With a little over a week to go, it has finally gotten very interesting.
Iggy the American continues to underwhelm. At this point it appears as if he will lead the Liberal Party to a defeat of historic proportions. He may win more seats than John Turner did in 1984 but Turner was at least still the Leader of the Opposition. At this point it is possible that the Liberals will slide to third place.
Now some of this may be wishful thinking on my part but it is clear that the more people see of Ignatieff, the less they like him. Jack Layton is precisely the opposite. People seem to have a greater affinity for him as they see more of him. Harper has pretty much stayed unchanged. This is not surprising. As Prime Minister, he is the most well known of all of the leaders and a change in opinions of his likability were never very probable.
Pundits are rightly pointing out that we have seen this before with the NDP, (Ed Broadbent was on his way to 24 Sussex at one point according to the polls), however I do think that this time it is different.
Jack Layton has steadily increased his support during his time as leader...as has Harper. Those two trends will converge to lead to a Tory majority. (I see no reason not to stick to that prediction). I'm not yet ready to predict Jack Layton's taking up residence at Stornoway.
The most interesting question is what happens next. Michael Ignatieff will almost certainly quit as leader of the Liberals. What then? Bob Rae is the presumptive heir apparent but the people of Ontario still remember well his disastrous term as Premier. He has a lot of baggage, too much to be a real force for rebuilding the Liberal brand. There is a shocking lack of bench strength within Canada's natural governing party. The Liberals would do well to acknowledge that their spell in opposition will not be a short one and they should really commit to passing the torch to a new generation of Liberals....and I don't mean that lightweight Justin Trudeau.
I am going out on a limb on a few of these predictions but what the hey, I'm not a journalist. Who cares if i'm wrong?
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Royal Succession
Most people know that the British Monarchy's rules for succession favours male heirs over female heirs. Queen Elizabeth would have never ascended to the throne if she'd any male siblings. However some of the other provisions of the Act of Settlement are less well known.
As the monarch is also the head of the Church of England, the Act of Settlement of 1701 specifically bans Catholics from ascending to the throne. Curiously, a good Anglican Prince is also barred from succession should he have the temerity to marry a Catholic.
The current Deputy Prime Minister has mused aloud about changing the rules of succession such that any children of William and Kate would ascend to the throne based upon order of birth without regard to gender. Deputy PM Nick Clegg has stated that most people find the rules "a little old fashioned."
I must admit to nearly falling off my chair in laughter when I read that. The idea that an archaic institution ought to have "modern" rules of succession ignores the somewhat salient view that the entire monarchy is a "little old fashioned."
I find myself in a rather surprising position of opposing a change in the rules of succession. For one thing, I'm not sure why a first born (boy/girl) is necessarily more qualified to be King/Queen than a second born. I suppose one could argue that sexism is merely being eliminated while ageism is being strengthened., (to say nothing of the bias against Catholics)
I oppose a change in the rules of succession precisely because they are so "old fashioned." Eliminating the sexism while reaffirming ageism as well as the bias against Catholics shows the monarchy to be the a pointless entity. I oppose a change because the rules show clearly how absurd the whole institution is.
In this day and age, any Royal Family should only exist as a link to the past without requiring any public funds and they should have no role in government.
I think that Canada should become a republic rather than having a foreigner serve as our Head of State. However if Michael Ignatieff should be elected Prime Minister, the we would have a foreigner as head of state and an American serving as her first minister.
As the monarch is also the head of the Church of England, the Act of Settlement of 1701 specifically bans Catholics from ascending to the throne. Curiously, a good Anglican Prince is also barred from succession should he have the temerity to marry a Catholic.
The current Deputy Prime Minister has mused aloud about changing the rules of succession such that any children of William and Kate would ascend to the throne based upon order of birth without regard to gender. Deputy PM Nick Clegg has stated that most people find the rules "a little old fashioned."
I must admit to nearly falling off my chair in laughter when I read that. The idea that an archaic institution ought to have "modern" rules of succession ignores the somewhat salient view that the entire monarchy is a "little old fashioned."
I find myself in a rather surprising position of opposing a change in the rules of succession. For one thing, I'm not sure why a first born (boy/girl) is necessarily more qualified to be King/Queen than a second born. I suppose one could argue that sexism is merely being eliminated while ageism is being strengthened., (to say nothing of the bias against Catholics)
I oppose a change in the rules of succession precisely because they are so "old fashioned." Eliminating the sexism while reaffirming ageism as well as the bias against Catholics shows the monarchy to be the a pointless entity. I oppose a change because the rules show clearly how absurd the whole institution is.
In this day and age, any Royal Family should only exist as a link to the past without requiring any public funds and they should have no role in government.
I think that Canada should become a republic rather than having a foreigner serve as our Head of State. However if Michael Ignatieff should be elected Prime Minister, the we would have a foreigner as head of state and an American serving as her first minister.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Election Time in Canada (Part 2)
So we are halfway through the election campaign. As both French and English debates are done, we are more than halfway done in terms of significant milestones.
At this point, I don't see any reason to change my prediction that it will be a Conservative majority. The followup coverage of the english language debate was interesting. Michael Ignatieff's performance in the debate has been the subject of increasingly negative reviews in the media. (this is just my impression)
Current projections call for a Conservative win that falls just shy of a majority mandate. I think that this is wrong due primarily to an interesting trend in Quebec. Before the Tory breakthrough in Quebec a couple of elections ago, Quebec was a battle between the Bloc and the Liberals. It wasn't much of a battle really, the Liberals won a bunch of ridings in Montreal and the Bloc took the rest. The rise of the Tories around Quebec city (which was cemented in the last election) changed that dynamic. The rise of the NDP, beginning with the election of Thomas Mulcair in a 2007 bye election, changes the dynamic further.
Up until now, politics in Quebec has been all about sovereignty. The Bloc favours it and all other Federalist parties oppose it. However there has been an underreported distinction as well. The Bloc are a left of centre party. Ideologically, social democrats in Quebec had nowhere to go but the Bloc. The rise of the NDP changes that equation materially. Another left of centre party allows francophone social democrats to vote for a party that is not committed to the breakup of Canada.
The NDP needs a massive surge in support to elect a large number of MP's in Quebec. However, a modest surge in francophone support of the NDP may lead to the Bloc losing a number of close ridings. A bump in the number of Liberal and Conservative MP's as well as a Tory majority may be the result.
Finally I cannot write without taking one shot at Michael Ignatieff....also known as Iggy the American. Today he made an announcement before the cameras: as Prime Minister, he would convene a health care summit meeting of First Ministers within 60 days of taking office.
He looked very serious as he announced that he would take the bold and decisive step of holding a meeting. It is a continuing story line that the more people see and hear of Ignatieff, the worse his prospects become.
Stephen Harper will win this election by default....I have seen nothing that would change my mind on this point.
At this point, I don't see any reason to change my prediction that it will be a Conservative majority. The followup coverage of the english language debate was interesting. Michael Ignatieff's performance in the debate has been the subject of increasingly negative reviews in the media. (this is just my impression)
Current projections call for a Conservative win that falls just shy of a majority mandate. I think that this is wrong due primarily to an interesting trend in Quebec. Before the Tory breakthrough in Quebec a couple of elections ago, Quebec was a battle between the Bloc and the Liberals. It wasn't much of a battle really, the Liberals won a bunch of ridings in Montreal and the Bloc took the rest. The rise of the Tories around Quebec city (which was cemented in the last election) changed that dynamic. The rise of the NDP, beginning with the election of Thomas Mulcair in a 2007 bye election, changes the dynamic further.
Up until now, politics in Quebec has been all about sovereignty. The Bloc favours it and all other Federalist parties oppose it. However there has been an underreported distinction as well. The Bloc are a left of centre party. Ideologically, social democrats in Quebec had nowhere to go but the Bloc. The rise of the NDP changes that equation materially. Another left of centre party allows francophone social democrats to vote for a party that is not committed to the breakup of Canada.
The NDP needs a massive surge in support to elect a large number of MP's in Quebec. However, a modest surge in francophone support of the NDP may lead to the Bloc losing a number of close ridings. A bump in the number of Liberal and Conservative MP's as well as a Tory majority may be the result.
Finally I cannot write without taking one shot at Michael Ignatieff....also known as Iggy the American. Today he made an announcement before the cameras: as Prime Minister, he would convene a health care summit meeting of First Ministers within 60 days of taking office.
He looked very serious as he announced that he would take the bold and decisive step of holding a meeting. It is a continuing story line that the more people see and hear of Ignatieff, the worse his prospects become.
Stephen Harper will win this election by default....I have seen nothing that would change my mind on this point.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Observations of Left and Right
I've heard it said that Conservatives believe that markets are good and people are bad....hence we must trust the markets and lecture people on why they are just not living right.
I've also heard that Liberals believe that people are good and markets are bad. Hence we must trust people to make their own decisions and talk about the evils of the markets.
Of course both generalizations are pretty silly since markets are really a collection of individual spending choices....you can't have one without the other.
This kind of debate where the left and right simply talk past each other occupy enormous amounts of time in all forms of media. I find the ignorance on both sides to be more than irritating, it is downright painful.
I'll take two particular issues that are favourites of the right and left respectively......1) Deficits/Debt. 2) Climate Change.
Deficits/Debt
If you listen to the left, monstrous government debts occupy too high a place on the right's priority list. The fact of large deficits ranks way below in importance behind a growing economy and generous social programs. The right will howl in disgust that we are spending our children's money and their children's money.
They are talking right past each other and getting nowhere.
Let's have some common sense here. Let's call deficits by a descriptive name that fits. Let's call it "Spending Someone Else's Money." So when we Spend Someone Else's Money in greater numbers year after year, then there comes a time to pay the piper. It is not true that borrowing money is like taking another bucket of water out of the Niagara River. There is a limited amount of that water.
When the tipping point of excessive debt arrives (as it has for Greece and Ireland and Portugal), then it is too late to avoid severe consequences. Like most consequences, the sooner you face up to it, the less painful it is.
Climate Change
Many on the right will tell you that climate change is not a proven fact. The left will call the climate change non-believers something creative and caustic like "Members of the Flat Earth Society."
They are talking past each other and getting nowhere.
I have a newsflash for those who deny climate change......if you burn all of the oil and cut down all of the trees, THE CLIMATE WILL CHANGE!!!! Besides that it's really irrelevant whether the earth is warming due to man made pollution or whether it's part of a natural cycle. It's irrelevant because anyone with a modicum of common sense will agree that pollution is bad. Let's call pollution something more descriptive like "Fouling someone else's air."
Much as with excessive debt, when the tipping point arrives it is too late to escape severe consequences. So if some feel that we are not yet at a tipping point yet, then I say "Great, so then it's the right time to reduce emissions drastically so that we don't get to the point of man made climate change."
Generalizations are often unfair since there are many on the left who understand the importance of cutting public debt and there are many on the right who feel very strongly about a cleaner environment. However they generally get nowhere due to the demogogues on both sides.
As we are in the midst of an election campaign, I'd really love to see our leaders address these issues with a bit of common sense rather than make endless pie in the sky announcements about new spending programs that cannot possibly be met.
There is a solution to both burning issues that is just common sense. When times are tough, we should tighten our belts and not spend someone else's money.....we shouldn't do that ever. When the government doesn't stimulate the economy in such a way, then people will drive less (or drive smaller cars) and fly less and generally waste less.....and hence foul other people's air less.
Taxes should be raised (perhaps a carbon tax introduced along with a hike in the GST). Spending should be reduced even in our cherished social programs. This will reduce our deficits and make for a cleaner environment. I don't think our quality of life will suffer in the long term since necessity is the mother of invention.
I won't hold my breath waiting for one of our elected leaders to suggest any of this.
I've also heard that Liberals believe that people are good and markets are bad. Hence we must trust people to make their own decisions and talk about the evils of the markets.
Of course both generalizations are pretty silly since markets are really a collection of individual spending choices....you can't have one without the other.
This kind of debate where the left and right simply talk past each other occupy enormous amounts of time in all forms of media. I find the ignorance on both sides to be more than irritating, it is downright painful.
I'll take two particular issues that are favourites of the right and left respectively......1) Deficits/Debt. 2) Climate Change.
Deficits/Debt
If you listen to the left, monstrous government debts occupy too high a place on the right's priority list. The fact of large deficits ranks way below in importance behind a growing economy and generous social programs. The right will howl in disgust that we are spending our children's money and their children's money.
They are talking right past each other and getting nowhere.
Let's have some common sense here. Let's call deficits by a descriptive name that fits. Let's call it "Spending Someone Else's Money." So when we Spend Someone Else's Money in greater numbers year after year, then there comes a time to pay the piper. It is not true that borrowing money is like taking another bucket of water out of the Niagara River. There is a limited amount of that water.
When the tipping point of excessive debt arrives (as it has for Greece and Ireland and Portugal), then it is too late to avoid severe consequences. Like most consequences, the sooner you face up to it, the less painful it is.
Climate Change
Many on the right will tell you that climate change is not a proven fact. The left will call the climate change non-believers something creative and caustic like "Members of the Flat Earth Society."
They are talking past each other and getting nowhere.
I have a newsflash for those who deny climate change......if you burn all of the oil and cut down all of the trees, THE CLIMATE WILL CHANGE!!!! Besides that it's really irrelevant whether the earth is warming due to man made pollution or whether it's part of a natural cycle. It's irrelevant because anyone with a modicum of common sense will agree that pollution is bad. Let's call pollution something more descriptive like "Fouling someone else's air."
Much as with excessive debt, when the tipping point arrives it is too late to escape severe consequences. So if some feel that we are not yet at a tipping point yet, then I say "Great, so then it's the right time to reduce emissions drastically so that we don't get to the point of man made climate change."
Generalizations are often unfair since there are many on the left who understand the importance of cutting public debt and there are many on the right who feel very strongly about a cleaner environment. However they generally get nowhere due to the demogogues on both sides.
As we are in the midst of an election campaign, I'd really love to see our leaders address these issues with a bit of common sense rather than make endless pie in the sky announcements about new spending programs that cannot possibly be met.
There is a solution to both burning issues that is just common sense. When times are tough, we should tighten our belts and not spend someone else's money.....we shouldn't do that ever. When the government doesn't stimulate the economy in such a way, then people will drive less (or drive smaller cars) and fly less and generally waste less.....and hence foul other people's air less.
Taxes should be raised (perhaps a carbon tax introduced along with a hike in the GST). Spending should be reduced even in our cherished social programs. This will reduce our deficits and make for a cleaner environment. I don't think our quality of life will suffer in the long term since necessity is the mother of invention.
I won't hold my breath waiting for one of our elected leaders to suggest any of this.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Election Time in Canada
Canada is heading to a fourth national election in 7 years. Most people of all political stripes are suffering from election fatigue. The last three elections produced minority governments. This should not be surprising in a country where a party committed to the breakup of the country routinely wins around 50 seats in a 308 seat Parliament. Of course a party with a separatist agenda cannot be part of a coalition seeking to govern a united country so the remaining parties are faced with the daunting task of winning approximately 60% of the seats in order to have a majority of 50% in the House of Commons.
While many people understandably feel that an election that results in roughly the same balance of power as currently exists is a waste of time, they are wrong to say that this election is an unnecessary one. We have seen the Conservative Government under Stephen Harper effectively govern as a majority for the past two years as one of the opposition parties inevitably failed to show up for confidence votes in order to avoid going to the polls.
This is not healthy for democracy. The truth of the matter is that the voters gave Stephen Harper a minority government. When members of Parliament, who have been tasked by their voters to oppose the Harper government, decide to sit out a debate for fear of triggering an election, they dishonour the voters who elected them. This is not to say that a party in opposition should not work with the governing party if they can get part of their platform enacted. However if that is the case, then the only honourable thing to do is to show up in the House of Commons and vote in support of the Government. This nonsense where the leader of an opposition party shows up to vote against the governing party while most of his caucus is absent to ensure that an election is not triggered is sheer stupidity. It is this type of shenanigan that turns many people off from the political process.
Now onto my prediction for this election. I am going to predict a Conservative majority that shows how unhealthy our democracy is.
We saw Jean Chretien win three consecutive majority governments with support that ranged a few points on either side of 40%. He had the advantage of a splintered right wing that couldn't get their act together. Neither the Progressive Conservatives under Jean Charest/Peter McKay nor the Reform/Alliance crowd under Preston Manning/Stockwell Day were in any position to govern. In effect, he won by default.
This election will be a Conservative victory by default. The Liberal party of Canada is led by Michael Ignatieff who has been subjected to some devastating attack ads by the Tories pointing to his 30 year absence from Canada. The ads make the point that "He didn't come back for you."
These ads are devastating because they are so very true. It is well known that Ignatieff chose to live, virtually his entire adult life, outside of Canada. Strictly speaking, having some experience living in another country is not a disqualifier.....in fact it is generally a plus. Living in another country for a time gives one a broader view of the world and might enhance one's ability to think outside the box. I've lived outside Canada for part of my adult life and am so very glad that I had that experience.
However there is a point at which it is not a plus. There is a point where one has chosen not to be Canadian and has decided that life is better elsewhere. There is a point where one can no longer effectively relate to fellow Canadians. I don't know exactly where that point is (it may be different for different individuals) but I can't escape the feeling that Michael Ignatieff crossed that point a long time ago.
It is not disputed that Michael Ignatieff has lived virtually his entire adult life outside of Canada. It is well known that he came back to Canada after Liberal emmissaries visited Harvard and dangled the prospect of succeeding Paul Martin to become Prime Minister. He did in fact run (unsuccessfully) to succeed Paul Martin at the first available opportunity.
It is also well known that his writings include articles where he wrote of "When we invaded Iraq...." Canada did not invade Iraq. Just who exactly was he referring to??
I am Conservative in my political leanings but this is not an ideological argument against Ignatieff. In fact, as Liberals go his ideology is much more to my liking than most. (Bob Rae? gag!!!!)
To put it in simple terms, he may have a Canadian passport but he is not Canadian. How can he relate to people that he has chosen to live apart from for as long as he could make his own decisions?
Ignatieff is not qualified to be Prime Minister and as such the Tories will win by default. This is very unfortunate for democracy in Canada.
To put any personal conflict of interest to rest, I will not be returning to Korea to run for President. I am proud of my roots but I am Canadian. That is a choice that I have made.
While many people understandably feel that an election that results in roughly the same balance of power as currently exists is a waste of time, they are wrong to say that this election is an unnecessary one. We have seen the Conservative Government under Stephen Harper effectively govern as a majority for the past two years as one of the opposition parties inevitably failed to show up for confidence votes in order to avoid going to the polls.
This is not healthy for democracy. The truth of the matter is that the voters gave Stephen Harper a minority government. When members of Parliament, who have been tasked by their voters to oppose the Harper government, decide to sit out a debate for fear of triggering an election, they dishonour the voters who elected them. This is not to say that a party in opposition should not work with the governing party if they can get part of their platform enacted. However if that is the case, then the only honourable thing to do is to show up in the House of Commons and vote in support of the Government. This nonsense where the leader of an opposition party shows up to vote against the governing party while most of his caucus is absent to ensure that an election is not triggered is sheer stupidity. It is this type of shenanigan that turns many people off from the political process.
Now onto my prediction for this election. I am going to predict a Conservative majority that shows how unhealthy our democracy is.
We saw Jean Chretien win three consecutive majority governments with support that ranged a few points on either side of 40%. He had the advantage of a splintered right wing that couldn't get their act together. Neither the Progressive Conservatives under Jean Charest/Peter McKay nor the Reform/Alliance crowd under Preston Manning/Stockwell Day were in any position to govern. In effect, he won by default.
This election will be a Conservative victory by default. The Liberal party of Canada is led by Michael Ignatieff who has been subjected to some devastating attack ads by the Tories pointing to his 30 year absence from Canada. The ads make the point that "He didn't come back for you."
These ads are devastating because they are so very true. It is well known that Ignatieff chose to live, virtually his entire adult life, outside of Canada. Strictly speaking, having some experience living in another country is not a disqualifier.....in fact it is generally a plus. Living in another country for a time gives one a broader view of the world and might enhance one's ability to think outside the box. I've lived outside Canada for part of my adult life and am so very glad that I had that experience.
However there is a point at which it is not a plus. There is a point where one has chosen not to be Canadian and has decided that life is better elsewhere. There is a point where one can no longer effectively relate to fellow Canadians. I don't know exactly where that point is (it may be different for different individuals) but I can't escape the feeling that Michael Ignatieff crossed that point a long time ago.
It is not disputed that Michael Ignatieff has lived virtually his entire adult life outside of Canada. It is well known that he came back to Canada after Liberal emmissaries visited Harvard and dangled the prospect of succeeding Paul Martin to become Prime Minister. He did in fact run (unsuccessfully) to succeed Paul Martin at the first available opportunity.
It is also well known that his writings include articles where he wrote of "When we invaded Iraq...." Canada did not invade Iraq. Just who exactly was he referring to??
I am Conservative in my political leanings but this is not an ideological argument against Ignatieff. In fact, as Liberals go his ideology is much more to my liking than most. (Bob Rae? gag!!!!)
To put it in simple terms, he may have a Canadian passport but he is not Canadian. How can he relate to people that he has chosen to live apart from for as long as he could make his own decisions?
Ignatieff is not qualified to be Prime Minister and as such the Tories will win by default. This is very unfortunate for democracy in Canada.
To put any personal conflict of interest to rest, I will not be returning to Korea to run for President. I am proud of my roots but I am Canadian. That is a choice that I have made.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
I'm a Former fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs
Those who have known me a long time know that I grew up a fan of the New York Islanders.
My introduction to hockey came shortly after immigrating from Korea. As a five year old, I was living in Queens, New York. This was in 1975 so New York City was a very different place. Times Square was not a place where you would take a child unless you really wanted them to see neon lights, prostitutes and drug dealers.
(If you want to see what Times Square looked like back then, watch this video by Pat Benatar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjY_uSSncQw )
In this new environment I remember watching a strange and magical sport on TV. The New York Islanders were playing their cross town rivals, the New York Rangers. I was captivated by this game where men seemed to move with such grace and power while walking on knives. The Rangers had a habit of beating the Islanders back then and as a child feeling awkward in a strange place, I took pity on the Islanders and their sorry bullied state.
We moved a lot when I was a child. We first came to Canada when I was 8 and moved to Toronto briefly before moving on to Alberta and then back to Toronto.
The year 1980 was a magical one for this young hockey fan. The team that I took pity on as they got bullied by their big city rivals, rose to become Stanley Cup Champions!!
The Islanders went on to win 4 straight Stanley Cups....this is a feat that has not been matched since then. I scoff at the talk of different "dynasty" teams such as the Oilers, Red Wings, Devils and Penguins. The definition of a dynasty is an "unbroken" reign. No team has won more than 2 Cups in a row since. Those other teams are all false dynasties. The Islanders won 19 playoff series in a row. No other team has won more than 11 in a row since. Mike Bossy scored 50+ goals in 9 consecutive seasons....not even Wayne Gretzky can say that.
Moving to Toronto provided another team to take pity on....and how!! It was inevitable that a young hockey fan living in Toronto would eventually end up pulling for the Maple Leafs. The year 1984 saw Toronto start 2-0 on the back of two overtime victories with a young tandem of Allan Bester and Ken Wregget in goal. Alas that start did not presage a victory parade down Yonge Street. The Leafs finished 21st overall.....and for those too young to realize how bad that was, the NHL had but 21 teams at the time.
Even that pitiful finish did not dim the enthusiasm of die hard Leafs fans (of whom I was one by then). The last overall finish gave the Leafs the top pick which they used to pick future Captain Wendel Clark. This kid from Kelvington, Saskatchewan was all heart and muscle. He would take on and beat up guys much bigger than he. I remember skipping school to line up for playoff tickets. Attending playoff games at Maple Leaf Gardens was an experience I'll always remember....what an atmosphere, what emotion, what fun!!!!
In the years that followed, the Leafs bounced between Stanley Cup semi finalists and mediocrity. In recent years, MLSE has become the most profitable hockey operation in the world.....and consistent losers on the ice. I've had the good (?) fortune to attend a number of Leafs games in recent years. However, I am not sitting in the cheap seats. I am usually in the private box owned by my employer entertaining clients. For those who have not attended in a private box, it is a somewhat surreal experience. It is a room that holds about 12 people with an attractive young lady tending the bar. She will bring you a drink since it would be so very onerous to walk the 5 feet to get a drink yourself. You get to munch on sushi, ribs and when you go to sit in the platinum seats to watch the game, that very nice young lady will bring you a Haagen Daas ice cream bar during the game. All in all, I would much rather be in the cheap seats at Maple Leaf Gardens!!!!
The last few years have not been kind to Leafs fans. The most profitable hockey team in the world last made the playoffs in 2005. This year they will (barring a miracle) miss the playoffs for the 6th consecutive year. MLSE continues to rake in the $$$ with condo developments and other sports teams. Leafs fans continue to pay top dollar to see a losing team.
I was so completely disgusted that last year I resolved to cheer against the Leafs. This proved far more satisfying as they finished 29th overall in a 30 team league. I am cheering against them again this year. Despite a 4-0 start, the Leafs quickly crashed back to earth and now sit 25th overall.
I love hockey and I still don't hate the Leafs. (I'm not a Habs fan after all!!!). Still I think that the hockey fans of Toronto would do well to administer some tough love. If MLSE can still ring the till without producing a good product, why would they ever try harder?? I will cheer against the Leafs until they prove me wrong. I refuse to buy any Leafs merchandise and I will not pay for a ticket (the last point is a tad disingenuous since I haven't paid for a ticket in some time but you get my point).
People of Toronto, stop being played for such a bunch of suckers....boycott the Leafs!!! Here's hoping that Hamilton gets a team so that there will be at least one NHL calibre team in the area!!
My introduction to hockey came shortly after immigrating from Korea. As a five year old, I was living in Queens, New York. This was in 1975 so New York City was a very different place. Times Square was not a place where you would take a child unless you really wanted them to see neon lights, prostitutes and drug dealers.
(If you want to see what Times Square looked like back then, watch this video by Pat Benatar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjY_uSSncQw )
In this new environment I remember watching a strange and magical sport on TV. The New York Islanders were playing their cross town rivals, the New York Rangers. I was captivated by this game where men seemed to move with such grace and power while walking on knives. The Rangers had a habit of beating the Islanders back then and as a child feeling awkward in a strange place, I took pity on the Islanders and their sorry bullied state.
We moved a lot when I was a child. We first came to Canada when I was 8 and moved to Toronto briefly before moving on to Alberta and then back to Toronto.
The year 1980 was a magical one for this young hockey fan. The team that I took pity on as they got bullied by their big city rivals, rose to become Stanley Cup Champions!!
The Islanders went on to win 4 straight Stanley Cups....this is a feat that has not been matched since then. I scoff at the talk of different "dynasty" teams such as the Oilers, Red Wings, Devils and Penguins. The definition of a dynasty is an "unbroken" reign. No team has won more than 2 Cups in a row since. Those other teams are all false dynasties. The Islanders won 19 playoff series in a row. No other team has won more than 11 in a row since. Mike Bossy scored 50+ goals in 9 consecutive seasons....not even Wayne Gretzky can say that.
Moving to Toronto provided another team to take pity on....and how!! It was inevitable that a young hockey fan living in Toronto would eventually end up pulling for the Maple Leafs. The year 1984 saw Toronto start 2-0 on the back of two overtime victories with a young tandem of Allan Bester and Ken Wregget in goal. Alas that start did not presage a victory parade down Yonge Street. The Leafs finished 21st overall.....and for those too young to realize how bad that was, the NHL had but 21 teams at the time.
Even that pitiful finish did not dim the enthusiasm of die hard Leafs fans (of whom I was one by then). The last overall finish gave the Leafs the top pick which they used to pick future Captain Wendel Clark. This kid from Kelvington, Saskatchewan was all heart and muscle. He would take on and beat up guys much bigger than he. I remember skipping school to line up for playoff tickets. Attending playoff games at Maple Leaf Gardens was an experience I'll always remember....what an atmosphere, what emotion, what fun!!!!
In the years that followed, the Leafs bounced between Stanley Cup semi finalists and mediocrity. In recent years, MLSE has become the most profitable hockey operation in the world.....and consistent losers on the ice. I've had the good (?) fortune to attend a number of Leafs games in recent years. However, I am not sitting in the cheap seats. I am usually in the private box owned by my employer entertaining clients. For those who have not attended in a private box, it is a somewhat surreal experience. It is a room that holds about 12 people with an attractive young lady tending the bar. She will bring you a drink since it would be so very onerous to walk the 5 feet to get a drink yourself. You get to munch on sushi, ribs and when you go to sit in the platinum seats to watch the game, that very nice young lady will bring you a Haagen Daas ice cream bar during the game. All in all, I would much rather be in the cheap seats at Maple Leaf Gardens!!!!
The last few years have not been kind to Leafs fans. The most profitable hockey team in the world last made the playoffs in 2005. This year they will (barring a miracle) miss the playoffs for the 6th consecutive year. MLSE continues to rake in the $$$ with condo developments and other sports teams. Leafs fans continue to pay top dollar to see a losing team.
I was so completely disgusted that last year I resolved to cheer against the Leafs. This proved far more satisfying as they finished 29th overall in a 30 team league. I am cheering against them again this year. Despite a 4-0 start, the Leafs quickly crashed back to earth and now sit 25th overall.
I love hockey and I still don't hate the Leafs. (I'm not a Habs fan after all!!!). Still I think that the hockey fans of Toronto would do well to administer some tough love. If MLSE can still ring the till without producing a good product, why would they ever try harder?? I will cheer against the Leafs until they prove me wrong. I refuse to buy any Leafs merchandise and I will not pay for a ticket (the last point is a tad disingenuous since I haven't paid for a ticket in some time but you get my point).
People of Toronto, stop being played for such a bunch of suckers....boycott the Leafs!!! Here's hoping that Hamilton gets a team so that there will be at least one NHL calibre team in the area!!
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Miracle on Ice 2011
I am still in California finishing off my late Christmas break and as such was unable to watch today's Gold Medal game in the World Junior Hockey Championships.
Nonetheless, the headlines that speak of an "Epic Collapse" and broken Canadian hearts speak to the result.
A Canadian team is always favoured in any hockey championship. It doesn't matter if the oddsmakers say that the Americans were pre-tournament favourites (as the defending champs were this time around)...the expectation is still that the Gold will either be won by Canada or must be won by beating Canada in a shock upset.
So today Team Canada surrendered a 3-0 lead that they carried into the 3rd period to lose 5-3. As a Canadian I am disappointed. As a hockey fan, I am not. As a sports fan, I find it heartening.
The Russians used to be famous for their training techniques that created superbly conditioned athletes that often rolled over the opposition. Seeing something as simple as a line change was a thing of beauty. Unlike standard North American hockey where a line change is preceded by dumping the puck deep into the opposition end, the Russians would change their forward line by passing the puck back to a retreating defence pairing. When fresh forwards jumped over the boards, the defence would send a pass forward and change themselves without ever relinquishing possession.
The Big Red machine was brought to heel some time ago and they were no longer able to roll over Canadian teams. Their mystique disappeared. It was said that Russians were superb athletes who were well conditioned and well coached. However they lacked the "heart" of the Canadians. It was said that hockey simply meant more to Canadian kids who would sacrifice their bodies and play with a level of emotion and desperation that Russian automatons simply lacked.
That is true no more. The Russians found themselves in a 3-0 hole and scratched and clawed their way back. They showed .....well a lot of heart.
Good for them. Congratulations to Russia for showing such spirit.
Congratulations to Canada too. Silver really ain't too bad!!!
Nonetheless, the headlines that speak of an "Epic Collapse" and broken Canadian hearts speak to the result.
A Canadian team is always favoured in any hockey championship. It doesn't matter if the oddsmakers say that the Americans were pre-tournament favourites (as the defending champs were this time around)...the expectation is still that the Gold will either be won by Canada or must be won by beating Canada in a shock upset.
So today Team Canada surrendered a 3-0 lead that they carried into the 3rd period to lose 5-3. As a Canadian I am disappointed. As a hockey fan, I am not. As a sports fan, I find it heartening.
The Russians used to be famous for their training techniques that created superbly conditioned athletes that often rolled over the opposition. Seeing something as simple as a line change was a thing of beauty. Unlike standard North American hockey where a line change is preceded by dumping the puck deep into the opposition end, the Russians would change their forward line by passing the puck back to a retreating defence pairing. When fresh forwards jumped over the boards, the defence would send a pass forward and change themselves without ever relinquishing possession.
The Big Red machine was brought to heel some time ago and they were no longer able to roll over Canadian teams. Their mystique disappeared. It was said that Russians were superb athletes who were well conditioned and well coached. However they lacked the "heart" of the Canadians. It was said that hockey simply meant more to Canadian kids who would sacrifice their bodies and play with a level of emotion and desperation that Russian automatons simply lacked.
That is true no more. The Russians found themselves in a 3-0 hole and scratched and clawed their way back. They showed .....well a lot of heart.
Good for them. Congratulations to Russia for showing such spirit.
Congratulations to Canada too. Silver really ain't too bad!!!
Monday, January 3, 2011
"Journalism" again
I am sometimes accused of not doing my homework or glossing over some important details. I have a long history of the former stretching back to primary school days and I occasionally plead guilty to the second.
This article in the Toronto Star caught my eye today.
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/914809--academics-critical-of-skyrocketing-pay-for-ceos?bn=1
I will not take issue with the view that CEO pay has skyrocketted....it clearly has. I don't know at what level a CEO's pay is excessive....is it twice the national average or 300 times the national average. There must be a dividing line in there somewhere but I don't know where it is.
I take issue with one particular point in this article which states:
"The CEO pay figures may even be underestimated owing to a change in the way stock option compensation is reported, according to the report. Corporations used to report the amount of income that executives actually realized when they cashed in their options. Beginning in 2008, rather than reporting the amount their executives realized during the year by cashing in options, they reported a statistical estimate of what the options might have been worth in the market when they were granted”.
Let me explain why this particular point is so unsavoury to me. Stock options are typically granted such that the "strike price" is higher than the current stock price. So an executive who receives options that expire in 5 years with a current stock price of $50 dollars might have options with a 'strike price' of $75. This means that in 5 years the options are worth something only if the the stock is trading above $75.00.
So what is this option worth today if the stock price needs to rise by 50% plus a penny for the option to be worth a penny?? The tax code treats them as if they are worth nothing today and value is assessed at expiry. If the options are "exercised" due to a price that is higher than the strike price in 5 years, then the value above the strike price is treated as income. This is the actual cash that the executive receives and as such makes sense.
However is it really fair to say that an exec who receives one million stock options today has received nothing? If so many people would be volunteering to receive many such nothings.
Valuing these options is not easy. The key factor in determining the "fair value" on the date of issue is the volatility of the underlying stock. A stock that is very very low in volatility is less likely to rally by 50% than a stock that is very very volatile.
The formula for valuing these options is called Black-Scholes.
By assessing the value of the options and attributing that to the executive's income in the year in which it is granted, a more accurate picture of the exec's income for the year comes into focus. This does not cause the exec's earnings to be understated. On the contrary, it would be higher than if only the cash income was counted.
Additionally, such deferred compensation (which only yields cash after a significant increase in share price) aligns the CEO's financial well being with the long term interests of the shareholders. It is good for corporate governance and should be encouraged rather than used to make a false point about CEO pay.
Not every reader of the newspaper has worked as an options market maker, and the author of the article clearly hasn't either, however it would not have taken much to get the right background on stock options.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Why Government Doesn't Work
We saw a clear example of why governments fail to do the right things this week in the United States.
The position of the Obama Administration was clear: The Bush tax cuts should not be allowed to continue on for wealthy Americans earning more than USD 250,000 a year. This would be irresponsible as it would nearly a trillion dolllars to the national debt over the next decade at a time when the federal government is bleeding red at unprecedented levels. However in a time of economic stagnation, unemployment benefits should be extended such that workers could be guaranteed up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.
The position of the Republicans was also clear: The unemployment benefits should not be extended at a time when the federal government is bleeding red at unprecedented levels. However in a time of economic stagnation, taxes needed to stay lower for all Americans including the wealthiest.
These two seemingly irreconcilable views led to an agreement that has now passed both Houses of Congress. The package will extend the tax cuts for everyone (including the wealthy) and extend unemployment benefits to 99 weeks. Neither side seems to worry too much about the impact on the levels of red ink that the government is showing.
This was a game of chicken in which both sides blinked and it led to an irresponsible deal. The Bush tax cuts should have been allowed to expire.......on everyone. The unemployment benefits should not have been extended. Especially irresponsible was a cut to Social Security payroll taxes. The SS system is headed for bankruptcy which will require higher taxes and a delayed retirement age.....why cut the contribution rate now?
It is true that recessions are not the best time to raise taxes but is there ever a really good time to raise taxes? If these hard choices are not made now, then there is a heightened risk that a much more draconian budget would have to come in when the bond markets flee US Treasuries as they have done to various eurozone countries.
Remember that the accumulated national debt is simply a way of passing on our credit card bills to our children. It's wrong. It's immoral. Elected officials should know better.
Ask the Irish and the Greeks whether they wish they had made these hard choices a few years ago.
The position of the Obama Administration was clear: The Bush tax cuts should not be allowed to continue on for wealthy Americans earning more than USD 250,000 a year. This would be irresponsible as it would nearly a trillion dolllars to the national debt over the next decade at a time when the federal government is bleeding red at unprecedented levels. However in a time of economic stagnation, unemployment benefits should be extended such that workers could be guaranteed up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.
The position of the Republicans was also clear: The unemployment benefits should not be extended at a time when the federal government is bleeding red at unprecedented levels. However in a time of economic stagnation, taxes needed to stay lower for all Americans including the wealthiest.
These two seemingly irreconcilable views led to an agreement that has now passed both Houses of Congress. The package will extend the tax cuts for everyone (including the wealthy) and extend unemployment benefits to 99 weeks. Neither side seems to worry too much about the impact on the levels of red ink that the government is showing.
This was a game of chicken in which both sides blinked and it led to an irresponsible deal. The Bush tax cuts should have been allowed to expire.......on everyone. The unemployment benefits should not have been extended. Especially irresponsible was a cut to Social Security payroll taxes. The SS system is headed for bankruptcy which will require higher taxes and a delayed retirement age.....why cut the contribution rate now?
It is true that recessions are not the best time to raise taxes but is there ever a really good time to raise taxes? If these hard choices are not made now, then there is a heightened risk that a much more draconian budget would have to come in when the bond markets flee US Treasuries as they have done to various eurozone countries.
Remember that the accumulated national debt is simply a way of passing on our credit card bills to our children. It's wrong. It's immoral. Elected officials should know better.
Ask the Irish and the Greeks whether they wish they had made these hard choices a few years ago.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Resurgent Republicans
So now that the mid term elections are done and President Obama faces a decidedly less friendly Congress, it has been shown again that political prognostication is a very tricky game.
Two years ago a surge of new voters propelled Barack Obama into the White House and his party had large majorities in both houses of Congress. The GOP's epitaph was being written and the talk was of a permanent Democratic majority. A scant 18 months later, a Republican Speaker will be third in line for the Presidency.
Much attention has been directed towards the Tea Party and some of their more dubious candidates and views. Yet for all the rallies and anger they expressed, their most effective action has been the simple democratic exercise of voting at the primary and election levels.
Their voices would have amounted to nought if the Obama surge voters of 2008 showed up at the polls in 2010. The reason why the Democrats lost by such a big margin is quite simply that their own voters either did not show up to vote or switched sides when they got to the ballot box.
The question of how the Obama administration managed to simultaneously energize the opposition and dispirit their own supporters is one that many pundits are chewing over. A recurring theme is Obama's seeming aloofness and professorial demeanor. He doesn't come across like someone rolling up his sleeves to do the work. Both Presidents Bush caught a lot of flak for fishing or golfing too much. CNN reports that Obama has golfed more in his two years in office that George W Bush did in 8 years.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SPORT/golf/04/20/golf.obama.bush/index.html
The pundits appear unanimous in saying that this mid term election result means nothing for his re-election prospects in two years. Two years is a long time in politics and they should be careful about drawing too many comparisons to Clinton's mid term losses of 94 coupled with his re-election 2 years later.
This is a very different situation for a number of reasons:
Two years ago a surge of new voters propelled Barack Obama into the White House and his party had large majorities in both houses of Congress. The GOP's epitaph was being written and the talk was of a permanent Democratic majority. A scant 18 months later, a Republican Speaker will be third in line for the Presidency.
Much attention has been directed towards the Tea Party and some of their more dubious candidates and views. Yet for all the rallies and anger they expressed, their most effective action has been the simple democratic exercise of voting at the primary and election levels.
Their voices would have amounted to nought if the Obama surge voters of 2008 showed up at the polls in 2010. The reason why the Democrats lost by such a big margin is quite simply that their own voters either did not show up to vote or switched sides when they got to the ballot box.
The question of how the Obama administration managed to simultaneously energize the opposition and dispirit their own supporters is one that many pundits are chewing over. A recurring theme is Obama's seeming aloofness and professorial demeanor. He doesn't come across like someone rolling up his sleeves to do the work. Both Presidents Bush caught a lot of flak for fishing or golfing too much. CNN reports that Obama has golfed more in his two years in office that George W Bush did in 8 years.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SPORT/golf/04/20/golf.obama.bush/index.html
The pundits appear unanimous in saying that this mid term election result means nothing for his re-election prospects in two years. Two years is a long time in politics and they should be careful about drawing too many comparisons to Clinton's mid term losses of 94 coupled with his re-election 2 years later.
This is a very different situation for a number of reasons:
- Speaker elect John Boehner is not Newt Gingrich. Gingrich came up as a grenade thrower with sharp rhetoric that offended many. John Boehner comes across like a grown up.
- The Republicans do not have a majority in the Senate. As a result, many of the more extreme elements of the party face some checks and balances within the Legislative branch. A government shutdown is not likely.
- This is a very different Republican party than the one that ascended in 94. Amongst their new class of Congressman are two African Americans representing majority white districts. They are the first black Republicans in Congress since JC Watts retired in 2002. Additionally two of their State Governors (Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Nikki Haley of South Carolina) are Indian. One of their most prominent figures is Sara Palin.
- These Republicans are different in their outlook and approach as well. On election night Speaker elect Boehner stated that there would be no celebrations while so many Americans are unemployed. This was very smart politics. I also heard one Republican speaking to CNN who said that the Republicans deserved to be voted out of office before as they did not stick to their principles. He referred to this election result as a second chance. There is a far more mature outlook and a responsible attitude to the power they now wield.
President Obama does indeed need to follow Clinton's lead by working with the Republicans. He had such large majorities that he did not need to do so. The people decided that they didn't much like the results. By contrast Clinton's administration had some of their signature achievements while working with Republicans. It was Republican votes that ensured passage of Welfare Reform and NAFTA. The people liked that so much they re-elected Clinton and kept the Republicans in control in Congress.
So far, Obama has shown little evidence that he gets it. The Economist wrote an editorial in the aftermath called "Obama's Tin Ear."
His aloofness will soon start to come across as arrogance. At that point, he assures himself a legacy as a single term President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
