Habs Dads

I got to take my youngest son to his first Canadiens hockey game on Monday, thanks to some tickets graciously donated by my too-generous friend Warren. I usually don't get to many games owing to the fact that the tickets are rather pricey and in general my disposable income amounts to the spare change found under the front seat of my car. 

It's not the first hockey game he's seen. We've been to a couple of Montreal Juniors games. While the hockey is exciting, there isn't much else to entertain a five year-old. These days, a bunch of NHL prospects zipping up and down the ice is not entertainment enough for the Lego Star Wars generation.
 
For me, taking my boy to a Habs game was a quintessential father-son moment. One that I had been looking forward to for some time. I already had the same experience with my older son, which I remember with great fondness. Now that he is a teenager in college, dad's status has been relegated to something equal to, or less than, a table lamp.

My hope was that my little man would be as enthralled with the experience of live hockey as I was in my childhood, perched in a cold wooden seat at the old Forum. HD television is good for catching details that are often lost for those in the stands, but there is no substitute for the electricity and excitement of a live game. The sound of the crowd, roaring to life after a home-team goal or the collective groans at a missed opportunity. The fist-pumping cheers of approval after a solid body check and the crisp clack of a puck on a stick blade. Then there are the smells: popcorn, hot dogs, beer and a mixture of colognes and perfumes, thankfully in place of stale cigarette smoke.

The sights are far more spectacular than in the old Forum days, but the atmosphere is still very much the same. Some sections of the crowd seem to be in non-stop party mode, while others appear intensely focused upon the on-ice action. A young couple holds hands, stealing the occasional passionate kiss. A group of young men jump out of their seats with every play, exchanging high-fives and chest bumps, fuelled by multiple gulps from plastic beer cups. Older gentlemen, veterans of Habs hockey fandom, wisely call each play before it happens and shake their heads at rookie mistakes. Pretty young women vie for a spot on camera, while their young male counterparts vie for the attention of the pretty young women. 

And then there are the fathers. Passing on a gift that came from their fathers. Hoping to rekindle in their child a small piece of the magic that dazzled them in their childhood. Faithfully forging a link to generations past through experience and memory.

The mood had been set as we arrived at our seats at the Bell Centre. Maxim Lapierre was presented the Jean Béliveau award for his charitable and community work. The trophy was presented by its legendary namesake, and almost instantly I could sense something special was in the air.

My only trepidation in bringing my son to this preseason tilt was the current woes of young goaltender Carey Price. I wasn’t so much concerned for him, although I sympathize with the intolerable situation in which he has landed; it had more to do with the crowd. In particular, what if young Price had yet another game where the puck looked more like a bullet than a beach ball? Would the crowd get on him again, booing and chanting "Halak, Halak?" Would it get ugly?

The answer came early when after a couple of easy saves the crowd chanted “Carey, Carey.” Then came a power play goal. One that he could have, or perhaps, should have stopped. I expected the worst. There were a few initial boos, but they were soon replaced by another chorus of “Carey, Carey.”

It was the right crowd. A true Habs crowd. I’ve been around long enough to know the difference.

The game ended with a Canadiens win, 6 to 2 over the Florida Panthers. Carey Price would pick up his first pre-season victory, helped along by a determined defensive team effort, and a supportive crowd.

Time will tell if my young son will remember that night, or its significance. As we drove home under the darkness and gentle rain of a late September evening, he drifted quietly off to sleep. Dreaming dreams, I hope, of the sights, smells and sounds of a tradition that is timeless. Of a small hand slipped into his father's, just as it was so many years ago, beneath the lights and the history of a Montreal Canadiens hockey game.

Political Misfire

You know Parliament is hopping when the politicians, who should be doing things like making sure we actually have healthcare and roads that won't swallow up your car, are busily coming up with ways to make everybody angry.

The recent vote on the gun-registry is a typical example. On the one hand you have the Tories bent on scrapping the bloated program, and on the other you have the opposition parties suddenly banding together to defeat the motion, some of whom flip-flopped like carp on a wharf.

Naturally the journalists jumped into the fray analysing the debate in terms of  political fallout. Which parties would win, and who would be the big loser? The people who, in theory, were most affected by this legislation, responsible gun-owners and those who lost a family member to gun-related violence, were paraded in front of the cameras like political pawns to become talking heads for reporters salivating over a usable sound-bite.

In the end, nothing was resolved, everyone is pissed-off and the politicians and their advisers are off to find some way to spin the results or find another political football to toss around.

The truth is, the gun-registry issue is complex and not as easily resolved by simply scrapping it or keeping the status-quo. The Canadian Firearms Registry is part of the Firearms Act, which was first passed in 1995. The bill was first introduced in response to the December 14th massacre of 14 young women by Marc Lepine at École Polytechnique in 1989. The required registration portion of the firearms act only came into effect in 2001. It should be noted that all owners of firearms in Canada are required to obtain a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL). The PAL costs anywhere from $60 for non-restricted firearms and $80 for restricted. The license is renewable every 5 years. There is also a Possession Only License which is limited to ownership of a single firearm. All gun-owners are required to have a license, this cost is not being disputed.

The registration portion of the act requires all gun-owners to register the firearms they own. This registration is free and can be done by mail or over the internet. Although it is a requirement, a number of gun-owners have refused to register and the current government is extending amnesty against prosecution.

The issue at hand is that the long-gun registry (which refers specifically to rifles) has run up a huge bill for taxpayers. While it has not made it more difficult for gun-owners to acquire firearms, responsible gun-owners, many of them from rural communities, feel that they are being unfairly targeted for what is essentially an urban police issue. From a law enforcement standpoint, the registry has given officers vital information as to which households may contain firearms, allowing them to be better prepared when responding to a call.

It has been argued that many guns used in criminal activities were illegally obtained and therefore would not have been registered. This is often true. It has also been argued that it is primarily illegally obtained handguns used in criminal activity that are responsible for the bulk of gun-related deaths in Canada, not rifles. This is often not true. It has been stated that the gun-registry cost Canadian tax-payers far more than was estimated. True. When the program was initiated, it far exceeded its estimated cost of $2 million when accounting for revenue from licensing. The actual cost ballooned to over $860 million. It has also been stated that the program continues to be a huge burden on taxpayers. This is not true, the program currently costs around $4.1 million annually while revenue from licensing is in the area of $140 million.

Who is right here? Well, both. The firearms act, including the long-gun registry, is the right idea being poorly executed. Although it is not a fair comparison, everyone who owns a motor vehicle in Canada must have it licensed, again a fact that no one is disputing. Because firearms have one, perhaps two purposes (that is to shoot something or be collected) I think it is completely reasonable that they ought to be registered, particularly since such registration is free. At the same time, tax-payers should not have to foot the bill for a law that was essentially passed in response to one lunatic. Considering that the vast majority of the country is sane and responsible. The government has an obligation to fiscal responsibility, and should be more cautious in the implementation and management of public programs.

These issues could be debated back and forth forever, but the truth is, like it or not, guns need to be registered. Let's be clear, there are no do-overs when it comes to firearms. They were designed and built for a single purpose: to deliver a powerful and deadly blow. They absolutely must be handled responsibly. Given humanity's track record, coupled with the degree of risk, we would be foolish to assume that a personal promise is sufficient to protect the public. However, the registry program needs to be run efficiently and at a reasonable cost. Yes, it will require tax payer dollars, but most agree that some costs, like the police and military, are essential for the government in its role to protect its citizens. The government must also do its utmost to ensure this information is kept private and secure.

Will the registry prevent crime? Likely not, but that was never the intent. Reducing gun-related deaths was the goal. Giving authorities the knowledge of the owners and the location of firearms is indisputably valuable in achieving this goal. Guns come under no other category than weapon and I can see no downside in at least knowing who owns the legal ones and where they are. Like all things governmental, it's not perfect, but better than nothing.

When politicians go about taking a complex issue and turn it into an 'us versus them' argument by pitting rural against urban, nobody wins. What people want are solutions, not oversimplified arguments designed to divide the populous and feed the political parties' egregious and self-serving need to score political points.

Stop wasting our time trying to stir up a fight nobody wants.

Watch this space...

Apologies to those of you addicted to my regular diatribe of clumsy literary prose. Last week was spent writing and preparing material for a friend's 25th anniversary celebration. I will get back in the blogosphere this week so you can get your fix of rants and raves and uncontrolled brain spew.

Unless you really didn't miss the blog, in which case I did you a big favour.

No need to thank me.

Second, and long...

Weighing in on the hiring of Eric Tillman by the Canadian Football League's Edmonton Eskimos is definitely in the territory of 'where angels fear to tread'. Nonetheless, I'm going there.

If you don't know the back story, in 2009 the former Saskatchewan Roughriders general manager was charged with sexual assault of a sixteen year-old girl. The incident occurred in 2008 when the girl was babysitting Tillman's two children. The teen testified that Tillman, who had come home early from work, came up behind the teen, put his thumbs through her belt loops and pulled her body against his. Tillman has said that he doesn't remember the event because he was under the influence of a bad combination of non-prescription pain medication. The medications involved were a double dose of sleep aids and a drug to relieve back pain. According to colleagues, Tillman was sent home from a team meeting because he was exhibiting strange behaviour which had later been attributed to the drug mixture.

Tillman plead guilty to the charges and after weeks of court testimony was granted an absolute discharge. The judge in the case, Murray Hinds, believed Tillman was "genuinely remorseful" and accepted that his behaviour was a result of the drugs. Tillman is still considered guilty of the offence, but he won't have a criminal record, and no conditions were imposed to keep his record clear. It should be noted that Tillman has no prior record of sexual assault or mistreatment of women, nor has anyone come forward to make allegations of other incidents.

The nature of this crime is so socially toxic that getting beyond the incident, regardless of the circumstances, is extremely difficult. Tillman will have to live with his mistake for the rest of his days, a fact he has publicly accepted.

The question is, are we ready to forgive him? A recent poll of Edmonton Eskimo fans revealed more than half disapproved of the hiring. Tillman himself admitted that he was not surprised by the reaction, nonetheless he accepted the position knowing that he will always be judged by his indiscretion.

A lot of people think he doesn't deserve to be in such a high profile position, despite the fact that it is one in which he is uniquely qualified and has excelled. During his tenure as a general manager in the CFL, he has won three Grey Cups, and came close again last year until the famous 13th man incident. He also spent time as an analyst on TSN, though it is highly unlikely he would ever return to television.

I know I'll get some flack for this, but I am not among those prepared to write-off Tillman's career. No, I don't think what he did was right. It was a mistake, a big one. However, if it was a result of a form of inebriation I think there are more than a few people in the world who are just as culpable of similarly inappropriate behaviour. I know of at least one incident in my own past when after too many drinks (among other embarrassing acts) I picked a fight with a friend; something I have never done before or since. How many people still get behind the wheel of a car knowing full well that they are under the influence, despite the risk of endangering others? Health care workers will attest to some post-operative patients, and those receiving high doses of pain medication, exhibiting behaviours that are either exceedingly inappropriate or violent. Sometimes both. These are people who are otherwise meek and kind-hearted.

I also think that the public frequently displays a double-standard when it comes to celebrities behaving badly. Some seem to get an unreasonable amount of leeway for irresponsible actions while others get singled-out for seemingly minor offences. Many of the accounts of Tiger Woods indiscretions are appalling and yet fans, sports reporters and the PGA seem fairly anxious for a return of the Tiger of old.

Although he testified that he had no recollection of the incident due to the combination of medications, Tillman did plead guilty to his actions and did not try to hide behind the law or from the press. He has apologized to his family, his colleagues and the public. He has asked for, and received, forgiveness from the victim and her family.

I'll grant that the nature of this offence makes it difficult to reconcile with the offender, and had it been my child, I would struggle to contain my rage. It is at best a gross breach of mutual trust and respect and at worst a disturbing and predatory act.

Tillman's remorse, at least to me and those at the centre of the incident, seems genuine. Though he may have escaped legal retribution, his life will be forever marred by this incident. That said, who am I to insist on repeatedly punishing him by denying the opportunity to rebuild his life and career? If any one of us were found guilty of some of the impulsive and foolish mistakes we've made in our own lives, would we not hope for the same?

Healthy Fear?

Here's a riddle that is guaranteed to root out all the parents in the group.

Let's say you get asked to cook something for a party where children are going to be present. What is the first question you should ask?

Chances are, if you're a parent, the answer is obvious: do any of the kids have allergies?

These days, the awareness of life-threatening allergic reactions is a matter of course for schools, and virtually every other children's group or organization. If you have a child in elementary or high school you are probably already aware that foods containing, or that have been exposed to, nuts are strictly verboten.

It got me to thinking back to when I was a kid in elementary school (during a period not long after the earth's crust cooled). As I recall there was only one child in the entire school with allergies, and it seemed like she had all of them. At the time, having allergies seemed to be something of a novelty, and given the attention she received from the staff, we all secretly wished we could be allergic too. Preferably to musty classrooms.

Today we have a greater understanding of dangers of severe allergic reactions and it is not uncommon to see kids and schools stocking EpiPens (rapid injectable epinephrine, for the uninitiated). This is just part of the new reality that our children face.

When I was a child there was no such thing as Amber alerts or child identification registries. That is not to say there were predatory creeps about, we just didn't seem to think about it too much. Kids had paper routes, walked home from school by themselves and didn't give too much thought to drinking out of public water fountains. Bullying was just a part of childhood, either you avoided getting your butt kicked or you fought back. Parents and faculty for the most part stayed out of it.

I'm not saying we should be ignorant to the dangers children face every day but, with the current level of awareness of life's hazards, I wonder if today's kids might view the world as a much scarier place than I once did. For instance, when our older son was in high school one of the safety drills practised regularly was something called a code red. This is a lock-down drill in which students and faculty lock their classroom door, climb under their desks and take cover in case of a school shooting. Although the drill is a necessary response to protect against what has become a disturbing phenomena, it is still unnerving.

Then I began to recall stories my mother told me about growing up during World War II. In elementary school, students were required to bring gas masks to class every day. You would be sent home if you forgot it. Air raid drills were part of the routine. Students were required to don their gas masks and climb under their desks to seek shelter.

Although she knew it was something to be taken seriously, my mother recalled thinking that it was just part of everyday life. She never thought of it as strange or scary, just something one had to do. She also didn't think it made her childhood any less enjoyable or kept her from dreaming and playing and imagining as all children do.

Perhaps it is true that the world is far scarier when experienced as an adult. I hope that is how our kids see it, because their play and imagination and dreams will one day shape our future.

Preferably one that is a lot less scarier than today.

September 11th, 2010

September 11th, to borrow from history, is a day that will live in infamy.

Perhaps it is not the 21st century version of Pearl Harbor, but the event still carries with it an eerily similar sense of shock and heartache so many years later.

I still have difficulty reconciling how this day should be marked. Revisiting the stories, seeing the pictures, watching archived news footage, remembering those that were lost and trying to make sense of it all. These are the rituals that have evolved from my experience with September 11th, but they seem to lack cohesion or order. I don't plan for the date, it just happens and I often am left wondering if I am doing right by my remembrance.

We often use the words 'we will never forget.' I'm not certain whether this is meant to be a tribute to lives lost or a statement of defiance. I can't possibly imagine ever forgetting the events of that day, even if I wanted to. When we pledge to 'never forget' are we saying we will never forget those we lost, or never forget who was responsible for this tragedy? Is it both?

Choosing to focus exclusively on those responsible is perhaps oversimplifying the story. History tells us that few of humankind's epic events are purely random acts. There were signs which were ignored and motives borne out of a lesser known and darker side of humanity. In the moments, days and weeks after living through the horror of 9/11 it was difficult fathom these things, but over time we see the truth and it is ugly and disturbing.

There is no justification for such acts of terror and I am not suggesting as much when trying to come to grips with those tragic events nine years ago. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that there was, and still is, fertile ground for the resentment of western society's dominance of the world economy, much to the detriment of developing nations. We few, who consume and often waste so much of the world's resources, some of which have been secured by meddling in the politics of other nations, have we not learned anything? When our governments support oppressive regimes to appease domestic political notions or keep our cost of living low in what direction is our moral compass pointing? The resentment of the oppressed is legitimate, which presents an opportunity for those who feed upon anarchy to peddle violence and death as a quick solution.

As far as we have come since September 11th, I'm not sure we are any closer to resolving the conditions that bred such a cold-blooded attack.

As it turned out, my September 11th was spent at a soccer tournament with my son. After his game we stayed at the park where he played with dozens of other children. While I sat pondering the meaning of the anniversary I watched the children run and climb and laugh and squeal. They made quick friends, immediately trusting one another even though moments earlier they were strangers. The children varied in age, race and language, none of which seemed to matter.

It became clear to me that this was the perfect way to mark September 11th. Through the eyes of children, a simple yet defiant statement

'We cannot forget what we can become if we learn to share and trust.'

A truth that no act of anger and violence can defeat. I think we owe it to the world's children to follow through.

Over In A Flash

This weekend, whilst flipping channels in a moment of pure vegetableness (vegetablocity? veggiousness?), I came across a program on the Space channel delightfully named: Countdown to Doomsday. It was a documentary of sorts about all the possible ways in which planet Earth, and its inhabitants, could be wiped out. There were the usual suspects: asteroid collision, global warming, nuclear war. For pure entertainment value they also threw in sci-fi scenarios such as alien invasion and machines taking over the planet. Quaint, but really fodder for the comic book convention crowd.

The one that really stood out was a scientific phenomenon know as a gamma-ray burst.

A gamma-what? Sounds like something out of Star Trek.

Actually, my red-shirted friend, gamma-ray bursts are a real cosmic occurrence that in my humble estimation are the mother and father of all doomsday scenarios. Lending legitimacy to this compelling cosmic catastrophe were NASA scientists, people in lab coats, science show hosts and a pantload of terrifying scientific data.

Here's the scoop: Gamma radiation pulses are commonly associated with nuclear detonation. During the cold war, the United States military launched satellites into orbit with specially equipped sensors used to detect possible nuclear weapons tests. The Scientists were alarmed to discover that not only did the devices detect multiple gamma ray pulses, none of them emanated from earth. Upon further investigation, researchers discovered that the pulses were coming from distant space. The pulses were in fact gamma-ray bursts emanating from deep space (cue dramatic music).

Big deal, right?

Wrong. Gamma-ray bursts are millions of times more powerful than a nuclear explosion and can travel exceedingly long distances almost instantaneously. Such an event in our galaxy has the potential to vaporize our atmosphere and consequently wipe out all life on the surface of the planet.

I know, holy crap!

As it turns out, gamma-ray bursts occur regularly in our universe. At least one every 24 hours. The good news, from what scientists understand of the phenomena, is that they don't seem to happen within our galaxy.

Whew, right?

Wrong again. Just because it hasn't happened here doesn't mean it won't. Gamma-ray bursts are not uncommon in the universe but occurrences are extremely rare within a galaxy. That said, estimates are that galactic gamma-ray bursts occur once every billion or so years. Scientists are busily combing the planet looking for some evidence that Earth have may already sustained an impact from a gamma-ray burst. The burning question (pardon the pun) is: are we on the top end of that billion, or the bottom?

This is one of those charming nuggets of scientific knowledge that is hard to sort out in our heads. What does one do with the notion that the planet could be wiped out before we had a chance to say 'What the f--'?

The one good thing about this information is that it shakes us loose from our self-centred view of the planet. Nature, which includes the universe, really doesn't give a rat's behind about our political leanings, who our friends are, how successful we've become, if we can throw a ball or stop a puck. It doesn't care who wins an argument, makes it to work on time, or has a piece of paper that says we're smart, dumb or more important than everyone else.

All we've got is this earth and each other, that's it. It's probably a good idea to get our priorities straight by taking a good hard look at what we're doing to our own backyard and to one another. Having a healthy respect for nature, and particularly our place in it, wouldn't hurt.

Besides, it's not like we have anywhere else to go, and the rest of the universe doesn't seem quite as pleasant.