2025-10-31

Root, Root, Root For The Dodgers

My timing for this post is off—given that the Los Angeles Dodgers are likely to fall to the Toronto Blue Jays in the World Series—but it's one that points to something beyond baseball.In Canada, we live in a time when everyone's a "traitor" or "disloyal" to the collective tribe. COVID was illustrative of just how disconnected and disengaged we've become from taking our basic civil rights seriously.
You're a "traitor" for having taken part in the truckers' protest. An episode that spawned the noxious term "freedumbers" from dullards. If you question "climate change" or residential schools, you're engaging in "denialism" (of course, they'd never consider abortion a form of denialism, since they're prepared to fully ignore its harmful psychological and physical side-effects, which are detrimental to a healthy and strong community, culture, and society). And during the World Series, a new form of faux-patriotic fervor has emerged. Specifically, if you don't support "Canada's team," you're "disloyal."
A thin-skinned, passive-aggressive demand to "support the team" and "wear the damn ribbon" isn't my cup of tea.
Predictably unsurprising, the reliably tedious Canadian sports fan is out on social media complaining about how the Jays are disrespected—as if they're entitled to it—and that MLB wants them to lose, while talking smack all over the place.
Big-deal analysts chose the Dodgers to win. Vegas had them as favorites since spring training. It's not an example of "disrespecting" Toronto but just a sober (maybe lazy) reflection of going with the probabilities. And if there's a sport where probabilities reign, it's baseball.Not that I need to explain myself to the faux Canadian patriot, but here's why I root, root, root for the Dodgers.
When the Montreal Expos disappeared from the diamond forever, I figured rooting for another team would keep my interest in baseball going. So I stared up at the sky and asked myself: who is worthy? I spent many a rainy morning looking creepily out my window, deciding.Finally, I chose the Dodgers. Here's why. First off, they were a National League team, and I liked NL ball. I never considered the Blue Jays. Just because they were based in Canada wasn't a good enough reason for me. No offense.
However, there was a more historical and personal reason to settle on the Dodgers. The Montreal Royals were the farm team of the Brooklyn Dodgers from 1939–1960, if memory serves me right. My grandfather—who was a catcher—used to go watch the Royals and saw 42 play many times. By natural extension, he was a Dodgers fan, I think, too.
Many years later, I read a book on the Royals and loved the rich, albeit somewhat short, history and the legendary and colorful players and characters who wore its uniform: Don Drysdale, Tommy Lasorda, Roy Campanella, Roberto Clemente, Duke Snider (later teaming with the great Dave Van Horne calling Expos games), Gil Hodges, Carl Furillo, Sal Maglie, and others who helped turn Montreal into a big-league city.


And they were winners. The Royals are still considered among the greatest farm teams ever, having won seven league titles (Governor's Cup) and three Junior World Series in 1946, '48, and '53.
It was a golden age for both the Royals and Dodgers, with the big team heading to the World Series in '47, '49, '52, and '53, losing each time to the Yankees before finally defeating their mortal arch-rival bums in 1955. Not longer after they were off to Los Angeles, and the Royals folded in 1960. But those successful 20 years led to the arrival of Nos Amours—the fabulously eccentric Montreal Expos. To this day, the Expos are beloved in Montreal.
The only other potential teams a Montrealer could root for were the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox, given the popularity of those two teams.
So, it was logical to naturally migrate to the LA Dodgers.
What about Blue Monday? Crushing, yes, but water under the bridge. Ironically, it was like losing to family, given the two franchises were linked. You do what you can to cope, I reckon.To add a propeller to my beanie, I watched the Expos lose to the Dodgers 4-0 at Chavez Ravine in 1990.
And that's why I support the Dodgers.
Go Dodgers.

2025-10-30

D'Oh Canada

When the Liberal Party of Canada changed the lyrics to O Canada to make them "gender-neutral" and "inclusive," I warned at the time that it wasn't a symbol of progress but a vapid, contrived, performative exercise in identity politics. It was an issue that should have been taken directly to the Canadian people through a referendum, given its importance. A national anthem reveals, among other things, the identity, traditions, lore, myths, aspirations, and values of a country. It's meant to bind a nation together.
It also opened the door to more cultural relativism. In this case, since the lyrics are no longer sacrosanct but a mere political tool, it leaves the door open for interpretation. O Canada can mean whatever you want it to mean.
"Like, that's your opinion, man."
—The Dude

If a song meant to unite a country can be reworded, reinterpreted, and refashioned in the image of the singer, then it's not an anthem but just an exercise in individual performance art.
During the World Series, Canadians witnessed it firsthand. JP Saxe and Rufus Wainwright dishonoured our country by (arrogantly) modifying something they had no right to modify. It's not theirs—or anyone else's, for that matter—to unilaterally decide what lyrics they want to sing. It's not a pop song. It's a national anthem. Millions of Canadians don't agree with identity politics, and weaponizing an anthem only invites more division and distrust.
In that contrived spectacle, it reveals itself as vacant, soulless art—less inspirational and more cynical.



It doesn't project a strong national identity. It projects a colonial mindset.
Canada has seen better days.

Here's how a national anthem should be performed: