Tie one off

Leafs enforcer and fan favourite Tie Domi retired yesterday.

Domi was up there with the best of them in his day and always stood up for his teammates.

However, the first fool from central Canada who suggests Domi should be in the Hall of Fame deserves a shot from Domi himself.

Good housekeeping, bad judgment

This article from Housekeeping Monthly is circulating again. It's fun to look at and see how much things have changed over the years.

The other thing that is interesting about it is that in reading it and discussing it all over the internet and at the water cooler, most people don't talk about the most obvious part of it . . . . it is clearly a fake.

It's a fun way to see how far our attitudes have changed since Leave it to Beaver, but a sad comment on how easily we take things at face value.

Lord of the wingnuts

There is a new housing development in Bend Oregon that is modeled after the Shire in Lord of the Rings.

One thing about moving here is that you probably wouldn't be the geekiest guy in the neighbourhood.

I assume that most of the homes will be one bedroom as those interested in living their are of the infinitely single variety.

Sad but funny

Janet Rudd, age 32, died last week in London Ontario. This is sad, but I must point out how she died which is funny.

She was playing "chubby bunny."

Unframiliar with this game? Hard to believe, but here's the premise: it is a marshmallow eating contest. You stuff marshmallows in your mouth until you can no longer say the phrase "chubby bunny."

Needless to say, Janet is no longer saying chubby bunny, nor is a 12 year-old girl from Illinois who died of the same thing in 1999. They both choked on the marshmallow which basically creates a gummy plug which makes it hard to breath.

The question is, will Ontario follow-up their anti-smoking legislation and legislate against the death inducing marshmallow?

In addition to Janet there were seven other contestants, meaning that those who partake in chubby bunny have a one in eight chance of dying. We should also probably charge the companies who manufacture marshmallows and see if Michael Moore is available to make a documentary on the matter.

I'm no John Mayer, but . . .

. . . I am an asshole, so I may have something relevant to add to his interview with Sarah Hampson in Saturday's Globe and Mail.

In the interview Mayer said, among other dumb and egotistical things, that "I'm doing so well that most anybody I meet at a party would only be, at best, somebody who doesn't bring me down."

If I was at the party I could tell him that he is a marginal talent that in most other generations where his cometition for radio airtime would have been from the likes of Bob Dylan, James Taylor, Ray Charles, etc, he would be playing for free beers in backwater towns in the southern U.S.

I could tell him that even among his contemporaries, Blunt, Johnson, Geiger, and the like are better.

And I could tell him that if he is so shit hot, why did he even go out on one date with Jessica Simpson? Did he really think he was going to wow him with intellectual chat or give him some song writing tips.

Penn ticked on

You have by now read that Sean Penn basically shook Toronto from its foundations recently when he lit up a cigarette and unknowingly violated Ontario's new smoke-free legislation.

Ontario's Health Promotion Minister (is this a real position?) declared that Penn should be charged, and Toronto's medical officer sent Penn a written reprimand (which I assume Penn will treat appropriately by rolling some tobacco in it and smoking it).

The hotel Penn stayed at will have to pay a $600 fine as well.

Toronto has had 47 homicides so far this year. Maybe Ontario should start a Ministry of stopping people from killing other people and leave the shakedown of people who visit the city and bring millions of dollars of economic goodness and light during the Film Festival for another time.

Is this obvious? or fair?

Calgary's alderguy Craig Burrows, when speaking about how taxes for emergency services should be foisted, said this:

"obviously someone with a bigger home on a bigger lot should pay more taxes than somebody with a smaller home on a smaller lot -- that's fair."

Why would it be fair that someone with a bigger home pay more for an ambulance to drive to it than his neighbour with a smaller home?

In other words, what Burrows thinks is "fair" is that those who have more should pay more, regardless of what they get for it. And Burrows is considered one of Calgary's "conservative" voices!

Elevators for Dummies

Why is it that people have to jam onto an elevator like the next one isn't comeing for 2 hours?

I am constantly amazed at the people who will risk life and limb to catch an elevator. This usually takes place in an office tower where there are a bank of elevators whose sole purpose is to elevate worker bees to their cubicle. Another one will come, I promise.

Are you really in that big of a hurry to get to work that you can't wait 18 seconds for the next elevator?

Latest from the Calgary Herald

Here's my latest from the Herald on Rent Control. The Herald ran a pro-rent control column to counter my arguments. It was very good and made some strong points. In the interst of journalistic lack of integrity, and an ode to William Randolph Hearst and his Hollywood counterpart Charles Foster Kane, here is only my side of the argument:


A dumb idea that sounds good: Two views on the debate over rent controls
Calgary Herald
Sunday, September 3, 2006
Page: A12
Section: The Editorial Page
Byline: Dave Ryan
Column: Dave Ryan
Source: For The Calgary Herald

Dumb ideas have a way of sounding so good. Rent control is a dumb idea that sounds good.

Rent control is in the news these days, primarily because of one account of an individual's rent increasing 112 per cent per month. The issue picked up a little more steam after Premier Ralph Klein's would-be successors were asked to comment on the issue.

Most of them pulled out their copy of conservatism 101, turned to the economics section and recited chapter and verse "any economic question is best answered by saying the market works best when unfettered by government control."

Unfortunately for Dave Hancock, he alone among those hoping to jump into Klein's shoes chose to tacitly support the concept of rent control.

I'm convinced that when someone is elected, he or she is given a little handbook that provides policy ideas which, while dim and shortsighted, will placate voters. Rent control is a great example of this type of policy. It is one of those knee-jerk, easy-fix solutions that has all the elements politicians love.

Untamed rent sounds menacing. Taming this monster appears strong and caring.

Landlords are wealthy, powerful and uncaring. Renters are the helpless little guys.

One or two unfortunate stories can be used to validate support of rent control even when all common sense and history oppose the concept.

It's not just me who thinks rent control is a stupid idea -- smart people agree, too. In a poll of 211 economists done in the late 1970s and reported in the American Economic Review, 98 per cent of respondents agreed that "a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available." This group included right-wing economists such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek and lefties such as Gunnar Myrdal (all Nobel Prize winners).

In other words, the concept of rent control is so hopeless that even socialists and capitalists agree on its futility.

In a 1988 paper for Canadian Public Policy, more than 400 Canadian economists were polled on their position on contentious economic issues such as minimum wage, wage-price controls and rent control. Rent control garnered the highest consensus among the economists of any issue polled with more than 80 per cent opposing the concept.

Even when proponents of rent control move past the heartstrings into more intellectual attempts at justifying it, their arguments are as befuddled as Mel Gibson at a checkstop.

Many who support rent control complain that landlords neglect to maintain rental properties. While this may be a valid concern, it has nothing to do with the price of rent. If slumlords are neglectful when they can reap the highest rent possible, limiting their income through rent control will not make them put more money into the upkeep of the premises. Bylaws, fines or penalties may help this issue, but limiting their rental income won't.

If you favour rent control and are of the opinion renters should not bear the burden of price inflation, why do you think shifting this burden to property owners is any more fair or just?

If a renter is paying $1,000 per month to a landlord who paid $250,000 for the property, why should a person who purchases this property in today's market for $500,000 be forced to honour this rental rate?

Isn't it as unjust that families who could once afford a home in Calgary on a middle-class income are now forced to rent because the increasing cost of housing has priced them out of the market?

Why don't those who favour rent control call for legislation that controls the sale of property? (Note to socialists and editors of Handbook of Stupid and Shortsighted Ideas for Politicians: This is one of those dumb ideas that sounds good; do not take up the cause of price controls on property sales).

Rent control is a dumb idea that shifts the burden of inflation to property owners and does nothing to solve the underlying issues arising from inflationary growth.

Blaming landlords for high rental rates is like blaming the Wright brothers for terrorism plots involving airplanes.

Dave Ryan is an investigative humorist.

Bronconnier cries boo-hoo

I'll admit it: don't like the guy; don't trust the guy, and can't figure out why everyone keeps voting for him. Now Calgary's version of Mayor Daley is bitching that he should have more control over purse strings and responsibility for schools.

When you drive to or from work over the next few days, ask yourself whether you trust Bronco to take control of things. He claims that he is forward thinking, but if that's the case, why are Calgarians waiting in traffic in new areas of Calgary while infrastructure such as overpasses are being built. Didn't the ever omniscient Bronconnier see that building a new community with thousands of houses would require this infrastructure?

Although he doesn't mention it in this latest rant, one of Bronco's favourites, especially when trying to justify tax increases, is that Calgary is growing so he needs more money.

Wrong.

Every person who comes pays property, income, and sales tax. Bronco always complains like the newcomers have to be supplied infrastructure and services on the old resident's taxes. The tax base grows as the population does.