Trade O'Neal while he is still worth something

The Miami Heat really don't have it this year. That isn't their fault- they are also one of the oldest teams in the NBA. Wade's return will make them a 7th/8th playoff spot team - maybe. They aren't as good as Boston, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Detroit or Orlando on paper, and they are D.F.L. in the worst division in the league.

I am a Heat fan. For the same reason I can legitimately claim to be a Celtics Fan (Oh Anderson, how I love thee) I cheered for the Heat that first year they drafted Mr. Ackles and never really stopped. I definitely stopped cheering for the Celtics - but now that they have a decent team again...

The Heat can rebuild by doing the only thing they can do: Trade Shaquille O'Neal. That old horse has got two solid seasons of unstoppability left in him - they can get three/four prospects and free up the cap room they need to sign younger players.

Shaq remains, at least when he feels like it, totally unstoppable. The problem is that he is 30 pounds overweight and lazy unless he knows he can win. He can back down ANYONE in the league and unless they foul him (also known as Hack a Shaq) or double team him (freeing up an open man) he will score.

On defense, he can be a one man zone.

He can help a lot of teams (like, say the Orlando Magic) that have a gigantic HOLE in the middle of their team and as a result can't beat teams with back to the basket centers. Also, his play is inversely proportionate to how much fun he is having, knowing that winning is fun. When he is winning, he is unstoppable. When he is losing, he stops trying.

Everyone in the league knows this, and to be blunt, he could also give someone a shot in the arm in terms of ticket sales.

Or, you can just waste one more year on Wade's contract reaching back for past glory that can't come the way things are right now. Move him or lose him at the end of the year.

Bungling Bundlers

Let me clearly state for the record that I don't believe in campaign contribution limits. I don't think they accomplish anything other than to force people to find more creative ways to circumvent the limits (and I have a few if you are interested.) But - we have a law, and that law says that people can't contribute more than $1,100 (adjusted upwards for inflation) to each candidate/riding association, party or leadership candidate per year. I get it - the people have spoken, or some semblance of that.

Suddenly, the most valuable person in the room isn't the guy who can stroke a check for $50000.00, its the guy that can get 50 people to write one for $1,000. This person is called a bundler. In America being a bundler is a real job. Let me also state clearly that before changes to the Elections Act, we had bundlers. Except we just called them "fundraisers." They were still valuable, and maybe they also worked as lobbyists. For Airbus.

In a world where the test for corruption is equated simplistically with "buying influence," it is pretty stupid to limit contributions from one person to any amount when that money can be aggregated multiple times by a "corrupt" contributor's friends. Notwithstanding the fact that the last time we really had this problem it was because someone was breaking an existing, and remarkably lax, law - the changes to the law do nothing to improve accountability in the system. All they do is make it harder for honest politicians to raise money if they don't have a friend who can get 50 of his/her friends in the room.

On the one hand, you can't exactly regulate bundlers, because you can extricate the strict nature of the role out and call it "canvassing" or "volunteering." Not all Rolodexes are made equal. The bottom line is that bundlers are just another part of the unregulatable element of the process - just like doorknockers and sign stickers.

On the other hand, the problem with regulating bundlers is that it flies in the face of freedom of association. So, we already have a law that is an infringement on expression, the right to vote and assembly. Regulating the guy who puts the money together is an even tighter restriction on that right to assemble.

If the government is serious about "getting money out of politics" they don't have to limit your contribution - in fact, all they have to do is have tightly imposed spending limits and contribution disclosure regulations on the Candidates and Parties. It would seem in this Parliament, the focus is on how that money is spent (next post, I assure you) but the onus should rest on the person GETTING the money to properly and candidly report it. This area of the law is...routinely under-enforced, with irregularities ranging from the absurd to the...well, outright lies. I can assure you, it takes two to tango, and the fact that I want to give $2500 to my friend is nothing compared to my friend taking $10,000 in small unmarked bills.

Or $300,000. Karlheinz Schreiber was a bundler. 'Nuff said.

Darwin's Theory of Evolutionary Design

Earlier this week I watched a PBS broadcast on "Intelligent Design" and thought to myself - shouldn't there be a separation of church and state run television?

I am not a really religious man. Hell, I am not even a scientific man. But I know what I don't know.

I don't know what caused the big bang but I know that something did. I don't know if some higher power is what made fish make their faithful slither, but I know that something made that fish. I would bet, however, that a smart fish would grow legs to get away from the sharks. What gives a fish that intelligence has to be more than just instinct.

By all "expert" accounts, Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. I stole the last few lines from the most neutral website I could find. The various proponents/opponents on this issue are...fervent - to say the least.

Now, we KNOW that 1859 Charles Darwin used the scientific tools at his disposal to establish that fish evolved into monkeys, and that through natural selection, some species would live on to grow strong, while others would die. Poor Sabretooth, outlasted by the Wolverine.

What really gets me is how the two theories are somehow not congruent? In fact, I see the two working together perfectly

Really.

Hear me out. Natural selection is the actus reas of evolution, Intelligent design is the mens reas.

Darwin wrote that the the strongest would survive and that over time, the characteristics of a species that were detrimental to survival would not perpetuate themselves over time. To this day, the platypus is both the most, or least, evolved animal of them all. The unaccepted principle is that evolution is, itself, an undirected process. I reject out of hand that the driver of evolution is SOLELY chance.

What Darwin couldn't explain, or elected to ignore, was what drove evolution in the first place. His trite answer would be that "instinct to survive" is what drove evolutionary change.

But what created that instinct? Particularly in the animal world, innate constructs are very difficult to pin down. For that matter, what created the slime pool where the first DNA molecule turned into a single celled organism. It is the ultimate chicken and egg existential problem that science CAN'T explain. If it does, the black hole will swallow everything and VINCENT will fail to save Dr. Reinhardt.

I don't think it is overly simplistic to say "these animals evolved in the way that G-d wanted them to." I think that both thoughts offer valid views about the growth of our planet. Neither can be proven to be correct or incorrect. Though intelligent design theory is probably blown by the Human ACL (pun intended).

Frankly, it is the creationists who are wacky. They are confronted with the scientific evidence that disproves their views, and yet they persist - as if Satan himself planted the evidence and the ability to learn it.

ID fans would say that my views are in fact consistent with theirs - but I don't entirely agree - because their view presupposes that G-d had a clear plan or a purpose with her design from start to finish. I am not so arrogant as to think that G-d's purpose could be understood by mortals. Nor do I believe that there is any evidence that this purpose wasn't already realized at some previous point in biblical history. For all I know, Adam blew the show by biting the apple.

We don't know, and anyone who says that they do is definitely not speaking for G-d.

Some day, soon I hope, ID and NS folks will get together and realize they have a lot more in common than they realize. Obviously, neither theory is complete or completable - and as they continue to grow, I hope they will grow together. Natural Intelligent and Selective Design- Or NISD - can and does make sense if you let your mind be open enough.

Otherwise, the end of Star Trek - The Motion Picture makes no sense at all.

Hot Karlheinz

Shock-ing

See my post below- bullet two.

When in doubt, blame the Germans

There are a lot of things that simply don't make a lot of sense about the current Mulroney imbroglio

1) To you and me, $300,000.00 is probably a lot of money. To a guy who was independently wealthy before he entered politics, and had a Rolodex full of foreign dictators, $300,000.00 wasn't all that much money. It would be like me risking my job for $19.99 Crock shoes. Maybe, just maybe, he was so arrogant that he wanted to wet his beak too- seeing all of his friends doing it - (it is better to know Andre Harvey than to be Andre Harvey) but this is the guy who brought in the first Lobbyists Registration Act and actually put restrictions on post public service contracts - somehow, I doubt he would risk it all for a seemingly paltry sum. Tip of the iceburg? It would have shaken out before now.

2) Why is it that the media, government and opposition are all focusing on the sworn affidavit of someone who has demonstrated in the last couple weeks that he is STARK RAVING MAD!!! He is doing everything in his power to avoid being shipped back to Germany to face - you guessed it - fraud and bribery charges. Naming the current PM in his affidavit is just a desperate plea to have Canada keep him here to charge him for something new.

3) I was almost positive that revenue forms once submitted are held strictly confidential. How would one be able to get these documents unless the person who signed them provided permission?

4) Summary offenses have a statute of limitations period which has clearly passed. Indictable offences have a higher standard of evidence which, to be fair, no one can even dream of meeting. There was already an investigation by the RCMP (ill fated, to be sure, but an investigation nevertheless) and it turned up NOTHING. Somehow, I doubt if the ravings of a doomed madman will shake things up any differently, considering he is admitting to the commission of a Canadian offence (bribery) to accuse someone of another (corruption).

5) The previous settlement was tied to defamation. It does not need to be repaid because, based on the facts at the time, and based on the actions of the government, they got off easy. The original suit was for $50 Million. Mulroney basically settled for his costs and a middle finger wave to then PM Jean baby C.

6) If *I* was a senior partner at a tier one national law firm, I could wash $300,000 a hell of a lot more efficiently than two suitcases full of twoonies. Duh.

With all of that said, in the world of casting aspersions, there is very little that people with impeccable credentials can do but be taken down by lesser men. The bottom line is that people will always try to get ahead by taking you down. It sucks. It is also yet another disincentive to enter into public service.

Let's assume for a second that there was a cash payment from the mad German to Mr. Mulroney. Let's even pretend that it was done in small unmarked bills in a seedy hotel. So what. That is not evidence of anything other than "a medium sized cash retainer for future goods and services." We are talking about a guy who sits on the boards of over 20 fortune 500 companies. His time is pretty fuckin' valuable. The onus is on Mr. Schrieber to prove that his payment was a pay-off and not for strategic counsel the type of which Mr. Mulroney provides to many international companies for far more money.

And, this very week, Tony Blair received almost $1,000,000.00 yank for a two day speaking tour in China from (amongst others) British companies investing abroad. Is that a post-facto bribe? Bah, Flim-shaw. Does anyone honestly believe that George W. Bush won't be a board member of at least ten major Energy interests, if not Lockheed Martin, on January 22nd, 2008?

The bottom line is that the best proof of innocence is who ultimately demands to have the issue fleshed out. Yesterday, the MAN himself called for an independent judicial inquiry to bring the matter to a close. Sure, he might have appointed half the judges left in this city, but he is clearly sick of all the bullshit.

That having been said - Mr. Harper is still right. Why do Liberals want to dig this up? St. Maurice golf courses and the almost instant turn around in profitability for CSL notwithstanding, this is a really bad issue for the Liberals to focus on - it drives their former supporters to the NDP - who are only criminals in British Columbia, apparently.

Not about Politics, but deep down - it is

I have finally recovered after what was arguably the WORST world series to watch in history. I haven't seen people score on a Colorado Rockie since Glen Chico Resch left the Islanders to play for Colorado in 1979. Watch as I say "The Red Sox were the best team in the league from April to November, and they deserved to win the world series."

It is true. It is also true that they had a losing record against the Yankees this year. What fun is being the champ if you can't beat the champ to get there?

Nobody understands Mr. Brian Cashman, or why he got his job. It might have something to do with his name and how it relates to the job he has performed up to date with the New York Yankees.

In the last three weeks, he has lost the best offensive hitter in history, the best offensive catcher in 2007, the best closing pitcher in history and is about to lose a few more key pieces to what was a great, if not underperforming, Yankees club.

If you build it, they will come. They, in this case, are young talented players. This year, on a team crowded by superstars (some on the way out) the three best young arms in the American league started out as Rookies. It wasn't because they were going to play a lot - they knew they wouldn't. It was because of a long term commitment to winning - which is something the Yankees do in spades. That remains a sales job for the General Manager - and in the Bronx, that is the toughest job in the world. Not third base, not starting pitcher, not manager- General Manager.

What most people don't understand is how difficult it is to work for a micro manager. The difference between an effective manager and a lackey is that a lackey does exactly what he is told notwithstanding the fact that is it stupid. A great mind can get away with the former to avoid the latter.

For example, it was stupid to NOT offer A-Rod a new contract - because you are still ostensibly getting him for free for the next three years. His television draw alone makes it worthwhile. Even it it was front loaded with incentive driven bonuses - and even if he hit 0.191 in the playoffs this year (again...) - he makes MONEY for a team that makes money.

What Cashman did was make an offer knowing that he can make another, better, offer in the very near future. He might not come back (he will likely go to Anaheim or the NY Mets) but every Yankees fan knows that Cashman tried.

The Steinbrenners are a difficult lot. They make demands of their players directly, not through channels, but usually on the front page. It is too bad, actually. They are themselves the biggest blight on a storied franchise. The fans love to make fun of how insane they are - as does Seinfeld. But, the bottom line is that they could be making WAY more money, and they elect not to to spend that money on what they believe to be the best in the game.

Cashman is the reason why. At least he is right now. That is the art of politics.

Barring an unforeseen miracle, the yanks MIGHT win 80 games next year, and will not likely make the playoffs. If they keep their core young talent (which they are more likely to do with 30 million extra kicking around) by 2010 they will be even better than they were in 2000.

Remember Remember, its finally November

Gah

So, in the last few weeks a few things have happened. I've been busy, and Uncle Steve says hi.

And, apparently, I am now a "blog DJ" as I have had requests to write about a bunch of stuff.

So as to not disappoint, once I pull my head out of my inbox - I will post on the following subjects over the next two weeks

1) In/Out and Election spending laws in Canada - what is wrong with the law, and why free speech isn't free

2) Clemency- and I am not talking about the philosophy of the Federal Health Minister

3) Taxes, cuts and the manufacturing economy in Canada - how the economic update did jack shit for the manufacturing industry

4) The rise of the dollar and why you as a Canadian consumer should buy stuff at the Canadian price and shut the fuck up about it; and finally

5) Torre, Arod and the rise of the new republic.