The Unknown Poster

Free Press article about Left Wing depth: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/hockey/jets/lots-left-308953831.html Included this tidbit I hadnt given much thought to: there are rumblings if he does stick he could be flipped to the right side -- and possibly line up with Bryan Little and Andrew Ladd -- to not only give him a real opportunity to shine with meaty minutes, but possibly fill a void if Michael Frolik bolts in free agency.

OITNB turned out better then it started. The also five episodes or so we're pretty good. True Detective season two debuted tonight and it was certainly interesting. I'm not sure if it's being sort of a self parody or if the writer really takes himself too seriously.

I think this is much ado about nothing. That "writer" owned a website using the Star Trek Beyond name which is the name of the new film. I think Pramount offered to listen to a pitch as part of getting the name. The TV side of things is controlled by cbs so a legit TV would generally be made to cbs not paramount. It's also not a great idea for a new TV show. Over the years people have attributed it as "Gene's mantra" to "always look forward" meaning keep pushing the time frame of a new tv series further and further into the future which is really short sighted and silly. Make no mistake, Star Trek as a franchise is a mess.

Gary asked if the agent could comment and his reply was something like "no talks on going ". He then clarified he meant "no, talks ongoing".

but the thing is, they have opportunities to improve themselves if they want to put in the work. Go get educated, find an entry level job with some upward mobility. Work in a field that pays higher without a lot of skills required. This country is great because you CAN improve your situation if you want to. Tough life? No education? Just excuses when it comes right down to it. The people who do the best in this country are the ones who know what they want and have the drive to go out and get it. For some yes. For others, easier said than done. Who said it was easy? Fact remains though if someone wants it they can get it. It makes it more of an accomplishment. If it was easy everyone would do it rather than being content to coast by at their minimum wage job. Life is about choices and finding out where you want to be. If you're happy to coast by in a minimum wage job that's a choice you've made. If you want to do better than that and do what is required to do better that's another choice you've made. Why should people who choose to work minimum wage jobs get a hand out at the expense of people who chose to make something more of themselves? You cant possibly believe that every person working a minimum wage job is just making the choice to not better themselves.

gary lawless ✔ @garylawless Some have asked about #nhljets and Michael Frolik today - checked in with his people: "no comment."

One of the companies I worked for was a manufacturing company that employed skilled and unskilled people. The owners offered all kinds of incentives to the unskilled types to learn a trade or increase their skills through training programs, so that they would be able to earn higher salaries. Nope. No way. They were stuck earning a wage that meant that they were scraping by, and that's where they wanted to stay, unskilled and trapped earning low wages, rather than put in even a minimal effort to learn something new and have a broader skill set. I didn't understand that mentality, and still don't, but that's how some people are. Perhaps they have underlying disabilities you dont know. There is an enormous amount of people suffering from varying degrees of FASD. Many undiagnosed. Others may lack the confidence or have anxiety disorders. Its not as simple as "everyone who is under-paid and under skilled is a lazy SOB who wants to be that way".

but the thing is, they have opportunities to improve themselves if they want to put in the work. Go get educated, find an entry level job with some upward mobility. Work in a field that pays higher without a lot of skills required. This country is great because you CAN improve your situation if you want to. Tough life? No education? Just excuses when it comes right down to it. The people who do the best in this country are the ones who know what they want and have the drive to go out and get it. For some yes. For others, easier said than done.

She's gorgeous and is the new fresh face. I've only seen on episode with her so far. But shes a good addition. They need to shake the cast up a bit. The writers are too comfortable with some of them and that makes them prone to be "funny" and overly sentimental.

Its not just lazy people choosing to flip burgers unto their 40's. Many of those people have very limited options. Those are the people Im talking about. The people that choose to do the best they can instead of being on welfare or crime or whatever. People who maybe had tough lives, were born into tough situations. Maybe never received the education needed to advance past a certain point. But they work hard, are trust-worthy and loyal. Should they make $6/hour at age 40 after 20 years? I dont think so. It happens. Trust me.

Jets dont strike me as an organization that will gamble on Helle and Hutch. Not a chance. They picked up Budaj as insurance against Hutch being a bust as a back up. They wont trade pavs. You dont let go of the branch unless you've got a firm hold on another.

Quiet because it's done? lol There is always the possibility that the Jets made Stafford a good offer but being so close to Free Agency he said let me test and Ill come back to you on July 1st.

The problem is that it's a low skill easily replaceable job. You won't do it for 8 bucks an hour? Ok fine we'll hire some high school kid who is desperate for a paycheque to do it for 8 bucks an hour. I agree with that. But isnt this part of the problem? A segment of the population, or a segment of a location that generation after generation will never get ahead. Public perception could help change things. Its just a shame. Working anywhere for 20 years and working hard and being trustworthy, loyal and good at what you do...it should mean something.

Yes. But, I dont think its that simple anymore. i felt the same way: "If you want more money, get a better job". But in some cases, we're talking people that are doing the job they can do. And if they are loyal, hard working, pleasant and do that job well, shouldnt they get more for 10, 15, 20 years on the job? How many McD's employees have been there 20 years? Paying a premium at certain anniversaries cant cost that much. And quite frankly, I'll pay an extra 50 cents for my quarter pounder...

I also feel like the back stories are seriously lacking in depth this season. In combination with the terrible (lack of) plot, I have to wonder if this will be the last season. Given the format and the popularity, they will get renewed. But they have to go back to what works. Show some of the darker side of prison and let the humour flow organically rather than forcing it.

This sort of dovetails to the debate about minimum wage. Im actually torn on this. When I was young and worked minimum wage jobs, ofcourse, I valued any increase. When I began making a little bit more than minimum wage, the one thing that irked me was I didnt also get a raise. So if minimum wage was, say, $9/hour and I made $10/hour, when minimum increased .25 cents, it just put me closer to minimum wage than I had been before. Jobs like flipping burgers, serving coffee etc, when the debate comes up about how these positions dont pay a living wage, my initial feeling is, why should they? Why should you make $35,000-$40,000 doing a job like that? By conflict comes when I hear stories about a person being a hard worker and good company person who works for McDonalds for 20 years and makes $8/hour. A lot of people will do that job when they are kids, go to school, move on. Some will rise up in the company and go into management. Can the company really not afford to pay a better wage for those good employees that work there for years and years?

I would argue that keeping everyone at the same level is a worthy goal. Wealth and income inequality are not things a country should aspire to. Reading this makes me sick to my stomach. Why does it make you sick to your stomach - why does anyone deserve to be elevated over anyone else? You're sort of implying that we are all equal. That we are all equally as intelligent, gifted, educated and give an equal level of effort and the only reason some rise above others is due to some sort of political or societal issue. We all know people that are higher than us at work that we think (or know) we are smarter than or would do a better job. Some of us probably get upset when we apply for a position and the guy with the greater education gets it even though we'd do just as good a job. But any idea that everyone should be equal just doesnt work. Dont you deserve to make more money than the guy who doesnt put in the same effort as you?

Through 7 episodes of OITNB and it only gets slightly better. You can see the very conscious decision to be "funny" this season and its not working. I think the only thing holding this season above "awful" status is the effort of the cast. Very disappointing.

I never got the hype with Clerks. Mall rats was "okay" in a sort of amateur filmmaker sort of way. I think thats the thing about Smith - he comes across like such an amateur. Like a film student that somehow got a few decent budgets and a cult following. Chasing Amy was, by far, his best work. And unsurprisingly, probably his best cast where the amateur actors were bit players. And even then, it had scenes that were so poor, his film class professor would have given him an F. But the cast was charming. I also didnt mind Dogma to be honest and I agree, the cast again, was charming. Zack and Miri make a porno might be his most mainstream success. And again...good cast saves an otherwise average at best script. He's like Tarantino if Tarantino made crappy films. Compare Reservoir Dogs to Clerks or Pulp Fiction to Mall Rats. Not even close. In a Hollywood where Bob Orci is considered a great writer, Kevin Smith can make a lot of money. But he's no great talent.

Cant see them trading Pavs. Cant see them wanting Semin. If the rumours are true that Burmi and the Jets are close to a reconciliation, it would not surprise me. Jets seem pretty into proper asset management and trading Burmi with his stock at its lowest makes little sense. He'd have to be a real cancer in the room for that. Look at Kane - now we know he did request to be traded, did have issues with team mates but the Jets pretended everything was fine because they wanted to make it work with the asset and he was far more valuable than Burmi. I think they sell Burmi on the idea of coming in, being a team player and working hard. A 1-2 year deal, probably low money. And either he plays himself back to value where he either gets a raise from the Jets or helps them trade him by increasing the return.

Ya that was sarcasm about Tlusty. What do you mean no room for Halischuk? We don't have many forwards under contract... yet. There might still be a spot for Hali, especially on a nice 2-way deal. I like Hali. Im just thinking if we sign Stafford, Stemp, Burmi plus a couple of young guys pushing. Maybe they sign him for depth if he's willing to take the chance of not playing much. But I do like him as a bottom 3-6 guy.

Kevin smith is actually pretty awful. Probably the most famous and successful least talented writer/director in Hollywood.

Tlusty is gone. Will re-sign Postma. Probably Stafford and Stemp. Forgot about Halischuck. I like him but probably no room

If you're looking for concrete sourced material on which to base your decision on whom to vote for I hope you don't rely on a sports fan forum!

Its difficult for people to be even-keeled when discussing politics. Im a pretty devout Harper supporter but I try to see all sides. Harper isnt perfect but the way I look at it, no party is perfect and no party aligns 100% with what I personally want and believe. But this is our system and its important to be engaged so I choose the best party I believe in. I also generally look at the party that will do whats best for the country at large and not just me personally. I'd probably save a few more bucks with the Liberals than the Cons but not to the degree that I would vote for them. Most complaints about Harper and the Cons seem to me to be minor complaints that people who dislike them treat as major issues or things that simply arent true. For example, your position that Canada is stagnating. Okay, thats a strong opinion to hold. What do you mean? Many others would call it stability. The people that want us to fix climate change, fix health care etc...you realise the fix isnt just an idealogical belief, right? If you're okay with being heavily, heavily taxed to fix those things, then feel free to write a big cheque because thats what will happen. When Harper first became leader, the other parties tried to paint the "scary" picture of life under the Cons: military in the streets, death penalty, illegal abortions, private health care etc. None of it happened. They then went with the "Harper is America's lackey" and that didnt really stick either. I think we're now onto "Harper is mean". They'd probably have success going with the Obama plan: say nothing, do nothing...other than "change". He literally won an election by saying nothing other than "change". I think people look at a long-serving party/leader and the idea of change can be appealing even if there is no need for it. In Canada, the media ALWAYS talks about this change when a PM gets into his third mandate. Thats why there was a lot of chatter about Harper potentially stepping down...there was no need for it but he had served his time. Im not as confident as I was the last three elections that the Cons will win this one. Mostly because I would never under-estimate the "change" voters. But I do believe if every single person who votes was informed, and voted carefully, the Cons would win again. The more Trudeau speaks, the less support he gets. He is out of touch with average voters. I think he offended the middle class when he referred to the Cons' tax cut that would provide a small cut for people like me as a "tax cut for the rich" (I aint rich). He seems like an empty suit, no substance. The NDP have dialed back the crazy in recent years and come across as the sober, well-meaning, party of the people opposition. Jack Layton made them seem like a legitimate option. Mulcair is prone to crazy and I'd suspect he'll have an outburst or two before the election. In a perfect world, the NDP and Liberals end up attacking each other to try and gain the same voters and the Cons slip up the middle and win. But you never know. Im probably a bad Conservative because if I was forced to choose anyone other than the Cons, I'd choose the NDP. Not because they are next closest to what I believe in, but because I think they are more transparent and even-keeled. Sure, they will raise taxes, push business out and hurt the country but probably not to a degree that we couldnt rebound in five years. I find the Liberals under Trudeau potentially frightening in that this guy really seems to be a self-absorbed nut. I think the Cons and NDP think "what can we do to make Canada better" and Trudeau thinks "Canada sucks and can only be saved if everyone is me".