johnzo

Is the Hamilton / BC game worth watching? I've watched the first quarter, it looks like a decent game so far tho I know that BC comes back to win ... just hate to not close out my fourth week of game haikus but man time is short these days.

I love you people

Yeah, the yaretv service is perfect for a month abroad in Indonesia.

2017-07-14 Calgary at Montreal Bo Levi pregame: Finds a phone booth and takes off his Superman suit. Fumble, then meltdown, then disqualification. Puts "mess" in Messam.

2017-07-14 Ottawa at Edmonton Redblack shopping trip: Go out to the dollar store, bring ninety-five cents.

that single word second line, that's some baller haiku right there.

I'm going to this game! Any other mbbers gonna be there?

gah! another review. Use time to compose haiku, or go to the john.

2017-07-13 Toronto at Winnipeg (official) Harris, running hard. second, third, fourth, fifth efforts. Human stump puller.

yeah, seemed like Westerman started to come around last night ... he had a couple offsides, but I don't recall any real boner penalties like he had vs. Saskatchewan. And it looked like Ray didn't have room to wander unless the play call moved the pocket. Plus, a sack!

Loved how Lapo's playcalling neutralized that scary Toronto pass rush last night.

2017-07-13 Toronto at Winnipeg (supplemental) Zebras not content to merely ruin the game #whataboutkaren Seriously, you guys, get to your twitters and put some heat on Safeway and the league. Make 'em make it right.

yeah, you're right. that was a hell of a fingertip tackle. Man my memory's bad, and I don't even have the gin to blame.

I agree with you in the large, but man, I'm wondering about Westerman. I can overlook the lack of sacks, those come and go in bunches ... but I think back to that Saskatchewan game, how Kevin Glenn repeatedly escaped contain. When Kevin Glenn is extending plays with his feet like that, something's broken. And I say that as someone who thinks a lot more of Glenn than most on this board.

Please Bombers don't lose! I can't handle another fifty Bear Woods posts.

Butler incoming! Mr. Bryant, please raise the deflector shields.

My position on low-skilled American immigration is this: the criminalization of low-skill immigration actually makes low-skill immigrants more attractive to hire, because it's a lot harder to enforce labor laws on behalf of people who are in the country illegally. From a humanitarian standpoint I favor bringing those folks in from the cold because it'll make it easier to regulate their employers -- paradoxically making immigrants less competitive with native-born labor. So you have immigrants who have recourse when they're exploited and native-born labor that's more competitive. Seems win-win to me. But my understanding of these things isn't super comprehensive and I doubt things are as simple as I see them. We're going to have more and more surplus labor in Western countries as the robots take over and adding more through immigration is going to make that problem harder to deal with it (I remember our brief discussion of the basic minimum income experiment that's happening in t-bay.) So it's complicated.

Basslicker, you said that "Only bad things happen when governments muck around with the economy." Immigration laws are protectionist laws designed to prop up local labor markets -- they're the very definition of "mucking around with the economy." So, if government economic intervention is always bad, shouldn't we do away with immigration law and let job creators hire anyone they like? As an immigrant who job creators love to hire, that would save me a bunch of paperwork, personally. (What I'm getting at is that "Only bad things happen when governments muck around with the economy" is a silly thing to say, in case that's not clear)

Yeah, immigration enforcement is causing tons of problems in the States right now. Crops are not being harvested because the workers are arrested or are afraid they're going to be arrested. (or is this the good kind of government intervention?)

I am not an economist and I'm not a savvy reader of economics papers, but I think their reasoning is that the data is easier to work with if certain classes of people are excluded.

What have we here, laddie? Mysterious scribblings? A secret code? No! Poems, no less! Poems, everybody! The laddie reckons himself a poet! Absolute rubbish, laddie. Get on with your work.

Finally getting around to reading this. It's interesting that the study excludes people who work at chain stores ... McDonald's, Starbucks, Wal-Mart, etc. That's a sizable hunk of data to discard -- a huge minority, if not a small majority, of minimum-wage workers work for such places. It's hard for conclusions about "the average low-wage worker" to be credible when they've excluded such a large population.

2017-07-08 Hamilton at Saskatchewan Which is uglier-- Saskatchewan cheerleaders or Reinebold defence?

2017-07-08 Toronto at Ottawa Their backs to the wall, the Redblacks try the quick kick. uh what just happened

2017-07-07 Calgary at Winnipeg Stampeder mystique: Could win with team recruited from morningbigblue