P.K. Subban is a Nashville Predator. It doesn’t matter if you're okay with 'the trade' or not, it's already history. Besides, there is very little anyone can do about it, except perhaps complain which is essentially pointless. Accept it and move on, that’s what grown ups do.
I believed at the time (and still do) that the trade was a mistake. Marc Bergevin went all-in acquiring a known commodity in Shea Weber in exchange for Subban’s obvious potential. If you were to ask general managers around the league, most would say it was a good trade for the Canadiens organization. Though clearly many like myself, plus one GM, don't agree.
Which brings me, oddly enough, to the current trainwreck that is the American election. Many of us have lamented the popularity of the supremely unqualified Donald Trump. It's becoming clear his support has little to do with substantive policy, but rather a thinly-veiled appeal to an underlying culture of intolerance and ignorance among many voters. Trump knows he is the right man for everything that is wrong with an appallingly large segment of American society.
So too in hockey, the problem isn’t Subban, or Bergevin, it’s the culture. As pro sports go, there are few that match hockey in its conservatism. Golf certainly. Tennis perhaps. For example, in an era when pro sports leagues have been forced to address player safety, in particular concussions, the NHL still tacitly approves of bare-fisted fighting by arguing that 'it's just part of the game.' The league generally discourages individuality in its players, both on and off the ice, unless it conforms to a model of humility, old-school toughness, quiet community service and 'the code.'
Subban is anything but that. He is brash, outspoken, funny, loud and incredibly gifted. His public image is as important as was his pride in playing for the Canadiens. Unfortunately that kind of thinking doesn’t mesh with NHL culture. In the minds of many, Subban was getting too big for his britches, an appropriately antiquated expression to illustrate the point.
Like it or not, players like Subban represent the modern generation of professional athletes. Branding is important to them, but can also be extremely lucrative to the franchises for which they play. Pro leagues don't own players like they used to, a concept that seems strangely foreign to NHL GMs.
The irony is that the Canadien’s glory days were rife with players and managers doing a lot of out-of-the-box thinking. They were trend-setters, not trend-followers. The wild-eyed intensity and politically vocal Maurice Richard comes to mind. The problem isn’t that players think they are bigger than the game, it’s management believing they are. Would Roy have been traded if cooler, more mature heads prevailed over ego? Let's be honest, it was a childish spat that set back the franchise at least a decade.
I believe Marc Bergevin sincerely wants to make this team better. I believe Michel Therrien thinks he has the winning formula. They may be right. I hope they’re right, but I can't help but wonder how much hockey culture plays a role in their decisions. That said, though I may disagree with their decisions, we all want the same thing, and I can't fault them for that. Besides, holding grudges is a profound waste of time.
I am very much looking forward to Canadiens hockey this season. I'm excited to see what Shea Weber brings to the team, but I will also be watching and supporting P.K. Subban.
Yes, I can do both. That's what grown ups do.
Thursday, September 1, 2016
Saturday, May 9, 2015
Fifty Blessings
Fifty years.
Turning forty seemed like a big deal at the time, but fifty? That's a number that gets your attention. As with any milestone, recollection of the journey never seems to fully capture the length of road already travelled, which is just another way of saying it all seems like a blur.
As the clock ticks past the half-century mark, it's tempting to look at one's life as a ledger of successes and failures as if the sum has any real value. It doesn't, by the way. For most of us, our greatest successes or failures have no bearing on the rest of the universe. I believe the only meaningful evaluation of one's life can be drawn from the ancient, but no less relevant adage 'count your blessings.' The precept is not exclusive to any belief system or religion, but the simple act of being grateful for what you have received is not only a good way to live, it's a good measure of a lifetime. For purposes of expediency, I won't recite fifty blessings as the title implies, but to go with a numerical theme, here are my top five.
Do what you love. Love what you do.
I have been blessed with a career that has been, shall we say, diverse. A friend once joked that he stopped writing my work number in pen due to the number of times I changed companies. A repeat victim of department closures, cutbacks and downsizing, my career would best be characterized as crossing a river by leaping from one stone to another. Along the way, I have been careful to not torch any bridges (though some fell apart of their own accord). I am equally fortunate that many of the people with whom I have worked are still friends and colleagues. As much of an adventure it has been, I've been blessed to continue to do what I love, working alongside some remarkable people.
Capturing the spark.
One of my most cherished blessings is creativity. In fairness, I believe everyone has this gift in one form or another, the challenge is finding an outlet for all that energy. In my case, it takes many forms, from a career in graphic arts, to public speaking and broadcasting. Having the ability to express one's ideas and imagination is a gift for which I am deeply grateful. When I see others discover and express their own gifts, it is nothing short of inspiring. The most important lesson learned over time is to set your own standards for creative expression. Work at it, nurture it, push your boundaries and do it for no other reason than feeding your own passion.
In the company of good friends.
Over the course of one's life friends are made, friends drift apart and then, in defiance of time and circumstance, come together again. These relationships can flourish and sometimes end in bitterness. Through it all, the gift of people in my life has never lost its value. It is those shared experiences that help us to grow and discover who we are. It's important to surround yourself with people who will support you through the darkest times, disagree with you or call you on your BS, and push you out of your confort zone. There are few things more gratifying than spending time laughing at life and yourself in the company of a good friend. I have been blessed to have experienced many incredible relationships in my life, and even more grateful that through challenging times, friendship and love have endured.
Finding 'the one'
Falling in love is easily one of the life's greatest blessings, but finding someone who is the perfect companion for life's journey is something truly astonishing. I have difficulty summoning up superlatives to describe my wife. In the simplest of words she is love, kindness, compassion and beauty inside and out. How she ever fell for a screwball like me is easily one of the great mysteries of my life. She comforts, supports, encourages and laughs with every fibre of her being. She throws herself at every task, giving freely and generously of her time to those in need. We laugh together until the tears fall, and cry together until the pain passes. We are a team in every sense of the word, covering when one falters and standing side-by-side through the myriad challenges and joys of life. I love her with all my heart, and it's a love that grows profoundly deeper with each passing day.
A family that grows together.
There are times in one's life when it might seem the contrary, but family is truly one of the greatest of all blessings. I know this in part because I have been fortunate to have grown up with a mom, dad and brothers who helped forge who I am today. I also know this, because I have lost both parents and a brother far too soon, yet their memories continue to guide me. That connection is what bridges the distance of time and space from my older brother, a bond that has grown stronger and deeper over time. That may have something to do with the way in which our parents stayed connected to their brothers and sisters, who lived in Scotland, England, France and the United States. In a time before social media and the internet, they always managed to find a way to share in one another's lives. Of course, families are not a fixed circle. They grow and intersect with others, drawing in new faces, with new chapters to add and experiences to share. A growing family has blessed me with another mom and dad, brothers and sisters, neices and nephews, and two wonderful sons who are the pride and joy of my life. I honestly don't know where I would be without the love and support of family,
The overarching blessing of life is the discovery that there is no wasted time. Every moment, be it tragic, joyful, mundane or miraculous, is precious. These moments define us by forcing us to grow, testing our mettle and revealing a side of ourselves we never knew. While the march of time subtracts some of the boundless energy of youth, what we gain is a richness of experience that is truly priceless. I am profoundly grateful for my fifty years of blessings which now includes the blessing of being fifty.
'Look to the future, because that is where you'll spend the rest of your life.'
George Burns
Turning forty seemed like a big deal at the time, but fifty? That's a number that gets your attention. As with any milestone, recollection of the journey never seems to fully capture the length of road already travelled, which is just another way of saying it all seems like a blur.
As the clock ticks past the half-century mark, it's tempting to look at one's life as a ledger of successes and failures as if the sum has any real value. It doesn't, by the way. For most of us, our greatest successes or failures have no bearing on the rest of the universe. I believe the only meaningful evaluation of one's life can be drawn from the ancient, but no less relevant adage 'count your blessings.' The precept is not exclusive to any belief system or religion, but the simple act of being grateful for what you have received is not only a good way to live, it's a good measure of a lifetime. For purposes of expediency, I won't recite fifty blessings as the title implies, but to go with a numerical theme, here are my top five.
Do what you love. Love what you do.
I have been blessed with a career that has been, shall we say, diverse. A friend once joked that he stopped writing my work number in pen due to the number of times I changed companies. A repeat victim of department closures, cutbacks and downsizing, my career would best be characterized as crossing a river by leaping from one stone to another. Along the way, I have been careful to not torch any bridges (though some fell apart of their own accord). I am equally fortunate that many of the people with whom I have worked are still friends and colleagues. As much of an adventure it has been, I've been blessed to continue to do what I love, working alongside some remarkable people.
Capturing the spark.
One of my most cherished blessings is creativity. In fairness, I believe everyone has this gift in one form or another, the challenge is finding an outlet for all that energy. In my case, it takes many forms, from a career in graphic arts, to public speaking and broadcasting. Having the ability to express one's ideas and imagination is a gift for which I am deeply grateful. When I see others discover and express their own gifts, it is nothing short of inspiring. The most important lesson learned over time is to set your own standards for creative expression. Work at it, nurture it, push your boundaries and do it for no other reason than feeding your own passion.
In the company of good friends.
Over the course of one's life friends are made, friends drift apart and then, in defiance of time and circumstance, come together again. These relationships can flourish and sometimes end in bitterness. Through it all, the gift of people in my life has never lost its value. It is those shared experiences that help us to grow and discover who we are. It's important to surround yourself with people who will support you through the darkest times, disagree with you or call you on your BS, and push you out of your confort zone. There are few things more gratifying than spending time laughing at life and yourself in the company of a good friend. I have been blessed to have experienced many incredible relationships in my life, and even more grateful that through challenging times, friendship and love have endured.
Finding 'the one'
Falling in love is easily one of the life's greatest blessings, but finding someone who is the perfect companion for life's journey is something truly astonishing. I have difficulty summoning up superlatives to describe my wife. In the simplest of words she is love, kindness, compassion and beauty inside and out. How she ever fell for a screwball like me is easily one of the great mysteries of my life. She comforts, supports, encourages and laughs with every fibre of her being. She throws herself at every task, giving freely and generously of her time to those in need. We laugh together until the tears fall, and cry together until the pain passes. We are a team in every sense of the word, covering when one falters and standing side-by-side through the myriad challenges and joys of life. I love her with all my heart, and it's a love that grows profoundly deeper with each passing day.
A family that grows together.
There are times in one's life when it might seem the contrary, but family is truly one of the greatest of all blessings. I know this in part because I have been fortunate to have grown up with a mom, dad and brothers who helped forge who I am today. I also know this, because I have lost both parents and a brother far too soon, yet their memories continue to guide me. That connection is what bridges the distance of time and space from my older brother, a bond that has grown stronger and deeper over time. That may have something to do with the way in which our parents stayed connected to their brothers and sisters, who lived in Scotland, England, France and the United States. In a time before social media and the internet, they always managed to find a way to share in one another's lives. Of course, families are not a fixed circle. They grow and intersect with others, drawing in new faces, with new chapters to add and experiences to share. A growing family has blessed me with another mom and dad, brothers and sisters, neices and nephews, and two wonderful sons who are the pride and joy of my life. I honestly don't know where I would be without the love and support of family,
The overarching blessing of life is the discovery that there is no wasted time. Every moment, be it tragic, joyful, mundane or miraculous, is precious. These moments define us by forcing us to grow, testing our mettle and revealing a side of ourselves we never knew. While the march of time subtracts some of the boundless energy of youth, what we gain is a richness of experience that is truly priceless. I am profoundly grateful for my fifty years of blessings which now includes the blessing of being fifty.
'Look to the future, because that is where you'll spend the rest of your life.'
George Burns
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Winning Respect
In Montreal there is no higher position than coach of the Canadiens. With respect to Mayor Denis Corderre, the glaring media spotlight of Habs bench-boss is beyond compare. Every decision is scrutinized by a batallion of reporters, insiders, critics and pundits, not to mention legions of fans and couch-coaches worldwide.
It is simultaneously an incredible and soul-destroying job.
Michel Therrien doesn't have it easy. His NHL coaching resume, prior to his hiring (or technically rehiring) is story marked with near greatness and ignominious failure. At times he doesn't help his reputation by making decisions that can seem puzzling, risky and downright bizarre.
Which makes it all the more impressive that Michel Therrien carries on his coaching duties seemingly without giving a flying f*ck what anybody thinks.
Of course, there are plenty of legitimate factors contributing to the Habs' success this season: Carey Price elevating his game to the stratosphere, brilliant moves by General Manager Marc Bergevin and young players maturing at the right time. Without undermining the value of those factors, I would argue where the rubber truly meets the road is how those elements come together on the ice. Certainly Therrien's experience as coach of the Pittsburgh Penguins tells us that a skilled lineup doesn't always equate to success. Understanding the complexity of NHL-level strategy combined with the skills, mindset, egos and experience of your roster is a difficult balancing act at best.
Somehow in the face of his own personal history and the frenzied spotlight, Therrien has found a way to keep the Canadiens consistently atop the standings. Yet despite this record, he seems to have garnered only a modicum of grudging respect. In virtually any other franchise in the NHL (including Toronto) Michel Therrien would be hailed as a hero.
Is Therrien the best coach in the NHL? Successful certainly, but maybe not the best.
Is Therrien the best coach for the Canadiens right now? The answer has to be a resounding yes.
Turning around a team that failed to make the playoffs in 2012, with a roster laden with some notable dead weight, inexperienced and developing players, in the unforgiving and oft brutal spotlight of Montreal media and rabid fan base, is nothing short of remarkable. And yes, he's done so in two languages, despite having to endure crass mockery of his accent.
Love him or hate him, Michel Therrien is unwavering in his viewpoints and will coach the team the way he believes it should be coached until he gets fired, or retires. That is perhaps the only way a person not only copes with the stresses of coaching the Montreal Canadiens, but can be successful doing so.
I don't always agree with Michel Therrien's decisions, but I cannot fault his success in one of the toughest coaching jobs in professional sports.
Though I highly suspect he couldn't give a flying f*ck what I think.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Falling Leafs
The Twitterverse is abuzz today over so-called Toronto Maple Leafs fans tossing jerseys onto the Air Canada Centre's ice after another lackluster performance, a 4-1 loss to the Carolina Hurricanes. The chatter quickly escalated to a fevered cacophony when it was revealed that the jersey-throwers in question had been arrested, charged with public mischief, fined $5000 and banned from the Air Canada centre for a year.
Some opinions posit that the Maple Leafs organization is essentially applying a league-wide rule to the letter of the law. Citing player safety, under no circumstance shall fans throw foreign objects on to the ice, a rule that is often overlooked after the home-team scores a hat trick, or the occassional octopus in Detroit.
While the Leafs organization may argue that they are simply following standard procedure, make no mistake, the severity with which the organization is applying the law, and the public way in which it is doing so, is clearly an attempt to stem an an enormously embarassing trend.
From a hockey fan perspective, and moreover as a sports fan, while I do think the rules are being applied with notable zeal, what is being lost in the conversation is our understanding of what it means to be a team supporter.
Anyone who is a fan of a sports franchise knows that prolonged periods of success are never a given. There will be seasons of difficult losses or mediocre performances. For Leafs fans, that period has been intolerably long, and one could easily sympathize with their impatience, frustration and anger.
That said, to toss your team's jersey on their own playing surface is without question the height of disrespect. Rules and regulations notwithstanding, it is a public declaration not only withdrawing support for the current team, but also tossing aside its history and everything that it represents.
Yes, it is just a jersey. It isn't sacred or holy, however it still means something to those that wear it now and those that have in the past. In the case of the Toronto Maple Leafs that means a founding member of the NHL, 13 Stanley Cup championships and a huge fan-base whose loyalty, in the light of recent years, can only be admired.
There are other ways to express your displeasure for a team's performance (or lack thereof). You can boo them off the ice, you can stop showing up for games, you can write blogs or vent your frustration on talk radio.
But if you choose to reject the very symbol of the franchise you support, then perhaps you were never really a fan to begin with.
I believe things will turn around for the Leafs, there is too much at stake to maintain the status quo.
When it does, I'm sure there will be plenty of room on the bandwagon. I just hope the jersey-tossers enjoy the company of disingenuous hypocrites, because there'll be plenty.
Some opinions posit that the Maple Leafs organization is essentially applying a league-wide rule to the letter of the law. Citing player safety, under no circumstance shall fans throw foreign objects on to the ice, a rule that is often overlooked after the home-team scores a hat trick, or the occassional octopus in Detroit.
While the Leafs organization may argue that they are simply following standard procedure, make no mistake, the severity with which the organization is applying the law, and the public way in which it is doing so, is clearly an attempt to stem an an enormously embarassing trend.
From a hockey fan perspective, and moreover as a sports fan, while I do think the rules are being applied with notable zeal, what is being lost in the conversation is our understanding of what it means to be a team supporter.
Anyone who is a fan of a sports franchise knows that prolonged periods of success are never a given. There will be seasons of difficult losses or mediocre performances. For Leafs fans, that period has been intolerably long, and one could easily sympathize with their impatience, frustration and anger.
That said, to toss your team's jersey on their own playing surface is without question the height of disrespect. Rules and regulations notwithstanding, it is a public declaration not only withdrawing support for the current team, but also tossing aside its history and everything that it represents.
Yes, it is just a jersey. It isn't sacred or holy, however it still means something to those that wear it now and those that have in the past. In the case of the Toronto Maple Leafs that means a founding member of the NHL, 13 Stanley Cup championships and a huge fan-base whose loyalty, in the light of recent years, can only be admired.
There are other ways to express your displeasure for a team's performance (or lack thereof). You can boo them off the ice, you can stop showing up for games, you can write blogs or vent your frustration on talk radio.
But if you choose to reject the very symbol of the franchise you support, then perhaps you were never really a fan to begin with.
I believe things will turn around for the Leafs, there is too much at stake to maintain the status quo.
When it does, I'm sure there will be plenty of room on the bandwagon. I just hope the jersey-tossers enjoy the company of disingenuous hypocrites, because there'll be plenty.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Michel Therrien vs. Michel Therrien
'It was like men against boys' Michel Therrien notoriously lamented as coach of the Pittsburgh Penguins. It was a cold January night in 2006 and his slumping team had just dropped a 3-1 stinker to the Edmonton Oilers.
Therrien threw the entire team under the bus that night and perhaps unwittingly, himself. He lambasted the player's soft defence and utter lack of passion, then concluded his exasperated diatribe by wondering aloud if he could possibly find a solution.
Despite the much publicized rant, Therrien managed to turn things around for the Penguins, eventually leading the team to the Stanley Cup finals in 2008. Though the Peguins lost to the Detroit Red Wings, the team looked poised to become perennial cup contenders. But by February of the following season it had all unravelled again and Therrien was sent packing. It was an inglorious end to what had once seemed a storybook tale for the former Habs coach. Adding insult to injury was his replacement, Dan Bylsma, leading the team to their third Stanley Cup in the same season, fulfilling a destiny Therrien surely felt he had earned.
When Therrien returned as coach for the Canadiens in 2012, that rant among other things, was firmly on the minds of fans. It was unsettling to know that the organization had placed its trust in a man whose past history included the most public display of losing a locker room in living memory. Secondary to that, was a lingering concern about whether Therrien was still capable of coaching at the professional level after a three-year absence from the bench.
We got our answer in the shortened 2012-2013 season when the Habs showed significant improvement. The mission was simple: make the playoffs. To that end, Therrien delivered. But the first round loss to a truculent Ottawa Senators team seemed to bring out a bit of the old, exasperated Therrien, although his frustration was mercifully not directed at his players.
Last season was something of a different story. Although Therrien more than delivered on the goal of the post-season, it was during the regular season when fans and pundits began to wonder which Michel Therrien was behind the bench. There were moments of what some might label strategic brilliance, like putting Peter Budaj between the pipes for a second time in Boston, as a healthy Carey Price sat on the sidelines. Then there were those head-scratching moments, such as stapling P.K. Subban to the bench in critical 3rd period situations, or virtually any time he let Douglas Murray on the ice.
As the season progressed, opinions in the Canadiens' fan-base and media alternated between various levels of frustration, confusion, surprise and muted admiration of Therrien's coaching abilities. When things went bad, Therrien stood silently behind the bench, looking remarkably like that bronze Rodin sculpture, while more than a few of us wondered if he was thinking 'what is the solution?'
The Habs solid performance in the post-season seemed to erase much of that doubt. Save for a couple of fumbles (see Douglas Murray again) Therrien adjusted strategy, boosted minutes of his top performers and most importantly, remained composed.
So the real question for the forthcoming season is: Which Michel Therrien will show up? Will the old habits resurface, or has the experience of the past two seasons become the wisdom that will take his coaching abilities to the next level?
It could be argued that there is a similarity between the Pittsburgh Penguins roster under Therrien and the 2014-15 Canadiens. Both are teams well equipped with a core group of young players with the capacity of becoming the league's best.
Similar too, is coaching a talented, but struggling team to a turnaround that led deep into the post season. In 2009, Therrien failed to capitalize on that past success, which ultimately led to his dismissal.
One hopes these similarities are not lost on Michel Therrien, and that somewhere behind that distant thoughtful gaze lies a man with something to prove.
Therrien threw the entire team under the bus that night and perhaps unwittingly, himself. He lambasted the player's soft defence and utter lack of passion, then concluded his exasperated diatribe by wondering aloud if he could possibly find a solution.
Despite the much publicized rant, Therrien managed to turn things around for the Penguins, eventually leading the team to the Stanley Cup finals in 2008. Though the Peguins lost to the Detroit Red Wings, the team looked poised to become perennial cup contenders. But by February of the following season it had all unravelled again and Therrien was sent packing. It was an inglorious end to what had once seemed a storybook tale for the former Habs coach. Adding insult to injury was his replacement, Dan Bylsma, leading the team to their third Stanley Cup in the same season, fulfilling a destiny Therrien surely felt he had earned.
When Therrien returned as coach for the Canadiens in 2012, that rant among other things, was firmly on the minds of fans. It was unsettling to know that the organization had placed its trust in a man whose past history included the most public display of losing a locker room in living memory. Secondary to that, was a lingering concern about whether Therrien was still capable of coaching at the professional level after a three-year absence from the bench.
We got our answer in the shortened 2012-2013 season when the Habs showed significant improvement. The mission was simple: make the playoffs. To that end, Therrien delivered. But the first round loss to a truculent Ottawa Senators team seemed to bring out a bit of the old, exasperated Therrien, although his frustration was mercifully not directed at his players.
Last season was something of a different story. Although Therrien more than delivered on the goal of the post-season, it was during the regular season when fans and pundits began to wonder which Michel Therrien was behind the bench. There were moments of what some might label strategic brilliance, like putting Peter Budaj between the pipes for a second time in Boston, as a healthy Carey Price sat on the sidelines. Then there were those head-scratching moments, such as stapling P.K. Subban to the bench in critical 3rd period situations, or virtually any time he let Douglas Murray on the ice.
As the season progressed, opinions in the Canadiens' fan-base and media alternated between various levels of frustration, confusion, surprise and muted admiration of Therrien's coaching abilities. When things went bad, Therrien stood silently behind the bench, looking remarkably like that bronze Rodin sculpture, while more than a few of us wondered if he was thinking 'what is the solution?'
The Habs solid performance in the post-season seemed to erase much of that doubt. Save for a couple of fumbles (see Douglas Murray again) Therrien adjusted strategy, boosted minutes of his top performers and most importantly, remained composed.
So the real question for the forthcoming season is: Which Michel Therrien will show up? Will the old habits resurface, or has the experience of the past two seasons become the wisdom that will take his coaching abilities to the next level?
It could be argued that there is a similarity between the Pittsburgh Penguins roster under Therrien and the 2014-15 Canadiens. Both are teams well equipped with a core group of young players with the capacity of becoming the league's best.
Similar too, is coaching a talented, but struggling team to a turnaround that led deep into the post season. In 2009, Therrien failed to capitalize on that past success, which ultimately led to his dismissal.
One hopes these similarities are not lost on Michel Therrien, and that somewhere behind that distant thoughtful gaze lies a man with something to prove.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Captain? What Captain?
The announcement of Saku Koivu's retirement last week was bittersweet. Sweet, for the memories of one the Montreal Canadiens most loved and respected team leaders in their history. Considering that list includes the likes of Maurice Richard, Jean Beliveau and Yvan Cournoyer, that is high praise.
Bitter, for the ignominious way in which some media in Montreal regarded his captaincy and being uncerimoniously jettisonned to the Anaheim Ducks in 2009, after a record tying ten-year tenure as team captain. Yes, that other captain was Beliveau.
Koivu was a talented hockey player, though maybe not a superstar by a statistical measure, who played in an era when the Habs roster was mediocre at best. He was a difference-maker for a team that managed far more playoff success than expected.
It was his battle with cancer, specifically Burkitt's lymphoma, that truly defined his character for Habs fans. Koivu demonstrated a quiet courage and determination that inspired many in the stands and on the ice. The experience cemented his relationship with the community, a legacy that remains to this day courtesy of the Saku Koivu Foundation's onging support of the Montreal General Hospital, and his role in securing a PET/CT diagnostic scanner.
Still, it is bittersweet that his last days as an NHL hockey player were not spent in a Habs uniform. If you believe in the power of symbolism, then in many ways it would have represented the paradigm shift in thinking that the Canadiens management claim to have undergone under Marc Bergevin's leadership.
It is for this reason many believe that Koivu's number 11 should be retired by the team, if not for his inspired leadership, certainly to make amends for letting go of one of its most respected leaders.
Perhaps part of the reason for not choosing a captain after sending Brian Gionta packing, is that the organization at long last recognized the bar set by Koivu.
Perhaps veterans Andrei Markov and Tomas Plekanec, who both played with Koivu, recognize what it really means to be team captain.
Perhaps the Canadiens organization understand the maturity demonstrated by Koivu and so concluded that neither Max Pacioretty or P.K. Subban are ready to don the coveted 'C', at least not yet.
Perhaps the Canadiens organization is recognizing what it had, and what it meant.
Perhaps.
Saku Koivu has certainly earned something beyond a cursory congratulations from the Montreal Canadiens for a long and successful career. I wonder though, if the idea of retiring his jersey will awaken those critics who regularly described Koivu as overrated and a poor leader for his difficulty with a certain language.
It's a page of history for which the organization and media ought to atone.
You could easily do worse than having a team captain like Saku Koivu, but you most assuredly would have a hard time doing better.
Bitter, for the ignominious way in which some media in Montreal regarded his captaincy and being uncerimoniously jettisonned to the Anaheim Ducks in 2009, after a record tying ten-year tenure as team captain. Yes, that other captain was Beliveau.
Koivu was a talented hockey player, though maybe not a superstar by a statistical measure, who played in an era when the Habs roster was mediocre at best. He was a difference-maker for a team that managed far more playoff success than expected.
It was his battle with cancer, specifically Burkitt's lymphoma, that truly defined his character for Habs fans. Koivu demonstrated a quiet courage and determination that inspired many in the stands and on the ice. The experience cemented his relationship with the community, a legacy that remains to this day courtesy of the Saku Koivu Foundation's onging support of the Montreal General Hospital, and his role in securing a PET/CT diagnostic scanner.
Still, it is bittersweet that his last days as an NHL hockey player were not spent in a Habs uniform. If you believe in the power of symbolism, then in many ways it would have represented the paradigm shift in thinking that the Canadiens management claim to have undergone under Marc Bergevin's leadership.
It is for this reason many believe that Koivu's number 11 should be retired by the team, if not for his inspired leadership, certainly to make amends for letting go of one of its most respected leaders.
Perhaps part of the reason for not choosing a captain after sending Brian Gionta packing, is that the organization at long last recognized the bar set by Koivu.
Perhaps veterans Andrei Markov and Tomas Plekanec, who both played with Koivu, recognize what it really means to be team captain.
Perhaps the Canadiens organization understand the maturity demonstrated by Koivu and so concluded that neither Max Pacioretty or P.K. Subban are ready to don the coveted 'C', at least not yet.
Perhaps the Canadiens organization is recognizing what it had, and what it meant.
Perhaps.
Saku Koivu has certainly earned something beyond a cursory congratulations from the Montreal Canadiens for a long and successful career. I wonder though, if the idea of retiring his jersey will awaken those critics who regularly described Koivu as overrated and a poor leader for his difficulty with a certain language.
It's a page of history for which the organization and media ought to atone.
You could easily do worse than having a team captain like Saku Koivu, but you most assuredly would have a hard time doing better.
Monday, September 8, 2014
This Looks Bad
One of the first posts I saw on Twitter this morning concerning the Ray Rice video read quite simply:
This looks bad.
That could be the understatement of the year. The video, the second to surface since the incident last February in the elevator of an Atlantic City casino, is an irrefutable indictment of Ray Rice. The footage shows Rice violently striking his then-fiancee (now wife) Janay Palmer, knocking her unconscious. Those facts, as a prosecutor would say, are indisputable.
A star athlete caught on video in an act of domestic violence. This looks bad.
When the NFL initially disciplined the Baltimore Ravens' running back, it was for a mere two games. What followed was a media and public outcry that essentially forced the league to amend its own policy and the suspension grew to six games.
Then came today's video. Rice has subsequently been released by the Ravens and faces an indefinite ban from the NFL.
It looks as bad for Rice as it does for the NFL, who must now deal with the question: had they or had they not seen the second video? One could easily presume that both versions of the surveillance footage would have come from the same source, which on the surface casts doubt of any claim of ignorance.
A damning video the NFL denies seeing. This looks bad.
The problem is, in a society obsessed with optics, the facts are often quickly kicked to the curb. They are superfluous in the eyes of the spin-doctors whose purview is not justice, but how incidents affect the brand.
A two-game suspension seemed a reasonable response to the NFL, but when the heat was on a contrite Roger Goodell stood before the cameras to concede the league had 'got it wrong.' Now in the face of universal disgust at Rice's actions, and with virtually no other choice, the league has issued its strongest punishment.
A professional sports league slow to react to the criminal behaviour of its players. This looks bad.
What is most unsettling is that, without the video, the disciplinary action most likely doesn't happen. The media would only have hearsay and eyewitness accounts to pursue the story, and the incident would fade into the shadows beyond the spotlight of professional football.
We didn't see it, therefore it doesn't look bad, we move on, forget the whole thing and go back to our Sunday sports ritual guilt-free. The NFL brand lives to cash another cheque.
In the grand scheme of things, I'm fairly certain Janay Palmer and all victims of domestic violence could give a good Goddamn about the NFL brand. In Janay Palmer's case she had the media and TMZ to do her fighting for her, but only because she's a high-profile figure. Most assuredly the plight of the vast majority of domestic abuse victims go unreported and unacknowledged.
It doesn't just look bad, it is bad. It's about time organizations stopped focusing on how things look and address the issue of domestic violence for what it is.
Unacceptable.
This looks bad.
That could be the understatement of the year. The video, the second to surface since the incident last February in the elevator of an Atlantic City casino, is an irrefutable indictment of Ray Rice. The footage shows Rice violently striking his then-fiancee (now wife) Janay Palmer, knocking her unconscious. Those facts, as a prosecutor would say, are indisputable.
A star athlete caught on video in an act of domestic violence. This looks bad.
When the NFL initially disciplined the Baltimore Ravens' running back, it was for a mere two games. What followed was a media and public outcry that essentially forced the league to amend its own policy and the suspension grew to six games.
Then came today's video. Rice has subsequently been released by the Ravens and faces an indefinite ban from the NFL.
It looks as bad for Rice as it does for the NFL, who must now deal with the question: had they or had they not seen the second video? One could easily presume that both versions of the surveillance footage would have come from the same source, which on the surface casts doubt of any claim of ignorance.
A damning video the NFL denies seeing. This looks bad.
The problem is, in a society obsessed with optics, the facts are often quickly kicked to the curb. They are superfluous in the eyes of the spin-doctors whose purview is not justice, but how incidents affect the brand.
A two-game suspension seemed a reasonable response to the NFL, but when the heat was on a contrite Roger Goodell stood before the cameras to concede the league had 'got it wrong.' Now in the face of universal disgust at Rice's actions, and with virtually no other choice, the league has issued its strongest punishment.
A professional sports league slow to react to the criminal behaviour of its players. This looks bad.
What is most unsettling is that, without the video, the disciplinary action most likely doesn't happen. The media would only have hearsay and eyewitness accounts to pursue the story, and the incident would fade into the shadows beyond the spotlight of professional football.
We didn't see it, therefore it doesn't look bad, we move on, forget the whole thing and go back to our Sunday sports ritual guilt-free. The NFL brand lives to cash another cheque.
In the grand scheme of things, I'm fairly certain Janay Palmer and all victims of domestic violence could give a good Goddamn about the NFL brand. In Janay Palmer's case she had the media and TMZ to do her fighting for her, but only because she's a high-profile figure. Most assuredly the plight of the vast majority of domestic abuse victims go unreported and unacknowledged.
It doesn't just look bad, it is bad. It's about time organizations stopped focusing on how things look and address the issue of domestic violence for what it is.
Unacceptable.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Leading Questions
It's still early in the 2014 Québec provincial election and the public conversation has already devolved into discussions of nationalism, sovereignty and the practicalities of an independent Québec. These are not new ideas, the concept of an independent Québec has been the subject of decades of discussion and theoretical scenarios involving borders, passports and currency.
The problem with this kind of discussion is that it is so passionate and so divisive that it eclipses all other issues in the election conversation. It gives a voice to radicals on both sides of the debate and leaves very little air time for rational and sober analysis of more immediate and troublesome realities.
I use the term realities because that is exactly what they are. Jobs, the economy, cost of living, public debt, degrading infrastructure and a fractured healthcare system. These are real problems that citizens of Québec will have to deal with on April 8th, regardless of which party is elected to serve Quebeckers. What is most troubling is that these issues will likely persist until the next election.
As an anglophone, you might think I would be prone to blame the Parti Québecois (PQ) for steering the conversation towards sovereignty, after all it has been at the core of the party's political constitution since its inception. But is it really the PQ that we should be blaming for the current public discourse? English media outlets like CJAD, CTV, The Gazette, Global Quebec and others, seem just as complicit in finding ways to ramp up the sovereignty discussion. From newspapers, radio, television and social media, we have been fed a steady stream of the PQ's current vision of an independent Québec. Again, a theory, not reality.
So why exactly are the English media so obsessed with pressing the PQ on a subject for which they are more than pleased to discuss? It seems somewhat disingenuous to criticize politicians for engaging in a divisive conversation when English media outlets are more than willing to lap it up and spew it back out.
Why are reporters not asking questions about concrete plans to deal with Québec's massive debt problem? Or how it plans to create real and sustainable employment? Or making our roads safer, our healthcare system more accessible, and ease the heavy burden on tax payers? These are issues that every single voter, of every single political and cultural stripe, have to face every day of their lives. People with families, mortgages, rental payments, student loans and a myriad of other concerns.
As one who relies on media sources to provide a reasonably informative account of the issues of the day, I expect reporters to press candidates to address these issues. When candidates attempt to redirect the conversation, then I expect an explanation as to why. What we don't need is a parroted version of political spin.
Of course, the French media has its own issues at the moment, complicated ones, but that is a conversation for another blog. Right now it is the English media's apparent unwillingness to demand answers on subjects pertaining to real-world issues that is most disconcerting. At the very least, I would like to know why we are engaging the PQ in a conversation that ultimately makes them unaccountable for their record in office?
The citizens of Québec have earned the right to expect their politicians and media to frame the public discourse around issues that directly affect our lives. We deserve responsive governance and factual reporting, not ideological clashes and hyperbolic fear-mongering.
English media needs to step up and press political candidates to respond to the realities faced by Québec voters. Obsessing over sovereignty serves only to reinforce the impression that anglophones are incapable of embracing the complex political landscape of Québec, and that we are as one-sided as we accuse PQ hardliners to be.
We've had enough theory, get to the facts already, and stop being part of the problem.
The problem with this kind of discussion is that it is so passionate and so divisive that it eclipses all other issues in the election conversation. It gives a voice to radicals on both sides of the debate and leaves very little air time for rational and sober analysis of more immediate and troublesome realities.
I use the term realities because that is exactly what they are. Jobs, the economy, cost of living, public debt, degrading infrastructure and a fractured healthcare system. These are real problems that citizens of Québec will have to deal with on April 8th, regardless of which party is elected to serve Quebeckers. What is most troubling is that these issues will likely persist until the next election.
As an anglophone, you might think I would be prone to blame the Parti Québecois (PQ) for steering the conversation towards sovereignty, after all it has been at the core of the party's political constitution since its inception. But is it really the PQ that we should be blaming for the current public discourse? English media outlets like CJAD, CTV, The Gazette, Global Quebec and others, seem just as complicit in finding ways to ramp up the sovereignty discussion. From newspapers, radio, television and social media, we have been fed a steady stream of the PQ's current vision of an independent Québec. Again, a theory, not reality.
So why exactly are the English media so obsessed with pressing the PQ on a subject for which they are more than pleased to discuss? It seems somewhat disingenuous to criticize politicians for engaging in a divisive conversation when English media outlets are more than willing to lap it up and spew it back out.
Why are reporters not asking questions about concrete plans to deal with Québec's massive debt problem? Or how it plans to create real and sustainable employment? Or making our roads safer, our healthcare system more accessible, and ease the heavy burden on tax payers? These are issues that every single voter, of every single political and cultural stripe, have to face every day of their lives. People with families, mortgages, rental payments, student loans and a myriad of other concerns.
As one who relies on media sources to provide a reasonably informative account of the issues of the day, I expect reporters to press candidates to address these issues. When candidates attempt to redirect the conversation, then I expect an explanation as to why. What we don't need is a parroted version of political spin.
Of course, the French media has its own issues at the moment, complicated ones, but that is a conversation for another blog. Right now it is the English media's apparent unwillingness to demand answers on subjects pertaining to real-world issues that is most disconcerting. At the very least, I would like to know why we are engaging the PQ in a conversation that ultimately makes them unaccountable for their record in office?
The citizens of Québec have earned the right to expect their politicians and media to frame the public discourse around issues that directly affect our lives. We deserve responsive governance and factual reporting, not ideological clashes and hyperbolic fear-mongering.
English media needs to step up and press political candidates to respond to the realities faced by Québec voters. Obsessing over sovereignty serves only to reinforce the impression that anglophones are incapable of embracing the complex political landscape of Québec, and that we are as one-sided as we accuse PQ hardliners to be.
We've had enough theory, get to the facts already, and stop being part of the problem.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Waxing Nostalgic about Spinning Wax
What's old is new again.
That is a frequent observation of anyone who's lived long enough to see the patterns of history develop. In the 1970s we were obsessed with the idyllic, nuclear-family, rebel without a cause culture of the 1950s. In the 1980s, the baby-boomers retold legends of the tumultuous 60s, breathing new life into Woodstock-era rock and Motown-inspired soul, while staking claim to being the greatest generation in history.
So now we've arrived in the 2010s, for want of a better term, and so it is the 90s grunge-era, punk revival, vacuous pop-dance music that is bubbling back up to the surface.
In the midst of all this nostalgia, the vinyl record has seen an incredible resurgence. It has reached a point where radio stations have now reinstalled turntables in their studios, trumpeting the on-air return of vinyl like it's the resurrection of Elvis.
The sound is richer and purer we've been told. Nothing sounds as good as vinyl. The record companies destroyed the music industry when they switched to Compact Disc technology.
Well, allow me, somebody who grew up with vinyl records, to say back the truck up.
Over the course of the 1980s I compiled a rather large collection of records, not a much as an audiophile, but more than your average music fan. The reason for the collection was that I was plying my trade as a disc jockey for live events. Though I made little money, I thought at the time it had an element of glamour to it, and let's face it, I got to talk to a lot of pretty girls at parties.
The little money I had went to buying more records to meet with the seemingly insatiable demands of party-goers. For a kid with little or no income, it was a huge investment.
Sure, there were many a night spent with earphones glued to my head, listening to hours of my favourite artists, enjoying every second vocal nuance and guitar riff. But what many of today's vinyl obsessed junkies don't know is that over the period of the 1980s the quality of mass-produced vinyl records was falling off. It was economics of course. Record companies were driven produce cheaper products, faster and we were just as willing to line up to buy them. It should be noted that the price of a record album in the 80s was roughly the same as it is on iTunes today, which, adjusting for inflation, is almost 3 times more expensive.
The other thing that those who did not grow up in that era cannot appreciate, was that there was no comparable alternative to vinyl. There were cassette tapes, but they're quality was dubious from the start, and would degrade rather quickly over time. Vinyl was the best choice for sound quality and durability, but vinyl was also easily susceptible to damage due to repeated playing and mishandling. Records would get dusty and scratched, and once that happened, they we damaged forever. As much as I loved listening to music for hours on end, it galled me that I had to tolerate all the static noise that came from their eventual and virtually unstoppable degradation.
Record companies were fully aware of the limitations of vinyl and were quite content to let it go on for the foreseeable future, but the digital revolution was coming, whether they were prepared for it or not.
Let me be absolutely clear about my next point. The advent of the Compact Disc was the greatest thing to happen to music lovers since the invention of the phonograph. Read any review from any expert audiophile, producer or sound engineer from that era and you will come to understand that the quality of Compact Disc audio far surpassed anything ever produced on vinyl. Period.
You may wish to wax nostalgic about the amazing artwork on the sleeves of 12" records, and you will certainly get no argument from me. In many ways it was a pure form of pop culture art that will never be duplicated. But on the sound quality argument, you cannot convince me for one second that vinyl is superior. Every device capable of measuring audio range will support that contention, this is not just an opinion.
Now, MP3s are a different discussion, but that is a discussion for another time.
If you grew up loving music and hating all of the hiss and rumble and pops of dusty, scratched LPs, the advent of Compact Discs was miraculous. In fact, some of the early CDs used to come with a proviso from the record label noting that the background hissing sounds were he result of the original analogue studio recordings that none of us had previously detected on vinyl. On some CDs we could hear the musicians breathing, a page of music turning and other sounds that were previously undetectable on other media. It was like having the original master tapes from our favourite artists in one remarkably small package. Record companies had finally answered our prayers, and for many of us, the era of vinyl was mercifully over.
Two things have contributed to vinyl's resurgence. The first is driven mostly by nostalgia. Records were cool. From the artwork on the sleeve, to their smell and feel. We've even fallen in love with the crackles and pops, the warping that causes the stylus to dance, all of those little quirks that take us back to what we perceive to be a simpler time.
The other thing that's driving vinyl's resurgence is society's compelling and ironic distrust for anything corporate. The very companies who sold us billions of dollars in sub-standard vinyl are now being blamed for destroying the industry by providing the superior product we all demanded. Now those same companies are profiting again by reselling the same product at a significantly higher profit.
I'm neither defending nor condoning how corporations make their money. Corporations exist to make money, and they'll go wherever the marketplace allows them to do it.
You can love vinyl, I don't have an issue with that, and indeed there are many things to love. But please don't try to convince me that they are sonically superior than the best of today's digital technology, because on every possible scale of measurement it simply is not true. I can also do without the notion that the music industry set about to destroy vinyl as some bizarre plot to undermine music lovers and decimate independent record stores. Consumers were just as culpable when peer-to-peer file sharing sites sucked the life out of the music industry, devaluing the product and ultimately hurting both established and struggling musicians to this day.
At least the good news about consumers newfound love for vinyl is that maybe some of the investment I made all those years ago might be recouped if the right buyer comes along.
When it comes to choosing vinyl or digital I'm going to side with Montreal's most iconic radio personality, Too Tall, who is just as glad we don't have to rely on vinyl for our music as I am.
That is a frequent observation of anyone who's lived long enough to see the patterns of history develop. In the 1970s we were obsessed with the idyllic, nuclear-family, rebel without a cause culture of the 1950s. In the 1980s, the baby-boomers retold legends of the tumultuous 60s, breathing new life into Woodstock-era rock and Motown-inspired soul, while staking claim to being the greatest generation in history.
So now we've arrived in the 2010s, for want of a better term, and so it is the 90s grunge-era, punk revival, vacuous pop-dance music that is bubbling back up to the surface.
In the midst of all this nostalgia, the vinyl record has seen an incredible resurgence. It has reached a point where radio stations have now reinstalled turntables in their studios, trumpeting the on-air return of vinyl like it's the resurrection of Elvis.
The sound is richer and purer we've been told. Nothing sounds as good as vinyl. The record companies destroyed the music industry when they switched to Compact Disc technology.
Well, allow me, somebody who grew up with vinyl records, to say back the truck up.
Over the course of the 1980s I compiled a rather large collection of records, not a much as an audiophile, but more than your average music fan. The reason for the collection was that I was plying my trade as a disc jockey for live events. Though I made little money, I thought at the time it had an element of glamour to it, and let's face it, I got to talk to a lot of pretty girls at parties.
The little money I had went to buying more records to meet with the seemingly insatiable demands of party-goers. For a kid with little or no income, it was a huge investment.
Sure, there were many a night spent with earphones glued to my head, listening to hours of my favourite artists, enjoying every second vocal nuance and guitar riff. But what many of today's vinyl obsessed junkies don't know is that over the period of the 1980s the quality of mass-produced vinyl records was falling off. It was economics of course. Record companies were driven produce cheaper products, faster and we were just as willing to line up to buy them. It should be noted that the price of a record album in the 80s was roughly the same as it is on iTunes today, which, adjusting for inflation, is almost 3 times more expensive.
The other thing that those who did not grow up in that era cannot appreciate, was that there was no comparable alternative to vinyl. There were cassette tapes, but they're quality was dubious from the start, and would degrade rather quickly over time. Vinyl was the best choice for sound quality and durability, but vinyl was also easily susceptible to damage due to repeated playing and mishandling. Records would get dusty and scratched, and once that happened, they we damaged forever. As much as I loved listening to music for hours on end, it galled me that I had to tolerate all the static noise that came from their eventual and virtually unstoppable degradation.
Record companies were fully aware of the limitations of vinyl and were quite content to let it go on for the foreseeable future, but the digital revolution was coming, whether they were prepared for it or not.
Let me be absolutely clear about my next point. The advent of the Compact Disc was the greatest thing to happen to music lovers since the invention of the phonograph. Read any review from any expert audiophile, producer or sound engineer from that era and you will come to understand that the quality of Compact Disc audio far surpassed anything ever produced on vinyl. Period.
You may wish to wax nostalgic about the amazing artwork on the sleeves of 12" records, and you will certainly get no argument from me. In many ways it was a pure form of pop culture art that will never be duplicated. But on the sound quality argument, you cannot convince me for one second that vinyl is superior. Every device capable of measuring audio range will support that contention, this is not just an opinion.
Now, MP3s are a different discussion, but that is a discussion for another time.
If you grew up loving music and hating all of the hiss and rumble and pops of dusty, scratched LPs, the advent of Compact Discs was miraculous. In fact, some of the early CDs used to come with a proviso from the record label noting that the background hissing sounds were he result of the original analogue studio recordings that none of us had previously detected on vinyl. On some CDs we could hear the musicians breathing, a page of music turning and other sounds that were previously undetectable on other media. It was like having the original master tapes from our favourite artists in one remarkably small package. Record companies had finally answered our prayers, and for many of us, the era of vinyl was mercifully over.
Two things have contributed to vinyl's resurgence. The first is driven mostly by nostalgia. Records were cool. From the artwork on the sleeve, to their smell and feel. We've even fallen in love with the crackles and pops, the warping that causes the stylus to dance, all of those little quirks that take us back to what we perceive to be a simpler time.
The other thing that's driving vinyl's resurgence is society's compelling and ironic distrust for anything corporate. The very companies who sold us billions of dollars in sub-standard vinyl are now being blamed for destroying the industry by providing the superior product we all demanded. Now those same companies are profiting again by reselling the same product at a significantly higher profit.
I'm neither defending nor condoning how corporations make their money. Corporations exist to make money, and they'll go wherever the marketplace allows them to do it.
You can love vinyl, I don't have an issue with that, and indeed there are many things to love. But please don't try to convince me that they are sonically superior than the best of today's digital technology, because on every possible scale of measurement it simply is not true. I can also do without the notion that the music industry set about to destroy vinyl as some bizarre plot to undermine music lovers and decimate independent record stores. Consumers were just as culpable when peer-to-peer file sharing sites sucked the life out of the music industry, devaluing the product and ultimately hurting both established and struggling musicians to this day.
At least the good news about consumers newfound love for vinyl is that maybe some of the investment I made all those years ago might be recouped if the right buyer comes along.
When it comes to choosing vinyl or digital I'm going to side with Montreal's most iconic radio personality, Too Tall, who is just as glad we don't have to rely on vinyl for our music as I am.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Back on The Blog: Politics, Greed & Disbelief
I know, I know, it's been a while since I've been blogging. Many things have happened over the past year which would take far too long to write about. I am relatively healthy, employed, with a roof over my head and an amazing family, I figure that's more than anyone can ask these days.
There have been a few issues in the public eye that I've wanted to weigh in on, because what the world really needs is more opinions. In defference to short attention spans, I'll try to be succinct.
Since I last blogged, the province of Quebec elected a new government. Not suprising considering the stain of corruption that had grown over the Liberal's nine-year term in office. The election of the Parti Québécois has been good for some things, but not so good for everything else. The good, if you can call it that, is the fact that the PQ's current, more old-school, hard-line, cast of characters has been great fodder for the press. Reporters and columnists have been falling over themselves looking for an angle to fan the flames of linguistic discontent as the province's economy circles the bowl. The PQ for their part, fulfilled their xenophobic neo-socialist agenda by acquiescing to a minority group of entitled anarchists by revoking tuition fee hikes (payback for helping oust the Liberals), then proceeded to slash funding to universities, hospitals and infrastructure repair in order to boost the budget for the language police.
All of this came to pass largely because of a split in votes that amounted to 66% of the Quebec population NOT voting for the PQ. So, rather than trying to figure out how to keep our cities from crumbling, or making the province economically viable for business, we are discussing the language and font sizes of signs in store windows. Which is all irrelevant, because as Justin Trudeau rightfully pointed out (in a less than tactful manner) the power in Canada has already shifted to the west; and as long as there is oil in those sands, that's where it will stay.
***
The NHL lockout is officially over.
As I stated numerous times during this dispute, I will not be following the league this year. I have been criticized for this stand, as have other likeminded individuals. It has been said that denying oneself the pleasure of watching hockey is tantamount to punishing oneself, not the league. Others have been more blunt, suggesting that those who turn away from the league are not true hockey fans.
My positition is simple. I love hockey, and have since I was very young. I have been a fan of the Canadiens for over forty years. Make no mistake that the dispute over the Collective Bargaining Agreement had nothing to do with making the game better. As the players and the league got into a childish narcissistic pissing contest, it became clear to me that what truly mattered to both sides was not the fans, but their money.
Bitching and complaining about it is not enough. At the end of the day there is no other way for fans to express our displeasure than to withhold the one thing both sides covet above all else, our money and our attention. This is about integrity, and if you choose to take a meaningful stand on anything, you have to be prepared to give up something. I wish more fans would do the same, but it looks as if the league was right all along, fans are flocking back to arenas like the suckers P.T. Barnum so loved.
I wish my team well this season, and like any fan, I hope they do well enough to make the playoffs, and maybe the ultimate prize. I also hope those involved in businesses and media affected by the lockout will be able to bounce back quickly.
Otherwise, my attention will be elsewhere.
***
Sandy Hook elementary school, Newtown Connecticut. Twenty first-grade students...children, killed in a shooting rampage.
Twenty children killed.
Should we even be a debating gun control, or are we just that stupid?
We also need to ask ourselves about the state of mental health awareness and treatment.
We might also want to ask ourselves about the mental health of people who think they need to own assault rifles when many communities ban the ownership of pit bulls.
Twenty children.
We have got to fix this
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Our Hockey Song
(Sung to the tune of The Hockey Song by Stompin' Tom Connors)
They're goin' nowhere, we're off the air, no hockey on tonight.
Tension grows, they've come to blows, no settlement in sight.
It all looks bleak, when Bettman speaks, it really is insane.
The fans all roar, we can't take no more, where's our good ol' Hockey Game?
(Chorus)
Oh! The good ol' Hockey Game, is going down the drain.
And it really is a shame, there's no good ol' Hockey Game.
Second round… of negotiations…
The lawyers clash, over terms and cash, as they go down to the wire.
The fingers wag as the meetings lag, while the CBA expires.
The reporters scrum, the statement comes, everyone's to blame.
Each side wants more, owners lock the door, to the good ol' Hockey Game.
(Chorus)
Oh! The good ol' Hockey Game, is going down the drain.
And it really is a shame, there's no good ol' Hockey Game.
Third Round. Last chance to save the season!
Oh take me where the game is fair, and the fans can cheer and shout.
Where they play all night, no lawyers in sight, they can never lock us out.
Fire Bettman's ass, and Fehr's alas, they're both completely lame.
Let's drop the puck, don't let them f**k with our good ol' Hockey Game
(Chorus x3)
Oh! The good ol' Hockey Game, is going down the drain.
And it really is a shame, there's no good ol' Hockey Game.
They're goin' nowhere, we're off the air, no hockey on tonight.
Tension grows, they've come to blows, no settlement in sight.
It all looks bleak, when Bettman speaks, it really is insane.
The fans all roar, we can't take no more, where's our good ol' Hockey Game?
(Chorus)
Oh! The good ol' Hockey Game, is going down the drain.
And it really is a shame, there's no good ol' Hockey Game.
Second round… of negotiations…
The lawyers clash, over terms and cash, as they go down to the wire.
The fingers wag as the meetings lag, while the CBA expires.
The reporters scrum, the statement comes, everyone's to blame.
Each side wants more, owners lock the door, to the good ol' Hockey Game.
(Chorus)
Oh! The good ol' Hockey Game, is going down the drain.
And it really is a shame, there's no good ol' Hockey Game.
Third Round. Last chance to save the season!
Oh take me where the game is fair, and the fans can cheer and shout.
Where they play all night, no lawyers in sight, they can never lock us out.
Fire Bettman's ass, and Fehr's alas, they're both completely lame.
Let's drop the puck, don't let them f**k with our good ol' Hockey Game
(Chorus x3)
Oh! The good ol' Hockey Game, is going down the drain.
And it really is a shame, there's no good ol' Hockey Game.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
This is Not a Resolution
Nope, not posting a New Year's resolution. Absolutely not.
Well, maybe, kinda.
Marking the Earth's full orbit of the sun in the frigid month of January seems a reasonable starting point to embark on new endeavours, or revisit some abandoned ones. Therefore, am I seated at my desk rebooting an old blog with hopes that it will become a useful and entertaining creative outlet.
2011 is in the books, and frankly, good riddance. From a personal standpoint, and for friends and family, it was a difficult year. That is not to say the coming year will be any easier, but at least for the moment we can imagine the turning of the calendar to represent a clean slate.
I believe that psychologically, the metaphor is a healthy one. Over time we begin to realize that our victories are just as fleeting as our failures. In both cases, when the dust settles we must start anew, hopefully carrying forward all of the lessons learned from those experiences.
Perhaps the most important lesson derived from any experience is to keep goals in sight, but expectations reasonable. Those proclamations of radical lifestyle change made at 12:01 AM, 2012, will probably be slapped down by 12:01 AM the following day. Then what?
When browsing through sound clips to put together for a New Year's eve broadcast at CJIM, I came across a funny but also profound observation from the 90's sitcom 3rd Rock From The Sun. In case you didn't already know, the show centred around a group aliens sent to Earth disguised as humans to study our culture. Google it, and you'll get the picture. The scene I came across contained a quote from the alien character Dick, who observed:
"I don't understand this whole hullabaloo about New Years. It's so arbitrary, the Earth makes one orbit around the sun right back to this random point, I mean the man who came up with this calendar thought the Earth was flat. Do you really want to be on his team?"
I suppose the underlying message is that really any day can mark a New Year. That's good news for any one of us whose January 2nd gym membership is a financial liability by the 2nd of March. Beyond that, it's useful to know that we can stumble along the way to self-improvement knowing that the calendar has no mystical power over us, other than that to which we ascribe.
So Happy New Year, whichever year your are starting, and whenever you choose to start it. I wish you health and good fortune, surely something we can hope for at any random point as we orbit the sun.
Well, maybe, kinda.
Marking the Earth's full orbit of the sun in the frigid month of January seems a reasonable starting point to embark on new endeavours, or revisit some abandoned ones. Therefore, am I seated at my desk rebooting an old blog with hopes that it will become a useful and entertaining creative outlet.
2011 is in the books, and frankly, good riddance. From a personal standpoint, and for friends and family, it was a difficult year. That is not to say the coming year will be any easier, but at least for the moment we can imagine the turning of the calendar to represent a clean slate.
I believe that psychologically, the metaphor is a healthy one. Over time we begin to realize that our victories are just as fleeting as our failures. In both cases, when the dust settles we must start anew, hopefully carrying forward all of the lessons learned from those experiences.
Perhaps the most important lesson derived from any experience is to keep goals in sight, but expectations reasonable. Those proclamations of radical lifestyle change made at 12:01 AM, 2012, will probably be slapped down by 12:01 AM the following day. Then what?
When browsing through sound clips to put together for a New Year's eve broadcast at CJIM, I came across a funny but also profound observation from the 90's sitcom 3rd Rock From The Sun. In case you didn't already know, the show centred around a group aliens sent to Earth disguised as humans to study our culture. Google it, and you'll get the picture. The scene I came across contained a quote from the alien character Dick, who observed:
"I don't understand this whole hullabaloo about New Years. It's so arbitrary, the Earth makes one orbit around the sun right back to this random point, I mean the man who came up with this calendar thought the Earth was flat. Do you really want to be on his team?"
I suppose the underlying message is that really any day can mark a New Year. That's good news for any one of us whose January 2nd gym membership is a financial liability by the 2nd of March. Beyond that, it's useful to know that we can stumble along the way to self-improvement knowing that the calendar has no mystical power over us, other than that to which we ascribe.
So Happy New Year, whichever year your are starting, and whenever you choose to start it. I wish you health and good fortune, surely something we can hope for at any random point as we orbit the sun.
Monday, August 1, 2011
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."
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
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?
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?
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, June 17, 2011
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?
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, March 11, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
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.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)