Mmm... Bacon...

I may very well be biased in saying this, but from the point of view of a food connoisseur such as me (read: glutton), the pig could very well be the greatest animal to ever exist. You can feed them just about anything and they taste great when eaten. As Homer Simpson may or may not know, they give us ham, bacon, and pork chops. The pig truly is a magical animal. In fact, I already feel bad for vegetarian and those who subscribe to religions that forbid its consumption.

In my opinion, bacon has got to be the tastiest of the three (although porks chops and ham can both compete for a close second when done just right). The best part about bacon is that it occasionally goes on sale. About a month ago, brand name bacon went on sale for about $3 for a 500g package. For those who read this blog many years later and are unsure how good of a deal that is due to inflation and the changing of prices, bacon currently ranges from about $4 (usually no name) to $6 (brand name).

I never did eat much bacon when I grew up because I didn't actually enjoy it much more than most other meats that I ate. My logic was that bacon was so much worse for me than these other meats, and only tasted a bit better, so why not eat more meat as opposed to less? Unfortunately for me, the financial side of me recognized a great opportunity to purchase food that I normally would not be willing to pay for. In the event that my friends and/or family is reading this blog, I refuse to disclose the exact number of packages purchased. Let's just say it was at least enough to satisfy me, and definitely less than enough to kill me on the spot had I cooked and eaten all of it in one sitting.

Now if you recall that I mentioned I didn't eat much bacon before this during my lifetime, you'll probably quickly realize something that I completely failed to consider when I left the store: I had no idea how to cook bacon. I had a feeling that you were supposed to pan fry it, but I couldn't be certain. I decided to give it a shot anyways.

Now there's probably a right way and certainly many wrong ways to make bacon. It actually took me a few tries to get it right. For instance, it seemed logical that if I didn't happen to have a clean pan, a small pot should suffice. After all, a pot is just a pan with much higher walls surrounding the cooking surface. It didn't take too long before I realized that this was not a good idea. The wall of the pot made it incredibly hard for me to manipulate the bacon without touching the heated metal or getting hot oil on my hand. As a result, I discovered that I could not fit the entire package in the pot and effectively cook it. After cooking my first package, I'd have to say that all in all, it was still passible. On a scale from 0 to 10, I'd give myself a 6. Some of the pieces were not crispy enough, some were partially burnt, but it was all edible and it all tasted pretty decent.

It was a while before I tried again, but this time, I definitely made certain to use a pan. The pan had a greater surface area, which allowed me to manipulate a greater percentage of the bacon in the pan than if it were in the pot. The cooking was more even this time and I did much better, but it could definitely be improved. I still had not figured out how to make the bacon crispy, but not crunchy. Overall self-score: 7.

By the time I tried again, I had discovered something I had once again not considered. What if I were to cook the package in parts? Up to this point, I had just cooked the entire package at once (though I was at least smart enough to separate the slices before putting them in the pot/pan). It was a miracle. In fact, the only drawback I had was that the anticipation was increased greatly. It's not easy to keep cooking and not eat when you've got a tasty strip of bacon or two sitting on 3 pieces of paper towel on a plate. Overall self-score: 8, but with a -1 penalty to my patience check.

After this experience, I am not going to buy bacon for a very long time. After getting the preliminaries down to a science, making perfect bacon is still an art. I have significantly less trouble cooking other meats, and I can eat more of them than I can bacon. And we've already established that more meat is undoubtedly better than less meat. Now if I can just avoid the Golden Griddle's bacon-filled $11 all-you-can-eat weekend breakfast buffet, I'll be just fine...

Boy, do I miss hockey

I'm sure there are many who will wholeheartedly agree, while others will passionately disagree, but it is in my opinion that hockey is the greatest sport ever to be displayed with the help of cathode ray tubes.

I've watched hockey ever since I was a little boy. I simply adored the Montreal Canadiens, and to this day, I still proudly root for them. Never once did I step foot in the Montreal Forum, but staying up late every Saturday night from about October to about April allowed me to watch a myriad of greats play the game they loved with the heart and soul of the champions that I always wanted to believe they were.

Did I care that I hadn't seen my beloved Habs hoist the Stanley Cup for years on end? Not particularly, because I always believed that next year was going to be our year. In 1989, they lost in the finals in 6 games to play a very impressive Calgary Flames team. I did get to see Lanny MacDonald take a swig out the Stanley Cup, but I also had to wait an entire offseason before I'd get to see the Canadiens try again. Finally, in 1993, we bested none other than the legendary Wayne Gretzky and his Los Angeles Kings, and the cup made its 24th appearance in Montreal. Never before had I been happier for anyone I didn't personally know.

However, what had escaped me all these years was the entire economic side of the NHL. I had always believed that these guys weren't getting paid a lot of money, but played so hard every game because they got to play the game they loved and they got to play for the ultimate prize - the Stanley Cup.

Flash forward to spring 2004. The Quebec Nordiques no longer existed, nor did the Winnepeg Jets. With the Ottawa Senators (re)joining the NHL, there were only 6 Canadian franchises left - and 4 of us were far from rich. The collective bargaining agreement was ending after this season and the players and owners had not settled anything. It's now the last couple days of 2004, but it won't be long before the entire season is wiped out.

Hockey Night in Canada no longer plays on Saturday evenings and now I find little to no incentive to go to the laundromat on Saturdays anymore (yes, the laundromat has a television). The winter feels colder, longer, darker, and emptier. An important part of my life and the lives of other Canadians is missing. If it weren't for the World Junior Hockey Championships, the wait for baseball would feel that much worse. And that's just from a fan's perspective. I really feel sympathy for the referees.

What I and I'm sure many others just don't understand is why can't the players and owners agree on something? Maybe I don't have all the facts, and maybe I shouldn't be pointing fingers, but as a reasonably logical person, I truly believe that the players' association is the cause of our grief. I have read many an article, listened to countless interviews and opinions, and followed a fair number of debates. After all that, I really find the statements made by the PA are ridiculous.

Where to begin?

1) The PA refuses to accept a salary cap. The first question they should ask themselves is "Am I even affected by the cap?" The answer for the vast majority of players is either "Not at all" or "So little that I'd be a fool to lose a season over this". So why don't all these players (who should greatly outnumber those who the cap does affect) just express their views publicly? After all, the players supposedly are not being silenced. Instead, most of them have decided to play in other leagues and/or countries for a small fraction of what they'd make under Gary Bettman's salary cap system.

2) Gary Bettman wishes to tie player salaries to revenues. What a novel idea! Why not? Because it means that players will no longer be able to make more than clubs can afford to pay. Should players make that much money? Well, Bob Goodenow believes they have a right to make as much as the owners are willing to pay them. Well, I believe I would love to be paid more than I make now, but it certainly isn't happening. Although I could go to another company, my salary might not change too much. Why? Because there are many others who could do what I do and there are so many employees and so many companies that nobody is irreplaceable. Since there are only 30 teams in the NHL and only so many top players, having a star go from one team to another often has a huge impact on the league. If I jump ship and go get a job at another company, I doubt it'd make much of an impact. And no company in their right mind would pay me more than they can afford to.

3) So why am I not siding with the players? Because they make so much more money than I do. Take a look at a player who makes $1 million a year. That's about 30% lower than the average player salary that Bettman envisions (about $1.3 million). However, most people may not make $1 million in their entire lives. Player supporters argue that players careers are so short. That's wonderful! If I could work only 1 year and never work again and make more than most people might make their entire lives, I'd be overjoyed. I'd be able to retire at the age of 25! In fact, if I could make about 30% less than the average salary in Bettman's scheme (which will fluctuate, but probably increase with inflation) for 10-15 years, my family will not need to work for generations! And that's assuming I don't bother to make any investments. I mean for crying out loud, I could buy a few houses a year if I wanted to with that kind of money. Do I need to have a lavish lifestyle? I'd be more than happy to live significantly better than I live now and not have to work the rest of my life.

4) The PA offers a rollback of 24% of player salaries. This was definitely a PR move designed to make the PA look good. Anyone can see how this is a temporary solution. Should the PA be forced to have a cap just so that there's a rule that protects owners from themselves? Well, that's a loaded question because it assumes that all owners need protection from themselves. This is simply not true. The owners of the poorer teams need protection from the owners of the richer teams. If all owners simply made an unofficial agreement to not exceed a certain level of spending, there'd be no lockout. A lot of people (such as agents) would complain of legalized collusion, but at least we'd still have hockey. However, it only takes one owner to break that unenforced agreement and destroy the league. Let's say only one team exceeds the agreed spending level. What can the other 29 teams do? They can do nothing and watch as the traitor acquires all the talent and gains an unfair advantage year after year, or they can react and increase their spending to level the playing field. Some clubs have to go into debt to match the rich clubs' spending.

Anyways, enough analysis. Bring in the replacement players! If not, it's going to be a long year...

The Legend of Zelda

Well, I just spent my day watching 13 episodes of The Legend of Zelda cartoon that came out with the Super Mario Brothers show way back when I was a kid. I believe there were only 13 episodes in total, but after having seen the last one, there is certainly no conclusion. It appears as though the cartoon was left open-ended at that time so that another season could be made, but the perhaps the cartoon was cancelled.

Considering my childhood involved the trusty 8-bit Nintendo Entertainment System as a source of fun, I naturally loved quality programming such as Captain N: the game Master as well as The Legend of Zelda. Then again, I also watched the Flintstones, Scooby Doo, Rocket Robin Hood, and Hercules, so maybe I wasn't being terribly objective.

It looks to me as though this show was made after the first two Zelda games were released for the NES, and possibly even after The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (read: Best Zelda game created to date). The classic enemies from old zelda games were there including stalfos, moblins, durago (sp?), and a bunch of other enemies whose names I can't remember. However, there were a couple which I for some reason or other recognize only from Zelda 3, such as the crablike thing with the armor on. Maybe I'm mistaken? It certainly reminded me of the boss of the first dark palace in Zelda 3 in which you use either the hammer or bombs to break his armor. Anyways, regarding the show itself, I have to say I have a few comments (Spoilers coming).

1) First things first: Is Link ever going to get a kiss from Zelda? I mean heck, she obviously loves him. Playing hard to get is one thing. Playing all but impossible to get is another. In episode 12, where Link got hit by a spell that teleported his body into Ganon's jar and left his spirit floating around, it was revealed that everyone could hear Link's spirit speak, but only those who loved him could see him.

2) Regarding the way she bosses him around and actually gets him to do what she says most of the time... seems strangely familiar... in fact, I swear I know guys who are that whipped... (you know who you are!) What can I say? I went to the bookstore today and I saw a book entitled "Why Men Love Bitches". It naturally caught my attention, so I went over and checked it out. It targeted nice girls who couldn't understand why so many men ignored them and eagerly persued the aforementioned girls instead. Well, when I found that out, I simply could not let that go. I'm rather upset that some author can go out there and try to brainwash the girls I would like most and turn them into the girls I would like least! It's not like we have a shortage of the latter!! That said, for those who are in the former group who are not receiving the attention they feel they deserve, please kindly do not purchase or read this book, and consider talking to me first. ;)

3) Okay, I guess I understand why Zelda won't kiss Link. He says "Excuuuuuse me, Princess" way too often. I guess I wouldn't be inclined to kiss someone who said the same annoying thing every 5-10 minutes. It also doesn't help that he says this in the intro just after he uses the zap from what is possibly the Master Sword to help him and Zelda escape from Moblins and company.

4) I think they made Zelda far too capable in the cartoon. Most of the time, she doesn't even need Link. They do address this in episode 12. I'm not saying that Zelda shouldn't be so capable, but in the game, she is clearly a damsel in distress who wears royal robes, and has not been trained to wield weapons... and considering the administrative duties of royalty, when would she ever have time for this kind of training anyways? In the show, she wears a dress maybe once, but is usually outfitted in clothing more suitable for fighters, plus she is proficient with boomerangs and bows, not to mention can actually use the Master Sword if the need arises... which, by the way, is only supposed to be wieldable by the Hero, who we discover in Zelda 3 to be Link. Then again, he has a sword that can zap in Zelda 1, but I have no idea where he got it, or why he doesn't have it in Zelda 3.

5) Why are Ganon's minions so stupid?! Heck, why is Ganon so stupid?! I guess Ganon obviously does not believe in hiring professionals and he probably can't enslave professionals who are better than him. But still, Ganon is clearly a black mage who wishes he played blue instead. After all, if I learned anything from Magic: The Gathering, blue is the real evil color. Black only wishes it was as good as blue most of the time. What really bugs me is that the whole premise of the show ("Whoever gets both triforces will rule this land forever") is bologna. Ganon does succeed in procuring Zelda's Triforce of Wisdom in one episode, but doesn't use it to do anything, only to have Link get it back before the end of the episode. Also, how did Ganon manage to steal the Triforce of Power? Who did he steal it from? Obviously, if guy like Ganon can steal one of the Triforces, the control over Hyrule is far from permanent at any time.

All in all, the show is very repetitive, much like the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon was. The good guys never win, the bad guys never win, anything that really happens in the show is temporary and the state of things at the beginning of the episode is pretty much the same at the end of the episode. Wow. And all these years, I though I was missing out because I didn't catch all the episodes. At least they kept it entertaining. I guess it was a good thing that the show didn't get a second season. Too bad the same cannot be said of Power Rangers...

Hurray, I started a blog

Well, I was just poking around and ran into some of my friends' blog pages and felt the need to set one up. Gotta love peer pressure. :)