Hamilton Saint

It's been a fantastic season. Superb - if you consider the problems last summer. I have been very impressed with the job Koeman (and the rest of his staff) has done. The club should be very happy with the way this season has turned out. Congratulations to all.

You have a decidedly Us vs Them sort of attitude. And an apparent reluctance to deal with ideas in a reasonable way. I know your area of the province well. My wife is from Blenheim, near Chatham. Ontario is made of many communities. Embrace the diversity.

I'm not spouting utter crap; I'm presenting some reasonable ideas and interpretations you might try to respond to - instead of lashing out. Trudeau and Chretien got 30%, you say? Check the facts. Trudeau's percentages in federal elections: 38% ('68 ), 43% ('72), 40% ('74), 44% ('79). Chretien's percentages in federal elections: 38% ('88 ), 40% ('97), 36% ('00). I use the word "majority" to indicate that not everyone holds to the particular beliefs I'm discussing - but more do than not. The prevailing view is the majority view. It's a straightforward concept for most people, I think. Your reference to the "English as a second language hell hole" indicates the underlying bigotry you hold for racial minorities (you know - those who don't belong to the "majority"). You've expressed this sort of thing before, but I let it go. If the "rest of Ontario hates the Liberal Party so much", why can't the PCs get themselves elected? There have been four Liberal wins in a row (2003-2015) and 6 wins in the last 30 years. The majority of Ontarians (oops, there's that word again!) just don't like the narrow-minded, reactionary leaders the PCs keep choosing. Tim Hudak was a dud; now they seem to have chosen another of that breed. Ontarians prefer conservatives of the Bill Davis type - honest, fair, and willing to govern on behalf of the majority view (oops), rather than the narrow extreme.

You're wrong in saying that there is no difference in attitude between Canada and the U.S. There is a big difference. To put it in a pithy way: the U.S. attitude can be summed up with the phrase "Give me liberty, or give me death"; whereas the Canadian attitude is encapsulated in the phrase "peace, order and good government". The majority view in the U.S. is centred in rampant individualism (libertarianism, in its more extreme form) and self-centredness. Government is seen as a threat to free enterprise and the rights of the individual. In Canada the majority believes in promoting what's best for the community. Government is viewed as a legitimate means to moderate and regulate the behaviour of corporatism. When the extremist Republicans (the Tea-Party-types) look north they actually consider the Canadian system as "socialistic" or "communistic". Which is a laugh, and shows how little attention they pay to what's happening here. That might have been an understandable view in the 70s, during Trudeau's time as PM; but our current PM (who's been running the show for a decade) emulates and promotes all-things-Republican and is trying to turn Canada into a carbon copy of our neighbour to the south - even though 65% consistently disagree with his policies and tactics. It seems to me, Sarnia, that you are much more American in your attitude and would be much happier on the other side of the border. Agreed?

It has been estimated, I believe, that about half of the prison population in the U.S. are there for drug offences. And a large proportion (I don't know the figures) are for minor infractions involving marijuana. This is because of the reactionary policies of the "War on Drugs" pursued especially by Republican administrations (it began in earnest during the Reagan years). And the legal system in the U.S. seems to be particularly harsh on Afro-Americans and native people. It's incredibly ironic that there are several States that now have a thriving industry selling marijuana legally, whilst there are people in jail serving long sentences for owning or selling ("trafficking") small amounts of the same stuff.

Canada is a great place to live and work.

Jeez, you can't think straight! The two simple and incontrovertible facts I cited need no qualification. I have not implied "something that is not true". Again, I did not say, and did not imply, that there are no cod in Canada. I said that the cod fishery was closed in 1992. I did not say, and did not imply, that the seal hunt ended in 2009. I said that the EU banned seal products in 2009. I made no implications. I simply stated the facts. You, on the other hand, have made incorrect assumptions about what I have said. Try to think it through now.

You don't read very well. Or maybe it's poor reasoning skills. I did not say there has been no cod since 1992; I said the government imposed a moratorium on the fishery that year. And I did not say that the seal hunt ended in 2009; I said that the EU imposed a ban on seal products that year. Don't put words in my mouth. Don't make things up.

The Canadian Government shut down the cod fishery in 1992. The EU banned seal products in 2009. The collapse of the cod stocks occurred about 20 years before changes to the seal cull.

Nonsense. The seals had nothing to do with the collapse of the cod population. It was due to overfishing. Too many European boats - and boats equipped with trawling technology that could fish much larger areas with nets that could go incredibly deep.

I've watched this several times before. An awesome performance which took a lot of guts. The highlight was this: "Here’s how it works. The president makes decisions. He’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put ’em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the Administration? You know, fiction!"

Be careful - otherwise urine trouble.

According to BBC Football yesterday: "Bayern Munich's progress to the semi-finals of the Champions League was 'about life or death', according to manager Pep Guardiola." Well, not bad. But, of course, Bill Shankly - as we know -outdid him in the hyperbole department: "Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that."

This reminds me now of the wonderful George Carlin -a master of language. In this piece, he describes the differences between the language and terminology of baseball and football. If you know something about the games, this is brilliant!

And then there's the shotgun formation!

Assuming that you are referring to American football again (): the game consists of 4 quarters; each quarter runs for 15 minutes, but the clock starts and stops at the beginning and end of each separate "play"; the referee signals by whistle the when the clock should run or stop. So, the actual amount of time that the ball is in play is 60 minutes. Half-time comes at the end of the first two quarters. The referee has to constantly delay the re-start of the action in a televised game, in order to allow the broadcast of a couple of ads. Each team can also call three "time-outs" during each half of the game. Time-outs are usually called so that the coach can discuss strategy for upcoming key plays, or to stall the momentum of the opposing team. The teams switch ends at the end of the first and third quarter.

Some basic info about "real ale" here: http://www.camra.org.uk/about-real-ale

Nice one!

Yeah, right.

I said it was a generalization myself - or didn't you absorb that point. I was just returning the favour, because you want to characterize all Canadians as "big guy, big jug" people. "All Canadians are complete crumpets"? Nice alliteration there, but just another example of the simplicity of your ideas, and the crudity of your argumentative style. By the way, I am not your pal. Why would a pal of mine think that hurling insults is a rational tactic?

OK, I'll take the bait on this one. Point One: Obesity. If you check the figures (excuse the pun) - I'm using a 2007 WHO study - Canada sits 35th (61.1%) in the percentage of its population that are overweight (a BMI index number above 30). But the U.K. numbers are worse: 63.8%, putting it 28th in the list. Increases in the number of overweight and obese is a world-wide phenomenon - it's up 8% world-wide between 1980 and 2013. That 2007 study found U.K. residents were the third-most overweight people in Europe (only the rates in Iceland and Malta were higher). Point two: Obnoxiousness quotient. Your observations about Canadians, of course, were a gross (excuse another pun) generalization. I've traveled a lot over the years and noticed how different nationalities tend to behave when they're overseas as tourists. My observation (again a generalization) is this: Canadians tend to mix more with other tourists; they accommodate themselves more to local food and customs; they are not as loud and assertive as Yanks and Brits; and they are polite. Brits, on the other hand, tend to be more ethnocentric - they want to get food and drink they are familiar with; Brits are more likely to drink to excess than Canadians; Brits can be more bossy and self-assertive. And if you think that there is little difference between Canadians and Americans, you really haven't been paying attention! This year I was holidaying mid-winter in Mexico. The resort contained a majority of Americans. Previous years (4) I have been in Cuba - where the holidaymakers are primarily Canadian. The differences in behaviour are very noticeable. As a "mid-Atlantic" ex-pat, I am sensitive to these (often-subtle) differences.

Classic. I start reading through a thread with great interest and then, suddenly, there's a post from me. What?! Then I check the date. Jeez, this thread is two years old. But it still sounds fresh. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Oh, and I still like DM - although his comment about "What Saints must not do now" always does my head in.

Thanks for the update. I first became aware of Badger beers about ten years ago. The beer and wine shop (now closed) just around the corner from my friend's house in Frome (Somerset) had a display featuring four or five of their bottled beers. They seem to specialise in flavoured beers - one I recall had an interesting peach flavour (Golden Glory?). We were down on the Dorset coast another time, in order to visit Thomas Hardy's Cottage, Lulworth Cove and Durdle Door, and decided also to do the tour of the Hall & Woodhouse Brewery in Blandford St. Mary (which makes the Badger beers). A very long but memorable day!

I did a tour of the Hall & Woodhouse Brewery in Blandford St. Mary, Dorset about five years ago. They make badger beers, available in bottles or casks - all (or most) are ales. They also do a few ciders. A very interesting tour, explaining thoroughly the brewing process. They also have vintage equipment located around the place, so they can compare the old ways with the new. At the end of the tour, you get a free pint in the brewery's own pub. We enjoyed a pub lunch there, too.

I drink mostly ale. (Might have a Grolsch, or Becks, or Heineken, occasionally). I like Smithwicks, Guinness, Murphy's Stout, Hobgoblin, Old Speckled Hen, London Pride, etc., etc. I like a beer with a distinctive taste. Lots of good Canadian ales, too.