Highways to Hell

As a kid, I had this poster in my room that depicted the crash of a steam powered train. The engine had smashed through the upper level of the Montparnasse train station in Paris in 1895. Written in small letters in the white space beside the image were the words:

"Oh, shit."

I always thought this poster was hilarious. The words seemed to perfectly capture what must have gone through the minds of those standing at street level, scratching their heads, trying to figure out what went wrong.

What the poster didn't tell you is that a young woman at street level was killed in the accident. Knowing this, the image seems much less amusing.

Fast forward to Montreal 2011 and a repeat performance of the "Oh, shit" poster, complete with orange vested construction workers standing in the Ville Marie tunnel, seemingly scratching their heads, trying to figure out why a 15-metre-wide concrete beam crashed onto the eastbound lanes of the highway.

This picture isn't that funny either. In fact this situation has gone far beyond a joke. The decrepit state of Montreal's highway infrastructure is only slightly less disturbing than the apparent gaping holes in Transport Quebec's inspection system.

The latter is a process cloaked in secrecy, which constantly assures us our roads are safe and yet periodically issues emergency road closures after suddenly discovering an undisclosed structural issue.

If there is any good news in this latest incident, it is that no one was killed. Had this occurred during rush hour, or at any time when the usually busy Ville-Marie expressway was packed with cars or a tour bus, and this would surely have been the blackest day in Montreal's history.

The collapse of the De la Concorde overpass in 2006 that claimed the lives of five people should have been enough for the Quebec government to do more than reassess the state of the province's infrastructure. It should have forced the complete overhaul of its inspection process. Clearly, that system is as culpable as the shoddy work of the company contracted to build the overpass.

What is really needed is an outside authority to probe the state of the province's construction industry and inspection process. In much the same way Montreal Police are investigated periodically by the SQ, there needs to be an external body, with no stake in the process, enlisted to investigate these failures without bias. In an ideal world, that would be the Federal Government. Considering the fact that a good chunk of the province's infrastructure funding has come from Ottawa in recent years, one would think they would want to know how and where their money is being spent.

Unfortunately, the politics of this backward province would intervene. So we are left with politicians from the municipal to provincial level finger-pointing at one-another whilst Transport Quebec lurks in the shadows, revealing nothing to the citizens who literally take their lives in their hands every day they commute to work. Oh, and let's not forget the massive chunk of our income that is siphoned off to help fund this death-defying circus act.

I think the only way to make some progress would be to round up all of those inspectors and the overpaid, entitled bureaucrats and force them to resolve the infrastructure issues while sitting on a stalled bus on a section of the Turcot interchange. Something tells me they'd come up with a plan real quick.

As entertaining as that image may be, it's just part of the ongoing joke that's just not funny anymore. One has to wonder how many lives will be lost before the government get's serious about this issue. Our reputation internationally is crumbling as fast as the roadways we nervously navigate. The tragic death or severe injury of a foreign national as a direct result of this city's decaying highways would not only undermine a valuable tourist industry it would likely expose the pathetic state of the province's corrupt and incompetent administration to the world.

Sadly, this may be the only way that bureaucrats and our elected officials can be held accountable.

Something has to happen soon, before we find ourselves looking at yet another slab of dislodged concrete and muttering...

"Oh, shit."

The Great Divide

Summing up the current U.S. Government debt crisis in a nutshell is no easy task, but I'll try. As of August 2nd, the American government will run out of operating cash. That is, dollars paid out to those receiving Social Security, Medicaid and various other bills the nation needs to pay in order to function. No, the government can't just print more money, even though that is one of their functions. That explanation is complicated and too lengthy to discuss here. So to pay the bills, the state has to do what most of us plebes do when faced with a need for spending cash: get a second job. No, no, no that would be silly...besides who would be dumb enough to hire them anyway? What the government needs to do is borrow more money. The problem is, there is a set limit they are allowed to borrow, a.k.a. the debt ceiling. If this ceiling is not raised to accommodate the need for extra cash, the government will be in default. Its current credit rating would be downgraded and the state would be forced to pay higher interest on current loans (an estimated $100 billion). This cost more than likely will get passed on to taxpayers. Given the largess of the American economy, the effects of a default could lead to yet another worldwide recession.

So why hasn't this issue been resolved? The simple answer is politics.

Not the kind of politics that involve discussion and debate to further the good of the electorate. The kind of politics inhabited by self-aggrandizing, power-hungry, opportunistic, bottom-feeding morons who are more concerned about improving their standing in Washington than their constituents. You know, the ones who are struggling to pay their rent as well as the bloated salaries of their representatives.

The current stalemate in the American capital is fast-becoming the most shameless display of ideological tripe in American history.

The main players, Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican Congressional House Speaker John Boehner. Both have offered competing plans for dealing with the debt crisis. Obama's plan calls for an immediate increase in the debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion (the current ceiling is $14.294 trillion, which they already hit). Boehner's plan calls for a short-term increase, followed by another increase in 2012. Both plans call for deep cuts in federal spending, but Obama's plan calls for the closing of tax loopholes for large corporations and the country's wealthy. Naturally Boehner and the rest of the Republican gazillionaires want no part of this.

Obama sees this crisis as an opportunity to call upon America's richest individuals to cough up more of their share of the country's operating costs. Boehmer sees this crisis as a way to slash government social programs and also ressurrect this already controversial issue smack-dab in the middle of the next presidential election.

In either case, both parties acknowledge that the debt ceiling must be raised, both agree that this must accompany some spending cuts. There is actually common ground.

But that term has become an aphorism in American politics. The ideological divide in the United States has become so stark it now threatens self-destruction. This intellectual crevasse has been so exploited and overblown by ratings-crazed media outlets and political spin-masters that any notion of giving and inch risks becoming a political pariah, rendering thoughtful and responsible decision-making virtually impossible. Intelligent and complex solutions are reduced to catch-phrases and inanely oversimplified mantras used by politicians to clobber one-another senselessly at election time.

The truth is, ideology is really just smoke-and-mirrors technique to disguise the fact that this is all about power. This crazed obsession with owning the top position in Washington supersedes the real needs and desires of the populous who put these yahoos there to begin with. Now they are playing an expensive game of chicken with the livelihoods of the nation's hard-working and struggling citizens at stake.

It is beyond appalling. No wonder voter turnout is so dismal in the U.S.

The real dirty truth the media and politicians don't want you to know is that you can be conservative in some aspects of you life and you can also be liberal. It's called free-thinking, something the stuffed-suits in government blather about protecting and then try to stifle when they come sucking up for your vote.

The long and the short of this crisis is that no matter what happens, nobody will win. The electorate will have been further disenfranchised from a system that claims to protect their interests. Ultimately the cost of this political pissing contest will come directly out of their wallets.

This is typical of most political discourse these days, wherein scoring points in the polls has become the most valuable of currencies. It discards the process of informed, thoughtful and reasonable debate in favour of fast-food solutions, extremely palatable but exceedingly unhealthy. It rewards combative, uncompromising positions in a system that simply cannot function without some degree of accommodation and reason.

The great divide in America is not ideological. Ideology goes out the window fairly quickly when you are struggling to pay the mortgage, or the rent, or for a bowl of Kraft Dinner. The great divide is between politicians and the citizens they pledge to serve and not surprisingly that gap is widening by the minute.

And this is what they call the beacon of democracy?

This Is Vancouver

It's officially summer now, so technically we should stop talking about hockey. Well, technically what I have to say is not just about the game. I've already alluded to the fact that I am not sorry the NHL season is over. Like most, I think I'd rather just forget about it. Unfortunately, the post-game riots on the streets of Vancouver make that rather difficult.

There are many in the city of Vancouver that are beyond disheartened that their team failed to win the famed Stanley Cup, but to have suffered an international shaming at the hands of thieves, thugs and those driven by the mob mentality of the day is a much crueler fate.

What has upset me most is the level of public disdain for the city and its team which seemed to surface even before the rioters took to the streets. Listening to local sports radio during the Stanley Cup final, I was disturbed to hear the voices of many callers expressing their outright dislike for the Canucks. This has, and continues, to baffle me.

Living in the east and being exposed mostly to Eastern Conference hockey, it's hard to imagine that anyone could even really get to know the team, let alone develop a hatred. The few games that I watched during the regular season were fairly entertaining. After all, Western Conference hockey has a long established reputation for its wide open, end-to-end, barnstorming style.

Long before the league put the kibosh on clutch-and-grab hockey, the Edmonton Oilers were the most exciting and entertaining team to watch. The games were often high scoring affairs with plenty of action, and of course the Great One putting on a goal-scoring clinic. It was a far cry from the Eastern Conference (known then as the Wales Conference) where it felt as if the game was being played in a phone booth. The Bruins, Flyers, Whalers and even the Habs, all pulling and tugging at one another, with only inches to spare. Boring.

In the new NHL, the Western Conference continues to entertain in much the same way, and this year the Canucks were undeniably one of the most exciting teams to watch. So why the hate?

A more perplexing mystery is the way in which the country has turned against a city that hosted what is without question the most inspiring and unforgettable Olympic games in Canadian history. With apologies to Calgary and my home town of Montreal, the Vancouver Olympics not only showcased awe-inspiring performances by Canadian athletes, it did so against the backdrop of Vancouver's stunning natural beauty and was further complemented by the warmth, grace and hospitality of its citizens.

Were the Olympics perfect? No, there were some serious setbacks and issues that plagued the games. The lack of snow on Cypress Mountain, a mechanical failure during the torch-lighting ceremony to say nothing the tragic death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili. Yet, somehow the Vancouver games, and the city, rose above failure and tragedy to unite a nation in hope, determination, ambition and pride.

This was Vancouver. This is Vancouver.

Some have regarded the post-game riot in Vancouver as an impetus to attack the city and its population. One local journalist even went as far as to claim the riot was exactly the reason Vancouver did not deserve the cup. Attempting to smear an entire fan-base and its city because of a mixed mob of crooks, vandals and those caught up in the insanity of the moment is a distasteful combination of hubris and callowness.

To suggest that the vast majority of Vancouver fans are just like those who chose to express their disappointment by smashing windows, looting stores and setting cars ablaze, is an irresponsible and gross distortion of fact that borders on contempt. Particularly from anyone who takes up residence in a city that has something of a reputation for hockey-related riots. This glass house has quite a history.

The necessity to label the rioters as fans seems to be another media obsession. I consider myself a fan of more than one sports team and I know hundreds of others like myself. But none of us have ever once felt compelled to express our anger in anything more violent than slamming our fists into the arm of a sofa. You can choose to label the rioters anything you want, but they are not fans. Not by any definition I know. Unless of course you feel the defamation of an entire population is a small price to pay for generating controversy to satisfy a narcissistic need for attention. Don Cherry has to retire eventually.

I am not an apologist as has been suggested. Those involved in the riots should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and perhaps a new law ought to be written to see justice done. The unspoken truth however, is that sports-related riots have become an all-too familiar blight on modern society. Montreal, Boston, Los Angeles and many other cities have all experienced this disturbing trend. Dig deep enough and you will find that every city has its darker side, a powder-keg of pent-up emotion looking for some spark to explode. I don't justify it, but to deny this reality is tantamount to burying our heads in the shores of the St. Lawrence.

The latest salvo launched in this pile-on trash-fest was the suggestion that the Canucks were not Canadian enough because they didn't have as many Canadian players on their roster as the Bruins. I guess once one is done slamming the fans and the city, might as well move on to the team and the organization.

The audacity to suggest that the people of Vancouver, who are no different than ourselves, somehow deserve this fate is wrong. Plain and simple.

I feel Vancouver's shame, as it is Canada's shame. I never believed the city was somehow entitled to the cup, but they certainly deserved a more graceful end to this story. My pride in Vancouver will not be shaken by this event, as my pride in Montreal remains strong despite its own long and often spotty history.

I have visited Vancouver a handful of times in my life, and each time was memorable. The last visit took me to Vancouver Island and the city of Victoria. It was during the intial deployment of Canadian troops to Afghanistan. Soldiers boarded transport ships to set sail from the harbour for a long journey into the unknown. As the ships passed the shoreline, a small crowd began to gather. It grew steadily until it swelled into the streets. Quietly, and without prompting, the crowd began to sing O'Canada. Like many, I was moved to tears. It was one of the most unforgettable moments in my life.

This was Vancouver. This is Vancouver.

The NHL’s Annus Horribilis

At a time when fans of the NHL should be celebrating an exciting championship final, I have a sense that the vast majority would rather just forget the whole thing.

The 2010-2011 season seemed to kick off with great promise. An original six champion set to defend its title, a rejuvenated Sidney Crosby exploding out of the gate and a ray of light for Habs fans, Carey Price earning back some respect from a cynical and bitter fanbase.

On paper it looked good, but all was not well in NHL land.

Just as the season began, a hit by Chicago Blackhawk Niklas Hjalmarsson on Buffalo Sabres' Jason Pominville cooled the early momentum. This was the first test of the NHL’s new Rule 48. Hjalmarsson received a two-game suspension, and it seemed the league was serious about how it applied the rule. But things did not change. Repeat offender Matt Cooke continued to target the heads of fellow players, despite repeated warnings and suspensions. Then the league lost arguably its most talented player in Sidney Crosby due to a concussion sustained in a head shot delivered at the Winter Classic. He did not return for the rest of the season.

Instead of stepping up its efforts, the league began to flip flop on its definition of an illegal head shot. This culminated in the most notorious decision of the season, the non-suspension of Zdeno Chara for his near career-ending hit on Max Pacioretty. This would unleash a firestorm of controversy, and the hit itself became a PR nightmare. The major news organizations jumped on the story and the NHL’s reputation as a league of abject violence was further cemented in the minds of the casual observer. For many of us, this became the turning point of the season, and the hockey was never quite the same.

The league’s disciplinary committee, which consisted mostly of Colin Campbell, whose son Gregory plays for the Bruins, and Mike Murphy, spent the better part of the season developing inexplicable, and at times indefensible, interpretations of Rule 48. The net result was a policy that was often inconsistent in its interpretation and confusing to many. Even as the league claimed it was concerned about change, mid-season meetings among owners, led by commissioner Gary Bettman, concluded there was no need to change the rule or apply it any differently.

The league’s inaction prompted Hall-of-Famer and Pittsburg Penguin owner Mario Lemieux to take the league to task after a penalty-riddled, cheap-shot affair against the New York Islanders. Lemieux also signs Matt Cooke’s paycheque. The statement resulted in a lot of name-calling and some of the most spectacular displays of hypocrisy and ignorance from coaches, league officials, hockey commentators and players. Meanwhile, the cheap shots and concussions continued unabated.

As the league lost control on the ice, the ownership situation of the Phoenix Coyotes went from bad to worse. The team, now owned by the league, was bleeding cash and a potential deal to sell the team to Chicago investor Matthew Hulsizer was circling the bowl. Hulsizer was demanding the city of Glendale pony up some of the $170 million purchase price in the form of parking revenues. Conservative think tank The Goldwater Institute, who adamantly opposes public money being used to support private ventures, threatened to go to court to block the move. In the end, the city of Glendale agreed to pay the league $25 million to support the team for one more year.

As this scenario played out, the league was forced to deal with the Atlanta Thrashers ownership situation, which was disintegrating even faster. With Winnipeg on speed dial, the league tried its best to spin the situation with a fictional ruse that it could somehow find a way to keep the team in Atlanta. Even as the story broke of a deal being reached between Thrashers ownership and Winnipeg-based True North Sports and Entertainment, the league (read Commissioner Bettman) continued to deliver denial after denial. When it was finally announced that Winnipeg was indeed the beneficiary of Atlanta's (and the league's) failure, Bettman felt absolutely no reason to celebrate the return of hockey to a hockey market, in a hockey-crazed country. His press conference in Winnipeg was a combination of Droopy Dog and a scolding first grade teacher. He warned that Winnipeg would have to sell out every game just to survive. Winnipeg's MTS Centre's capacity is just over 15, 000. Average attendance at Thrashers games this season was around 13, 500.

As if the NHL’s season of epic fails were not enough to drag professional hockey through the manure, we have to add the deplorable actions of a mass of meatheads tearing apart the streets of downtown Vancouver after Wednesday's game seven final. This sad scene was enough to prompt some in the media to suggest Vancouver, who had arguably the most talented and skilled team in the league, somehow did not deserve the Stanley Cup. Apparently the lack of intelligence and insight in the league’s head office is contagious. The goons win again.

As the streets of Vancouver descended into anarchy, a chorus of boos descended upon Bettman as he presented the Stanley Cup to Zdeno Chara, whose 2010-2011 highlight reel features an attempted decapitation of a fellow player. Chara then handed the cup to his colleague Mark Recchi whose Mensa-inspired statements this year included accusing the victim of faking. Class all the way.

One can only hope that next season will see some positive change. That the game’s integrity can be restored.

Are you listening Brendan Shannahan?

Losing, It's The New Winning

Habs fans can be forgiven for daring to feel good after last night's team-effort to secure themselves a place in the 2010-2011 Stanley Cup playoffs. They might even feel compelled to express such good feelings with Subban-esque exuberance. After all, this season's conclusion is certainly a far cry from the bumbling, stumbling manner in which they entered last year's post-season (a single point secured in an overtime loss to the Laffs).

The truth is, last night's game was one of the Canadien's most impressive team efforts this season, taking nothing away from the Chicago Blackhawks, who also put on a remarkable display of skill and effort. It was the net-minders who stole the show, with Montreal native Corey Crawford bringing everything he had to the game, and Carey Price somehow bringing that much more.

There was a lot at stake for the Stanley Cup Champion Blackhawks, struggling to make the playoffs, and the Canadiens trying to prove that last year's post-season run was not an enigma.

This is just part of the back story in what turned out to be a very entertaining hockey game. Yet thus far I have written more in this blog than anything that appeared on TSN's NHL webpage last night. In fact, I already surpassed their coverage by the time I had written "Habs fans can be forgiven..."

Despite what some people down the 401 might think, Canadiens fans generally don't mope around with a chip on their shoulder. They are much harsher toward their own team than with their rivals. Nonetheless, there's always been a sense that respect for the Habs in Toronto-based media is grudging at best.

What truly exposed the negative bias was something that should have united fans and the league, the now infamous hit on Max Pacioretty by Zdeno Chara. It should be noted that to a man, all of TSN's Hockey Insiders, and many other analysts and players believed that Chara should have been suspended; if anything for not taking everything he should have learned in his 13 years in the NHL to back off a dangerous play. The league not only did nothing, it went as far as to chide the Canadiens organization for what it perceived as an exaggeration of fact. This left Don Cherry, who's intelligence and charm have decades exceeded their expiration date, to blame the Habs organization and the stanshion for being at fault and Chara's negligence consigned to the annals of great 'hockey plays.'

League officials, it seems, can barely hide their contempt for the team, as evidenced by Colin Campbell's eye rolling treatment of La Presse reporter Richard Labbé. When Labbé questioned the league's inaction on Chara, Campbell all but concluded Pacioretty deserved a face full of stanshion because of his questionable hit on the New York Islanders' Mark Eaton earlier in the year. So much for impartial.

Recently, Team 990 radio host Mitch Melnick noted an interesting omission in one of the NHL's latest 'History Will Be Made' television ads. The commercial, titled simply 'Mess,' is a collection of film footage from decades of Stanley Cup celebrations, replete with flying sticks, gloves, ticker tape parades and spilling champagne. Several teams are represented in the video, most of them American, and none of them include the Habs. The Canadiens have enjoyed the majority of those celebrations (24 of the 94 times it has been awarded).

Even the encyclopedic mind of Pierre McGuire is not immune to reserving his harshest criticisms for the Canadiens organization. As an astute analyst of the game of hockey, Pierre is generally fair and honest when talking about the Habs on local radio. Put him under the studio lights at TSN headquarters and Dr. Hyde emerges, slamming the Habs front office while regularly giving the Leaf's Brian Burke a hall pass.

Further to the head-scratching treatment of the National Hockey League's most successful franchise (that is a fact, not fan interpretation) was last night's inexplicable praise for the Toronto Maple Leafs. In case you haven't heard this one before, the team began the year with great promise before coming apart at the seams as the season progressed. They went on to make a desperate end-of-season run for the last playoff spot, and (stop me if you've heard this before) fell short. The NHL's version of the Dallas Cowboys had praise heaped upon them from Sportsnet's Hockey Central analysts last night for their 'courageous' season-ending desperation, topped off with a delightfully rosy prognosis for next season.

Really? Why exactly should anyone in Leaf nation be celebrating? A season that began with such promise was squandered by poor play, and let's be honest, bad coaching. If I were a fan I'd be thinking that this is worse than deja-vu, it's a nightmare. How could you not wonder aloud why the largest market in professional hockey, and perhaps the largest fan base, can't do anything better than falling a few point short of a playoff birth for the sixth consecutive time?

Yet somehow it makes perfect sense to give the Leafs top coverage.

Am I exaggerating? I invite you to check out both TSN and Sportsnet's NHL pages today, and tell me who dominates the headlines.

Personally, I don't have time for conspiracy theories. Usually they are based on little fact and appeal to an audience ready and willing to cling on to what little information fits their world view.

Besides, Habs fans really shouldn't care. The team's track record speaks for itself. Regardless of how far anyone might think the team will go this year, once again the Habs made the post-season. If my numbers serve me correctly that would be a league-leading 78 playoff appearances.

Still, you have to wonder what a team has to do to get some respect from the league and the media.

For Max, For Hockey

With so much being said and written about the Zdeno Chara hit on Max Pacioretty, it probably makes no difference for me to weigh in on the topic. In large part because, according to the league and the vast majority of big network hockey insiders and analysts, I must recuse myself from having an opinion because I am a long-time fan of the Canadiens.

Nonetheless, there are a few things that I am finding impossible to accept in the days following this incident, and many arguments that need to be addressed.

Let me first express my thoughts on some practical matters. First off, I don't think the current police investigation is useful. We all know where this will end up and frankly it is a waste of police resources that ought to be directed at real criminal activity. Secondly, Air Canada's threat to pull its advertising from the league, while newsworthy, was in my opinion ill-advised and poorly executed. I believe it would have been more effective for the carrier to first garner support among fellow sponsors and together express their concern to the league rather than make a threat in which no one believes the airline was prepared to follow through.

Third, and this may make me rather unpopular, I do not believe Zdeno Chara to be a dirty player. As much as the evidence from prior games suggests a vendetta-like attitude, I simply can't believe he would have wished for this outcome. Hockey is a rough sport, and hard hitting is a big part of that. I do believe he made a huge error in judgement, and I think he knows it.

I would like to address some of the criticism and analysis from some individuals in the media outside of Montreal. Many of these individuals believed that the Chara hit was not atypical of a hockey play, and had it been elsewhere on the ice there would be no discussion. Many also believed that despite this knowledge the league would likely issue at least a minor suspension. That did not happen.

The outrage amongst fans and media in Montreal has been played-up significantly in this debate, and has been used to undermine the severity of this incident. The argument being that because this happened to one of our own, naturally we would see the issue of dangerous plays in the league with a bias. My response is unequivocally yes, we are more hurt and shocked because this was our player. This incident happened in front of fans, Pacioretty's parents, and our children. I have been a Canadiens fan for forty years, of course I am upset.

I have also been a hockey fan for forty years as well. The question has been asked rhetorically, where were Canadiens fans when Matt Cooke levelled Marc Savard? Where were Canadiens fans when a Guillaume Latendresse illegal hit ended Rob DiMaio's career? Believe it or not, we were just as shocked, and in the case of the latter, embarrassed and ashamed.

There seems to be a surprising lack of understanding of Canadiens fans among many of the media people outside of this city. Have they not figured out by now that this fan base is more critical of its own team than anywhere else in the league? While Habs fans are passionate about their team, they also have a deep appreciation and knowledge of the game of hockey. I dare-say, the average Habs fan knows more about line combinations, ice-time and game strategy than fans in Florida, San Jose or even Boston.

The sports reporters, analysts and insiders have been far to quick to dismiss this incident as simply a hockey play, and just as quick to assume the anger and frustration felt in this city is just a blind affection for a team and nothing more. I would contend that there is a similar type of bias at work here. Because we are Habs fans we are incapable of thinking or saying anything other than that which blows this issue out of proportion. That is tantamount to taking the notion of impartiality and twisting it to fit your own viewpoint.

Well, here are the proportions of the issue, a player was sent to hospital with a fractured vertebrae and a severe concussion for what is being described as a hockey play. Am I exaggerating the truth?

Let me get back to Chara. As I stated earlier, I don't believe him to be a dirty player. I may not like the fact that our team has to play against him, but that has more to do with the fact that he's good. As rival teams go, I like the Bruins. I like the city of Boston, and yes I'll admit I like Bruins fans too. Why? Because they are as passionate as Habs fans. This is a rivalry as old as the league itself, and for the most part it's been an entertaining one. It's also been tough. Cheap shots, hard hits and chippy play are the hallmarks of Montreal-Boston games. I could do without the extracurricular jabbing and trash-talk, but otherwise I enjoy a good Bruins-Habs game.

The issue at hand is this. An increasing number of dangerous and illegal plays has resulted in devastating injuries to some of the league's best, and most entertaining players. These injuries have been working up to a deadly crescendo in recent years and I believe culminated with the injury to Pacioretty. I have not heard from a single person watching that game, no matter which team you support or where you are from, who looked upon Pacioretty's motionless body lying prostrate on the ice and was not sick. Let's just leave team allegiance and prejudgement aside and focus on that.

League rules are very clear on certain issues. If a player tries to clear a puck and accidentally sends it over the boards, it is a penalty, regardless of intent. If you have a high stick, even if it flies up accidentally, and the stick hits another player in the head, it is an automatic penalty. A four minute penalty if the action draws blood, again regardless of intent.

Chara's hit on Pacioretty pushed him into a stanchion (turnbuckle) and caused a serious injury. If we were to follow the reasoning governing the two previously cited rules, a player must, at all times, be in control of his body during play, regardless of intent. If we were to apply the same reasoning behind the high-sticking rule, if said action results in an injury, the penalty should be more severe.

By downplaying the severity of Chara's action, intentional or not, the league has given tacit permission to players for this action to occur again. As a fan of hockey, this is unacceptable, and it is a serious miscue by the league.

You can dislike Habs fans, you can even dislike the city, it's irrelevant with regards to this issue. But if you were a witness to what happened in Tuesday's game and, with a clear conscience, can say that this is just part of the game of hockey, then I submit that it is not Canadiens fans that have lost touch with reality, it is you.

Have a safe weekend.

Charlie's Darker Angels

As one of many bloggers in the overcrowded blogosphere spewing out personal observations and opinions, I am often challenged to find topics that either have not already been covered relentlessly in the media, or to find a new angle on that same story. In the strange case of Charlie Sheen, it's almost impossible to achieve latter, and just as impossible to avoid the former.

Sheen's apparent sojourn from reality, be it drug induced or otherwise, is perfect fodder for the multi-billion dollar tabloid news industry. It is a veritable cache of diamonds in the usual scrapheap of celebrity narcissism. Sheen's rants are a gushing oil well of soundbytes, and as the author rightfully contends (for different reasons) are pure gold.

What's troubling in all of this, is that the story has becoming so deeply entrenched in the current news cycle, it's hard not to address it. It's provided more that a few entertainers, and even smart-asses like myself, great comic material. In fact there seems to be a rather long line up of media outlets feeding ravenously on the hype trough courtesy of Sheen's career meltdown.

I recently saw an ESPN documentary titled simply June 17, 1994. The film, part of ESPN Film's 30 for 30 series, focussed specifically on the police pursuit of O.J. Simpson in the now infamous 'White Ford Bronco.' The doc revisits the circus like atmosphere that fell upon the city of Los Angeles that day. People crowded onto overpasses and at the side of the freeway, cheering Simpson on. In a piece of news footage captured just after Simpson returned to his Brentwood estate, two people could be seen running gleefully down the street to witness the action. At the time, Simpson was in the back of the vehicle purportedly with a gun to his head, threatening suicide.

The O.J. Simpson story is not just a celebrity train wreck, it was about two violent murders. Yet somehow that aspect seems strangely secondary to the story. Something clearly changed in popular culture in the aftermath of the O.J. Simpson case, something that has widened the chasm between celebrities and the general public.

Since then, there have been more than a few career meltdowns, rebounds and relapses. Witness Britney Spears, Whitney Houston and the multiple career implosions of Mel Gibson, among others.

It's no surprise that when Joaquin Phoenix told the world in 2009 he was walking away from his successful acting career to become a hip-hop artist, celebrity-watchers bought into the ruse hook, line and sinker. It was a hoax of course, a creative deception to create the Casey Affleck mockumentary I'm Still Here, which followed the disastrous results of Phoenix's fake career choice. The film ultimately bombed, but the point was made that one more celebrity losing their marbles in the glare of the spotlight is virtually irresistible to media and entertainment consumers.

Charlie Sheen's predicament is just another, perhaps more fascinating, but no more unusual, celebrity tailspin. These days, knowing the extent to which celebrities will go to garner public attention (ie: sex tapes) who knows what's true any more? Maybe this just be another ruse for publicity's sake?

Should we even care?

Well, the ancient Greeks certainly enjoyed a good tragedy, and with today's technology we can watch it all unfold in the comfort of our living rooms. And since reality has become the new fiction, what's the harm?

I don't know Charlie Sheen the person. Not sure I want to. But because his reality is one I could never know, or understand, because he is rich beyond what any one of us could imagine, does that make it okay for me to dismiss him, or those around him?

Sheen's rambling speeches have, of late, sounded increasingly violent, and his self-portrayal as some form of earth-bound deity are enough to raise a few red flags. Maybe it's an act, can't say for sure, but this is a man with children and several devoted hangers-on, so what if it isn't? If this were someone without celebrity status, I doubt any one of us would find it very entertaining.

By now, our society ought to have figured out that mental illness, drug-induced or not, can lead to dangerous consequences if left untreated. I have known people who have lived with schizophrenia and bipolar disorders, and they will tell you that if this is the case, Sheen truly believes in what he is saying and that his actions will follow whatever that belief informs him to do. As the borders between delusion and reality eventually dissolve so too does the ability to distinguish between right from wrong.

People keep referring to this situation as a train wreck, but my concern is that the real wreck is yet to come.

I just don't want to be caught track-side cheering it on.

Fighting for Credibility?

I know it's been a while, but it's about time I got a little blogging done. Might as well start with a barn-burner.

The Montreal Gazette recently published a poll conducted by Ipsos Reid that stated 54% of Canadians support an outright ban on fighting in hockey. This comes in the shadow of the latest fist-flying fracas between the New York Islanders and Pittsburgh Penguins, which led to fines of $100,000 and a total of 23 games worth of player suspensions. It also prompted former super-star Mario Lemieux to openly criticize the league for it's failure to address this form of violence in the game.

Lemieux's comments met with the predictable old-school NHL response, which was to deflect criticism by attacking his credibility (Lemieux is General Manager of a team that employs Matt Cooke, whose on-ice acts of career-ending violence are well documented). Don Cherry, who hasn't said anything intelligent since 1982, was the first in line to call Lemieux a hypocrite.

Hockey analyst Pierre McGuire, a former scout and assistant coach with the Penguins, while conceding Lemieux's somewhat shaky high ground, was quick to defend his position. As a player who played in the previous 'clutch and grab' era of the NHL, Lemieux knows full-well the value of change, and, in this case, that it is time once again for the league to evolve.

It does.

This year has seen an unprecedented level of attention on the goonery and violence in the game. The Boston Bruins star forward Marc Savard could possibly have played the last game of his career due to a concussion he suffered on January 18th. He had just barely recovered from one he suffered courtesy of a blind-side hit from the aforementioned Matt Cooke. Sydney Crosby, easily the league's biggest star, is still out with a concussion he suffered at the Winter Classic on January 1st.

The league has offered a moderate improvement to its rule books regarding blind-side hits, but to many the punishment does not fit the crime; and while it may claim that fighting is technically against the rules, the league continues to tacitly support its role in the game and will go as far as to use it as a promotional tool.

In a recent rant about fighting in the NHL, Team 990 radio personality Conor McKenna pointed out that the last sanctioned bare-knuckle fight took place 1889. Bare knuckle fights are considered illegal in North America. That is not to say that sports fighting competitions are any less popular. The popularity of Ultimate Fighting (UFC) and mixed martial arts is growing exponentially; but here's the thing, there are no pads, pucks, nets or ice. Just one on one combat. If that's what you like, then I have no qualms.

Let me go on the record and say that an outright ban on fighting in hockey is decades overdue. It is brutal, moronic and without question completely unnecessary. The best, and highest rated games in the history of hockey did not involve fights. There are simply no intelligent and reasonable arguments to keep fighting in the game, particularly at a time when people are finally awaking to the fact that violent acts can lead to serious life-long injury.

The league's handling of blind-side hits has been laughable at best and done little if anything to curb the act. To compound the issue, as long as the NHL accepts fighting as a reality of the game, the league will continue to be considered the joke of major professional sports. In case the league, or those who think otherwise, don't already know, the movie Slap Shot was a comedy, not a drama.

If the NFL, a high-impact league and also one of the most successful professional sports organizations in North America can suspend a player for a single punch, why can't the NHL?

It is possible for a hockey game, sans flying knuckles, to be exciting and physical. The IIHF World Juniors and Winter Olympic games are perfect examples.

The NHL seems to forget that its players have lives outside of the game. Families and hopefully a career after they hang up the skates. Perhaps they just don't care, as long as they can fill their seats with fans hungrier for blood than goals.

Things can change. In 2011, seatbelts are mandatory and the vast majority of Canadians don't smoke. This isn't 1977.

Sadly, I know change will not happen any time soon, mostly because of the knuckle-dragging meatheads that permeate the fan base and league offices staffed by former players and their bronze age mentality of defending honour and settling scores.

Or until somebody dies.

Shrooming on The Air

You've probably been wondering what happened to my blog in the last few weeks. Well, a good portion of it is still in my head amongst all the other clutter. Problem is, I just haven't had the time to put fingers to keyboard.

Don't get me wrong, I love writing. You've probably noticed how I am incapable of making a succinct point in less than 5,000 words.

Lately, much of my time and energy has been directed at an Internet radio station called CJIM. This has been a pet project of mine for about a year and a half, and it has grown significantly in that time. Just recently I added a regular contributor to the station in Daniel Iorio, a local musician and writer (among his other vocations). There are plans to add more content from other contributors in the coming months.

The station is non-profit, which means funding its operation comes solely out of my 'fun money.' That is to say, whatever is left after all the bills are paid, or more accurately: Canadian Tire money.

Radio is a life long-passion of mine, so this project, despite the demands on my time, is pure joy. The fact that other people are jumping on board is just icing on the cake.

All this to say, my blogging days will be significantly fewer in the foreseeable future. I know there were a few of you who actually looked forward to reading my online rants, so to you I apologize. You'll just have to get a subscription to 'O' magazine.

It's been said that it is better to do one thing well than several things poorly. In my case I hope to do fewer things better and hope for the best.

My priorities have been, and continue to be: family first, career second and everything else just has to fall in line. It certainly won't make me a rich man, but some of best things in life are the simplest, and I wouldn't trade them for the world.

Of course, there's no point in having a project if you can't contribute yourself. So, if you want to hear a radio version of the Shroom Chronicle, I invite you to tune into the aptly named Shroom Show which you can hear every Thursday evening, 9 PM (ET) on CJIM.

How do I tune in, you ask? Well, tune in is a deceptive term, log in is more apropos. Go to www.cjim.ca and click on Listen Live and viola, live streaming audio.

One proviso, it is a rock station, so if your ears are at all sensitive to the occasional wailing guitar riff, this may not be for you.

See you on the radio.

Shouting For Nothing

I've refrained from wading into the whole Dire Straits - Money For Nothing - bru ha ha, mostly because at the moment there's just a lot of shouting and defiance, but not much else.

As you know, the Canadian Broadcasts Standard Council (CBSC) recently deemed the song unsuitable for airplay. The song includes the word 'faggot' and is used in the context of two blue collar workers referring to '80s musicians as seen on MTV. The CBSC has not banned the song outright, it will allow airplay of a version with the word in question edited out.

It was a complaint by an unnamed member of Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered community (LGBT) that resulted in the ban. What happened since has been a veritable frenzy of mouth-frothing editorials about censorship and the impending collapse of western civilization brought on by the dreaded slippery slope.

For the record, I don't agree with the ban. That is not to say I am necessarily fond of the word. I have listened to enough stories from friends in the gay and lesbian community to know how hurtful it can be.

It should be noted that this is not simply a curse word. Most of us are at least accustomed to the F-bomb and most of it's six buddies being omitted from television and radio. Although they do manage to slip out in music from time to time. The word in question is a slur. Not just a general slur, like idiot or moron, faggot is intended to demean a very specific segment of society.

Have I ever used it? Absolutely, and yes, in most cases I was referring to that specific segment of society. Why? Most likely to build up my own self-image at the expense of someone else. Did I mean it to be hurtful? Sometimes I did.

I don't use the word any more because things have changed. Friendships with those in the gay and lesbian community have done much to enlighten my point of view over the years. Today I feel shame and embarrassment for my callous and ignorant abuse of individuals based solely on their sexual orientation. Recent reports of young people committing suicide after years of physical and mental abuse because of their orientation have further altered my viewpoint.

Does banning a rock song make this all better? No, not really. Nor do I think it is fair to make Dire Straits the target of society's anger and sadness over the ignorance that has resulted in those recent tragedies. I get what the band was doing back in 1985. Then, the term faggot was common to blue-collar language of the culture, even if it was a bit racy for the time. To target the artists for their form of expression is just another form of injustice.

The only way I can sum up my attitude on the issue is this: Money for Nothing is a great song with an ugly word.

What is unfortunate in all of this is the way in which the issue was handled, essentially igniting a lot of useless fervour without achieving anything of value. Imagine an entirely different scenario. What if instead of going to the CBSC, the LBGT approached the band directly? Perhaps they could have spoken openly about the pain they associate with the word. Discuss the recent cases of young individuals driven to take their own lives to escape years of abuse. What if they could have encouraged the band to release a special edition of the song with revised lyrics, while taking the opportunity to raise awareness of the issue. Perhaps they could have used a portion of the sales to fund programs that offer support to those affected by this crisis. Suddenly we've taken all of the frothy-mouthed editorialists and swivel servants out of the equation and we might actually have achieved something positive.

We have to concede that censorship is a complex issue. While we are particularly aggrieved when any sort of limits are put on art, at the same time we are unable to agree on what exactly defines art. If we talk about the slippery slope of censorship, what direction does the slippery slope travel with no censorship. What if an artist considers exploitation and torture to be art?

I don't know where this debate will end, if at all, but here is what I do know:

I believe in, and defend, the right of free speech as the cornerstone of this country's democracy.
I do not believe in, nor will I defend a word like faggot.
I understand that what is acceptable now may someday change with time and experience.
No matter what happens, I will not be bullied into taking sides on a issue.

No matter how loud people want to shout.

Fearbook

This is it folks. Time to start burrowing into the ground. Build your shelters, stockpile your supplies, put a sack over your head, the end is coming. And what, pray-tell, is the sure sign of impending doom you ask?

Global warming?
The economic meltdown?
Birds falling out of the sky?

No, much worse. Goldman Sachs invested in Facebook.

Aaaaah, run for the hills, save the women and children, call 911 ... wait ... what?

Last week I caught an episode of PBS talking head Charlie Rose. He and a panel of economic experts were analyzing the global investment banking and securities firm's recent investment of (US) $450 million in the social networking giant Facebook.

Now, I'm no financial expert, far from it, but listening to the tenor of the conversation it was fairly easy to identify the underlying theme: fear. I always sort of admired Charlie Rose as an interviewer for ability to extract more in-depth viewpoints of his subjects and engage in thoughtful conversation regarding the issues of the day.

Apparently all of the insightful probing and intelligent discourse took a vacation when news broke of Goldman Sachs investment. The crux of the conversation revolved around the new-found legitimacy that Facebook had gained. Goldman Sachs is a large and well-established firm, an investment from them is tantamount to going from D-list actor to winning an Oscar.

What proceeded from this observation was the list of companies and investors who should now be 'afraid.' This included everyone from Google to Microsoft. At one point, an analyst went as far as to say some of these companies should even be 'terrified.' The used military terms like 'assault' and 'fortification' in their discussions of business strategy.

If I didn't know better, I could have sworn that Facebook had just taken over the world, with Goldman Sachs giving them the maps to the world leaders homes.

A lot of this fearful thinking is owed to the fact that nobody really knows what the growth of Facebook means. One of the descriptions floating about the net is that the number of Facebook members is so large, if it were a country, it would be the third most populated on the planet. Oooo, scary stuff.

But it isn't a country. If anything, Facebook is a good idea whose massive growth is attributed to the proliferation of technology and the internet across the planet. Facebook users are comprised of a huge diversity of people, with an equally diverse number of opinions and not all of them are friends. The only thing they have in common is the service. In much the same way, just about everybody in the world uses some form of phone, does that mean phones are taking over the world?

I'm not even sure it's founder, Mark Zuckerberg, really understands what the explosion of Facebook means; and with a gajillion dollars in his pocket, I don't suppose he cares.

It's not the thing we're so afraid of, it's the change it brings. Facebook is changing the way people use the internet, how we interact socially, while also breaking down our traditional understanding of how companies should function. Facebook will likely render some services obsolete and force other companies to close their doors. But isn't that how the business world works? For every company pushed out, two more will find a way to ride the new wave.

I get it. There are times when we should be cautious about the latest new thing. History informs us of the importance of careful scrutiny in exploring the undiscovered country. History also informs us that burning witches and persecuting revolutionary thinkers was not the best way to deal with the unknown.

I often wonder why it is we are so willing to be afraid, and less compelled to discover. Is there a strange comfort in our fears? Is it not easier to demonize that which we do not understand than to give up what is familiar?

If Facebook even exists ten years from now we might wonder what all the fuss was about. Having spent a few decades on this planet I've come to realize that change comes whether it is welcome or not. Amazingly though, we manage, we adapt and we move on. As big and mysterious as the Facebook phenomenon is, it is essentially just a human creation for our own amusement. It's time will come too.

FDR still has it right.

Resolution Revolution

Happy New year everyone. By now, most of you are back to the regular working routine and trying to figure out how to pay for the holiday expenses. I myself am trying to wean my way off a diet that included fudge as a major food group. So much for a healthy lifestyle.

Like many others in the work force, we begin the year with hopes that the epic recession of recent years will become a distant memory and that perhaps our jobs might be a tad more secure. The past couple of years have been dicey to say the least, and while most of us have scrimped to get by or amassed big debt to cover expenses, there are those for whom the economic downturn had little if any noticeable effect.

Recently an Ottawa-Based group with the lofty title of the Canadian Centre on Policy Alternatives (CCPA) revealed that the nation's top 100 CEOs earned an average of $6.6 million in 2009 while the average Canadian made about $43K. If you're not to keen on math, here's the figure you need to know: those CEO salaries amount to 155 times that of the average Canadian.

Of course, the timing of the report is aimed at a news cycle hungry for post-holiday stories related to the financial woes of the vast majority of the country. Still, the numbers are jarring.

Add to this mix the number of celebrities who make obscene amounts of cash, a few of which seem to do little to warrant any compensation, and all of the professional athletes with bulging wallets, and the gap quickly becomes a chasm.

If we look in the opposite direction of the economic scale, we see hundreds of millions in developing nations struggling daily for the basic necessities of life.

Something is wrong with this picture.

Over the years, society has developed some clever ways to intellectually dodge this issue. Suggesting that the rich should be required to contribute a larger portion of their wealth to create equality of opportunity is quickly labelled socialist or communist. In a free-market economy, with the emphasis on free, as in the freedom to take as much as you want without the pressure to share, personal wealth is often considered an entitlement.

Maybe the problem isn't so much wealth, but the way in which it is regarded. Is our disdain with society's gazillionaire's really about social inequality or is it that what we really want is our cut?

Prior to the holidays, comedian Bill Maher created a hilarious and thought-provoking video message that wondered aloud if North America's newest and most popular religion had become stuff. Here is the link if you missed it.

The observation that religious fervour is not dissimilar to our obsession with wealth is a brilliant and revealing notion. In both cases, we are easily fixated by those things that serve our own personal needs while at the same time seeking to separate ourselves from others. What is the difference between considering oneself lucky and considering oneself chosen?

It would be easy to blame religion or spirituality or wealth for what ails society, but concepts alone cannot be at fault. If our faith lies in money to answer our problems we are doomed to failure. So too, if our faith is placed solely in ritual and institutions to find meaning, we are likely to find ourselves lost rather than found.

The New Year is a good time to de-clutter our lives, to get a fresh start. It's also a good time to consider the year of opportunities that lie ahead. Instead of wondering if the New Year will be good for us, maybe we should be considering how it could be better for others.

Wealth will come and go. Spirituality can centre us, but without action it achieves little. The one thing we do share is this new beginning.

What we do with it will define where our faith really lies.

Happy 2011.