December 2008 Archives

I wasn't officially on the hook for tonight's game, but I took some notes anyway. The Oilers were having trouble keeping their forecheck going tonight, and the Senators were good at keeping them mostly to the outside. Few Oilers were getting through to the net with authority, and Gerber showed up to play tonight the times they did. I also had to listen to the Senators broadcasters - they're not too bad a set of homers, but if I'm going to listen to homers I'd at least like them to be MY homers. The lead guy also can't count and doesn't know his history, saying "You can't help but get choked up a little when you see those four Stanley Cups they won" when describing the Edmonton dressing room. As he was saying this, the five Cups were quite clearly displayed on the broadcast... he was also an hour off later on when converting timezones. I guess he's not used to travelling to Alberta. Anyway, on to the game.

With Hemsky out, MacTavish had to juggle his lines somewhat, with Reddox playing with Horcoff and Penner. Sportsnet also had Stortini playing third pair D with Smid and if they had Staios dressed, I missed it but it must have been up front. Not sure where they got that idea. Other lines started out with Gagner between Nilsson and Cole again, Cogliano centering Moreau and Pouliot, and Brodziak with Strudwick and Stortinaios - er, sorry, Stortini. Pouliot got smoked early on though, and Brodziak wound up between Moreau and Cogliano. With the exception of Horcoff, none of Edmonton's best players really stood out, and that's probably why they lost a close one.

Smid, 5: 16:40, -1, no hits (but he was fairly physical as we've come to expect), 2 takeaways and a giveaway, one blocked shot. I thought he could have had Spezza's stick on the goal, but Spezza's shifty and it was a bang-bang play he scored on. Other than that, a quiet night for #5. He did challenge Neil in front of Garon at one point, but seemed to think better of it - just as well, I don't think the Oilers can ice anybody not named Steve MacIntyre who can take #25.

Horcoff, 7: Two assists and he was good everywhere he usually is, forechecking like a demon and backchecking too. Not so good on the faceoffs tonight.

Nilsson, 5: No points but he looked good forechecking with Cole and had 3 hits. MacT rewarded him with icetime, he was among the leaders for forwards. Still, he can't score if he doesn't shoot and he didn't set up any dangerous chances for his linemates either.

Cogliano, 5: He finished even with one shot, but he looked a bit slow (or maybe Ottawa was just faster). I had him down for a + in the second period (good defensive play that turned into a nice rush) and a - in the third - he didn't get over fast enough to cover the opposite side and that left a lane wide open for the Ottawa power play. Faceoffs!

Moreau, 6: Goal was the result of a good forecheck and he was one of the more dangerous Oilers forwards. The two of his three shots that didn't go in were quality.

Staios, 5: Pretty strong 5. Two more shots than Nilsson, although neither were particularly dangerous. Two blocked shots. But he was on the ice for 1 ESG and 1 PPG against.

Cole, 6: He had a good game, banging bodies (3 hits) and a couple of his patented rushes. But the rushes went nowhere and he hit the crossbar on a breakaway, albeit one where he really only got the puck under control late. 4 hits to lead the game and he won as many faceoffs as Cogliano. Fairly ineffective on the power play, although he only had a minute. With a point he'd have been a 7.

Penner, 6: He was physical enough, but he had 4 giveaways to go with his assist. When he gained the zone with Horcoff and Reddox, he forechecked like mad, and in the third he made a great move on Heatley in his own zone to set up a nice rush. Still, not a night to remember. His early chance summed up his night: just not quite fast enough onto the puck to make things count.

Grebeshkov, 5: No "oh crap" moments, but I did have a couple of minuses against his name - once he couldn't contain Ruutu and that led to the first Spezza chance, and the other was a great chance for Donavan in the third when Grebs couldn't slow him down. Both times Garon bailed him out, but not good moments. He did get a hit credited, although I must have missed it.

Strudwick, 5: Did what he was supposed to do - he was physical and managed to help with a couple of good forechecks.

Souray, 6: Like Cole, he was physical. Two shots and two blocked, one hit. Ate up 22:55 of icetime. Any points and he might have had a 7, although he was in the box for the game-winner. The penalty he took wasn't bad like Stortini's, but it wasn't a great one at that stage in the game either.

Stortini, 5: He also did what he was supposed to. Except for the bad penalty on Foligno. He did make a great move in the third to keep the puck in at the opposing blue line. He did forecheck well and was trying to hit, but nobody was co-operating tonight.

Brodziak, 6: He was skating well, was physical, and killed 2 minutes of penalties. Did exactly what he was supposed to do.

Visnovsky, 6: He needs to get his shots on net - three misses and a blocked. He turned the puck over a few times, although he made a nice recovery to draw a penalty on Alfredsson in the first after one such. He also made a great move to stop Donovan on a one on one in the second.

Gilbert, 6: Wound up +1, had 4 shots and 2 blocks. Made some nice plays in his own zone too, and set up some nice rushes. But I don't think his +1 was really deserved. (Actually, I'm not sure how he wasn't +2 - he was listed on the ice for both Moreau's and Reddox's goals, and those were both ES.)

Pouliot, no grade: He played ok for the half the game he did get in, but Foligno knocked him silly and out of the game. Hopefully he's ok; he'd finally put together a run of good games and it looked like he might actually partially cover his draft number.

Reddox, 7: Kind of a weak 7, but he gets the benefit of the doubt for harassing the Sens players and participating in some good forechecks with his linemates. His goal probably should have been Horcoff's, but I don't think it goes in without him in front anyway. 3 shots and 2 hits.

Gagner, 6: High event game for the young man. His line had a lot of trouble clearing the zone in the second period, and some bad work by him led directly to a great Ottawa chance. Similarly in the third, he tried to skate the puck out of trouble and lost it to Ruutu. That was counterbalanced by a great steal followed by some demon work down low in Ottawa's zone in the third, and some general great cycling other times in the game. One shot and 0 points in 20:40 of icetime isn't good enough though.

Garon, 7: I didn't think he made any big mistakes, and he had some great saves after d-zone gaffes. Spezza's goal was hard to defend against, and Alfredsson's was just a great shot. Lee's came after the PK coverage broke down, maybe he could have had that but maybe not. 22 saves for a bit of a weak 7. Strong 7 if he'd stopped either of Alfredsson's or Lee's shots for the point.

While it wasn't the most complete game I've seen this season (the 3-0 against the Canucks was better) they played pretty well last night. It had the makings of a bad game, with Tootoo hammering Hemsky early on, but the game pretty much settled down after that. The first half of the second period wasn't the best, but the last half of the game it was pretty clear which team was going to win. The team's best players were, by and large, the best players on the ice, and that's what's most needed.

Smid, 6: A pretty strong 6. I didn't have any minuses against his name, but no pluses either. The stats sheet shows 3 giveaways and 0 points, but he did have 18 minutes of icetime. He was on the ice for Erat's goal, and the team just couldn't clear the zone for a full minute preceding that, and so some of that goal is on him.

Horcoff, 6: Another strong 6. His icetime at 19 minutes was actually down a bit from recent games, but there wasn't much special teams play. I'm not sure how his goal snuck through, I think Ellis should have had it, but they all count the same at the end of the year.

Nilsson, 5: Definitely the weak link on his line with Gagner and Cole. He showed some speed, but wasn't as good as he could be. You could say he supported his linemates well, or you could say he was pretty much a spectator. Still, no glaring giveaways or dumb passes up the middle.

Cogliano, 6: I'd have ranked him a 7, except his goal was a bit of a fluke (but see Horcoff). Also his line got bottled up a fair bit in the first half of the game, particularly when out against Arnott's line. Broken record, but his faceoffs sucked - what's the point of having a checking line that can't take own-zone faceoffs?

Moreau, 6: Charged the net with authority a couple of times, one of those led directly to Cogliano's fluker. Kudos for trying to give Tootoo the business, although his falling down abbreviated things somewhat. Debrusk said it showed Tootoo he can't get away with running Hemsky - I'm not sure it showed Tootoo anything at all, considering The Little Train kept playing his game afterwards.

Staios, 6: A pretty strong, but eventful game - I had a couple of pluses and one minus against his number, usually he's not so visible. He showed good defensive awareness on a couple of Nashville rushes and got a nice assist on Cogliano's goal, but he's also the fellow who iced the puck just before Erat scored when the same lineup couldn't clear the zone.

Cole, 8: A goal and two assists, as well as a save when Roloson got caught outside the crease. This is the kind of game everybody was expecting from #26 when he first donned the Oilers silks. Finally everything came together for him and it was good to see. Should have been a 9, but see comments regarding Cogliano's line. Early on in the second period he coughed up the puck at Nashville's blue line trying to hold onto it too long. I'm not sure what else he could have done, but chipping it in was an option at one point that he should have taken.

Penner, 7: Forechecked like a demon, played the body, had 4 shots (including one really nice one late in the third) and was Dustin Penner on the power play. Not much else to say - good game.

Grebeshkov, 6: 17 minutes of ice, took a hooking penalty to break up a rush, 2 shots on target and two more blocked. No points but was +2 on the night, so he was doing something right. But he had over a minute of PP time and didn't do a whole lot with it. Strong 6.

Strudwick, 6: He played exactly like he needs to. Kept things simple, and was a force down low in Nashville's end. 8:41 of good physical play. But it was his line on the ice when Weber scored, so he had a well-deserved -1.

Souray, 7: Power play goal was exactly what the doctor ordered and he was physical. Gave up Weber's break that led to the goal though. Still, he created more chances than he gave up, lots of special-teams time.

Stortini: 6 Just like Strudwick, except he was on his poo-disturbing game, sucking Belak into a fight. I'm not sure I agree with Louie Debrusk's assessment of Stortini as a heavyweight though; #46 is more like Debrusk himself was than, say, Dave Semenko or Georges Laraque.

Brodziak, 6: Only guy besides Horcoff who can be trusted to take own-zone faceoffs. He had 3 shots on net and 2 takeaways, but also 2 giveaways and his line was on for the Weber goal. Still, a competent fourth-line game, he seems to be back on track.

Visnovsky, 7: Two helpers, he's definitely underrated compared to his power play partner. 21:19 of ice, some competent stick checking, 3 shots and +2, but also 4 giveaways. Solid game though, like 44 he created much more than he gave up.

Gilbert, 6: Pretty quiet night for the young man from Minnesota. I didn't run any numbers to see how many shots on goal there were against him, but he didn't stand out for any gaffes or great plays. Not what you want from somebody making his coin, but better than the alternative.

Pouliot, 6: Part of the can't-clear-our-zone brigade in the first half of the game, he nevertheless wound up +1. He had a few sniffs, but didn't create much on his own. Competent, and he can't score every game.

Hemsky, 7: Pointless, but not through lack of trying. He soaked up a hard hit from Tootoo even though he knew it was coming, just to make the play. Showed some puck wizardry skills and forechecked like mad. 4 shots and a block. Normally I wouldn't give a pointless fellow much more than a 6, but his line produced and he was part of the reason it did.

Gagner, 7: He and Cole mesh well; I don't think it's a coincidence that they both had great games at the same time while playing together. There was a lot of fight in the kid last night, and he was well-rewarded for it. He maybe could have had an 8.

Roloson, 7: Not much else to say besides a very solid game by #35. He made the saves when the game was in question and didn't give the Preds a sniff afterwards. Got caught out of position quite badly once, but Cole saved his bacon.

This is as much for my own edification and future self as anything else. Three system / health monitoring tools of which I'm aware are:
Nagios and the unfortunately-named but always excellent companion nagiosexchange.

Lighter-weight tools are monit and mon. A friend of mine tried the latter and proclaimed it Good, although the names for both of those are pretty crap, especially mon. At least give it a cute tagline or something. Software authors should always google the names they're considering; think of somebody who sort of remembers the name but maybe not quite, but wants to find it again. If the mighty GOOG returns 10,000 hits, maybe your name isn't so good after all.

Standalone Sysadmin has links to a bunch of neat tricks you can play with SSH keys.

My boss told me about a letter he'd received and briefly summarized the content. (I should note he was fairly disgusted by the content; somebody he knew had forwarded it to him.) I'm interested in "common-sense" views of things like justice and philosophy, but as a (former) historian I'm also interested in the misuse and misunderstanding of history. The letter I will discuss is a prime example of both. While I won't claim that the content of the letter is necessarily commonly accepted, I will claim that it's full of a lot of the semi-historical tripe that probably resonates more strongly with our fellow citizens than we might like to think.

The following is slightly edited for formatting, but not at all for content:

A Letter to the Editor

So many letter writers have explained how this land is made up of immigrants. Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people why today's Canadian is not willing to accept the new kind of immigrant any longer.

Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to Canada, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in Halifax and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground.

They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new Canadian households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home. They had waved good bye to their birthplace to give their children anew life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture.

Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labour laws to protect them. All they had were the skills, craftsmanship and desire they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. Canadians fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy, France, Japan , Czechoslovakia , Russia, Sweden, Poland and so many other places. None of these first generation Canadians ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Canadians fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending their freedom as one people.

When we liberated France, no-one in those villages was looking for the Ukrainian-Canadian or the German-Canadian or the Irish-Canadian. The people [of - sic] France saw only Canadians.

And we carried one flag that represented our country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be a Canadian. They stirred the melting pot into one red and white bowl.

And here we are in 2008 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it immediately and by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes a Canadian passport and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country.

I'm sorry, that's not what being a Canadian is all about. Canadians have been very open-hearted and open-minded regarding immigrants, whether they were fleeing poverty, dictatorship, persecution, or whatever else makes us think of those aforementioned immigrants who truly did adopt our country, and our flag and our morals and our customs. They left their wars, hatred, and divisions behind.

I believe that the immigrants who landed in Canada with those principles deserve better than that for the toil, hard work and sacrifice as they searched for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags, fighting foreign battles on our soil, making Canadians change to suit their religions and cultures, and wanting to change our countries fabric by claiming discrimination when we do not give in to their demands.

Its about time we get real and stand up for our forefathers rights, we are
CANADIAN Lest we forget it. I am a Canadian & proud of it!

NO MORE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
NO MORE not saying CHRISTMAS in stores and our schools!
MERRY CHRISTMAS to all !!!
I want to retain my Canada of Birth !!!

P. S. -- Please pass this on to everyone you know!!!
KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING!!
Hope this letter is read by millions of people all across Canada!!

First of all, I can only assume that this was adapted from a letter decrying the decline of American immigration. The "melting pot" phrase is distinctly American; Canadians tend to pretend that we have a "cultural mosaic," although it is possible that the authors prefer the former phraseology. No doubt the writer would declaim the mosaic idea as a phrase coined by the "politically correct", but he'd be wrong - the phrase dates back to the 1930s, in reaction to the American ideals.

This is not to say that our "system" is necessarily any better than the American one. I'm just pointing out that most people who have studied the history would know the difference.

The second paragraph talks about a rush from Europe in 1900 and the learning of English. Canadian immigration policy before 1945 was fairly racist. Our policies favoured Anglophone immigrants, particularly from the United States and England, ignoring those lacking the skills government thought were required to settle the West. Experienced farmers were explicitly targeted. Immigrants of other linguistic backgrounds and nations tended to be accepted for unskilled labour only; building the railroads, for example.

In other words, we only wanted immigrants who already spoke English, and those who couldn't got to pay a tax just to be allowed into the country, so they could do the jobs nobody else wanted to do. Cultural assimilation was not required, as we were just importing more people like we had already.

While it's true Canadian labour law was virtually non-existent before the 1930s and the development of Canada as a welfare state, that's not necessarily something of which to be proud. It is untrue that "nothing was handed" to early immigrants. Early immigration to Canada was characterized by land grants: the Dominion Land Act of 1872 gave 160 acres of land for $10 to anybody who met previous conditions and would promise to stay on the land for three years and to improve it.

Given that a large number of immigrants to Canada in the early 1900s came from the British Isles or the US (roughly 2.2 million of 3 million between 1900 and 1915, see here for details online), it is unsurprising that Canadians signed up in droves for service in 1914 and 1939.

Despite the letter's assertion, Japanese and German immigrants were not really encouraged to sign up for the military, however, and their numbers were overwhelmed by their British counterparts at any rate. In fact, during the war years Canada had concentration camps of its own, most notably for Japanese-Canadians but those of German and Italian descent were roughly-treated as well.

The statement "None of these first generation Canadians ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from," isn't entirely correct either. The wars were extremely unpopular in Quebec, and conscription was required in both World Wars to keep the promises of the Prime Ministers Borden and King. The conscription crises caused severe damage to Anglo-Franco relations in Canada. Quebecois saw the wars as problems between the British and German empires, and for the most part wanted nothing to do with dying for an English King.

Canadians have not always "been very open-hearted and open-minded regarding immigrants" fleeing anything at all. We had no rules set aside for refugees; instead, we treated them as we would have any other immigrant. Canada was overwhelmingly anti-Semitic in the 30s, and this combination was - literally - death for Jews seeking asylum from the Nazis. We were not alone in our anti-Semitism, but that does not excuse it. Those fleeing poverty usually only found more of the same in Canada, and were deported by the thousands during the Depression.

Regarding the assertion that hatred and divisions were somehow magically left behind by recent arrivals to Canada, one needs look no further than the continuing rift between Anglophones and Francophones in Canada. Hatred came to a head in the mid-1970s, but did not disappear by any means.

Five minutes with Google (or, dare I say it, a good history book) should demonstrate the fallacy of this letter. The fact that it has any traction at all is testament to poor historical education in our schools and Canadian racism. The letter's author should follow his or her own advice and hit the history books, because the "facts" presented within are unadulterated bullshit. Whoever passes it on as fact should hang their head in shame.

It's been a while, so I found myself a tad out of practise. Overall the boys didn't play that well, and the score reflected that. I saw a comment by Roloson after the game that he thought they'd played well the first period; with all due respect to a veteran goalie, I think that's gilding the turd a bit. They didn't play *poorly* the first period. They were tentative, not at all physical, and slow. The second was bad. Not Chicagoan proportions poor, but yeah. The third period was better, although Penner's goal was a bit lucky (albeit luck that was the result of a lot of hard work). Enough with the jibber jabber, on with the scoring.

Smid: 6. 12:15 of ice, mostly at evens, wound up +1. No glaring gaffes and a physical enough game. 3 blocks led the way for the Oilers, and was one behind Edler and Mitchell who played twice as much as he did. He used his stick well when he wasn't able to take the body.

Horcoff: 5. It just wasn't there for Horc last night, -1 and almost 6 minutes of power play time for no points. He wasn't bad, he just wasn't good. Saving grace was he won more faceoffs than he lost. He also had 2 shot blocks. Still, he needs to be better. Found himself playing with Pouliot later on. 0 shots is terrible.

Nilsson: 6. He was moving and got an assist, but was still -2 and had nearly 5 minutes of PP time.

Cogliano: 6. He'd have been a 5 if it wasn't for some good work on the penalty kill, 4:50 of it. He played 21:10, MacT rode him and Horcoff all night. Later in the night he was bounced around a bit as MacT tried to find some lines that didn't suck out loud. Why he takes any faceoffs at all is beyond me.

Moreau: 6. 3 penalties, a couple of which were good and one which wasn't. Jumped in nicely when Gagner got run behind the net. (I didn't like that hit when Weight took it on Sutter, and I didn't like it last night. Legal, but dirty anyway.) Mighty slam took Salo out of the game. He'd likely have had more time on the PK, but it was usually him in the box. Also had 5 shots to lead the team, although none were really good scoring chances.

Staios: 5. Some hard work led to his +1 rating, despite his lack of points, and yeoman's work on the PK. He was physical enough and otherwise not really noticeable, good news. (Edit: from a 6 to a 5. I forgot his piling on Roloson led directly to one of the goals against. I considered a 4, but he did do well enough otherwise.)

Cole: 5. He was hitting and skating, but lost the puck a few times and didn't really seem to mesh well with his linemates all night. He had a fair bit of PP time (2:29) and didn't do much with it.

Penner: 6. Goal was a great example of what happens when you muck around in the other team's end and take the shot when you get it. He made some good defensive plays, but didn't really go to the front of the net with authority on the power play. Would be a 5 if he hadn't scored. Played with Moreau and Gagner later in the game.

Grebeshkov: 5. He made some good passes, but got hemmed in a fair bit too. 2 takeaways means he doesn't get a 4.

Strudwick: 4. He barely saw the ice and didn't look good when he was on it.

Souray: 6. Nasty and physical, but pointless in eight and a half minutes of power play time. Only two shots on net, and could never quite get himself free to get off his cannon. Missed the net twice but had a takeaway and did ok on the PK.

Stortini: 5. He barely played either, but his hit was a doozie.

Brodziak: 5. Half his icetime was killing penalties, but he also had a couple of shots on net. PK was good enough.

Visnovsky: 6. I have him down for two + marks, although he was -2. Played a lot of unproductive PP and little PK, but he still logged 21:41. He had two shots and two more blocked, but missed 3 times. (#71 is the new #6.)

Gilbert: 6. He played a lot too, 22:05 with over 7 minutes of special teams time. His one hit came shortly after he got clobbered.

Pouliot: 5. He wasn't fast, he wasn't hitting, his PP time amounted to zilch, but he won 3 of his 4 faceoffs. He and Horc are the only guys halfway competent at the skill. I have him down for a -.

Hemsky: 6. One assist, but -1. He was flying around but not really keeping hold of the puck the way he can. He's one of the setup guys on the power play and deserves some blame for the atrocious showing. He found himself with

Gagner: 5. Goal was the result of some hard work, but a lack of effectiveness otherwise earlier meant he was in the doghouse a bit. 12:24 of icetime and only 1:49 on the PP. He did have 3 shots though, and was even credited with 2 hits. He wasn't terribly productive with the puck, but did his best to be a Darcy Tucker when he didn't have it. MacT's opinion of his faceoff skills is obviously no higher than mine, as he took only four. Odd game for him, strong 5.

Roloson: 6. Weak 6? It's hard to fault him directly on any of the goals but one, and he did play fairly well otherwise, particularly after he got a shot off the neck/collarbone area, he shook it off right away to follow the puck and only crumpled once the puck was cleared.

This was a game crying out for somebody to take charge. Anybody. Moreau tried, but his skills aren't what they were, and so he just wound up in the box a lot. One of Horcoff, Hemsky, Souray, Penner, or Cole really needed to take charge, and none of them did.

When you were in high school or university or working your first job, you knew one of those guys, right? You may be working or going to school with one of them now. You know the kind I mean. He's not happy unless he's got everybody's attention. He doesn't care how he gets it, either.

One day he's making fun of the boss or the kid with the cane. Next day he's telling off-colour jokes and everybody shuffles uncomfortably back to work. Then he makes a point of stalking off and being by himself, only to return with the same shit-eating grin he's always worn and pretending nothing happened.

He goes up to that line everybody just knows where it is, pauses to make sure everybody's looking, and then flings himself bodily over it. The hell of it is, he's a pretty smart guy and everybody knows he'd be just that much better if he kept his trap shut and just worked like everybody else.

I knew a fellow like that in the Reserves. Smart, capable. Not the best at anything, but always top 10. The kind of guy any unit would have been happy to have. Except for this one thing: he couldn't resist. He just couldn't help himself from pushing that one extra step.

Maybe I'd have felt differently about him if I hadn't been one of the smaller guys he tried to pick on. I fed him his testicles once - just before a graduation parade, with us in full dress uniform - and he whined that I fought dirty. Pretty rich, coming from a guy who outweighed me by about 80 pounds and jumped me from behind. It wasn't enough, so later I had to demonstrate how his nose only wasn't broken because I'm a nice guy who also doesn't want to go up on charges. Those retaliatory penalties are a bitch. If the boys were sitting around bullshitting and telling jokes, he always had a "good" one about Jews or Muslims or blacks or anybody else.

He was a good field soldier, maybe even a great one. He still is for all I know, but I also know I didn't want him anywhere near me and I'm ashamed that he wore the same uniform I did. If he's in Afghanistan now, I hope for the locals' sake he finally learned his lesson.

You know the kind of guy I'm talking about. You know who I'm talking about now. Why keep giving him what he wants?