EarthDawn Versus D&D 4th Edition

Background: I played my first Dungeons and Dragons adventure in 1978 with my friend Dennis and his brother and friends. I've played, off and on but mostly on, since then. I have played some other systems along the way, including genres outside of the Fantasy setting, but always returning to the granddaddy of them all at some point.

My SoCal gaming group really enjoyed EarthDawn (ED), a game (at the time) released by FASA Corp. We enjoyed the world, the variety and mix of playable classes and races, and the multiple dice aspect and rerolling of the game system. One other nice aspect was that mages and non-mages both remained effective and useful into higher levels.

At the time, Dungeons and Dragons (DnD) was in second edition, and was still a bit cumbersome to play and learn for new players, had a lot of "splat" books for classes and races to help you min/max your character. Soon, DnD 3.0 and then 3.5 came out, and we switched back to those, as the new rule set clarified and simplified a lot of what our gaming group didn't like about DnD. However, there still were many and frequent discussions over how a certain rule should be used or interpreted, because the editing on the books was never great and they used ambiguous terminology and examples.

Wizards of the Coast released DnD 4th Edition. The aim of this edition was to simplify some rules, alleviate a lot of the detritus that had built up around certain classes, races, and styles of play, and try to minimize the overt dominance of mage classes at higher levels in favor of keeping all classes viable through all levels.

I have now both played and DMed DnD 4e for almost two years. And what I find interesting is just how much of the setting and rules that DnD 4e has taken from ED.

Area	DnD 4e	ED
Point of Light setting?	X	X
Spellcasters can cast all the time?	X (matrix)	X (at-wills)
All characters powered by magic?	X	X
All tests must equal/exceed difficulty number?	X	X
Specific rules always override general rules?	X	X
Passive "spot" ability?	X(Passive Perception/Insight)	X (Perception)
Hero points?	X (Action points)	X (Karma)
Multiple dice used?	O (many powers give multiple damage dice)	X (step system)
Extreme success in battle?	X (Criticals)	X (Armor defeating)
All characters can heal?	X(2nd Wind/healing surges)	X (recovery tests)

While I wont list them, there are many rules similarities in the two systems now, as well. Both systems make it harder to multi-class, for example, as the Discipline/Class you choose is something of an embodiment to how your character relates to the world through his magic, so it is harder to learn abilities from other Discipline/Classes. DnD 4e has the advantage here, though, as it does allow you to "dip" into another class and get a couple of magical abilities from them, making your character more generally useful to a party at the cost of a little specialization.

One area I'm disappointed 4e didn't copy is the ED standard of having a test to hit a character and then a test to damage the character. By this I mean that in ED you have to roll to see if you land a blow with your weapon, spell, or social interaction first, usually pitted against a character's Dexterity. And then, if you happen to hit, the character's Armor absorbs some of the damage. This system better represents the different decisions players may make in wanting a "light, fast, hardly hit" character versus a "meat shield, tanker" type character. In ED, you can buy high Dexterity and light armor and feats and talents all designed around not being hit at all. However, due to the limited protection light armor provides, if you are hit, nearly all of the damage gets through to you. Or you can buy a high strength so you can handle wearing extremely tough, durable armor. Your dexterity is low due to the weight of the armor, so things hit you more often, but it takes a high roll or an armor-defeating hit in order to get any of that damage past the armor and to the character.

DnD decided to stick with the more generic Armor Class, where AC accounts for both your ability to dodge and withstand damage. It also ties Hit Points more closely into your character's ability to take damage and continue functioning, with no standard for extreme damage or long-term inability due to combat. ED has Wounds as well as Hit Points. Wounds represent extreme or long-term damage that limits a character's ability to do something. The first Wound is "free" but each subsequent Wound gives the character a cumulative -1 to just about everything they do.

Another aspect that I like in both is that they have taken a lot of the rules for roleplaying OUT of the game. Much of the "fluff" has been eliminated or minimized. In this way, you can play a, say, dwarf, any way you want to. You are not locked into the standard DnD concept of greedy dwarves who distrust elves and covet gold and gems. Or bearded dwarf females (ugh!).

While ED has a good, strong back story of events, and gives some elements about the races, the rules do tell you as a player to use those aspects you find fun and ignore the rest, if you choose.

4e also borrowed a concept from ED in magic items. In ED you could get threaded items which grew and became more powerful with your character over time, and minor threaded items and minor magic items were fairly common and available. While that concept did not make it into 4e, it has revamped the way magic weapons are powered so that they can tie into character concepts, they can empower the character with new abilities and/or increase existing abilities, and they are cheaper and easier to acquire and/or transfer the magic to a different weapon, making it easier for players to keep enchantments but use them on weapons that are more "in concept" for their characters.

On many other comparison blogs they discuss how 4e is "more like an MMORPG." This statement I simply don't understand; the concepts that MMORPGs use come directly from DnD and its related games, not the other way around. While they may not have explicitly stated it in previous editions, the concept of having a tank/defender/meat shield up front to take the damage and keep things occupied, a striker/scrapper/blaster to do melee or ranged damage, a leader/support/healer to buff the party, and a controller/crowd control/debuffer to hinder the opponents is the classic "standard" setup for any party in any RPG. I find this amusing as every edition of DnD from the brown paper covered through today has always recommended the party consists of a Fighter (Defender), Rogue (Striker), Cleric (Leader), and Wizard (Controller). And, by their very nature, most classes fit into one of those roles predominantly. And, like other editions, most classes have secondary roles they are good at, too. A Fighter can be a decent Striker, for example, and a Cleric can fit into either Controller or Defender roles with grace.

Both ED and 4e have rules that allow characters to overcome damage fairly easily. This is part of the concept of the characters all being "heroes" and part of the upper 1% of the population that have these magical abilities. In ED, the Recovery Test is limited by the character's Toughness, and may be done after an hour post-combat and after 1 minute of rest and concentration. Whatever you roll is subtracted from your current damage. In 4e, you have a number of Healing Surges you can do per day, based on your class, race, and/or Constitution. You have one special Surge you can do during an encounter, called a Second Wind. Either way, recovery tests and healing surges minimize the need for healing magic and allow the characters to do more in a day instead of the old style of "fight-rest for 8 hours-heal-fight-rest for 8 hours-heal" routine that frequently took up a lot of game time in previous editions of DnD. In either system, I find it is still ridiculously easy to kill characters, overwhelm them, and make them use these precious resources. Healing magic is still needed and much gold is still spent on healing potions.

The one thing I miss the most from ED is the ability to roll multiple dice and the ability to reroll maxed dice. There was always that tinge of "a first level windling could kill a dragon with one blow" lurking in the background that made for some extra excitement while playing. Many of my favorite stories from ED involve lucky or unlucky times when the players or the DM got maxes, allowing for extraordinary results on challenges and tests. Even with all the changes that were made, DnD 4e just isn't designed for that type of randomness, so it was not included.

4e has become a lot like ED in how it is played. It resolves many of the rules issues with previous editions, incorporates some good concepts from other game systems (like ED) to keep people playing and doing heroic things, and allows for more variations to many aspects of a game world where things had become somewhat rote. ED (now provided by Redbrick Limited) continues to be a fun game system that has some core concepts I really enjoy, namely in how it handles armor class/hitting and its use of multiple dice and rerolling maxes. You should play whatever RPG you enjoy most.

Reinventing the Wheel

I believe that President Obama is trying to make America a better place. I think that President Bush tried to do what was right for America (in my estimation, failing more often than succeeding, but still). However, in both cases, and with the Congress in general, they seem to be adamant about reinventing the wheel rather than seeing the wheels already made and picking one or two to serve as a model for what will work in America.

Take health care. There are, literally, a dozen or more examples of universal health care that American leadership could copy. Each of these examples has been proven over many years of successful use. We could send experts to Japan, Germany, Canada, Netherlands, Hawaii (yes, it has had a form of universal health care since the '50s which works great), and other nations, learn what works and what doesn't, and implement a plan based on those countries with a proven track record. Easy, right? No, instead we are going our own way, recreating the wheel in a hodge-podge of ideas that involve kick-backs and concessions to insurance companies and specific state lobbies. It will likely fail not because it is a bad idea but because it was poorly implemented.

Take banking reform. A number of banking systems were barely affected by the recent economic crash. Why not model the changes to the American system after the stable and secure systems of these nations (Canada, for example, et al) rather than making it up as we go and being reactionary to what happened, rather than proactive to making the system safe and secure? So far, at least, it looks like the changes being implemented aren't doomed to failure; I'm just not sure they will make the system safe and secure against the next threat to the economy.

Energy is another example where America could take notes from the rest of the world. Germany and Canada, for example, have multiple, much safer nuclear power plants using deuterium as their water source and which don't create the same weapons-grade cake that standard nuclear plants do. These plants have a great track-record and provide power to millions cheaply and efficiently. In America's quests to be energy independent, why aren't they looking at these types of power plants?

America has always been a leader to the world. However, in some areas, other nations have the proven track record and have discovered the efficiencies that America has not needed until recently. It would make the most sense if the country would take the best ideas around the world and implement those, rather than spending years and millions (billions?) to reinvent what already works.

Feeling a Little Dumb

I got a letter from the IRS saying I forgot to sign my tax return this year. Since I normally file online, but can't any more due to location, it is not all that surprising that I forgot a silly little step like that.

However, the letter informing me of that issue specifically says that I had to return the signed declaration within 20 days of the date of the letter. If I lived in America and, therefore, didn't use the entire system that caused me to forget to sign my return in the first place, I could have accomplished that. But I live in Canada now; I received the letter after the 20 days had elapsed.

For as nice a country as Canada is, there are a few areas of failing, one of which is the postal service. For as much as Americans complain about the post office, it still is one of the world's largest and most efficient companies, moving tons of mailing quickly around the nation. Canada's postal service is not nearly as big, efficient, or fast. It doesn't deliver on Saturdays, Sundays, most holidays, and when it feels like it (for example, if the carrier feels the snow is too bad during the winter, they simply don't deliver to that area that day).

As an inadvertent test, my wife and I have sent items to the same location (my mom's house) from both Calais, ME (just across the border) and from our house in Canada. Those sent from Calais usually take two to three days to reach its destination on the other side of the country. Those sent from here average about 13-15 days.

I called the IRS this morning and, luckily, I can simply send in the signed declaration without issue (I neither owe nor am owed money), so they just want the declaration to attach to my return. So we put it in the mail today for its at least two week journey to Texas this morning.

Good luck, mail, good luck!

750 And Counting...

The first time I made aeblesciver, I used a traditional recipe, cut up an actual apple and put chunks in, and then fiddled around trying to turn them using forks.

This morning I did it the easy American style-- Bisquick pancake mix, leftover homemade applesauce, and fondue forks.

Wow, what a difference.

My wife and I couldn't taste too much difference in the sciver produced, they were simpler and faster to make, and the fondue forks allowed me to manipulate the cooking cake much more easily. Using the applesauce was actually much nicer than chunks of apple, as it was softer and easier to bite into but you still got the sweet, apple-y flavor.

Things to note:

• The outside of the sciver cooks much faster with this recipe, so either reduce heat or stand very careful watch. If you don't, you'll have tougher outsides and uncooked, runny insides. On the original recipe mix I made before, I had the oven at a 4 setting. On this one, I started on a four and reduced it to a 2 by the final batch. Somewhere around 3 is likely okay if you let the pan heat up all the way.
• The Bisquick mix is a bit stickier on the cast iron skillet, so use some PAM, oil, or something similar on each batch. The first batch I made I didn't do this and they stuck in the pan and I had to scrape them out.

Just Don't Say It

Yet another article I'm reading has one of the many permutations on the phrase, "The person, who wasn't authorized to discuss the changes publicly, spoke on condition of anonymity" (emphasis mine). I think this phrase is absolutely to blame for most of the reporting we see and most of the erroneous news we uncover.

I read a lot of sports pages. Any time that PED (Performance Enhancing Drugs) are discussed, that phrase is linked. 9 out of 10 times that a list of suspected users is leaked, it is from someone hiding behind this phrase, or a variant. Frankly, if you are not supposed to be talking about it, then DON'T. Honor your contract with your company, honor your position, do your job, and stay the hell out of it.

Nearly any time I see an article about some celebrity being arrested or accused of something, that phrase appears again. Almost every time, some smaller scandal about one or more police officers being reprimanded or dismissed due to them being the leak comes out a few weeks later. If any organization should understand that you do not leak or release sensitive data, especially if you are not cleared for that data or to release it, it should be a cop. Just do your job, respect the law, and SHUT UP if questioned.

How is it that sites like Ain't It Cool News and Drudge Report get divorce papers, police reports, and other sensitive and confidential information about stars and celebs so quickly? There's that phrase again. Instead of treating that information as sensitive and thinking about how little they would like it if their same information were leaked about their divorce, domestic abuse, or financial woes, the people want to earn a quick buck and become that anonymous source that tells all... for a price.

Now, I will grant you that whistle-blowers are needed in certain circumstances. When a business is doing something patently wrong, that harms people directly, and in conflict with the laws regulating their business or the rights of the people, then people need to step up and make it known. But do it correctly; go to a legitimate law enforcement office or a lawyer. Don't go to the nearest internet news site or contact Hard Copy, ET, your local TV, or whatever.

If I were running a business that had sensitive data (like tracking drug testing in sports, for example), I would use some sort of version control or similar software, plus physical procedures, to track each person who had access to and contact with the sensitive data. I would have a policy in place that stated any leak of that data while it was in your possession or checked out to you, regardless of whether YOU actually did it, would result in your immediate and summary expulsion from the company and criminal proceedings filed against you. In this way, the people who worked for me would know absolutely that I don't care if someone looks over their shoulder or uses their passwords/logins or whatever-- it is their responsibility to do everything that they can to keep this data private, or they can work elsewhere.

Freedom of the press is one of the many things that makes America, and most of the free world, great. However, in this day and age of instant news and scooping the other 1001 agencies, the press has forgotten that their right to report ends where the rights of the individual to privacy begin.

Matter of fact, that is a lesson that most of America seems to have forgotten or chooses to ignore; your rights end where my rights begin. Your freedom of speech doesn't trump my right to privacy and to defend myself from slander and libel. Your right to peaceably assemble ends where my rights to individual property ownership and safety begin. Your right to practice the religion of your choice ends where my right to practice the religion of my choice begins. Your right to protest against the practice of abortion ends where another's right to a safe, clean medical procedure begin. Etcetera. This is why the Supreme Court is supposed to do its damnedest to ensure that its rulings cover the biggest majority of opinions in this country, even if some of those covered by it don't like it.

I guess it comes down to this: your right to your 15 minutes (more like seconds, these days) of fame and a monetary payoff end where my right to privacy begin. Be accountable for your own self first and leave me to be accountable for me.

Musical Comebacks

I was speaking with my wife about artists whom we would like to see have a spontaneous comeback to relevance in the music world.

She makes a valid argument for Heart. This band has been around since the 70s and has had some fairly strong hits over the years, but hasn't really hit big since the late 80s or early 90s. I was never a big fan, but liked some of their music. Recently, the 101 (on DirecTV) had a Heart concert from 2003 on and they still had it. Ann could still hit most of the notes and definitely still had the power and (most of the) range that signified Heart's early career. Nancy still rocked the guitar as well as some other instruments. She also is a talented singer.

They played some songs I had never heard as well. Some from an album they were about to release at the time, which I found quite interesting and beautiful to listen to. I can completely understand my wife's desire to see them have a resurgence.

My main candidate for a resurgence is George Michael. Michael is an extremely talented musician and songwriter who has slipped into easy dance music trends, and is more known for his exploits in men's rooms and with marijuana than music these days. I would love to see him drop a new album (Listen Without Prejudice, Volume 2?) that would have relevant, strong songs that show his range and versatility. This is the man who did Careless Whisper, Last Christmas, Father Figure, Faith, I Want Your Sex, Freedom, Jesus to a Child, Soul Free, and Older (to name a few).

There was some small talk about him taking over the lead for Queen, which I still think is an incredible idea. The few times he's teamed with Queen have been magical collaborations, and I can only imagine what they could do together on a semi-permanent basis.

In the end, I'm looking for Michael to put out something as relevant and involving as either Faith or Listen Without Prejudice Vol. 1, or even as solid an effort as Older. I long to hear his music and his incredible voice doing something that I want to hear (dance music is okay, but not my cup of tea).

Another I'd like to see comeback is Axl Rose and Slash re-teaming as Guns N Roses and dropping a sick heavy metal album like Appetite for Destruction. Not only is metal currently in an ebb cycle, but Axl has gone off the deep end ans Slash can't seem to find a band or interest as vital and vibrant as his days with Guns N Roses. When the two were together, they created some incredible metal music that still resonates today. It would be incredible if they could get together and find some of that magic again.

What artist or band who either hasn't been heard from or has faded to the background would you like to see make a huge comeback or resurgence to popularity, if even for just one album?

Dear David

Dear David Stern,

I am a lifelong fan of the NBA and the Lakers in particular. My parents were Lakers fans when I was small and, even though now I live on the east coast of Canada and rarely get to see the Lakers play due to either scheduling or the time the games start, I am still a fan. I look forward to their getting into the playoffs, because it assures me a number of games I can watch (even if it is really late at night here).

But, Mr. Stern, you have a serious, serious problem. Most of my friends here are not big sports fans, but are willing to watch and learn. And many of them, my wife included, hate watching the NBA because of the *ahem* inconsistency of the refereeing.

Okay, I'm glossing that over and putting a shine to it: they, and I, HATE the reffing in your sport.

The NBA trumpeted how much better the refing would be when it added the third ref. All I saw was the number of bad calls go up by about a third. When watching a game, especially using my much-loved TiVo, I watch the replays or make my own and watch not nearly as often for whether a foul was actually commited, but rather which of the refs called it. And nine out of ten times, the ref who is completely blocked from seeing the play is the one who whistles the supposed foul. Now, in most cases, he has the body of the defender in his way and can't possibly see if that swipe made contact. Go ahead, Mr. Stern, watch ANY game and do this and you'll see that I'm right.

Next, while watching that game, listen to the announcers. With the exception of the horrible Jeff Van Gundy, most of your announcers and color men are very good. But, as we watch replays of the "fouls" committed and the color guys explain them, for the most part they are a) writing fiction and it is obvious they are trying to justify a call rather than truly explain it or b) they talk about how one player (almost always the offensive player) "draws" or "creates" contact by leaping into a defender. I've read the rules for your sport, Mr. Stern, and any time a player is the one creating contact HE is the one who should be whistled for the foul. The vast majority of charging calls and "and ones" in the NBA should be offensive turnovers or fouls on the offensive player -- but that is not how you want the games called, so you fine anyone who points it out.

I still shudder over Reggie Miller's most famous shots: he would leap into the air and kick out his legs and literally kick a defender in the chest, arms, or legs, which should be an offensive foul every single time, yet he ALWAYS got the call in his favor and got an and-one.

Some other rules that you should watch and see just how badly your refs call are:

1. The hand is part of the ball. So each of those times the fans watch a replay of an offensive player sweeping the ball through the defender's arms and getting slapped on the hand you have a) an offensive player committing a foul by initiating contact and b) a defender usually hitting the ball and hands, which are legal. Either way, it should either be a no-call or an offensive foul, yet it is always called on the defender.

2. A defender who holds his ground with his arms raised and/or who leaps straight up is following the rules for defenders. Yet about ninety percent of the time that defender is called for a foul against an offensive player who leaps directly into him. I was pleasantly surprised to see some nice no-calls in games 5 and 6 of the Lakers' series versus the Thunder, but that is not the norm by any means. In nearly all cases, the defender is whistled for the foul even though he stood his ground and did not initiate contact.

3. The act of shooting. This rule is designed so that, if the offensive player is in the act of shooting when the foul occurs, he gets the result of the shot plus a foul shot or he gets two foul shots if the shot is missed. However, we have refs allowing players to throw, flick, lob, etc. the ball vaguely in the direction of the basket, often well after the whistle has sounded, and get the "and-one." This needs to stop. If you are truly 'in the act of shooting,' great. But refs need to stop allowing foul shots after a pivot and a step and a flick of the ball generally in the direction of the basket (which just as easily could have been a pass).

I have some suggestions that can help the refs call a better, more consistent game:

1. Instruct them only to calls they actually SEE, as opposed to those they assume happen and are blocked off from seeing. If they don't actually see a foul, keep the whistle in your pocket and don't call anything. Allowing the game to be played is much more exciting and allows for more scoring than a whistle every time down the court for the stupidest, smallest, most ticky-tack of calls (I give you all of game 6 of the Jazz/Nuggets series).

2. Revisit the rules for defense and allow defenders to follow them without being called for fouls.

3. Instruct the refs to call the player who initiates contact with another player, regardless of if that is offensive or defensive.

4. Remind refs that, just because a player falls down doesn't mean that a foul was committed. Feet get tangled, wet spots on floors, even players paying too much attention to what their coach is screaming at them from the sidelines have all caused players to fall down... none of which is a foul according to your rules.

5. Replay. Have a booth official whose job is to review out of bounds, flagrant fouls, jump balls, last second shots, etc. to ensure that the right team has the ball, the right player(s) are jumping it, etc. No more than 10 seconds per review should be enough. Have this guy in charge of three-second calls, too, not the guys on the court.

6. Allow refs to overrule each other. If the ref who couldn't see a play calls a horrible foul, allow the ref(s) who didn't see and was in position to overrule the other.

Mr. Stern, I love basketball. It is fast-paced and exciting to watch. But the obvious biases shown by the refs for and against certain players and teams, the egregiously bad calls in any game, and the inconsistency of the rules followed by the refs make it hard to truly just sit back and enjoy the sport. It also makes it hard to grow your fan base and bring it to regions where another sport is king, as fans don't like fighting the refs. Bad calls will happen, of course, in any sport. But most sports work very hard to make sure that the refs stay in the background and don't decide games. Yet in the NBA many fans and a lot of new people think that the refs decide games. This image hurts your reputation as a sport and draws fans away from it.

No matter how much you fine players, coaches, and media personnel, the fact that you have had to go so draconian to keep these comments at bay indicates the level of problem you have with this aspect of your sport. It has to stop.

Hopefully, you will consider these ideas and make improvements in your sport. I really want to love watching basketball again, rather than sit fuming at the refs and arguing with friends over the bad calls made in every game.


Sincerely,

John

Bowling Revisited

I went to my first Canadian bowling alley and tried out 10-pin Candlestick bowling for the first time. As an ardent 10-pin "big ball" bowler for years, it was very different.

First, the ball is very light and about the size of a softball. Because I'm used to throwing my 15 lbs ball, I wound up chucking the little, light ball more than halfway down the lane on my first throw. It took a few throws before I was consistently throwing on the boards. With it being that light, I felt like I was really hurling the ball down the lanes. Not a bad thing, in this version, except I was very naturally putting a hook on the ball, so frequently missed all the pins and went into the gutter at the last moment to the left. It took awhile before I got the hook somewhat under control.

The pins are tall, narrow, and light, making the standard pins I'm used to look large and heavy. In between throws, the fallen pins do not get cleaned-- one of the challenges is using the fallen pins to help you get the remaining pins. This really threw me for the first game or so.

Because of the sizes of everything, you get three throws each frame. You can only score a strike on the first throw and a spare on the second throw, but you can still get 10 points (but not a "mark") by knocking down all of the pins on your third throw.

The scoring is a bit different, too. I'm not sure I can explain it here, as I'm not completely sure I was doing it right, but you seemed to add both forward and backward when scoring a spare or strike. In standard bowling, you only score ahead. Again, not certain I have the scoring fully grasped yet.

All in all, it was a fun trip. I think I could pick it up in about 20 hours of play, if I decide I want to. The good thing about it is that, with the ball so small and light, my arthritis issues didn't really come into play.

Sports Winners and Losers

Football, Draft Part 1:

All I'm reading today is that Tim Tebow, one of the all-time winning college players, was an absolute failure of a pick by Denver in the first round. Fans are moaning over the pick. Pundits are saying that Josh McDaniels has basically picked himself out of a job after this season.

I don't know much about Tebow, as I don't follow college football at all. All I know is what I see on game tape and what I read and see at the college combine and pro workouts.

Tebow, by all accounts, is a very smart guy. His football IQ is quite high. He is extremely coachable. He is hardworking and dependable. He's a great leader. He's physically gifted with size, strength, and speed. In other words, he has the body, mind, and intangibles needed to succeed at any profession, anywhere.

I have often said that I would rather have a whole team of Wes Welkers than even one Terrell Owens. Yes, because I don't have the most talented players, I may lose a few games. But because I have people who are smart, love the game, and play every down 100%, I'm going to win a lot of games I "shouldn't." Tim Tebow seems to fit that mold of a guy who will learn and do what it takes to succeed at the pro level.

Will Tebow start in five months for the Broncos? No. And that's a GOOD thing, people! It is exceptionally rare that any new QB is successful in their first season (I point directly to Peyton Manning's first season). More often than not, even if they are successful, it has a lot more to do with the team around them than their ability in that first season. Tebow will need time to adjust to the NFL, be coached, learn the system. I think that Kyle Orten, who by all accounts is a smart and professional guy, will be a great person to learn under. I think that Quinn is a great person to both teach and put pressure on Tebow to succeed during QB competition within the organization.

I am fairly certain that each of those sports pundits and all of those fans decrying this heinous pick will be choking on their words in a season or two.

Football, Draft Part 2:

It really looks like the Detroit Lions (my team) have finally got a coach and front office staff who know what they are doing. In their first draft last season, they got a starting TE and DB, and what may turn out to be a franchise QB. This season, they did the smart thing and drafted a DT who many considered the best overall prospect in the draft. They then traded back into the first round and got what may be an electrifying RB.

Now, with their next few picks, if they can shore up a leaky Offensive Line (a deep position in this draft) and draft for some depth in the defense, this will be two straight very good drafts after the Millen years.

Of course, they have a really tough strength of schedule again. The other three teams in their division are all tough customers (Bears, Packers, Vikings), and they play the AFC East this season, which has three tough opponents (Patriots, Dolphins, Jets) and another team that, even if it isn't so great, has a tough venue (Bills). Then they also have to see the Cowboys, Giants, Eagles, and Redskins, each of which is a tough out even when they aren't playing well.

I see the Lions coming in somewhere around 5 wins this season. Since they have gone 0-16 and 2-14 the last two seasons, five wins is a good turnaround and shows a steady progression toward relevance once more.

Basketball, Lakers playoffs:

I am a Lakers fan, so I am biased. I realize this. But by any stretch of the imagination, the current series versus the Thunder has been poorly refereed. While I have seen bad calls on both sides of the ball, it sure seems like the Lakers are getting the short end of the stick.

In the last game, for example, Gasol went for a rebound. The Thunder player behind him went over his back to get the ball (no call), the player in front of him reached out to swat at the ball and scratched down his face leaving marks (no call), and when the whistle blew, it was Gasol who was somehow charged with a foul (I guess his head got in the way).

In another instance in the previous game, Fisher had multiple fouls. He didn't want to get called for another one. So he stepped away from the Thunder player and retracted his hands, hoping his teammates could stop the drive toward the basket. Sure enough, the whistle blew... foul on Fisher (I guess it is a foul to avoid contact).

In the last two games Kobe has been frequently double- and triple-teamed. During those moments, you see his jersey being tugged, you see his arms moving from the force of the blows raining down on them. In a couple of instances, I watched his head get hit repeatedly. So far, the only whistles I've heard blown were on Kobe (I guess for being in the way). Most egregiously, you have Durant getting calls his way with the slightest (and phantom) contact, and getting his stroke going at the free throw line. You have Kobe getting mugged by multiple players each time he drives to the basket, and yet he didn't shoot a free throw in the entire game.

The discrepancy in foul shots between the two teams is telling, as well. The Thunder have shot more foul shots than the Lakers in each game by a fairly large margin (in basketball terms), even when the Lakers were at home.

The Lakers are not what they were last season. The bench has not been as strong and consistent, Artest has not been an improvement over Ariza, Fisher is not the same player he has been, and Kobe simply has so much mileage on his body that all the little injuries have slowed him down. They also stop playing the winning formula of getting it inside to Bynum and Gasol and kick it out when needed too often. The Thunder are up-and-coming fast. Durant is a phenomenal talent and Westbrook is making a name for himself. They are a tough matchup for the Lakers at any time, but when it is 5 on 8, it makes it that much tougher.

Body Snatchers and Other Invasions

My parents let me watch the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers perhaps when I was too young; I understood the movie just fine and that was the problem... the bleak ending with McCarthy on the highway trying to warn people scared and stuck with me.

Then came the Donald Sutherland remake, still considered one of the all-time best remakes ever. This movie frightened me even more, as the ending is so much bleaker-- the aliens appear to win.

As one who has had trouble sleeping since a young lad, the fact that the aliens in these movies "got" and copied people while they slept was particularly telling.

Each of these movies was fairly successful for their times (50s and late 70s).

In 1993, a new vision of this classic story came to the screen. While many of the effects were pretty good, I remember it most for the few nude scenes showing me a young Gabrielle Anwar. This movie went with a more ambivalent ending, and you are not sure if the main characters attacks on the pods is the end of it, or if Marti's stepmother's comments foresee the pods spreading all across the world. The movie didn't even make a million dollars at the box office, and was not particularly well-received by the few critics who reviewed it (but it was not horribly reviewed, either).

I just finished watching the 2007 reimagining of the story starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig. The general concept of the film was decent (spores instead of pods), but Kidman looked horrible and showed no spark or imagination in her portrayal of the main character. I found myself actually rooting against her. Craig, an actor I generally admire and like, was wooden throughout; his best scene came once he was a pod-person, as that called for a more wooden delivery.

They also chose to go with a happy ending; Kidman saves her son, who happens to be immune from the infection, and a vaccine against the spores is developed. The director tried to add some ambivalence into the story by showing that, while under the effects of the pods, the world signs peace treaties. Once everyone is cured, it is back to wars and tribulation. While I realize the original story by Jack Finney actually ended with the pods giving up on Earth and floating away, the precedent has already been set by the first two that having the pods "win" (or, at least, not be defeated/discovered/done away with) makes for a richer story and a more horrific, lasting movie. Some could argue that this was the first "twist" ending horror film, as most of the 50s horror flicks ending with the hero triumphing.

There was a good film here. The change of the pods to spores and the way in which the spores got to Earth was interesting. From there on, however, the movie started to lose its imagination.

The casting of Kidman was the first major mistake made. I haven't seen her truly "lead" a film yet; she's much better in an ensemble or with a strong male lead or two to play off (the closest she comes in my mind is her role in The Others, a far superior classic horror/ghost story).

Secondly, having her son be the cure changed it from a horror movie into an action flick, as she raced to save her son (who was strangely absent from most of the meat of the film with little explanation as to why) and then raced to get him to the people who it just so happens can make an inoculation from his blood.

Third, having the "happy" (or non-ambivalent, non-horror) ending where everyone is cured and doesn't remember anything that happened to them while under the influences of the pods leaves a rather poor taste in the viewer's mouth. The whole concept is that the spores are rewriting human being's DNA -- a simple inoculation can rewrite it back? This is, at best, bad science and at worst a huge cop out by the writer/director. In the first three, when the pod is functional it somehow kills the host. But those films were going for horror, not action/suspense, so the deaths make more sense, I guess.

Fourth, many of the special effects and CGI just didn't look very good. Each time Kidman went to sleep for brief periods, we were accosted by too-glossy, fake-looking images of the spores inside her attacking and blowing up her blood cells (why they did this when it was expressly said earlier that the spores attacked and rewrote our DNA I don't completely understand). These scenes were so laughable as to completely take me out of the viewing experience. Add to this Kidman's lackluster performance during the "freak out because you nearly fell asleep" scenes that followed each of these effects, and this viewer was not impressed in the least.

This is a good story concept that has worked very well twice, okay once, and failed miserably another time. Hopefully someone who understands the horror of this idea will take the ball and run with it; I think today's technology can make for a truly horrific story of people being replaced, the fear of going to sleep (when human beings are at their most vulnerable to begin with), and the horror of finding out you are one of the last "real" people left on the planet.

Birthdays and Other Thoughts

Most people get excited over their birthdays. I have, however, had enough negative things occur on and around my birthday that I approach it cautiously and with trepidation these days. It is not that I mind getting older -- not at all.

Let's see, I've had some wickedly awful birthday parties when I was young. Chernobyl; enough said. I've had two major "reorganizations" occur right around that week. I've had some health issues crop up on or around my birthday. And I was last fired the week of my birthday (my (now) wife was visiting and got to participate in that one).

I've probably had a number of good things happen around that time, too. However, the bad has stood out and been memorable, so that is how I approach the day.

---

On the road to Fredericton on Saturday I saw my first, live, up-close moose. It was just on the other side of the moose fence (thankfully), and was bent over eating leaves off a tree. If it had stood upright, it would have been close to as tall as the fence, though. You know in your head that they are big creatures, but seeing one live really impresses it upon you. If I had a camera, i would have pulled over and taken a picture of it.

Driving home from Moncton on Monday, I saw a huge eagle. While its head was lighter in color than its neck/body, I don't think it was an American eagle. It was on the very top of a denuded tree, and there were some crows and smaller birds nearby acting all agitated to really give it some size comparison... and it was big! The slightly curved beak looked like a pair of tin snips and the huge, curved claws looked like they could rip through steel.

---

Sent my resume to an American company that may be interested in having some tech writing done. *Fingers crossed. They were very impressed with my work history; I'm hoping that my salary interests as a 15 year veteran don't scare them off. But I'd like to get what I'm worth, and according to the Monster.com salary comparison, I'm asking for the 50th percentile (median) for the region, so I hope not.

That Time of the Year Again

Last night, got tired finally around 3-3:30am. The night before, 5:30 am. The night before that, 5 am. The night before that, 4ish.

As I get older and feel like I need more consistent sleep, these 2-3 periods of the year where I can't sleep well are dragging me down much harder. And I'm not young enough to bounce back and pretend to not be running at half capacity any more. I slept from about 4am (took a bit after going to bed to fall asleep) until my alarm at 8:30, got out of bed at 9:30 after an hour's fitful sleep, and feel like utter crap now at 11:15.

On top of it, if you aren't feeling well, the lack of sleep can make you feel even worse. I had a touch of a bug last week and now I'm feeling really bad because of the sleeplessness. My body hasn't had its time to fight it off and get better.

Boston, MA

We drove to Boston on Sunday. It was a long drive, but I was glad to have such an astute navigator as my wife (with the aid of Samantha, the TomTom). The drive was pretty much a straight shot down, just stopping long enough for lunch and to trade in some clothes M had purchased in Florida.

Boston has been cold and wet. Not maybe as cold as SJ frequently is, but the wetness makes it feel that much colder. It has rained pretty much since we arrived until now, and doesn't look to cease before we drive away in about 5 hours.

We are staying at the Liberty Hotel, which is inbetween the West End and Beacon Hill areas of the city. It was, up until the '90s a prison. Now it is trying to be an up-scale hotel in the area. And by upscale I primarily mean that it has all the prices of a ritzy place and little of the true amenities.

Our windows, for example, are not double-paned or sound proof, so the traffic on the massive "circle" outside, plus the external subway across the street, and the emergency traffic to the main hospital that shares the block (we can see it out our window) is very noisy. I'm talking turn up the volume pretty loud on the TV in the room annoying, not hard to get asleep annoying. At night, when the city in general shuts down, the noise is even worse, especially the ambulances and trains. And we are on the eleventh floor; I can only imagine how bad it is for those on lower floors.

Another example would be the amenities. The bed is uncomfortable, the room doesn't have enough drawers to unpack into, there aren't enough cubbies and hooks for towels (plus the towels themselves are the cheapes Motel 6 type of towels), and the shower door leaks in one area because they didn't finish adding water sealers to that edge of the glass.

There are two saving graces to the hotel: the people who work here and its location. Each person we have had cause to speak with has been open, helpful, and it has truly seemed like it was their pleasure to serve us. The hotel has the red line subway entrance literally across the street, and if you are a bit more mobile than I am when it comes to walking, the Commons, Government Center, Financial District, Freedom Trail, Black Heritage Trail, Chinatown, and Museum of Science are easily accessible from this location. We can see the Charles River from our hotel room window.

The problem with this is that, with the arthritis in my feet, I'm just not made for much walking. The subway was quite helpful to allow us to go visit the Aquarium and Faneuil Hall/Market yesterday, although it took M and me a bit to figure out how to do that (she picked it up much faster than I did).

The Aquarium was nice, but having frequented the Long Beach, been to the Monterey, and enjoyed the Baltimore Aquariums, this one fell short. First off, no otters. That is an entire grade reduction there. While the penguins were a treat for M, I just don't have warm and fuzzies for the creatures. The tank with the huge sea turtle, nurse shark, and stingrays was nice, and many of the exhibits were interesting. The seals outside were big and playful and almost made up for the lack of otters, but it was still cold and rainy and we couldn't stay out there long.

I managed to slog my way to the Museum of Science today (1/2 mile each way through pouring cold rain... should have taken a damn taxi and stayed dry). It was good, and a ton of very educational exhibits and displays. I managed to arrive just as three to four different schools worth of children were arriving, however. So I had to fight my way salmon-like against the currents of junior high and younger children running and screaming everywhere. I'm sure my nephew Jack would love the place though.

So, today is check out day. I have to take our luggage down at 3 pm and check us out, then wait for two hours while M finishes up her meetings. Then it is a drive up to NH to our hotel there, dinner with ASA people, and then a tour of the ASA headquarters tomorrow. After that, it is drive to shopping, drive to more shopping, and drive to some more shopping, stop in Calais for mail, border crossing, and home. Looking forward to home at this point.

All in all, Boston would be a great place for us to visit on vacation, where we could take some days together to visit the many museums, trails, and other places worth seeing. Two days (and only really half of one day with my wife) to visit isn't nearly enough time. We'll add it to the places to return to list.

Some Thoughts

1. I don't get the current attitude in education reform where they are firing tenured teachers (and, in one case, an entire district worth of teachers) for student's bad test scores. I wish we could use the same philosophy in government or the business worlds: I didn't succeed, therefore it is my manager/VP/CEO's fault, and he/she should be fired. Let's try going back to a) allowing students to fail and b) making it the children's fault when they don't succeed, unless you have proof that a teacher is not doing his/her job or is actively working against a student's success.

Damn near every teacher I know tries hard to educate, spends much of their own money, spends many extra hours grading and tutoring, and will bend over backward to help their students. They get paid shit wages for doing one of the most important jobs in any nation.

Too many students I know or have seen do not want to be educated, want to have good grades handed to them for little to no work, think adequate quality should be graded like excellent quality, and have parents who will believe their lies and try to force the teacher through browbeating and threats of lawsuits and false accusations to give their children the grades they "deserve" (which is ironic, because nearly every time the student IS getting the grade he/she deserves).

2. Last decade, the Republicans created the term "nuclear option" to refer to their desire to eliminate the filibuster in Congress. The Republicans have been responsible for 14 of the last 19 uses of reconciliation. In this decade, the Republicans are changing the use of the term "nuclear option" to refer instead to reconciliation and are claiming it is this evil thing that Democrats want to use to subvert the American people. And the filibuster is now the Republicans best friend and an often-used tactic now that they no longer have control of Congress.

How is it that the majority of Americans in general, and Republicans in particular, are not calling the representatives on these lies? Why was the filibuster something to be done away with and was a nuisance to politics when they had control of Congress, but now that they do not have control, it is their God-given right and they are using it more than at any other time in the history of the government? How is it they have used reconciliation to get a vast majority of big projects pushed through (including, ironically, at least two large health care related bills (ever hear of COBRA? Passed by Republicans using reconciliation)), but now that the shoe is on the other foot and the Dems want to use it to do the exact same thing, the Repubs think it is EVIL?

3. What is up with so many people being at the car wash at 11 am on a Thursday? Isn't it still a work day for most people??

4. I'm thinking the worst of winter is over this year. After the hellacious one last year, that is kind of nice. We have two ranks plus nearly half a rank of wood left as of today. Last winter, we were worried about running out of wood and only had about half a rank left when we stopped having fires. Will make next season's expenditure less, for sure.

5. Looking forward to my first trip to Boston later this month. Only a few days, but since I've never been, it should be fun.

Apologies

So, Tiger finally apologized today. I watched the entire thing, twice, and my opinion comes down to this: You seemed sincere, you took ownership of the problems/issues, but why did it take you 3 months to issue it?

And that is the crux of the matter for me. Had Tiger said this apology in December, when everything started to unravel after the Thanksgiving dust-up with the car accident and subsequent investigation, I would have agreed with him and been at least a little sympathetic and would have moved on. The fact that it took him this long to say what could have and should have been said within days of the first few women coming forward bothers me.

I still think Tiger is one of the most gifted golfers ever. I don't think this episode in his life affects my watching him play golf. But I don't trust him as a leader or a spokesperson any more, and that is where he makes the majority of his money.

Now, that being said, this is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. This is a personal failing of his, and it is up to his wife and children to forgive and forget or not as they see fit. He has committed no crime. The most I can say is that he acted immorally, for which he apologized. Until I see/hear otherwise, I take his apology at his word and give him the right to move on and prove that he was sincere in that apology. I'm moving on and giving this no further thought.

Movie Studio Math

You have to love how movie studios do their math. I was reading an article about the upcoming Mission: Impossible 4 movie and it provided some interesting information about M:I3.

Although that movie clocked global box office of $400 million worldwide, DVD revenue of $200 million and an additional $100 million in television sales, the studio barely broke even. Cruise, guaranteed 22.5% of the studio's gross receipts, walked off with $80 million, leaving Paramount with nothing to gain from its $180-million production investment, said people with knowledge of the matter.

So, let's put the math down to make it easy:

$400 m
$200 m
$100 m
------
$700 million

Minus

$180 m (studio's production costs)
$080 m (Cruise's take from the gross profits)
--------
$260 million

Net profit

So, you are left with about $440 million in profit.

How, exactly, is the studio not making money on the deal? Did it spend over $440 million on advertising costs? How in the hell can they justify "barely broke even" when discussing $440 million?

Of course, this wouldn't be the first time studios have fudged the numbers. There have been a number of cases of those with profit shares in movies not being given a dime by studio and having sue... some of which are some of the most profitable movies of all time or, at least, their era.

This article shows a number of examples of the creative accounting done in Hollywood. I especially like this one:

Winston Groom's price for the screenplay rights to his novel Forrest Gump included a share of the profits; however, due to Hollywood accounting, the film's commercial success was converted into a net loss, and Groom received nothing.^[7] That being so, he has refused to sell the screenplay rights to the novel's sequel, stating that he "cannot in good conscience allow money to be wasted on a failure".

--------------
Addendum

A friend pointed out that the profits from sales of DVDs do not necessarily go into the pockets of the studios (some do have distribution arms that produce and distribute DVDs, but many do not). So even taking that $200 million entirely out of the equation, you are still left with a profit of $240 million... still profitable.

Music with a Message

I just became aware of Taylor Swift's song "Fifteen" (lyrics found here, Youtube copy of video here). I have to admit that, while blissfully unaware of this young lady's career and music catalog in general, I am pleasantly surprised by the message I hear in this song.

Basically, the song breaks down as such:

A young girl is starting her first year at high school. She wants desperately to fit in and be accepted and to be popular. She meets a girl who becomes her best friend. A boy with a car asks her out. Her friend "gives her all" to a boy who "changes his mind." The protagonist of the song realizes that, while everything seems vital and important now, she'll do more with her life later, and waits.

Pretty heady stuff. What I especially like about this song is that it is sung by a girl with a strong teen female audience and it is pointed directly at them. They are hearing, possibly for the first time, that waiting and abstinence are good things. They are hearing that boys lie to get in their pants. They are hearing that after high school, they are going to go on to greater things.

How many songs can you think of with such a positive message for teens, and young women in particular? I can't think of any outside of the Christian Rock genre, and even there it is muted.

The vast majority of popular music is about sex, drugs, and having a good time. This is because, for the most part, the vast majority of song writers have experience in these areas, being male and having women throw themselves at them, people supplying them with any drugs and alcohol they want, and moving in a drug induced haze from one "happening" to the next. It is rare that you find a song about something other than these topics. The trappings are different, but this is generally true of pop, rock, metal, country, alternative, and hip/hop, and can be found in abundance in the other genres.

To have a female star so directly tell her audience something different is refreshing. Now, I'll grant the song winds up being a tad cliche and even a bit trite, but the message is more important than the vehicle used to say it. It certainly sounds different than all those hip/hop and rap songs talking about "bitches" and "hoes" who like being showered in alcohol and used like dishrags. It certainly comes across different than all those rock and metal songs about "sex machines" that objectify women as "sweet cherry pie" and other, less savory things.

While I wouldn't say this has made me a fan of Ms. Swift, I laud her efforts and think any positive message of this sort should be commended.

Now, if Ms. Swift would just eat a cheeseburger or two and stop looking like an emaciated size 0, she'd really be giving her audience the right message.

WMDs, revisited

Some are proclaiming that Al Queda and Iran are working toward WMDs, primarily nuclear. These same people are saying we should go after them and take the WMDs we don't even know they have away from them.

In some small way, I kind of wish that some terrorist group would get ahold of some WMDs and would set them off within America. I'm not saying that for any sort of anti-American sentiment or reason (I'm one of the most pro-America people you'll meet), but instead as a last laugh at the terrorist.

What most of the world, and terrorists in particular, don't seem to understand is that America feeds the world. Yes, the world. No other 10 countries combined ships more food to more places in the world than America. With so much of the country in temperate climates, the growing season in America is nearly year-round. Corn, wheat, and fruits/vegetables are shipped everywhere. The middle east and northern Africa, all hot beds of terrorism, in particular could not survive without the constant influx of staple food from America.

If terrorists set of a nuclear explosion anywhere that either affects America's ability to produce the food or its ability to ship it the rest of the world, some of the first people to suffer will be the terrorist themselves. They will, in essence, commit suicide by that act of terrorism. They will murder their wives and children by doing so. They will wipe out their own nations and ideologies by disrupting the global food chain that is currently feeding them.

Look at North Korea. To show our displeasure at what Kim Jong Il was doing, we cut back our exports of all items to that nation, including food. Now, the people are starving, the economy is on the verge of collapse, and the people are revolting against the government. Now, imagine there was no food coming again, ever, and think about how bad things would be there... that's what it would be like for most of the world without America supplying it food.

I have often argued that the easiest way for America to make rogue nations come back in line would be too cut off all food supplies we ship to them and their allies. Within a month, those nations would be starving and they would have to capitulate or cease to exist. But Americans don't do that; we see the difference between affecting change in a corrupt government or military or terrorist group and starving women and children. We won't do the latter even if it is the fastest way to affect the former.

And this discussion doesn't even hit on the monetary aid America sends to these nations or the disaster relief we provide, which exceeds most other nations.

But, in the end, I guess we're not dealing with ideologies that are rational. So they would do it, just to make a point, even if it kills them. Hence the use of suicide bombers. I do not want to see America harmed and I do not want to see the world suffer global starvation. But some small piece of me would be shaking his head and laughing at the terrorist if they ever do it.

Having Your Cake

So, the Republicans ask the President for a meeting to go over their ideas for health care reform. They ask it to be televised. He grants them both requests; matter of fact, he welcomes them. He schedules it for February 25. Now, Republicans are decrying the "trap" that the President has laid for them?

Er, what?

He has been asking for their input on health care since day one. He said in his original speech, basically, "if you have a better idea, my door is open." He basically said in the SotU address, "I'm still waiting to hear your ideas, if you have any. Door is still open."

They finally take him up on that open-ended offer, and he agrees with their conditions, and it is somehow a trap?

Of course, this is on top of the RNC having their meeting where one of the primary topics of conversation was how to defeat the President's health care agenda in the one state that has, in essence, federally provided 'universal health care' and it works beautifully and is something of a model for what the rest of the nation should have... Hawaii. Oh, and to all the RNC members who said it couldn't work long-term, Hawaii has only had this working for the past 40 years. I especially loved how the face of the Republican party, Rush Limbaugh has a health scare while in Hawaii and comes out of it with nothing but praise and goodwill toward the medical services he was provided... until it was pointed out to him that it was provided via a form of universal health care. Now he is decrying it, even though it didn't cost him a thing and he got excellent service (his words, not mine).

How can any rational Republican trust his/her representation when this is how they act?

Enough Already!

My wife sent me this link to an article about Tim Horton's in St. Andrews (FYI for my American readers; Tim Horton's is the Starbucks of Canada, only with generally crappier coffee and food items). The crux of the article is that the owner of the Tim Horton's in question, Edwin Dow, has banned a customer from his two locations for complaining about the coffee.

It is implied that this man has frequented this Tim Horton's for some time prior to this issue coming up. In my opinion, although the article does not go into great length about it, it seems like the person/people in charge of making the coffee or the machine(s) used to make is faulty or undertrained, and therefore the coffee is getting burnt. This customer recognized it and tried to bring it to the establishment's notice and get it changed. For his concerns, he is now banned from the store(s).

While the fact is that he is now better off, can make his own coffee for much cheaper, and can make it exactly the way he likes it, that isn't the primary point-- a business should listen to its customers and root out what the cause of the problem is, not ban them from the store.

This just shows some things I am struggling to cope with since moving to Canada:

1. The lack of competition creates near monopolies where businesses feel they don't have to provide good service, products, or staff in order to stay in business.
2. The feeling by companies that shit-service and products are acceptable and any complaint labels you a "troublemaker" and, via the grapevine, you become blacklisted and are always a complainer.
3. Canadians in general are a) willing to put up with this type of service and product to "get along" and b) do not complain as a whole, regardless of how bad things get. Which means when they do, they are always "troublemakers" rather than voicing legitimate complaints that need to be rectified.
   

Anyone who knows me knows that I will say what is on my mind when it comes to service. If you provide bad service, the company, your manager, whomever will hear about it. But if you provide exceptional service, they will also hear about it.

I also vote with my pocketbook. If you provide me with poor service multiple times in a row, then I take my money elsewhere and I try to convince any friends, family, or acquaintances to do the same. By taking money out of your cash register, I'm doing the most hurtful thing I can to express my discontent and to try and force you to change your business.

However, in Canada and in the Atlantic Provinces in particular, it is difficult to do as there aren't alternatives. There is, for example, only one movie theater in SJ. If they hadn't responded favorably to my complaints, then I would have been forced to go to another city's/location's theater for movies or only watch DVDs and TV. If you don't like the local Taco Bell, well, tough. There is just the one here, so screw you. If you become a "problem patient" for one doctor, you'll suddenly find that no other doctors will take you on.

If you read the comments that a lot of the people (who claim to be business owners) make on this article, you find a strong feeling of entitlement. Many are wishing they had the balls to kick out "troublemaking" customers. I wish I knew which businesses they owned so I could never/no longer patronize their business and get as many others not to as well. Especially in this poor/weak economy, most businesses need all the paying customers they can get.

My actions will be as follows:

1. I will stop going to Tim Horton's altogethers.
2. I will contact Tim Horton's and tell the company why I will no longer be a paying customer.
3. I will post this blog, on FB, and talk with friends and family and try to convince as many as possible not to go to Tim Horton's (any, not just the two owned by Edwin Dow).

------------------
Addendum

I went to TimHortons.ca and found their online customer complaint form. I provided the following complaint to them:

Due to a recent article found on the CBC News site relating to Tim Horton's owner Edwin Dow banning customer Jim Craig from two locations in St. Andrews, NB, I will no longer patronize ANY Tim Horton's. I will also actively campaign to get as many friends, family, and acquaintances to stop going to Tim Horton's as possible. This is unacceptable behavior from a business owner and reflects poorly on the Tim Horton's brand, and I will not stand for it.

I also included the link to the CBC news article in question. We'll see, and I will post, any result I receive from the corporation.

------------------
Second Addendum

Here is the response I received from Tim Hortons:

Dear Valued Customer,

Thank you for contacting us at our Head Office in Oakville regarding the
recent article about our store in New Brunswick.

We want people leaving Tim Hortons with a smile. In this particular case,
we understand a customer had complained multiple times, and no matter what
the staff did to make it right, he was unhappy. He became increasingly
aggressive with store staff and was impacting their ability to serve other
customers. Our staff work long and hard to please each customer every day.
But at some point, we have to respectfully agree to disagree and suggest we
go our separate ways.

We always appreciate hearing feedback from our customers and we will pass
on your comments.

Thank you again for contacting us.

Kind Regards,

Lisa
Operations Services
The TDL Group Corp.

Strangely, she doesn't mention what this "aggressive" behavior is that Mr. Craig performed toward the staff. The wording of "multiple times" also implies this is chronic behavior, but the video with the article states he complained only three times. My response to her is as follows:

Thank you for the prompt response, Lisa.

This action by a Tim Hortons franchise owner seems so out of the normal for a situation such as this, that I am still left angry and confused. It seems like this owner could have done many things which were not mentioned in the article or by you, such as a) check the coffee equipment to ensure it was clean and functioning properly, b) make sure the staff was following all standards in making the coffee, c) check with other purchasers of decaffeinated coffee on the days in question and get their opinion on the quality of the coffee. Maybe these things were done, but it seems odd that the news article wouldn't mention them or that Mr. Dow would not mention it to the author of the article. If he did do these (or other) actions to help appease the customer and they didn't resolve the problem, why not mention them to show that he was willing to work hard to help this customer and to show he was being reasonable to his customer's complaints? This would certainly have painted Tim Hortons in a much better light.

Anyone who takes a business course, seminar, or who has worked retail knows that any one complaint received is indicative of multiple people having the same issues (my business courses specifically mentioned a 1:10 ratio, but I realize this varies by business, size of town, and type of complaint). So Mr. Craig's complaint about the coffee was likely the tip of the iceberg and any of the three ideas I provided above may have gone a long way toward resolving the issue, as he could have seen that the owner was doing something to address his concerns (even if the end result was the same) and the owner may have resolved by these actions any unvoiced complaints from other coffee drinkers.

Mr. Craig may have felt he was in a catch-22: no one else complained, so he was the troublemaker for mentioning it and got consistently bad service which caused him to become more belligerent; but no one complains because they don't want bad service or to be labeled a troublemaker and receive bad service. If, as you say, he became aggressive toward staff, I certainly do not condone his actions, but I can understand his impulse to push through the obstinacy.

In the end, the fact that Tim Hortons is not stating what they did to appease this customer (who only complained three times, according to the article/video, out of how many visits to that store?) makes me wonder what this franchise owner is hiding and what Tim Hortons is hiding. I appreciate your responding to me, but until further details are released which cause me to rethink my opinion, I will continue my stated action of not patronizing any Tim Hortons.

Again, I appreciate the civil discussion on this topic.

As always, faithful readers, I will post any further response I get from Tim Hortons on this topic.