to 8500 or whatever, which part are you not sure of? Wonder what word they'll come up with next so as not to panic the public, since "depression" is too scary and was replaced by "recession". Maybe I will have a contest on this blog to find the best word to replace "recession". My biggest issue with the buy-out is this: The US financial system is in the state it's in because it is flawed. Without the buy-out, perhaps changes would have needed to be made. This would have been a good thing. Now that they got their Trillion (700 Billion US is almost a Trillion Canadian now, although a few months ago it was the same), Wall Street can continue playing the game with the flawed rules that led to the current crisis. This is bad for everyone except for the people who make up the flawed rules and profit from them. I think oil companies should have 30 day price protection like London Drugs, Staples and Future Shop. If the price of gas drops inside of 30 days to below what you paid, they refund you the difference plus 10%. If the high prices were just hype, which is obvious since the very same oil is now half the price it was a month or two ago, it means there is someone walking around with your money and mine in their pocket, and it got there by fraudulent means.

The Maple Leafs are off to a surprisingly decent start. The Oilers on the other hand, after starting 4-0, are barely hanging on to .500 and rapidly dropping out of the top 8 playoff spots in the west. What gives? I think the Leafs were very shrewd in selling to the media the fact that even their own management thought the team sucked. In politically correct terms, they said "we're rebuilding, and we're not getting our hopes up for this year." As a result, every game this year it seems the opposition is giving their starting goalie the night off against the Leafs, and the Leafs have surprised some very good teams already this year as a result. 

The Oilers are another story. After finishing strong last year, they were all full of hope and promise and got off to that 4-0 start, which is the worst thing that could have happened to them. Now, nobody is taking them lightly, and they have suddenly stopped being able to score goals and win games. 

I can't stand Don Cherry. Is there a bigger pompous ass on TV? He knows very well that as long as he publicly supports our soldiers and portrays himself as a "great patriot" he can run his mouth off about anything and the CBC can't get rid of him in fear of a public outcry. The "public" in this particular outcry will consist mostly of beer-swilling rednecks, but they are the majority nonetheless, and they buy the beer that CBC advertises. Lots of it. However, they don't buy the beer at Don Cherry's bars, since every one of them I ever saw has gone out of business. He built quite an empire out of one NHL game played. Was he a good coach? Read Phil Esposito's book. It's a great, candid read...

Miscellany One

I was an inconsistent blogger. Notice the tense. It has been so long since I actually blogged that I completely lost the ability to log in to my old blog. I think I can retrieve the two hopeful posts I had on there.


In any case, I decided that I had way too much "thinking" pent up inside after weeks of bloglessness, and that I should start again.


I performed at a local event with a very wholesome multicultural flavour. There were musicians, a Capella singers, even some Islamic children's prayers. However, an interesting thought occurred to me as one of the singers, in talking about her song, also talked about her Baha'i faith, and referred to it as "another group seeking unity". It seems to me there are more and more groups popping up, all seeking this elusive unity. Isn't there something fundamentally wrong or contradictory in the statement "groups seeking unity"? Doesn't unity require fewer groups, actually one group, one as in unity?


I think I understand. To most of these groups, the day of unity will be the day that everyone joins. However, this doesn't seem plausible to me. Most groups also claim unconditional acceptance, and yet joining a group cannot be unconditional. In order for someone to join a group, the group must be known to him. If it is known to him, then he has a reason to join. That reason is a condition. It is a benefit of membership. It is not unconditional love. It is a form of lust.


Unity is the disbanding of all groups. Think about it.



How about the stock markets in the past few weeks? Let me understand this bailout thing: Bob Banker lends Owen Owing $1000. Owen is broke and can't pay. Bob is in trouble with shareholders, so he calls his friend George Generous. George buys the debt from Bob. Bob is happy because he has his money. Owen still owes $1000, but now owes it to George. Is that it in a nutshell?


Why not just pay off Owen's debt in the first place?



I have a question: Would there still be the same huge swings in the markets if not for up-to-the-microsecond second news and market data? Would there be anywhere near the stress and panic? I think not.



Hurray! It's hockey season again, and with the Oilers being 4-0, business owners are already ordering plywood for boarding up the windows on Whyte Ave in June. I have been looking forward to the NHL season for over a month. The junior leagues have been going since early September. I also know, that unless the Oilers are in it, I lose interest by the time the snow melts in April. I am not alone. I think the NHL should start at least 3 weeks sooner. That way, come early May, people might still care.



I wonder if this would beat a photo radar ticket: Take a video of your speedometer as you drive along doing 11 km over the speed limit, and make sure in the video you can see all the cop cars that pass you and don't stop you unless you are at least 15 km over. Then go to court and say that trained officers are fine with the way you drive. I hate photo radar, it is the biggest scam going. It has resulted me in driving much more dangerously. I have a photo radar picture with a large transport truck only 3 or 4 car lengths behind me. I got a ticket for following traffic. So now, on this particular radar-happy strech, I drive the speed limit. There is perpetually someone right up behind me, usually mad. Drivers are impatiently waiting to change lanes and scoot around me. Big trucks, too. Am I to understand this is safer? Collisions occur not because of speed alone, but because of a differential in speed. If you are not following traffic speed in fear of a $90 ticket, you are increasing the chances of a collision, since there is now a difference in speed between you and everyone else. It's not rocket science. Besides, the whole photo radar is run by a third party contractor and therefore the motive must by default be for profit rather than public safety. I was caught in a photo radar sting along with countless other drivers. The trap was set up after a freeway on ramp, and everyone was over on the onramp as they accelerated up to highway speed. But if your interest is public safety, would you not put the cops before the ramp? Aren't you knowingly allowing drivers to speed dangerously in order to make some fast cash? Is this not conflict of interest?

I am watching game 7 between the Red Sox and Rays. I just realized they got rid of the Devil. They're not the Devil Rays anymore. Actually, baseball is good to watch while blogging. It seems quite easy to fit sentences and sometimes even paragraphs between occurrences of anything interesting. But it does get interesting in the late innings, I must admit. They should just start the game in the 7th inning using the set-up men as starters. Ok I admit it, I'm rooting for the worst-to-first team formerly known as the Devil Rays.