Coconuts

Those of you who've clowned on him, put respect on Myer's name

Oil in six

Finally

The last book I got through was Connecting Policy to Practice in the Human Services, it can be on the drier side but it's also fascinating http://www.oupcanada.com/catalog/9780199011063.html

That's part of it, but it really is everywhere. When I was living in Nanaimo it was a common belief that individuals wound up living on the island because of it's mild climate, and it makes a lot of sense, if you're going to be homeless you may as well be homeless somewhere where you're less likely to freeze to death. It's really quite straightforward. There's a lot of hubbub about the homeless, and addiction, in Nanaimo, but it's all over the island. Beacon Hill Park in Victoria has had a growing reputation for it, I've heard a lot of folks say Victoria's gotten much worse in recent years. I was stuck in Prince George for a few days the winter before last, and one of the things that stood out to me was the the same homeless camps I saw in Nanaimo, and around the island, were present in PG. I would venture the same could be said of almost every northern community. Fire barrels, folks with inadequate clothing, folks huddling for warmth in -40, that wasn't something I'd ever seen before. There's a lot of incentive for folks living in poverty to try and live somewhere where the climate isn't shit.

It's hard, it's terrifying sometimes even, sometimes it feels hopeless. The more human services education I've done the more I've questioned things, because it's all so expansive and so many things interconnect, and at different levels too. Once you start to see/understand some things you can't unsee them. One of my third-year professors described social work as swimming within the grey, and that's always stuck out to me as a top notch definition of what human service work is. When it comes to people, and society, a lot of things will simply never be black and white, a lot of the time things are murky and uncertain, and a lot of things simply always will be. It's really intimidating, particularly when considering scenarios where ethics meets law, many helping professions have their codes of ethics, methods and standards of best practice and so on, but even with the guidance of such things as well as the consultation of things like unions, professional colleges and associations and so on, it's still so tricky. There's so much grey, it's hard to know what the right thing to do is, and I'm not even a practicing social worker yet. Studies are useful, but they can be tough. You get into things like qualitative and quantitative data, research methods, latitudinal and longitudinal studies, funding, and so on. And even then, they don't necessarily guarantee insight. Most professions, medical and helping, have decades of literature, study, and so on underpinning them. There's no shortage of research that's been done on addiction. Fortunately we're always learning things, but we also live within the economic realities of the present day. Trying to find and implement solutions will always happen within a changing political context, which has all sorts of impacts. A quick example is a how a macro level decision made by a federal or provincial government can affect the funding and policies of meso level organizational policy, which in turn impacts both the micro level practitioner as well as the micro level service users. Another example is how a tough on crime approach championed by a federal party could result in higher levels of micro level individuals being present within meso level prison settings, one could take it a step further and throw in a curveball such as the historically higher rates of Indigenous individuals being incarcerated as well. It's murky.

I don't think you'll ever meet anyone who can give you a definitive answer to that. I don't know, I just know there isn't likely to be a perfect single solution. I do think there need to be supports within prison systems, and @bishopshodan can speak to this personally, but I do question approaching addiction as a criminal issue as opposed to as a public health issue. You're asking a very big question, there's a lot of layers to it. I know there is no magic bullet, but I question the actual value of another war on drugs sort of approach. On some level I also question the ethics of "control" and restricting autonomy too. There's also the question of what "help" is, and what the end result of "help" is expected to be, or the range of expected results even. Drug use can have both short and long-term negative physical and neurological results, some of which aren't reversable. Even what "healthy" means is open to interpretation. Some folks will probably never be functioning members of society in the general sense, some folks will always need support, some folks may never be able to work through their baggage, be able to live independently in the general sense, and so on. It's hard, one of the issues with addiction is how dehumanizing it can be, I'm sure many of us have heard people speak about how individuals should just be put down as if they're animals. It can be similar to mental health in the sense that folks often see individuals as their troubles as opposed to individuals. Language matters, addict is loaded word, so is junkie. Folks have their preferences, will identify themselves in certain ways, there's so much diversity. It's easy to forget, but words have a lot of power. Every single person who is living with substance use issues, or mental health struggles, is an individual with a story, with friends, with family, and so on. There's always a ripple effect, and it almost always goes beyond the individual. Addiction really is a societal issue, it reaches every demographic regardless of how privileged or not they are. That being said, each journey is also an individual thing with all sorts of variables. A one size fits all approach will never work, there need to be multiple approaches. Ultimately I don't think there will ever be a singular approach, or even multiple approaches, that affect the social perception of addiction enough that it's not a hot button topic. Which isn't to say we shouldn't strive to make things better. It's all very complicated, we could go around in circles on this matter for a year or more and still find things to talk about.

Even then, it's still more nuanced. I said it the other day, you can't force folks into treatment and expect results, it will not work the way a lot of folks think it will. You can't force folks to be ready, even if you can force them to detox and go through the motions within a treatment environment. A lot of folks go through treatment, exit, and have it do very little for them. Wait lists are a thing, as is folks repeatedly going through treatment. You can take it a step further and home in one the quality of support that's available at x or y treatment center too. One of my classmates who I went through my diploma program with went through treatment and wound up being better educated about recovery, trauma, and so on than some of the staff, to the point where they had others in treatment coming to them with questions, and to look for advice. I myself had more extensive human services education during my second year practicum than many of the support staff I was shadowing. Oftentimes human service work doesn't pay well, and this is sometimes reflected in the quality of support offered, or in the education and expertise of those providing support; particularly for organizations that don't have the means to pay as well, or to provide a broad range of services. If various governments, liberal or conservative, actually want to address this they'll incentivize folks going into the helping fields and they will help fund social service organizations (which isn't to say that they don't). And it matters, because without folks actually having the qualifications needed to provide certain levels of support it doesn't matter which approach society takes. There's often never enough funding, nor is there enough staff, and turnover can be high. Not a single person I've done human services work has been paid enough for what they do, which is often trying to do more with less, it's often thankless work that doesn't pay well (particularly for frontline staff with more limited education, which sucks because they fill valuable and necessary roles). A privatized, profit-driven approach doesn't necessarily help either, because at the end of the day it'll often come down to how much profit can an organization extract, which comes with it's own issues. For-profit addictions facilities will never resonate me, which isn't to say they don't have value to those who wouldn't access anything lesser than a higher quality rehabilitation setting, it's just that most Canadians don't have that kind of dough. It's not just about treating addiction either, because in many cases there's something beneath that addiction, oftentimes there are intersecting factors. It's nuanced, and often involves trauma, family histories, abuse, poverty, mental health, and a bunch of other factors. One could take it further and dive into things like racialization, intergenerational trauma, colonization, being a refugee, gender identity, age, ethnicity, and so on. Society can try and push folks into treatment all it likes but it won't matter if there aren't social and community supports, as well as actual resources, to help them escape belonging to a more marginalized demographic. Even if Canadian society were to go the route of shoving folks into forced treatment facilities there would need to be supports on the outside, there would need to be infrastructure, funding, safe, drug free housing environments, and a great deal of other things. And even with those things in place, which probably isn't realistic (particularly in smaller communities with less resources and infrastructure), folks will still end up on the streets going all the things they likely are now. Within the past year or so my partner gave me an example of this, she had someone come in looking for emergency housing/funding for housing because he'd just gotten out of treatment and the only thing available to him without financial support was shelter housing; shelter housing that featured those who use, and probably individuals he'd previously had connections with. Further down the line this individual fell back into using and eventually died of an OD. It's a tragic story, but it's not an uncommon one. Having infrastructure to support individuals getting out of treatment is important too, but even that wouldn't save everyone. Those who do addictions work, particularly frontline work that doesn't involve facilities, live with the reality that they will encounter death, and that in some cases they will encounter bodies. Most folks who go through treatment do relapse at some point, that's why having things like sponsors and individuals to reach out is so important, so folks have supports who can help them climb back on the horse as opposed to spiraling. Having a functioning social safety net matters too, particularly with more marginalized demographics, it's hard for helping professionals to connect individuals with resources that simply do not exist, or that continually have their budgets cut, or that have their eligibility criteria increasingly narrowed. Ultimately it often comes down to money and resources, whether that's folks looking to earn money, trying to manage things with a limited budget, trying to do more with less, and trying to source funding from charitable organizations, individuals, levels of government, and so on. It's all so complicated and a lot of things are intertwined.

Even considering the 94-2024 sample size, I'm not really surprised. We missed the playoffs 14/30 of those seasons, and some of those seasons we were particularly lousy. If what you say is true, and we sit at -29 differential throughout that period, it's still not surprising when considering the variance in quality amongst the Canuck teams throughout this sample period. -29 over a 30 year period isn't really much all things considered. As for the playoffs, one would probably have to dig deeper, playoffs are a different animal entirely. This playoffs alone saw the Kings get 12 powerplays to Edmonton's 20, these kind of numbers add up cumulatively over time. Doughty didn't blame the refs for them losing in 5 though. At some point you have to question whether players are actually responsible for the penalties their team get or not, because a lot of the time they are. Even calls folks might describe as soft are called because a player has done something that could be called.

Every fanbase around the league has issues with the refs, and has portions of their fanbase that feels they're treated unfairly, this ain't unique to us.

Once upon a time I did the parasocial bit, I watched a ton of interviews, was personally invested in the players, and was much more heavily invested emotionally. Losses could sour my mood, make me angry, make me sad, and so on. Eventually I concluded that I didn't really see that kind of investment as being healthy. When it really boils down to it it's just a game, just a sport, it's entertainment. It's fun, and there and be a community piece to it all, but it's just a game. Losses don't really upset me, how we lose can be a bit frustrating though. Wins are more fun to watch but I'm ultimately looking to be entertained. Up until the past few years I followed Canucks, and the team, on various socials, but eventually even that got cut out. I don't need to see the team everywhere, I don't need to know all the ins and outs about them and their personalities, or pay a ton of attention to their personal lives. Over time I've grown less invested in individual players, I'm more detached in my fandom for the most part, my fandom is generally more associated with the franchise than individual players nowadays (although I do have a special fondness for the Sedin era teams). Players come and go, Bo, Brock, and Thatcher are probably the last few players I got more attached to. Some folks want to live and breathe their Canucks, others are invested in less emotionally charged ways. Players definitely missed the crowds during the Covid era, both home and away teams missed the liveliness that comes with having a crowd, it was a weird time.

I can respect that, we simply have different takes, I don't personally buy into metaphysical bits, spirituality, or various interpretations of energy. When it comes to sports it's generally folks having a parasocial relationship with a franchise, some folks take it further and develop one-sided parasocial relationships with players, ain't my bag. Within the arena? Yeah, there are impacts, but I think how it affects on-ice product is tough to measure or quantify. Folks are free to believe what they want, but I question the actual impact while recognizing the psychological aspects.

No, short of adding to the atmosphere within the arena I don't believe fans really affect the end result. And even then, while the fans can pump players up I'd question how much that actually impacts how things play out on the ice.

I feel like the post you quoted addresses a lot of what you went on to say. Yes, Mac has been around longer, I pointed this out, but he stepped in younger and the age difference is just over four years. I said in my post that reasonable expectations are probably between 90-110 points. Can't lay it all at Rantanen's feet, although he is a factor, because Rantanen has absolutely been a benefactor as well. It's not shocking that 1OA pick developed into a top of the league sort of player. Rantanen actually benefits a lot from MacKinnon's game, Mac's ability to barrel around the way he does, and his willingness to engage from inside the perimeter, opens up a lot for other Avs forwards. McDavid is the only other guy who possesses the combination of such dynamic speed and skill, but MacKinnon utilizes it more aggressively imo, he's much more of a power forward than McDavid. This video breaks things down pretty well. Pettersson's already an elite player, 89 points being considered an off season demonstrates that. I just don't believe he's in Mac's tier. Maybe someday he gets there, but as of right now he's not. As for faceoffs, neither of them have ever been overly strong in the dot. Nate's regular season average is 45.78% whereas Pettersson's is 45.14%. This season Petterson averaged 50.81% while Mac averaged 46.19%, time but this season was also Petterson's first time having an average higher than 45% so time well tell whether this should be considered a new norm or not. Regarding hits, Pettersson absolutely hit more than Mac, who has never been much of a hitter. This is admirable considering Pettersson isn't a hefty guy for his size. But this doesn't mean that MacKinnon doesn't play a physical game, if you watch Mac play you'll find that he's physically engaged and this contributes to teams not being able to shut him down by trying to play him physically. He's not a player who will vanish when teams try to bully him. We have Miller who can do that now, but for how long remains to be seen. Whether Pettersson ends up actually being a Datsyuck level player remains to be seen, but he's got the skill set to do it. Dunno, I thought I was quite complimentary of Pettersson in my original post. Saying Pettersson isn't in MacKinnon's bracket isn't an insult, almost nobody is right now, doesn't mean I don't think Pettersson is a valuable player. But at the end of the day they're very different players, we'll see how things go as Petterson's career continues and Mac's winds down. As of right now I'd say Hughes is the Canucks MacKinnon equivalent, they're both the players who stir the drink for their teams and arguably each team's most dynamic player.

I would recommend the Weber Utah jersey personally

Booooo Get em next game Boston

One shot for the Bruins? Damn, props to Toronto. Still hope they lose though.

Perhaps, but at the same time I get it. If Brind'Amour is viewed as a top coach in the league and he settles for less because of his connection to Carolina that could very well bring down what other coaches are able to ask for. I remember hearing talk about the NHLPA not being happy with Burrows taking his 2M deal at the time for similar reasons. I read a book about Gordie Howe within the last eight years or so, I like reading the biographies or musicians and hockey players, Gordie Howe also affected what players could ask for way back when, when players weren't making a ton of money. For the longest time he only asked for modest raises, and how could anyone justify asking for more than Howe? It might not be anyone's business, but at the end of the day negotiations around the league do affect other players and coaches.

The only thing some folks like more than putting people on pedestals is tearing them down from them. All one has to do is look around at the top six of other teams around the league to see that talented top six players usually play with other talented top six players. Up until his last season as a Canuck Horvat often got the same raw deal, his most consistent running mate as a Canuck was probably Pearson. Up until this season there was a similar complaint about Hughes, we had to try to find him that elusive RD partner, and that saga still might not be over. I don't think most fanbases around the league expect their top six centers to try and squeeze blood from a stone, or to consistently extract offense from subpar wingers. Not every player is going to extract offense from players the way Crosby does, there's only one Crosby. As it stands we're probably short a couple top six players, Sutur and Mikheyev are not top six caliber players, Mikheyev's a middle six tweener at best.

Simply put, Pettersson isn't in MacKinnon's bracket. He doesn't have MacKinnon's skill set or his toolbox, MacKinnon is closer to being in McDavid territory than he is to being in Pettersson territory. MacKinnon is a top 5 NHL forward, arguably top 2 or 3, Pettersson's probably somewhere between 8-15 when he's at his best. Realistically I think solid expectations for Pettersson range between 90-110 points, the top end of which would have had him tied for 5th in points this season with Pastrnak. Mac's got two 100+ seasons to his name but his point per game has been on pace for 100+ the past seven seasons. Mac took a few seasons to get going, but also made his NHL debut at 18 years old and 31 days; he was the youngest Av player ever. Mac put up 97 points in his age 22 season and hasn't looked back since. We need more from Pettersson, particularly this playoffs, but he doesn't have to match MacKinnon's top end offense to live up to his deal. That just ain't realistic, he's not a McDavid/MacKinnon/Kucherov level offensive threat. He just needs to put up 90-110 points and be the two-way force we know he's capable of being.