Jack, I always have trouble narrowing down such lists of franchise greats/favorites. I usually pick a theme or category - such as a certain era or decade, or some criteria based on statistical achievement, special accomplishments, franchise importance or longevity. Then of course there are personal favorites who might not fit any of those categories. So in this case I'd probably buy a number of plaques and pick eight for each area that I define. With the Niners, I have lots of sentimental favorites that caught my attention for various reasons. My personal Niner display area for instance includes autographs and jersey swatch cards of Montana, Young, Rice, Lott, John Taylor and Roger Craig from the Super Bowl winning teams. I haven't gotten around to adding more autographs from that time frame, and those jersey swatch cards aren't available for any others as far as I know. But I can't leave out some of the more legendary early players. So I have a Y.A. Tittle jersey swatch card and autographs of Brodie, Willard, Wilcox, Gene Washington. For some reason I haven't felt compelled to add items from more recent players. I usually wait till a player retires so I have a full body of work to contemplate. And I also have about a dozen action figures of the eighties/nineties teams. I was planning to add a lot of stuff had the team won the Super Bowl, but the ending of that game soured me temporarily. Space considerations also factors into how a display can put together.

Kids in the Hall was a funny show. Maple Leaf jokes have been a staple of national comedians for decades. GT's summation gives the background why. And there are so many other demographic, media and political factors underlying that polarization between supporters and detractors. I could go on for hours, but I prefer to still calmly bask in the aftermath of their recent demise.

Speaking of politics. I won't.

Not as such. Just a note for anyone interested in the broader political science/sociological sphere.

The votes are almost all counted, and the results of our provincial election today have been determined. This was a very instructive example of what seems to be an emergent trend. Do not put faith in polls. Or so-called pundits, talking heads, and the consultant class. All of them were humiliated beyond reproach. The incumbent party was returned to power with a slight increase to their majority. The widespread consensus was that the main opposition was more than twenty points ahead in popularity and would sweep into power. Even just minutes before the polls opened today, the media/experts were more certain in the anticipated outcome than Dewey was over Truman. All the sampling, focus groups, exit polls and so one were massively wrong. The anticipated stimulus of social media on 'getting out the youth vote' never materialized. That though may be a local variable that can't be extrapolated to apply elsewhere. Data still has to be analyzed, and there will be plenty of awkward ruminating going on.

I won't get into the issues, but in a brief nutshell, the former Premier of the province had won three consecutive majorities and in his last few years became increasingly obsessed with his pet projects and legacy image. He quickly became a despised man, seen justifiably as arrogant, autocratic, self-aggrandizing as he started alienating his own party and most of the public. With popularity in the low single digits he awkwardly resigned. And landed comfortably on his feet as ambassador to Great Britain. His replacement inherited the problems and the scorn of the public. Senior members of the party began resigning one after another. She was seen as a lame duck, simply hoping to hang on for a couple of years before the inevitable massive change in electoral fortunes would be formalized. And that's been the drone of the media narrative for those two years. Until tonight. When prognostication became prologue to befuddled disbelief.

I think the media simply failed to register real life changing dynamics and instead relied on the narrative they created years ago. During the campaign the incumbent was engaging, energized, confident, self-assured. The opposition leader acted like all he had to do was play rope-a-dope and evade hard answers. The public quickly became attuned to how the leaders were conducting themselves under pressure. The incumbent was seen much more as an individual than a mere extension of the man she replaced. Two years of really smug expectations of an easy win caught the opposition unprepared to earn trust with full disclosure of intent.

It looks like I'm a fan of the winning incumbent, but I really have a number of doubts and suspicions on various issues. But I have more distrust of the now defeated opposition. It's a really fragile world out there, and all things considered, I don't think this is a time to glibly hand over financial control to a party inexperienced in governing and more ideological than pragmatic. Maybe some other time in history, but continuity and a respectable record of stability count for something now. Far from a scenario reflecting everything I'd like, but more appropriate than the alternative in my opinion.

Some curious similarities with the recent Alberta elections too.

Last Edited By: Arnold49 05/15/13 03:41 AM. Edited 1 times.