When I was young my parents did not moderate our television intake and consumption. We were free to roam the cold, hard realm of pop culture with eager independence. By the time we were 13 our knowledge and exposure to underground television (and later film and writing) ideas were unrivaled by our peers. The impact and consequence of this?
We are forever held hostage to those images. Many times we find ourselves using what we saw as metaphors for our lives. Needless to say, many people rarely ever understood what it was we were talking about. When there was someone who did it was akin to meeting a soul mate. Example? How many people ever watched Jim Carey at the Juno Awards when he was a freakish obscurity? The Juno's? Are you kidding me? Who in Canada in 1984 or 1985 (whatever) were watching the fricken Juno's? Alas, we can always brag we were exposed to Carey's brilliance before most people. This is just a small example that was ushered into my head while reruns of 'Cheers' plays in the background.
Sketch comedy is something Canadians excel at for some reason. SCTV Network and Lorne Michaels (the man behind Saturday Night Live) are American comedy institutions who happen to be Canadian. In the 1990s, 'The Kids in the Hall' rose to critical fame soon finding there way on American sitcoms. Most notably Dave Foley on the vastly under rated and under appreciated 'Newsradio'. Lesser known sketches included 'CODCO' and 'You Can't do that on Television.' More recently, the enormously popular 'This Hour has 22 Minutes' is the latest in the evolution of Canadian sketch comedy.
For me, there was one forgotten and obscure group. So forgotten that it is almost impossible to find any reliable information about them. 'Four on the Floor' was a comedy group from the 80s that scarred us. Well into our 30s my family and I still refer to it from time to time. I have always wondered what ever happened to them. Until today when I noticed on Comedy Central that they were back as The Frantics for a one-hour special on Saturday.
One of the more hilarious skits included Mr. Canoehead. A Canadian super hero who had his canoe welded to his head after being struck by lightning. One particular episode had him battling a fiendish villain -with one of those sit down hair dryers you find in hair salons stuck to his head - who wanted to collect all the bacon bits in the world.
Good to see them back - even if it is for one hour. This blog always pays tributes to pioneers and 'Four on the Floor' a part of a long tradition of Canadian comedy.
2006-01-23
Canada Votes Today
I'm not historically and genetically predisposed to write about up to the minute current events. I choose topics as they hit me. Issues that I have some reasonable handle on (through experience, sources, contacts etc.). It's definitely not organized nor is it scientific - many bloggers don't have the benefit of an editor. I use a lot of sarcasm, humor and dead-pan (most of it completely missed judging by some comments I have received). Some days I feel more like an essayist - it all depends and this is the beauty of blogging. It's freeform.
Where am I goin with this? I have seemed to position myself as a voice for Canadian issues (and culture) for American readers. One of the biggest complaints Canadians have - not unreasonably- is that Americans care little about Canada. True, they don't show an active interest in learning about Canada BUT it is also up to us to brand ourselves better. If we do this Americans will read. We need to project this country in a meaningful manner; and I don't mean this by drawing negative attention by using anti-American (to please a minority of Canadians. To be sure, most Canadians (apparently 70% of us anyway) like the Americans) rhetoric to cite an example. This is why I found it shocking and incredibly misguided that the Liberals would pander to Canadians who think this way. This is not leadership; it's cynical capitalizing.
Moreover, the Liberals liken themselves to the holders of a pan-Canadian vision that includes mythical values such as multiculturalism and peacekeeping. It is true the Liberals cut across a wider scope of moderate Canadians. They appeal to people who hold to notions regarding national unity by demonizing regionalized parties.
The other parties include The NDP; socialists with limited appeal. The Bloc are a provincial and thus parochial party that is in Ottawa thanks to the Canadian electoral system. Ironically, Canada's federal system is the loosest in the world and it has allowed for Quebec to have a voice in Parliament. The Conservatives have become more of a populist party defined by small 'c' and social conservatism - the school of Calgary as it is known - have redefined traditional Canadian Toryism. Still, the party has managed to appeal to many Canadians from coast to coast. One thing I hope they do is to reintroduce to Canadians (as they once did) that they need to stand on their own two feet free of government assistance.
Anyway, to my American readers I hope this blog has helped to give a glimpse in what is going on in Canada. I plan to focus more on its culture - often overlooked (incidentally, I highly recommend various CBC programming if one wants to get a feel for Canadiana. I especially like the Vinyl Café on Sunday Mornings. My goal is to go against the grain of accepted norms (though to some I am the norm) and avoid typical hysterical musings so prevalent in society today.
Canada is poised to vote a Conservative government today and this will usher in a breath of fresh air. As it stands, they are on the cusp of a majority government. I had predicted a Conservative government a few months ago and even flirted that it would be a majority one - I once debated with a PhD political scientist that Bush would win the last election. Just though I'd brag here.
It all depends how angry Canadians were with the Liberals. Here in Montreal, nationalist propaganda (Québec is fond of pointing out American propaganda excesses but never their own. Bush is a criminal in their eyes but election fraud during the 1995 referendum by the Part Québecois was either justified with typical pathetic theoretical mumbo-jumbo rhetoric or just plain ignored.
Back to the election, I'm not buying into the alleged zealotry the Conservatives are being chastised for. Sure, there's probably some validity to it but let's not exaggerate either. This is Canada after all where ensuring safe decisions comes to its full blossom. If the Conservatives prove incapable of governing then they will be booted out next election.
If the Conservatives come in I will be proud of Canadians. It will mean we recognized there was a democratic deficit and we were bold enough to take a stand. Let us hope we will be rewarded tonight.
Where am I goin with this? I have seemed to position myself as a voice for Canadian issues (and culture) for American readers. One of the biggest complaints Canadians have - not unreasonably- is that Americans care little about Canada. True, they don't show an active interest in learning about Canada BUT it is also up to us to brand ourselves better. If we do this Americans will read. We need to project this country in a meaningful manner; and I don't mean this by drawing negative attention by using anti-American (to please a minority of Canadians. To be sure, most Canadians (apparently 70% of us anyway) like the Americans) rhetoric to cite an example. This is why I found it shocking and incredibly misguided that the Liberals would pander to Canadians who think this way. This is not leadership; it's cynical capitalizing.
Moreover, the Liberals liken themselves to the holders of a pan-Canadian vision that includes mythical values such as multiculturalism and peacekeeping. It is true the Liberals cut across a wider scope of moderate Canadians. They appeal to people who hold to notions regarding national unity by demonizing regionalized parties.
The other parties include The NDP; socialists with limited appeal. The Bloc are a provincial and thus parochial party that is in Ottawa thanks to the Canadian electoral system. Ironically, Canada's federal system is the loosest in the world and it has allowed for Quebec to have a voice in Parliament. The Conservatives have become more of a populist party defined by small 'c' and social conservatism - the school of Calgary as it is known - have redefined traditional Canadian Toryism. Still, the party has managed to appeal to many Canadians from coast to coast. One thing I hope they do is to reintroduce to Canadians (as they once did) that they need to stand on their own two feet free of government assistance.
Anyway, to my American readers I hope this blog has helped to give a glimpse in what is going on in Canada. I plan to focus more on its culture - often overlooked (incidentally, I highly recommend various CBC programming if one wants to get a feel for Canadiana. I especially like the Vinyl Café on Sunday Mornings. My goal is to go against the grain of accepted norms (though to some I am the norm) and avoid typical hysterical musings so prevalent in society today.
Canada is poised to vote a Conservative government today and this will usher in a breath of fresh air. As it stands, they are on the cusp of a majority government. I had predicted a Conservative government a few months ago and even flirted that it would be a majority one - I once debated with a PhD political scientist that Bush would win the last election. Just though I'd brag here.
It all depends how angry Canadians were with the Liberals. Here in Montreal, nationalist propaganda (Québec is fond of pointing out American propaganda excesses but never their own. Bush is a criminal in their eyes but election fraud during the 1995 referendum by the Part Québecois was either justified with typical pathetic theoretical mumbo-jumbo rhetoric or just plain ignored.
Back to the election, I'm not buying into the alleged zealotry the Conservatives are being chastised for. Sure, there's probably some validity to it but let's not exaggerate either. This is Canada after all where ensuring safe decisions comes to its full blossom. If the Conservatives prove incapable of governing then they will be booted out next election.
If the Conservatives come in I will be proud of Canadians. It will mean we recognized there was a democratic deficit and we were bold enough to take a stand. Let us hope we will be rewarded tonight.
2006-01-22
How the Mighty have Fallen: The Sad State of Nos Glorieux; The Montreal Canadiens
Bob Gainey is a class act. I never met the man but I know people who know him personally. He's every bit the man he comes off on television. Gainey was once called the 'most complete two-way hockey player in the world' by Soviets. As captain of the Montreal Canadiens during the 70s (and 80s), and with quiet reserve Gainey helped lead the Habs to 5 Stanley Cups. He was an integral part of of great Canadiens dynasty of the late 1970s that won four consecutive championships. A team many consider the greatest ever.
Gainey had all the typical traits expected to win at a professional level. Diligence, intelligence, intensity you name it. Once upon a time the Montreal Canadiens defined the city of Montreal; they were one and the same. Who would have thought that with all the success Montreal witnessed in the 1970s - the Alouettes were a power in football and the Expos were an emerging team soon to be ordained the 'best organization in baseball' - that it would have sank as low as it has?
Many point to 1976 as the beginning of the end; the year a separatist provincial party got elected in Québec. While many Quebecers will not accept this explanation, the painful reality is that politics did play a role. The immortal French-English dichotomy has a life force not always beneficial to all concerned. As much as it adds to beauty of this city it can also be its worst enemy. It's just the way things work in here. Hockey was and is not immune to this. Many times the sport was and is used as a proxy for nationalist rhetoric. How could there have no consequences?
Rather than trace back the roots as to why and how the Habs (by extension the city of Montreal) have fallen to their knees and assign blame, it may serve this piece better to lament a lost time and era; to discuss the present and future. Like the Federal Liberals, le Club Hockey Canadiens are living off past glory and reputations. This is fine if you can connect this to the present. It does not seem to have happened.
Poverty of decision making, general incompetence and the reality of modern economics in pro sports were all actors on the stage that led to Montreal's curtain call.
Usually great teams bestow upon themselves the luxury of keeping the dynastic line alive by allowing for the past generation to connect with the new. Tradition is a powerful tool in modernity. The Canadiens have abandoned that tradition. Someone once astutely pointed out to me that the real downfall of the Expos was not that we had poor baseball fans but rather it was a direct result of the Expos severing all ties with themselves and the community. There was no continuity. People need to change hands from generation to generation and sports is no different.
Gainey left for greener pastures in Minnesota and later Dallas as helped to construct a Stanley Cup team in Dallas (he also helped lead the North Stars to a final in 1991). In fact, many of the great Habs were allowed to leave - save Serge Savard. The list included Jacques Lemaire, Larry Robinson and the greatest coach in pro sports history on this continent Scotty Bowman.
Again it is hard not to blame politics. The political, outrageous media, and tax situation (for good measure) are not a combination too many people want to tangle with these days. It must become impossible for some indeed.
After going through some bizarre interruptions and episodes (Patrick Roy's shocking inability to control his ego in 1995 immediately springs to mind for me), Bob Gainey returned in 2002-2003.
It was a return many fans reasonably felt was the beginning of a turnaround. The regal Gainey was just what this franchise needed. A force of tradition of a magnificent era long gone who brought instant credibility. Like a brilliant chess player trying to piece together a beautiful broken puzzle, Gainey exuded a return to Camelot. Alas, it has not turned out this way. It feels as though the rot of the curse in the halls of this team is threatening to swallow him up.
He inherited a team swimming in a pond of defeat. Sadly, he has only added to this. His moves have not been all that impressive for such a hockey mind. I am sure he'd be the first to admit this. Many Hab fans were confused by some of his signings and draft choices. Worse, he seems to have taken on a character many people did not think was in him when he called fans 'gutless bastards' for booing an unpopular and over paid defenseman.
The 2006 edition of the Habs is a collection of sad sacks with no pride. Once upon a time wearing the classic 'CH' was a badge of honor and instant respect. No longer. Too many people who do not deserve this logo have been allowed to wear it. Management is not cleared in any way in all of this. From body to soul, every single one of them have been architects in the downfall of the Montreal Canadiens.
Yes, the Montreal Canadiens are run by the marketing department and as long as fans pack in the Bell Center little incentive is available to turn Montreal into a winner. Players avoid this place like the plague for a reason you know. Who wants to put up with advertising smart-alecs and a media who can turn on you? We have implanted the notion that Montreal must have French players. Why? The Habs don't even draft the best players from Quebec any more - losing a monopoly does that to a franchise. Reasonable players with pride won't put up with it.
As I sat and watched the Canadiens put on another sad display losing 6-2 to the Vancouver Canucks, the camera panned to the Habs bench. Behind the lost, dazed eyes of the players on the bench, I could not help but notice the three men standing behind that same bench - Doug Jarvis, Guy Carbonneau and Bob Gainey. The irony was not lost on many fans I am sure. Three former great Habs on the 70s dynasty who never understood what it was like to lose in such a manner. The performance was indeed listless.
Maybe Gainey is slowly purging the organization behind the scene. Who knows? By now, he should be close to completing the puzzle, right? There is much to be excited about. There are some good young prospects on the team. We just don't know if they are quitters or winners. A warning shot has been fired. Whether Gainey can turn the Habs around is, in part, entirely up to the ghosts of the old Montreal Forum who have declined to migrate into the new arena; they have already reserved #23.
Gainey had all the typical traits expected to win at a professional level. Diligence, intelligence, intensity you name it. Once upon a time the Montreal Canadiens defined the city of Montreal; they were one and the same. Who would have thought that with all the success Montreal witnessed in the 1970s - the Alouettes were a power in football and the Expos were an emerging team soon to be ordained the 'best organization in baseball' - that it would have sank as low as it has?
Many point to 1976 as the beginning of the end; the year a separatist provincial party got elected in Québec. While many Quebecers will not accept this explanation, the painful reality is that politics did play a role. The immortal French-English dichotomy has a life force not always beneficial to all concerned. As much as it adds to beauty of this city it can also be its worst enemy. It's just the way things work in here. Hockey was and is not immune to this. Many times the sport was and is used as a proxy for nationalist rhetoric. How could there have no consequences?
Rather than trace back the roots as to why and how the Habs (by extension the city of Montreal) have fallen to their knees and assign blame, it may serve this piece better to lament a lost time and era; to discuss the present and future. Like the Federal Liberals, le Club Hockey Canadiens are living off past glory and reputations. This is fine if you can connect this to the present. It does not seem to have happened.
Poverty of decision making, general incompetence and the reality of modern economics in pro sports were all actors on the stage that led to Montreal's curtain call.
Usually great teams bestow upon themselves the luxury of keeping the dynastic line alive by allowing for the past generation to connect with the new. Tradition is a powerful tool in modernity. The Canadiens have abandoned that tradition. Someone once astutely pointed out to me that the real downfall of the Expos was not that we had poor baseball fans but rather it was a direct result of the Expos severing all ties with themselves and the community. There was no continuity. People need to change hands from generation to generation and sports is no different.
Gainey left for greener pastures in Minnesota and later Dallas as helped to construct a Stanley Cup team in Dallas (he also helped lead the North Stars to a final in 1991). In fact, many of the great Habs were allowed to leave - save Serge Savard. The list included Jacques Lemaire, Larry Robinson and the greatest coach in pro sports history on this continent Scotty Bowman.
Again it is hard not to blame politics. The political, outrageous media, and tax situation (for good measure) are not a combination too many people want to tangle with these days. It must become impossible for some indeed.
After going through some bizarre interruptions and episodes (Patrick Roy's shocking inability to control his ego in 1995 immediately springs to mind for me), Bob Gainey returned in 2002-2003.
It was a return many fans reasonably felt was the beginning of a turnaround. The regal Gainey was just what this franchise needed. A force of tradition of a magnificent era long gone who brought instant credibility. Like a brilliant chess player trying to piece together a beautiful broken puzzle, Gainey exuded a return to Camelot. Alas, it has not turned out this way. It feels as though the rot of the curse in the halls of this team is threatening to swallow him up.
He inherited a team swimming in a pond of defeat. Sadly, he has only added to this. His moves have not been all that impressive for such a hockey mind. I am sure he'd be the first to admit this. Many Hab fans were confused by some of his signings and draft choices. Worse, he seems to have taken on a character many people did not think was in him when he called fans 'gutless bastards' for booing an unpopular and over paid defenseman.
The 2006 edition of the Habs is a collection of sad sacks with no pride. Once upon a time wearing the classic 'CH' was a badge of honor and instant respect. No longer. Too many people who do not deserve this logo have been allowed to wear it. Management is not cleared in any way in all of this. From body to soul, every single one of them have been architects in the downfall of the Montreal Canadiens.
Yes, the Montreal Canadiens are run by the marketing department and as long as fans pack in the Bell Center little incentive is available to turn Montreal into a winner. Players avoid this place like the plague for a reason you know. Who wants to put up with advertising smart-alecs and a media who can turn on you? We have implanted the notion that Montreal must have French players. Why? The Habs don't even draft the best players from Quebec any more - losing a monopoly does that to a franchise. Reasonable players with pride won't put up with it.
As I sat and watched the Canadiens put on another sad display losing 6-2 to the Vancouver Canucks, the camera panned to the Habs bench. Behind the lost, dazed eyes of the players on the bench, I could not help but notice the three men standing behind that same bench - Doug Jarvis, Guy Carbonneau and Bob Gainey. The irony was not lost on many fans I am sure. Three former great Habs on the 70s dynasty who never understood what it was like to lose in such a manner. The performance was indeed listless.
Maybe Gainey is slowly purging the organization behind the scene. Who knows? By now, he should be close to completing the puzzle, right? There is much to be excited about. There are some good young prospects on the team. We just don't know if they are quitters or winners. A warning shot has been fired. Whether Gainey can turn the Habs around is, in part, entirely up to the ghosts of the old Montreal Forum who have declined to migrate into the new arena; they have already reserved #23.
2006-01-21
Aw, Shucks. Michael Moore Cares Aboot Canada
www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=192
www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=9206524&postID=110123804937788777
Well, Michael Moore weighed in with his intellectual and thoughtful comments on the Canadian elections. Gee, thanks, er, I guess Michael.
Yeah, we Canucks are one big joke. We're going to vote the Conservatives -drunk on doughnut juice - just to scare liberals. Now the new leitmotif among the left is that Harper is exactly like Bush. What nonsense. Like anything else, there are some similarities but there are some notable differences. Of course, people will only focus on what they want to see. There is some truth in that hyperbole and hysteria is all the modern left (hijackers of true liberalism) has in its arsenal.
Listen closely my caring cap-wearing angel, the Liberals have more than just 'splainin to do. They have to account for the continued destruction of military, the crisis in our hospitals and the millions they stole from the pockets from hard working Canadians (to name a precious few scandals).
If you really cared, this last point should have kept you locked up in your fancy penthouse. Isn't your whole platform based on speaking for the little guy? Ah, there's the kicker. You don't care, right. I mean, it's all an act to squeeze more money and attention to yourself, right? Funny guy you Yank. I get it now. You only care about using us as leverage - if I may indulge for a moment (hey, everyone is doing it these days) - to continue espousing your world view in the U.S. Smart as a precision missile you are.
Hey, I have to give you credit. You managed to fool the CBC.
The people who truly care about this country are beginning to question many things. Above all, they are justifiably disturbed by the lack of responsibility and accountability in modern Canadian affairs. They are not impressed by the lack of leadership either. In fact, I'm proud of Canadians for considering the Conservatives (who aren't quite ready for power in my opinion but such is the sad state of affairs here). It takes courage and guts to make such a turn; lest we forget that the obliteration of the Conservatives in the early 90s was the worst of its kind in Western political history.
The precedent is set and the Liberals are not immune. The Liberals do not stand for profound Canadian values such as accountability, independence and responsibility any longer. They need to be spanked.
Sometimes I wonder if Michael Moore even knows what he's talking about. His films are utterly deprived of truth (ok, let's call it selective truth) and historical accuracy. Moore should stay put in the USA.
Canada has enough problems to contend with. Just getting Canadians to recognize there are problems has been hard enough. Time to fix them and I highly doubt we can count on Moore to offer enlightened ideas. There are many Canadians who have the fortitude and integrity to adjust Canada.
One last thing, the ultimate irony here is the fact that Canada is a country that thrives on an old boy's network built on patronage. The Liberals seem to have taken this a step further by expropriating the people and their money for their own. For a supposed caring liberal, it is extremely revealing for him to overlook this reality.
Congratulations Michael, you now know nothing about two countries and still managed to get paid a lot of money. What's that saying? You can fool most of the people....
2006-01-20
Who has the Most Devoted Fans?
I was recently in a discussion about sports with a friend. Specifically, we talked about who had the most devoted fans in North American professional sports. It was a subjective conversation void of any concrete proof but in our own little trivial way we did narrow it down to a few.For the soccer fans out there, I left soccer out of this because for the most part the sport is littered with obsessive (read: psycho) fans around the world. Whether they be big or small clubs, the devotion soccer fans display is undeniable. Makes you wonder if playing with a Play Station is a step up for some of them.
Nonetheless, the 'Madness Meter' seems to be highest in places like Italy, Brazil, Argentina and England.
What does the inexact non-scientific Madness Meter reveal about the sports around these parts ? Clearly, football has the largest fan base of all the pro leagues.
Not only that, there are several cities and clubs that have devoted fans. The Bills, Dolphins, Patriots, Steelers, Raiders, Chiefs, Broncos, Eagles and Redskins all have their share of rabid fans. It's hard to say but I'll argue that the Bears, Packers and Cowboys have fan support that is unmatched. Too bad Modell moved the Browns because they were easily in this group. I wonder if the bitter stench left behind by the move still has a negative effect on Cleveland's psyche. For good measure, I'll even throw in the Saskatchewan Roughriders in the CFL here. In any event, football is the only sport with a deep enough fan base that remotely challenges soccer.
Basketball is harder to get a handle on, for me anyway, but the Knicks, Lakers and Celtics are obvious choices here. Pistons? Bulls? Anyone?
Baseball has many great fans. The Cardinals (some argue they are the best in baseball), Royals, Dodgers (both Brooklyn and LA), Mets, Cubs, Reds and Orioles have proven to be loyal to their teams through thick and thin. But does any team approach the insanity of Red Sox nation? It's to the point where I wonder if Yankee fan can keep up.The Red Sox/Yankees comparison has a similar tandem in hockey. The NHL is not without some mentally imbalanced fans. The Red Wings, Flyers, Bruins (traditionally) and Rangers have their share of hard core fans. Even the Blues have had strong support over the years and the state of Minnesota is a hockey hotbed in the United States; all of Canada for the record, is plain kooky when it comes to the sport.
But we're restricting ourselves to teams here and like in baseball, do the hopeless and often pathetic Leaf fans have an equivalent that matches their love of their team?
The Habs and Yankees are cut from the same cloth when it comes to outright success and dominance in their respective sport. They are the aristocrats and are victims of their own success. The Habs may not have been as despised as the Yankees during their respective dynasties but it was close enough. They were both elitist evil empires on the eyes of the fans who disliked and distrusted their success. The Red Sox and Maple Leafs fans have positioned themselves as underdogs. That no matter how bad it got or how many times they lost to their arch rivals, they would not change allegiance for anything.
Curses notwithstanding, years of futility have come to define the psychological profile of these fanatics. Leaf fan remain as delusional as ever and Red Sox as devoted. What makes this fascination all the more interesting, as my friend pointed out, these are big world class cities we're talking about here; roughly 7 million people between them.
In the end, maybe because of disproportionate media attention, Red Sox nation gets the nod. The Madness Meter needle was clear that they are crazier than most fans.
Fret not Yankees, chances are you'll probably monopolize success as you always have. As for Nos Glorieux, odds are that the Montreal Canadiens will win another Stanley Cup before the Leafs do. Thus fueling more of that passionate devotion to Red Leaf Nation.
2006-01-19
Canada: It's Election Time
In Monty Python's hilarious 'Life of Brian', there was a group calling itself The People's Front of Judea. They were all talk and no action and mired in minutaie. In one of their meetings, Reggie the leader, tries to stir up popular revolt as he proclaims "...what have the Romans ever done for us?" Upon further reflection, the other members start to list a number of Roman contributions - aqueducts, baths, sanitation, irrigation, wine, education, etc.
Sounds like Canada. Lot of rhetoric little action of substance these days. What have the Americans ever done for us?
Canadians, I think, fall into three groups each found in 'One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest': The first group is the R.P. McMurphy group who try to revive Canada. The second group are the ones who are mute-by-choice like Chief Bromden and simply escape. Our talent if you will. And the third group are the evil Nurse Ratched. They include the the intellectual dead-weights, infantile nationalists, self-absorbed sensitive Canadians who happen to be floating around aimlessly on a raft with Jim and Huck Finn.
Which category do you fall under?
Sounds like Canada. Lot of rhetoric little action of substance these days. What have the Americans ever done for us?
Canadians, I think, fall into three groups each found in 'One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest': The first group is the R.P. McMurphy group who try to revive Canada. The second group are the ones who are mute-by-choice like Chief Bromden and simply escape. Our talent if you will. And the third group are the evil Nurse Ratched. They include the the intellectual dead-weights, infantile nationalists, self-absorbed sensitive Canadians who happen to be floating around aimlessly on a raft with Jim and Huck Finn.
Which category do you fall under?
China Rises? Think Again
The CBC will be airing a show called "China Rises." It got me thinking.
Multi-polaristic-lateralists are tripping over each other like Inspector Clouseau and salivating at the mouth Cujo style in the hope that China will challenge American hegemony. Best to heed some prudent advice; hold off with the Asti Spumante.
China still has a long way to go before it is a bona-fide integrated superpower. They have some internal issues (such as environmental and ideological) they need to iron out before they can project true power - and they know this. We, on the other hand, seem to be ignoring this at our peril.
The Dragon is not a stranger to being a great power. Chinese history is littered with great achievements. It stands to reason therefore as the world links to one another through trade that China - with its massive population - would be a natural competitor of the United States.
Of course, rather than challenge U.S. power both sides should co-operate in the region. For the Chinese this mutual existence is paramount especially considering America's recent rapprochement with India.
Speaking of which, India - a remarkable, transparent democracy - is every bit a power in the region. Yet, we hardly see any programming on 'India Rises.' China - an intensely proud and insular society - is a communist state and thus are not always straight forward with information.
With China presently driving the world economy, will academics call for people to learn Chinese dialects with the pending rise of Chinese power? I seem to recall not so long ago (during the 80s) how business professors were teaching about the inevitably of Japanese power and that we should all learn Japanese. One hitch; a decade long recession hit Japan like a typhoon in the 1990s that put a serious cringe in that thought. America, which speaks the international language of business, still stood tall.
Rather than seek faux-replacements for political ideological considerations, perhaps we should examine why and how America keeps prevailing. This is not something to fear but appreciate.
There is little question that both China and India will become major players on the international stage moving forward. The question is just how prepared are they?
Multi-polaristic-lateralists are tripping over each other like Inspector Clouseau and salivating at the mouth Cujo style in the hope that China will challenge American hegemony. Best to heed some prudent advice; hold off with the Asti Spumante.
China still has a long way to go before it is a bona-fide integrated superpower. They have some internal issues (such as environmental and ideological) they need to iron out before they can project true power - and they know this. We, on the other hand, seem to be ignoring this at our peril.
The Dragon is not a stranger to being a great power. Chinese history is littered with great achievements. It stands to reason therefore as the world links to one another through trade that China - with its massive population - would be a natural competitor of the United States.
Of course, rather than challenge U.S. power both sides should co-operate in the region. For the Chinese this mutual existence is paramount especially considering America's recent rapprochement with India.
Speaking of which, India - a remarkable, transparent democracy - is every bit a power in the region. Yet, we hardly see any programming on 'India Rises.' China - an intensely proud and insular society - is a communist state and thus are not always straight forward with information.
With China presently driving the world economy, will academics call for people to learn Chinese dialects with the pending rise of Chinese power? I seem to recall not so long ago (during the 80s) how business professors were teaching about the inevitably of Japanese power and that we should all learn Japanese. One hitch; a decade long recession hit Japan like a typhoon in the 1990s that put a serious cringe in that thought. America, which speaks the international language of business, still stood tall.
Rather than seek faux-replacements for political ideological considerations, perhaps we should examine why and how America keeps prevailing. This is not something to fear but appreciate.
There is little question that both China and India will become major players on the international stage moving forward. The question is just how prepared are they?
2006-01-16
World Faces Uncomfortable Choices with Iran
Iran is back in the news these days. It seems they were not comfortable with all the attention Iraq was getting. So they unveiled their plans to be a nuclear power in the region.
The descendants of Persia are run by religious derelicts who want to be a nuclear power. Iran with nuclear capabilities is filled with disturbing geopolitical implications. It can destabilize and bully its neighbours (especially when it comes to oil production) as well as threaten to implicate regional powers like China and India. It can - above all - threaten Israel.
However, the problem with how to deal with Iran is a tricky one. Amidst the Islamic tyranny, lays a vibrant democratic movement among its youth. World powers should do more to support them. Furthermore, The U.S. does not have official relations with Iran which neutralizes American involvement. For the time being, the U.S. will rely in their European allies to open talks with Iran. As is usually the case with diplomacy, navigating through the balancing of Iran's needs and the world's requests will prove a test for our ability to negotiate.
This is yet another opportunity for the world redeem itself. When faced with uncomfortable choices in the past the world dithered. They (mostly Europe) failed with Nazi Germany as they kept their heads in the sand. They (once again parts of Europe and Russia) failed when they chose to publicly scorn the U.S. when it came to Iraq. The Iraq story had a twist in that it revived a long-standing debate within the inner circles of American power as to whether the U.S. should export - in what manifestation remains a source of intellectual debate - its visions of democracy. Reaching for a Utopian ideal is filled with the unpleasant reality of war.
What course of action will the world choose with Iran? Dialogue? Countries like Canada will push for this. In any event, for Canada Iran is not a major issue during election time as Canada busies itself with parochial domestic issues. It is telling that during the election campaign the mention of foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran has not been raised.
For the major players, a major obstacle to be overcome is how does one speak to an opponent that has little respect for dialogue? As witnessed so often, is not the language always best understood in this region. Unfortunately, force is an ancient language they usually understand. For its part, what will the UN - so agile and skilled in the art of dithering - decide?
Odds are that Iran may have to be dealt with militarily - the question is what type of operation (precision bombing, covert etc.) will be employed and who takes part. This also poses all sorts of serious questions with major implications. The Americans have their hands full in Iraq. They have to use every ounce of enlightening thought to ensure Iraq succeeds. Their military is large enough to take on another project but why would they want to stretch themselves thin? Not to say nothing of the planning that goes into this; Persians are not Arabs.
Indeed, some military strategists claim they are already dangerously there. If the U.S. invades Iran - which may be an unlikely scenario - that simply leaves them vulnerable. Maybe even vis-a-vis North Korea. If military action is opted for - after diplomacy is tried - the forces of anti-war may have to close their eyes because there may be no other choice.
Waging war is an awful decision to make. The ones who take decisive action usually are criticized (though it can be reasonably suspected behind the scenes there's a sigh of relief even among the criticizers). Recall France when they helped Hussein with his weapons program in the early 80s, Israel answered by bombing the facilities. In doing so, Israel was made out to be the rogue state. This sort of stuff should cease among the civilized nations of the world.
The world should avoid this sort of factionalism. Iran is too important an issue (especially considering that Asia already has its and full with North Korea). Iran sees what is happening in Iraq as it slowly emerges from the wilderness by embracing democracy and they don't like it one bit.
What are the options? The usual ones; appeasement, meaningful discussions (with threat of sanctions) or force. The willingness to use force is what makes Americans and Israelis unpopular. That leaves the European powers who may or may not have something enlightened up their sleeves.
If not, it is possibly time to unleash Israel since they are the ones under direct and immediate attack - not to mention Europe as they are within striking distance of Iran. There is no doubt that the U.S should lead. It would indeed be a great accomplishment if Europe can subdue Iranian ambitions but what are the chances of this? If they fail, they must step aside and let the Americans help.
In the heart of what was once the cradle of civilization, humanity finds itself at a crossroads. What will it be world? Do we break ranks or do we speak as a unified voice to send a clear message once and for all?
The descendants of Persia are run by religious derelicts who want to be a nuclear power. Iran with nuclear capabilities is filled with disturbing geopolitical implications. It can destabilize and bully its neighbours (especially when it comes to oil production) as well as threaten to implicate regional powers like China and India. It can - above all - threaten Israel.
However, the problem with how to deal with Iran is a tricky one. Amidst the Islamic tyranny, lays a vibrant democratic movement among its youth. World powers should do more to support them. Furthermore, The U.S. does not have official relations with Iran which neutralizes American involvement. For the time being, the U.S. will rely in their European allies to open talks with Iran. As is usually the case with diplomacy, navigating through the balancing of Iran's needs and the world's requests will prove a test for our ability to negotiate.
This is yet another opportunity for the world redeem itself. When faced with uncomfortable choices in the past the world dithered. They (mostly Europe) failed with Nazi Germany as they kept their heads in the sand. They (once again parts of Europe and Russia) failed when they chose to publicly scorn the U.S. when it came to Iraq. The Iraq story had a twist in that it revived a long-standing debate within the inner circles of American power as to whether the U.S. should export - in what manifestation remains a source of intellectual debate - its visions of democracy. Reaching for a Utopian ideal is filled with the unpleasant reality of war.
What course of action will the world choose with Iran? Dialogue? Countries like Canada will push for this. In any event, for Canada Iran is not a major issue during election time as Canada busies itself with parochial domestic issues. It is telling that during the election campaign the mention of foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran has not been raised.
For the major players, a major obstacle to be overcome is how does one speak to an opponent that has little respect for dialogue? As witnessed so often, is not the language always best understood in this region. Unfortunately, force is an ancient language they usually understand. For its part, what will the UN - so agile and skilled in the art of dithering - decide?
Odds are that Iran may have to be dealt with militarily - the question is what type of operation (precision bombing, covert etc.) will be employed and who takes part. This also poses all sorts of serious questions with major implications. The Americans have their hands full in Iraq. They have to use every ounce of enlightening thought to ensure Iraq succeeds. Their military is large enough to take on another project but why would they want to stretch themselves thin? Not to say nothing of the planning that goes into this; Persians are not Arabs.
Indeed, some military strategists claim they are already dangerously there. If the U.S. invades Iran - which may be an unlikely scenario - that simply leaves them vulnerable. Maybe even vis-a-vis North Korea. If military action is opted for - after diplomacy is tried - the forces of anti-war may have to close their eyes because there may be no other choice.
Waging war is an awful decision to make. The ones who take decisive action usually are criticized (though it can be reasonably suspected behind the scenes there's a sigh of relief even among the criticizers). Recall France when they helped Hussein with his weapons program in the early 80s, Israel answered by bombing the facilities. In doing so, Israel was made out to be the rogue state. This sort of stuff should cease among the civilized nations of the world.
The world should avoid this sort of factionalism. Iran is too important an issue (especially considering that Asia already has its and full with North Korea). Iran sees what is happening in Iraq as it slowly emerges from the wilderness by embracing democracy and they don't like it one bit.
What are the options? The usual ones; appeasement, meaningful discussions (with threat of sanctions) or force. The willingness to use force is what makes Americans and Israelis unpopular. That leaves the European powers who may or may not have something enlightened up their sleeves.
If not, it is possibly time to unleash Israel since they are the ones under direct and immediate attack - not to mention Europe as they are within striking distance of Iran. There is no doubt that the U.S should lead. It would indeed be a great accomplishment if Europe can subdue Iranian ambitions but what are the chances of this? If they fail, they must step aside and let the Americans help.
In the heart of what was once the cradle of civilization, humanity finds itself at a crossroads. What will it be world? Do we break ranks or do we speak as a unified voice to send a clear message once and for all?
2006-01-12
Money and War Alone do not Define Humanity
'Money is the root of all evil' and 'War, what is it good for?' Two famous contemporary phrases - especially in pop culture. I'm not sure where its origins lie but I'm pretty sure baby-boomers - those from the 60s anyway - have something to do with its popularity. Noble (naive?) as they may be in their philosophical intent, they ultimately fail to explain why evil still existed during the barter system long before the invention of money. Or how war was a permanent condition among humans before the arrival of the nation-state. By extension, are wars of liberation or survival good for something? Money is just the latest scapegoat for man's imperfections and flaws to be greatly magnified. As for war, well, man is what he is.
2006-01-11
The New York Rangers Retire Mark Messier's 11
Mark Messier was never about statistics. Rather, his style throughout his 25 year career was about the intangibles that can never be measured - emotion, passion and later in his career pure leadership. The Ranger faithful will have a chance to show their gratitude one last time. Before 'Mess' arrived, the Rangers had been starving for a Stanley Cup last won in 1940. The drought ended in 1994 under his guidance.Drafted in 1979 by the Glen Sather and the Edmonton Oilers in the 2nd round (48th overall) out of St.Albert Jr. A, Messier was one of many key components to the Oiler dynasties in the 1980s that included the under rated Glenn Anderson, Paul Coffey, Kevin Lowe, Charlie Huddy, Grant Fuhr, Jari Kurri and Wayne Gretzky. Messier played in 1756 games and scored 694 goals, added 1193 assists for a total of 1887 points. Impressive numbers but not dominant (please see Gretzky and Lemieux). While it took him less games to reach 1850 to pass Gordie Howe for second all-time, Messier's career never quite matched the utter dominance of Howe.
Messier helped the Oilers to 5 Stanley Cups and the Rangers to their first in 54 years. He won the Hart Memorial Trophy for the most valuable trophy in 1992 with the Rangers and in 1990 with the Oilers. He was also runner-up to Mario Lemieux in 1996. In 1984, he won the Conn Smythe trophy for the most valuable player in the playoffs with the Oilers. Though he was instrumental in the Rangers victory in 1994, Brian Leetch won the Conn Smythe honors that year.
But enough about that. Over the next couple of days we will be hearing how Messier is the greatest leader (or among the short list anyway) in the history of the NHL - maybe in North American pro sports. The tendency to use hyperbole is always at its greatest when emotions are involved as Keith Olbermann seemed to confirm on the Dan Patrick Show when he compared Messier to Babe Ruth - which is absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous; riludcrious.
Only Gretzky can be compared to Ruth. In fact, some have suggested he was the greatest Ranger ever - of course they conveniently overlooked Rod Gilbert, Jean Ratelle, Brad Park, Andy Bathgate and Ed Giacomin. To understand Messier's career in proper context, his career can be divided into two segments - his Oiler years and the post-Oiler years with the Rangers.
Since his years with the Rangers remains - thanks to the New York media machine - fresh in everyone's mind, the temptation to transmit and project his play during these years for his entire career distorts the reality. We should all re-watch the Oiler years carefully. He was not the leader of the Oilers; Wayne Gretzky was. 99 was clearly the most influential and dominant athlete of not only his sport but arguably in all of North American professional sports. Anyone who would suggest otherwise that the Oilers were not lead by him (or worse he was over rated) need to get their selective mind examined by a neurologist. Anyway, don't believe me. Ask any Albertan.
Messier seized the reign of leadership after Gretzky was traded to Los Angeles in 1988. It is during this period the roots of the Messier leadership legend were sown. It matured during the New York era. There is no doubt that in the 1990s, Messier was not only a premier hockey player but the single most important force to his club. It's safe to say or argue that he was among the greatest leaders during the 90s. Again, we have to recall that Steve Yzerman, Joe Sakic and of course Wayne Gretzky were great leaders too.
Mark Messier was a joy to watch - especially in the 80s for me. Hockey players that combined size and skill to his level are rare. I was in my youthful prime and the Oilers were the world's greatest hockey team. Not even the legendary Habs, the powerful Flyers, arch bitter rivals Flames or the then-recent dynasty Islanders were able to dethrone them for any significant amount of time. His signature shot off the fly with one leg up remains a distinct piece of hockey folklore - A signature move the Soviets studied and emulated.
With his career over and his number retired in the great NYC, Messier always seemed to me to be the perfect character in a Hollywood movie that a screenwriter could build a sports story around. His physical and facial expressions are definitive and expressive. Might I suggest Willem Dafoe to play his role?
2006-01-09
Canadian National Debates: An Exercise in Blah.
Canadians are famous for being dull. While this stereotype is not entirely accurate, we don't help matters sometimes.
Nonetheless, Canada not only suffers with a helplessly divided and fragmented political and cultural landscape but with tiresome parochial grievances that threaten the Confederation. This problem is made worse by the sad reality that there is no enlightened leadership in Canada. Intellectually ideas are stagnant and politically the will to foster change is coated with paralysis.
And so it is with the National debates, which fall on the dull side of the equation. Before we delve into this further please allow me to introduce the two players and the two pretenders. The incumbent Prime Minister Paul Martin from the Liberal Party and the challenger, Stephen Harper of the Conservatives. And the other guys. Jack Layton of the New Socialist Party. Kidding, New Democrat Party (NDP) and Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Québecois. In fairness to Gilles, I am from Quebec, though I will never truly be a part of their nationalist experiment. I must confess that the Bloc do have some interesting things to say on some issues. That's the only thing I'll say from now on since in principal I stand on the opposite side of their ideological divide.
They - and this goes for the NDP also - believe in the role of big government in society. I don't. They depend on government intervention to solve all our ills. I believe in the individual. The individual is its own best form of governance.
Watching these debates is akin to watching sponge cake rise. One got the distinct feeling things were going immediately astray when the attire of the two main principles - Tory leader Harper and Pauly 'Nowhere Man' Martin - made clear they weren't about to take a page out of the Gianni Versace playbook for daring style. Harper wore a blue tie and Martin a red. This is about as daring as they got as each represented the colors of their respective party's. Break out the fresh new face Canada needs! I forgot what the other two wore. What do Communists and Marxists wear?
I'm not about to rehash the typical and stagnant ideas proposed. What I am prepared to comment about is the fact that Harper - like on the last debates a couple of years ago - is by far the most articulate speaker. He dares to touch issues some Canadians (and the media save the National Post) consider taboo. For example, increased military spending, tax cuts and improved relations with the United States.
As for Martin he stutters too much and his party is to be directly held responsible for Canada's falling international reputation. Worse, he refuses to be accountable for the Liberal's bizarre poor imitation of Roman hubris and excess in the form of criminal corruption. How stupid are Canadians to even consider voting them in based on the number of investigations they are under?
The remaining panel included the icicle eyed Duceppe who is a conflict of interest onto himself (he's a Marxist - though who knows these days. How seriously can we take people who benefit from a capitalist structure based on freedom but who turn around and embrace impractical and failed ideologies that at their core run contrary to Western values? - fyi, he collects rent) and Jack Layton just seems to talk to himself - to me anyway.
Intermittently watching the pow-wow I noticed a new intellectual trend, as every solution to every question seemed to either be restrict handguns or have more women in Parliament. "You know, Mr. Moderator. I have the answer to the question of unemployment. Restrict handguns! Have more women in Parliament!"
In fact, some of the solutions tabled were simply based on old wives tales or flawed assumptions - as usual. How the electoral process is linked with low voter turn out is beyond me, Jackie. There are other reasons for this I am sure.
As I kept coming back to the discussions, I kept wondering what it would have been like to have a true third voice in the mix. Alas, this is Canada and we can't have true competition, eh?
In the end, the leaders failed to stake any major claims. That's what happens when a country is in a rut like Canada is. It's hard to take a major stand on certain issues for fear of a backlash.
For those of us waiting on a new dynamic Canada, it's clear we'll have to wait.
Nonetheless, Canada not only suffers with a helplessly divided and fragmented political and cultural landscape but with tiresome parochial grievances that threaten the Confederation. This problem is made worse by the sad reality that there is no enlightened leadership in Canada. Intellectually ideas are stagnant and politically the will to foster change is coated with paralysis.
And so it is with the National debates, which fall on the dull side of the equation. Before we delve into this further please allow me to introduce the two players and the two pretenders. The incumbent Prime Minister Paul Martin from the Liberal Party and the challenger, Stephen Harper of the Conservatives. And the other guys. Jack Layton of the New Socialist Party. Kidding, New Democrat Party (NDP) and Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Québecois. In fairness to Gilles, I am from Quebec, though I will never truly be a part of their nationalist experiment. I must confess that the Bloc do have some interesting things to say on some issues. That's the only thing I'll say from now on since in principal I stand on the opposite side of their ideological divide.
They - and this goes for the NDP also - believe in the role of big government in society. I don't. They depend on government intervention to solve all our ills. I believe in the individual. The individual is its own best form of governance.
Watching these debates is akin to watching sponge cake rise. One got the distinct feeling things were going immediately astray when the attire of the two main principles - Tory leader Harper and Pauly 'Nowhere Man' Martin - made clear they weren't about to take a page out of the Gianni Versace playbook for daring style. Harper wore a blue tie and Martin a red. This is about as daring as they got as each represented the colors of their respective party's. Break out the fresh new face Canada needs! I forgot what the other two wore. What do Communists and Marxists wear?
I'm not about to rehash the typical and stagnant ideas proposed. What I am prepared to comment about is the fact that Harper - like on the last debates a couple of years ago - is by far the most articulate speaker. He dares to touch issues some Canadians (and the media save the National Post) consider taboo. For example, increased military spending, tax cuts and improved relations with the United States.
As for Martin he stutters too much and his party is to be directly held responsible for Canada's falling international reputation. Worse, he refuses to be accountable for the Liberal's bizarre poor imitation of Roman hubris and excess in the form of criminal corruption. How stupid are Canadians to even consider voting them in based on the number of investigations they are under?
The remaining panel included the icicle eyed Duceppe who is a conflict of interest onto himself (he's a Marxist - though who knows these days. How seriously can we take people who benefit from a capitalist structure based on freedom but who turn around and embrace impractical and failed ideologies that at their core run contrary to Western values? - fyi, he collects rent) and Jack Layton just seems to talk to himself - to me anyway.
Intermittently watching the pow-wow I noticed a new intellectual trend, as every solution to every question seemed to either be restrict handguns or have more women in Parliament. "You know, Mr. Moderator. I have the answer to the question of unemployment. Restrict handguns! Have more women in Parliament!"
In fact, some of the solutions tabled were simply based on old wives tales or flawed assumptions - as usual. How the electoral process is linked with low voter turn out is beyond me, Jackie. There are other reasons for this I am sure.
As I kept coming back to the discussions, I kept wondering what it would have been like to have a true third voice in the mix. Alas, this is Canada and we can't have true competition, eh?
In the end, the leaders failed to stake any major claims. That's what happens when a country is in a rut like Canada is. It's hard to take a major stand on certain issues for fear of a backlash.
For those of us waiting on a new dynamic Canada, it's clear we'll have to wait.
2006-01-08
A Knee Injury Revisited: The ACL Trauma
"That's an ACL tear." Those were my exact utterances after watching Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Carson Palmer go down in a playoff game against the Pittsburgh Steelers. I should know. I had not one but TWO ACL injuries.
This type of injury is serious. The reconstruction of the ligament and subsequent rehabilitation is a long and arduous ordeal. Most ACL injuries occur in high-risk sports like basketball, skiing, football and soccer. It occurs less in ice hockey because of the gliding motion of the players. In any event, Palmer is just the latest in a long list of famous athletes who have been devastated this season-ending injury.
The ACL - or anterior cruciate ligament - is a ligament that connects the thighbone to the shinbone (fig. 1). Other knee ligaments such as the MCL (medial collateral), LCL (lateral collateral) and PCL (posterior cruciate) ligaments usually heal on their own with extensive physiotherapy and rest but the same privileges are not accorded with the ACL. ACL tears require surgery to repair. The ACL is the ligament (ligaments are tough non-flexible fibbers that keep your bones in place) that crisscrosses and stabilizes your knee. In doing so, it permits lateral movements.
The ACL tears with sudden rapid moves or high impact collisions on the side of the knee like Palmer suffered. Interestingly, 30% of all ACL incidences are a result of impact. 70% of ACL tears happen without impact. While a person can go on without repairing the ACL since it will not bother you while walking, swimming or cycling it will buckle (with pain I might add) if you decide to play sports that demand pivotal and directional moves.
In my case, one injury was without impact and the other was. The injury sustained without the impact was during a ball hockey game. Moving up the rink I made a sudden lateral move to avoid a defender. I still remember the popping sound. The pain was unbearable. In this light, I knew exactly what Palmer was going through.
My second injury was during a soccer match. This time I cut across the filed at top speed only to have a defender step into me. I was heading in an east-west direction and he slammed into me knee on knee from the north south angle. This injury was very similar to Palmer's. The pain, again, was incredible.
I knew right away it was an ACL. Oddly, the physiotherapist on the field and the sports doctor the next day both felt it was an MCL. I disagreed. I went to my orthopedist (who is part of a sports clinic who handle pro-athletes) and a subsequent MRI proved me right. He too, by the way, initially thought it was an MCL.
The first time I tore the ligament I was 16 and was expected to attend the under-16 Team Canada soccer try-outs. I never got the chance. It was all-downhill from there. I could never overcome the psychological trauma of the injury. A pro athlete can do so because it is his job, for a teenager it proved too much. Since I was 17 I have played sports at maybe 75% throttle. It's tough to play a sport when you are always thinking about that 'pop' sound. It's even tougher if you are competitive as I am. Of course, I could not expect others to ever understand this which made playing 'for the team' hard.
After tearing the ligament, it took me another year before I decided to have surgery. I popped my knee maybe another 8 times thus shredding not only the ligaments but damaging the meniscus cartilage.
The decision to have the surgery was simple for me and can be just as straightforward for others. If you are active and want to play sports or have a job that is physically demanding have the surgery. You will never be 100% but it's pretty close. Ironically, the knee will probably be stronger. Conditioning will help to strengthen and stabilize the knee - this is crucial to the success of the surgery. However, your range of motion and quickness are reduced. Speed comes from your hamstrings and quads but your ACL's have a lot to say in the matter and I have noticed I lost a slight step. It's much different for a well-conditioned athlete of today. They have so many advantages and as such a full recovery is usually successful.
Once a career ending injury, modern medicine has developed techniques to repair the ACL. It usually takes three to six months to repair and heal. It takes an additional three to six months before one gets cleared to play again. When all is said and done, it can take up to one-year before getting clearance.
The ACL does not discriminate and watching Palmer go down right after his first career playoff completion in the second play of the game was proof that life isn't fair. The Cincinnati Bengals were not able to recover after that. They'll have to wait a while before Palmer does so too. Each time I watch an athlete go down with a knee injury, this one time I know exactly what is going through their mind.
Sources: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Canadian Sports Medicine.
NOTE: Since I wrote this piece, it has been reported that Palmer's injury is far more extensive than an ACL. It turns out he shredded other ligaments and suffered a dislocated knee cap. Bengal fans are holding their breaths I am sure.
This type of injury is serious. The reconstruction of the ligament and subsequent rehabilitation is a long and arduous ordeal. Most ACL injuries occur in high-risk sports like basketball, skiing, football and soccer. It occurs less in ice hockey because of the gliding motion of the players. In any event, Palmer is just the latest in a long list of famous athletes who have been devastated this season-ending injury.
The ACL - or anterior cruciate ligament - is a ligament that connects the thighbone to the shinbone (fig. 1). Other knee ligaments such as the MCL (medial collateral), LCL (lateral collateral) and PCL (posterior cruciate) ligaments usually heal on their own with extensive physiotherapy and rest but the same privileges are not accorded with the ACL. ACL tears require surgery to repair. The ACL is the ligament (ligaments are tough non-flexible fibbers that keep your bones in place) that crisscrosses and stabilizes your knee. In doing so, it permits lateral movements.
The ACL tears with sudden rapid moves or high impact collisions on the side of the knee like Palmer suffered. Interestingly, 30% of all ACL incidences are a result of impact. 70% of ACL tears happen without impact. While a person can go on without repairing the ACL since it will not bother you while walking, swimming or cycling it will buckle (with pain I might add) if you decide to play sports that demand pivotal and directional moves.
In my case, one injury was without impact and the other was. The injury sustained without the impact was during a ball hockey game. Moving up the rink I made a sudden lateral move to avoid a defender. I still remember the popping sound. The pain was unbearable. In this light, I knew exactly what Palmer was going through.
My second injury was during a soccer match. This time I cut across the filed at top speed only to have a defender step into me. I was heading in an east-west direction and he slammed into me knee on knee from the north south angle. This injury was very similar to Palmer's. The pain, again, was incredible.
I knew right away it was an ACL. Oddly, the physiotherapist on the field and the sports doctor the next day both felt it was an MCL. I disagreed. I went to my orthopedist (who is part of a sports clinic who handle pro-athletes) and a subsequent MRI proved me right. He too, by the way, initially thought it was an MCL.
The first time I tore the ligament I was 16 and was expected to attend the under-16 Team Canada soccer try-outs. I never got the chance. It was all-downhill from there. I could never overcome the psychological trauma of the injury. A pro athlete can do so because it is his job, for a teenager it proved too much. Since I was 17 I have played sports at maybe 75% throttle. It's tough to play a sport when you are always thinking about that 'pop' sound. It's even tougher if you are competitive as I am. Of course, I could not expect others to ever understand this which made playing 'for the team' hard.
After tearing the ligament, it took me another year before I decided to have surgery. I popped my knee maybe another 8 times thus shredding not only the ligaments but damaging the meniscus cartilage.
The decision to have the surgery was simple for me and can be just as straightforward for others. If you are active and want to play sports or have a job that is physically demanding have the surgery. You will never be 100% but it's pretty close. Ironically, the knee will probably be stronger. Conditioning will help to strengthen and stabilize the knee - this is crucial to the success of the surgery. However, your range of motion and quickness are reduced. Speed comes from your hamstrings and quads but your ACL's have a lot to say in the matter and I have noticed I lost a slight step. It's much different for a well-conditioned athlete of today. They have so many advantages and as such a full recovery is usually successful.
Once a career ending injury, modern medicine has developed techniques to repair the ACL. It usually takes three to six months to repair and heal. It takes an additional three to six months before one gets cleared to play again. When all is said and done, it can take up to one-year before getting clearance.
The ACL does not discriminate and watching Palmer go down right after his first career playoff completion in the second play of the game was proof that life isn't fair. The Cincinnati Bengals were not able to recover after that. They'll have to wait a while before Palmer does so too. Each time I watch an athlete go down with a knee injury, this one time I know exactly what is going through their mind.
Sources: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Canadian Sports Medicine.
NOTE: Since I wrote this piece, it has been reported that Palmer's injury is far more extensive than an ACL. It turns out he shredded other ligaments and suffered a dislocated knee cap. Bengal fans are holding their breaths I am sure.
2006-01-05
Canadians are Babies: Disgrace at the World Hockey Championships
The World Junior Hockey Championships is a great tournament. It brings together the world's best hockey talent from 10 countries and provides outstanding hockey. With it comes the pure raw energetic emotion only teenagers can bring. No sport - besides soccer - pays attention to its youth through major tournaments like hockey does on an international scale.
This year the tournament was held in Vancouver, British Columbia. We are at the end of the tournament and Canada and Russia will square off against one another for the gold. The United States will play Finland for the bronze.
Now to my main point. During the U.S./Russia game a curious incident took place. Some Vancouverites began chanting 'Russia, Russia' and 'U.S. sucks' during the game. Remember, these are 18 and 19 year-old kids. Now, Canadian reactionary anti-Americanism is well known since 9/11 but this was too much for this viewer. It was sickening to watch them get up and cheer Russian goals (the Russians dominated and proved too much to handle for a skillful American squad who heavily favored to win the tournament).
Freedom of speech my ass. It is less the fact that they cheered Russia but more of how utterly stupid this country has become at sporting events towards Americans.
First, most American players, if they are not playing at the Collegiate level, play in Canada. They represent Canadian towns and their fans. How in good conscience can Canadians boo them? Mind you, this took place in a big city and big city folk care little for the impact of their actions. Junior hockey is played in small towns and the tournament should have stayed there. Maybe we would have been spared this sort of repugnant behavior. Second, Canadians often complain that there are 'too many Europeans' in the NHL. Nice. Here they are cheering Russia? Third, Russia is Canada's sworn hockey enemy. It's like if Yankees fan stands up and cheers the Red Sox on. Or Habs fan with the Leafs. Certain things are simply not done. Last and most important, Russia is one powerful squad. I would have much rather played the U.S. (since they play a similar style).
As the title implies, Canadians are babies. If not downright tacky. Lordy, lord, lord, imagine if it was Americans booing Canadians. How would we sensitive Canucks reacted if, say , North Dakotans booed us last year for not joining the fight in Iraq? Or course, Americans are smarter and more mature than that. When thousands of Winnipeggers were stranded in North Dakota, Americans opened their hearts and arms to provide them shelter. They then proceeded to cheer Canada in the gold medal game.
Come to think of it, I seem to recall during the World Cup of hockey in 1996 when notorious Philadelphia fans cheered when Canada won in their home building. Credit to the American team. They have taken all this animosity in stride and with class. They have gone on record saying that they will cheer for Canada in the gold medal game.
It means little to Canadians that the wealth and health of this land (culturally, economically and politically) is intimately tied to America. Some Canadians, not all, have lost all sense of perspective and decency when it comes to their American cousins. They have willingly chosen to politicize their relationship with America and in the end we'll end up with Caribou dung on our face. Never mind that we have our own pathetic mess to clean up. They say in life be careful what you wish for. Well, Canada enjoy Russia. They may bring us the silver.
Hockey Canada should apologize immediately.
*NOTE: In the bronze game, unsurprisingly, the Canadian crowd continued their idiocy. With Finland ahead 4-2, Canadians began to shout 'Over-rated, over-rated!' Sad. No class.
**NOTE: In the gold medal game, Canada simply proved too powerful for Russia. They were outstanding and dominant as they defeated their old rivals 5-0. It was a superb display. They deserve full credit. It still doesn't take away, sadly, from how their fans behaved.
***Note: I contacted Hockey Canada suggesting they apologize. While they agreed that it was inappropriate behavior there was little they could do.
This year the tournament was held in Vancouver, British Columbia. We are at the end of the tournament and Canada and Russia will square off against one another for the gold. The United States will play Finland for the bronze.
Now to my main point. During the U.S./Russia game a curious incident took place. Some Vancouverites began chanting 'Russia, Russia' and 'U.S. sucks' during the game. Remember, these are 18 and 19 year-old kids. Now, Canadian reactionary anti-Americanism is well known since 9/11 but this was too much for this viewer. It was sickening to watch them get up and cheer Russian goals (the Russians dominated and proved too much to handle for a skillful American squad who heavily favored to win the tournament).
Freedom of speech my ass. It is less the fact that they cheered Russia but more of how utterly stupid this country has become at sporting events towards Americans.
First, most American players, if they are not playing at the Collegiate level, play in Canada. They represent Canadian towns and their fans. How in good conscience can Canadians boo them? Mind you, this took place in a big city and big city folk care little for the impact of their actions. Junior hockey is played in small towns and the tournament should have stayed there. Maybe we would have been spared this sort of repugnant behavior. Second, Canadians often complain that there are 'too many Europeans' in the NHL. Nice. Here they are cheering Russia? Third, Russia is Canada's sworn hockey enemy. It's like if Yankees fan stands up and cheers the Red Sox on. Or Habs fan with the Leafs. Certain things are simply not done. Last and most important, Russia is one powerful squad. I would have much rather played the U.S. (since they play a similar style).
As the title implies, Canadians are babies. If not downright tacky. Lordy, lord, lord, imagine if it was Americans booing Canadians. How would we sensitive Canucks reacted if, say , North Dakotans booed us last year for not joining the fight in Iraq? Or course, Americans are smarter and more mature than that. When thousands of Winnipeggers were stranded in North Dakota, Americans opened their hearts and arms to provide them shelter. They then proceeded to cheer Canada in the gold medal game.
Come to think of it, I seem to recall during the World Cup of hockey in 1996 when notorious Philadelphia fans cheered when Canada won in their home building. Credit to the American team. They have taken all this animosity in stride and with class. They have gone on record saying that they will cheer for Canada in the gold medal game.
It means little to Canadians that the wealth and health of this land (culturally, economically and politically) is intimately tied to America. Some Canadians, not all, have lost all sense of perspective and decency when it comes to their American cousins. They have willingly chosen to politicize their relationship with America and in the end we'll end up with Caribou dung on our face. Never mind that we have our own pathetic mess to clean up. They say in life be careful what you wish for. Well, Canada enjoy Russia. They may bring us the silver.
Hockey Canada should apologize immediately.
*NOTE: In the bronze game, unsurprisingly, the Canadian crowd continued their idiocy. With Finland ahead 4-2, Canadians began to shout 'Over-rated, over-rated!' Sad. No class.
**NOTE: In the gold medal game, Canada simply proved too powerful for Russia. They were outstanding and dominant as they defeated their old rivals 5-0. It was a superb display. They deserve full credit. It still doesn't take away, sadly, from how their fans behaved.
***Note: I contacted Hockey Canada suggesting they apologize. While they agreed that it was inappropriate behavior there was little they could do.
2006-01-02
Canadians Must Vote Conservative come January 23.
On January 23rd, Canadians will probably vote in a minority government. If this does turn out to be the case, nothing will be solved to rectify the rut this country is in. As our politicians bicker, Canada stagnates.
With the Bloc Québecois poised to sweep the province of Québec, a minority government is the last thing Canadians need. More importantly, when Canadians head to the polls, we need to seriously send a message.
The Liberal Party of Canada is drunk. Drunk on power and seduced by scandals. It is a rudderless collection of irresponsible buddies from a 2nd rate frat house. In this manner, they are brethren to the Democratic Party in the United States. There are no philosophical ideals or values to speak of in the Liberal Party. They are slaves to the polls and prisoners to special interest- pure and simple. Accountability, a precious concept these days, does not exist in the Liberal lexicon.
With no true opponent, the Liberals run this place like the PRI did Mexico throughout the 20th century - down and dirty. The NDP are as relevant as Karl Marx and the parochial Bloc are as useful as a car with no engine.
That leaves the Conservatives. And Harper just might be the right guy to get people to forget the other parties.
The Conservatives are not quite ready to take power, but what are our choices? Such is the sad state of governance here.
Regardless, this time around Canadians must vote responsibly and with a conscience. How many times can a person tolerate being robbed? Going with the devil you know is not healthy in a democracy. We need choice.
We must vote Conservative in huge numbers. Not because they are better, but for change. We should wipe the Liberals out like they wiped out the Conservatives in the early 90s - though this would not solve any of our problems. The Liberal party needs to be gutted - gutless people should be. If Canadians vote for the Liberals we will deserve what we get. This won't stop us from complaining though. It's the timeless Canadian pass time. Fools - all of us.
With the Bloc Québecois poised to sweep the province of Québec, a minority government is the last thing Canadians need. More importantly, when Canadians head to the polls, we need to seriously send a message.
The Liberal Party of Canada is drunk. Drunk on power and seduced by scandals. It is a rudderless collection of irresponsible buddies from a 2nd rate frat house. In this manner, they are brethren to the Democratic Party in the United States. There are no philosophical ideals or values to speak of in the Liberal Party. They are slaves to the polls and prisoners to special interest- pure and simple. Accountability, a precious concept these days, does not exist in the Liberal lexicon.
With no true opponent, the Liberals run this place like the PRI did Mexico throughout the 20th century - down and dirty. The NDP are as relevant as Karl Marx and the parochial Bloc are as useful as a car with no engine.
That leaves the Conservatives. And Harper just might be the right guy to get people to forget the other parties.
The Conservatives are not quite ready to take power, but what are our choices? Such is the sad state of governance here.
Regardless, this time around Canadians must vote responsibly and with a conscience. How many times can a person tolerate being robbed? Going with the devil you know is not healthy in a democracy. We need choice.
We must vote Conservative in huge numbers. Not because they are better, but for change. We should wipe the Liberals out like they wiped out the Conservatives in the early 90s - though this would not solve any of our problems. The Liberal party needs to be gutted - gutless people should be. If Canadians vote for the Liberals we will deserve what we get. This won't stop us from complaining though. It's the timeless Canadian pass time. Fools - all of us.
2005-12-28
Contemplating America and War
War and insecurity have been a consistent theme in world affairs. Humans have engaged in wars long before national governments or other forms of governance appeared. From tribes to monarchies, from Sparta to the Apache and Comanche, it is a real part of our species before and after the creation of the modern nation-state. In this light, the United States is hardly a rogue state and George W. Bush is but a mere hiccup in the grand scheme of history.
Thinkers are philosophically thoroughly disgusted with war. Unlike the Futurist art movement early in the 20th century, they do not embrace it. However, they would much rather ignore its history - at their own peril. Today certain elements in academia, operate on a selective revisionist platform. They bent on righting perceived wrongs by the hands of Western culture. America is its favorite target. This intellectual lashing and gutting of Western history is a fad gone awry. The shhhing of one part of a population to assuage another is an action of historical engineering that is bound to fail. The price is clear: people can't tell fact from fiction any more.
In contemporary times, specifically within the American Empire, the backlash against George W. Bush has been vociferous. While questioning America's growing romanticism with the military is legitimate, attempting to zero in on his actions and motives is a seductive game that break an idealist's heart.
Short-term considerations only serve to obscure the big picture - it's foolish to do so in the markets and it is foolish to do it in politics. The buy high and sell low of intellectualism.
A mild glance at history will reveal that there is nothing new in what Bush is doing. Alexander Hamilton, for example, would probably have agreed with the notion of a nation and its responsibility to itself. Its detractors follow an idealist version of Jefferson's yeoman characterization of the American republic. More importantly, people today seem obsessed with Jefferson's call for vigilance against the executive - even to the point of ignoring their enemies.
Bush's route of policy is very much in the lineage set forth by John Quincy Adams. Before Adams, Jefferson (like Clinton) was accorded the luxury of not having to design a security policy - until the Napoleonic Wars. This changed America's security views. It was left to Adams to devise one.
While Bush's policy of preemption is hardly an obscurity when history is consulted the reaction to it is. People have taken his actions, slightly out of context (is this not usually the case?) to be the work of an irresponsible person. Hardly a neo-conservative (or conservative for that matter. Classical conservatives want smaller government. In this light, they are very much similar to classical liberals and libertarians) Bush seems to march to his own beat. Single minded, he does not seem to fit any neat ideological definition. That's why everyone from all backgrounds had a shot at espousing their blue prints for a new global order after 9/11.
Great powers distrust instability abroad - especially in their own back yard. Instability within weaker states only invites greater and more aggressive powers to step in. In the case of America, this came in the ideological form of Nazism and Communism. Many nations tended to approach aggression by taking a defensive stance - through appeasement in the 20th century. This is not part of the American character. Americans have always risen to a challenge. This has left it vulnerable to post modern scrutiny - and the verdict is unpopular in the eyes of public opinion.
9/11 was no different than the Napoleonic Wars (or World War I for that matter) in the sense that prevailing international structures could not be relied upon to defend American security and interests abroad.
Iraq posed a legitimate concern of national security to Americans. It must be said that the Bush administration never said Hussein was behind 9/11 as some have asserted. Rather, based on intelligence at the time, the argument was that Hussein a) had links with Al-Queda and b) was quite capable of starting up his biological weapons program.
The leap from Islamo-fascism to Iraq was not a large one to make. It was a two-pronged attack in an effort to diffuse if not outright defeat terrorism. One is to subdue an advanced Arab society and introduce it to democracy and the other was to conduct a covert war in the massive mountains of Asia against terrorist networks.
Whether they succeed is way too soon to tell. In the short run, things always look bad. After surgery a flesh wound always makes the operation look worse than it is. Eventually it heals. It may never be perfect but it is strong and healthy.
Modern Muslim militants, derelicts among all things civil in the Arab world, represent a new security threat. America's threats are the world's threats. Its interests are very much aligned with most nations. Whether they are correct in their assessments is not the only point. It's that they believe it to be so. It's friends and allies should understand this.
There is no doubt this policy designed by Adams - and brought to its heights by Roosevelt - has sent mixed signals - thanks to, in part, an ambiguous foreign policy - to the world. Is American an empire? What are their motives? Why do they speak of peace but wage war? Simplistic as these questions may be they hold weight because people think them. Americans need to define their intentions in foreign policy with more coherence. They went from fighting terrorists to nation building all within two years of 9/11. Its swiftness caused many a cynical to raise their eyebrows.
The people and their thoughts are one thing. To watch many politicians and thinkers play hodge-podge with American history to satisfy their own goals has been a travesty of historical injustice. They can not possibly heave scorn upon Bush without doing the same to Adams, Roosevelt or Wilson. There are indeed many concerns to deal with within modern American culture and society. These issues must be brought up. However, I don't see relevant questions being raised - just petty attacks.
War is just a component of human affairs. Whether they are 'war pigs' of the nation-state or ancient tribes war is human. What is interesting to note, relative to its extraordinary power, America has not engaged in too many outright wars in the 20th century; preferring to abide by Truman's doctrine of containment.
From its flirtations with isolationism and its believe in exceptionalism, American political culture, filled with normal contradictions, is much more dynamic and impressive than we give it credit for. Bush is not the exception but the rule to this reality.
Thinkers are philosophically thoroughly disgusted with war. Unlike the Futurist art movement early in the 20th century, they do not embrace it. However, they would much rather ignore its history - at their own peril. Today certain elements in academia, operate on a selective revisionist platform. They bent on righting perceived wrongs by the hands of Western culture. America is its favorite target. This intellectual lashing and gutting of Western history is a fad gone awry. The shhhing of one part of a population to assuage another is an action of historical engineering that is bound to fail. The price is clear: people can't tell fact from fiction any more.
In contemporary times, specifically within the American Empire, the backlash against George W. Bush has been vociferous. While questioning America's growing romanticism with the military is legitimate, attempting to zero in on his actions and motives is a seductive game that break an idealist's heart.
Short-term considerations only serve to obscure the big picture - it's foolish to do so in the markets and it is foolish to do it in politics. The buy high and sell low of intellectualism.
A mild glance at history will reveal that there is nothing new in what Bush is doing. Alexander Hamilton, for example, would probably have agreed with the notion of a nation and its responsibility to itself. Its detractors follow an idealist version of Jefferson's yeoman characterization of the American republic. More importantly, people today seem obsessed with Jefferson's call for vigilance against the executive - even to the point of ignoring their enemies.
Bush's route of policy is very much in the lineage set forth by John Quincy Adams. Before Adams, Jefferson (like Clinton) was accorded the luxury of not having to design a security policy - until the Napoleonic Wars. This changed America's security views. It was left to Adams to devise one.
While Bush's policy of preemption is hardly an obscurity when history is consulted the reaction to it is. People have taken his actions, slightly out of context (is this not usually the case?) to be the work of an irresponsible person. Hardly a neo-conservative (or conservative for that matter. Classical conservatives want smaller government. In this light, they are very much similar to classical liberals and libertarians) Bush seems to march to his own beat. Single minded, he does not seem to fit any neat ideological definition. That's why everyone from all backgrounds had a shot at espousing their blue prints for a new global order after 9/11.
Great powers distrust instability abroad - especially in their own back yard. Instability within weaker states only invites greater and more aggressive powers to step in. In the case of America, this came in the ideological form of Nazism and Communism. Many nations tended to approach aggression by taking a defensive stance - through appeasement in the 20th century. This is not part of the American character. Americans have always risen to a challenge. This has left it vulnerable to post modern scrutiny - and the verdict is unpopular in the eyes of public opinion.
9/11 was no different than the Napoleonic Wars (or World War I for that matter) in the sense that prevailing international structures could not be relied upon to defend American security and interests abroad.
Iraq posed a legitimate concern of national security to Americans. It must be said that the Bush administration never said Hussein was behind 9/11 as some have asserted. Rather, based on intelligence at the time, the argument was that Hussein a) had links with Al-Queda and b) was quite capable of starting up his biological weapons program.
The leap from Islamo-fascism to Iraq was not a large one to make. It was a two-pronged attack in an effort to diffuse if not outright defeat terrorism. One is to subdue an advanced Arab society and introduce it to democracy and the other was to conduct a covert war in the massive mountains of Asia against terrorist networks.
Whether they succeed is way too soon to tell. In the short run, things always look bad. After surgery a flesh wound always makes the operation look worse than it is. Eventually it heals. It may never be perfect but it is strong and healthy.
Modern Muslim militants, derelicts among all things civil in the Arab world, represent a new security threat. America's threats are the world's threats. Its interests are very much aligned with most nations. Whether they are correct in their assessments is not the only point. It's that they believe it to be so. It's friends and allies should understand this.
There is no doubt this policy designed by Adams - and brought to its heights by Roosevelt - has sent mixed signals - thanks to, in part, an ambiguous foreign policy - to the world. Is American an empire? What are their motives? Why do they speak of peace but wage war? Simplistic as these questions may be they hold weight because people think them. Americans need to define their intentions in foreign policy with more coherence. They went from fighting terrorists to nation building all within two years of 9/11. Its swiftness caused many a cynical to raise their eyebrows.
The people and their thoughts are one thing. To watch many politicians and thinkers play hodge-podge with American history to satisfy their own goals has been a travesty of historical injustice. They can not possibly heave scorn upon Bush without doing the same to Adams, Roosevelt or Wilson. There are indeed many concerns to deal with within modern American culture and society. These issues must be brought up. However, I don't see relevant questions being raised - just petty attacks.
War is just a component of human affairs. Whether they are 'war pigs' of the nation-state or ancient tribes war is human. What is interesting to note, relative to its extraordinary power, America has not engaged in too many outright wars in the 20th century; preferring to abide by Truman's doctrine of containment.
From its flirtations with isolationism and its believe in exceptionalism, American political culture, filled with normal contradictions, is much more dynamic and impressive than we give it credit for. Bush is not the exception but the rule to this reality.
First For You
The following is a paid advertisement by The Monarchy Bank of Canada.
At Monarchy Bank we know how devastating losing your home can be. That's why we believe in our 'First to Repossess Program' to ensure that your dream house does not become your first nightmare. It's the first program of its kind and it's a testament to our dedication of making YOU, our valued and cherished customer, first.
We lead the country in housing and commercial properties seizures and we take this success very seriously. We also are excellent at turning our backs on our clients, whom we consider friends, when they need a small business loan or are looking to refinance their mortgage.
If it is other services you desire, we are pleased to present the Monarch's Insurance Scheme service. With the lowest payout ratios in the nation, our product is second to none.
Here at Monarchy Bank we are also proud of our commitment to the cultural heritage of this great fragmented land. In a tightly regulated blue world, we firmly believe in the history of Canada. Just ask our Veterans.
Losing your home during increasing short-term rates is inevitable once the housing bubble bursts. Why not lose it with the best bank in Canada?
Monarchy Bank: First For You; when you are about to lose everything you live for.
At Monarchy Bank we know how devastating losing your home can be. That's why we believe in our 'First to Repossess Program' to ensure that your dream house does not become your first nightmare. It's the first program of its kind and it's a testament to our dedication of making YOU, our valued and cherished customer, first.
We lead the country in housing and commercial properties seizures and we take this success very seriously. We also are excellent at turning our backs on our clients, whom we consider friends, when they need a small business loan or are looking to refinance their mortgage.
If it is other services you desire, we are pleased to present the Monarch's Insurance Scheme service. With the lowest payout ratios in the nation, our product is second to none.
Here at Monarchy Bank we are also proud of our commitment to the cultural heritage of this great fragmented land. In a tightly regulated blue world, we firmly believe in the history of Canada. Just ask our Veterans.
Losing your home during increasing short-term rates is inevitable once the housing bubble bursts. Why not lose it with the best bank in Canada?
Monarchy Bank: First For You; when you are about to lose everything you live for.
2005-12-19
Timeless Springsteenian Eloquence: Born To Run Still Mesmorizes 30 Years Later
"In the day we sweat it out in the streets of a runaway American dream. At night we ride through mansions of glory in suicide machines..." Bruce Springsteen, Born to Run 1975.
"I have seen the future of rock and roll and its name is Bruce Springsteen." Jon Landau, Rolling Stone Magazine 1974.
"Bad Scooter? Man, that's me." The Commentator 2005.
1975 saw many albums produced and released from legendary acts. It was the year, for example, that Bob Dylan released 'Blood on the Tracks', Patti Smith 'Horses', Alice Cooper 'Welcome to my Nightmare', Elton John 'Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy', The Eagles 'One of these Nights' and Led Zeppelin 'Physical Graffiti.' In fact, the list of artists releasing albums that year included; David Bowie, Abba, Earth Wind and Fire, Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Barry Manilow, Paul Simon, Art Garfunkle, Bad Company, The Carpenters, Hall and Oates, Roberta Flack, Emylou Harris, Paul McCartney and Wings, Kiss, Linda Ronstadt, Rush, Roxy Music, Rod Stewart, T-Rex, Donna Summer, and Kraftwerk. While we're on it, Motorhead and Pere Ubu were formed that year.
Nice company to have when you pour your entire existence into a landmark album. The odds against Springsteen were great that year. There was probably a better chance of having the Broadstreet Bullies turning into figure skaters than Springsteen surviving his latest project. Yes, the external forces of know-nothings pushed him against a wall of seeming impossibility. Alas, Springsteen pushed back harder with this work. His two previous albums, though filled with melodic and harmonic imagery and memorable characters, did not capture enough attention. 'The Wild, the Innocent and the E Street Shuffle' and 'Greetings from Asbury Park, N.J.' were probably albums that were ahead of their time.
But he did survive and the album stands as a landmark album. Its emergence on the rock'n roll scene must have been met with a dose of refreshing hope. Hope that rock was finally back on the right track.
Defining or categorizing art is an impossible game. Looking back on the past and keeping things in their proper context is all the more challenging given how popular revisionism has become. With all we know now it really isn't all that difficult to rewrite history - and make things look better or worse than they really are or were.
Preserving the spirit and truth of history, well, that's another matter. Springsteen has been called many things and it's not my goal here to recite this. Instead, I'd rather offer my impression of this incredibly poetic album. What better way to treat history and this piece of art than with personal respect?
10, no hang on, I was probably 11 when I first listened to 'Born to Run'. That would make the year 1983. By then, the New Wave movement and its influence on music was in full stride and bands like Echo and the Bunnymen and Joy Division were affecting a whole new generation of kids. A full 8 years after 'Born to Run' was released, on a visit to my grandparents' home, I raided my Uncle's albums and boldly removed the record from its jacket and awkwardly placed it on the turn table.
I was young and stupid when the needle hit the record and the first notes to 'Thunder Road' filled the room. 'The screen door slams, Mary's dress waves. Like a vision she dances across the porch as the radio plays. Roy Orbison singing for the lonely. Hey, that's me and I want you only.' By the end, I was older and wiser after the operatic conclusion to the song. 'It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win.' The song shocked me into becoming a music fan. Lord, it was my opera.
The song exercised my mind and thoughts like it never had before. Up until then, I lived and died by the local events of my time. I lost my intellectual virginity to that album. If someone was to ask me what I think 'Thunder Road' represents, I would not even know how to express it. The song has meant so many different things over the years. It depends in the context to which I'm listening to it. I've probably written a screenplay in my head for the amount of thoughts it has offered me.
Over the years, the album offered a dizzying account of imageries that still captivate me. It was an album that thoroughly explores so many themes and ideas it literally leaves you in a state of catatonic marvel each time you listen to it. Whether you are driving through a drive-thru or on your way to a funeral - the song connects in ways unimaginable.
30 years, and 'Born to Run' still lives and breathes in ways I'm sure Springsteen himself never imagined. It was the latest work in the evolution of rock'n roll. I am also sure a new Springsteen was born after its release. It was a redemption of sorts for him. I salute the album that brought us Mary, Bad Scooter and the Big Man, Eddie and Cherry, the Rangers, the Magic Rat and of course, Wendy.
We all imagine that we have a soundtrack to our lives. 'Thundercrack', certainly is one for me. However, if I was to pick a line - among the many memorable ones - it would be 'Tear drops on the city Bad Scooter searching for his groove.' We all are.
For those who love ironies. 1975 was the year Roy Orbison, one of Springsteen's greatest influences, released his own album - 'I'm Still in Love with you.'
"I have seen the future of rock and roll and its name is Bruce Springsteen." Jon Landau, Rolling Stone Magazine 1974.
"Bad Scooter? Man, that's me." The Commentator 2005.
1975 saw many albums produced and released from legendary acts. It was the year, for example, that Bob Dylan released 'Blood on the Tracks', Patti Smith 'Horses', Alice Cooper 'Welcome to my Nightmare', Elton John 'Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy', The Eagles 'One of these Nights' and Led Zeppelin 'Physical Graffiti.' In fact, the list of artists releasing albums that year included; David Bowie, Abba, Earth Wind and Fire, Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Barry Manilow, Paul Simon, Art Garfunkle, Bad Company, The Carpenters, Hall and Oates, Roberta Flack, Emylou Harris, Paul McCartney and Wings, Kiss, Linda Ronstadt, Rush, Roxy Music, Rod Stewart, T-Rex, Donna Summer, and Kraftwerk. While we're on it, Motorhead and Pere Ubu were formed that year.
Nice company to have when you pour your entire existence into a landmark album. The odds against Springsteen were great that year. There was probably a better chance of having the Broadstreet Bullies turning into figure skaters than Springsteen surviving his latest project. Yes, the external forces of know-nothings pushed him against a wall of seeming impossibility. Alas, Springsteen pushed back harder with this work. His two previous albums, though filled with melodic and harmonic imagery and memorable characters, did not capture enough attention. 'The Wild, the Innocent and the E Street Shuffle' and 'Greetings from Asbury Park, N.J.' were probably albums that were ahead of their time.
But he did survive and the album stands as a landmark album. Its emergence on the rock'n roll scene must have been met with a dose of refreshing hope. Hope that rock was finally back on the right track.
Defining or categorizing art is an impossible game. Looking back on the past and keeping things in their proper context is all the more challenging given how popular revisionism has become. With all we know now it really isn't all that difficult to rewrite history - and make things look better or worse than they really are or were.
Preserving the spirit and truth of history, well, that's another matter. Springsteen has been called many things and it's not my goal here to recite this. Instead, I'd rather offer my impression of this incredibly poetic album. What better way to treat history and this piece of art than with personal respect?
10, no hang on, I was probably 11 when I first listened to 'Born to Run'. That would make the year 1983. By then, the New Wave movement and its influence on music was in full stride and bands like Echo and the Bunnymen and Joy Division were affecting a whole new generation of kids. A full 8 years after 'Born to Run' was released, on a visit to my grandparents' home, I raided my Uncle's albums and boldly removed the record from its jacket and awkwardly placed it on the turn table.
I was young and stupid when the needle hit the record and the first notes to 'Thunder Road' filled the room. 'The screen door slams, Mary's dress waves. Like a vision she dances across the porch as the radio plays. Roy Orbison singing for the lonely. Hey, that's me and I want you only.' By the end, I was older and wiser after the operatic conclusion to the song. 'It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win.' The song shocked me into becoming a music fan. Lord, it was my opera.
The song exercised my mind and thoughts like it never had before. Up until then, I lived and died by the local events of my time. I lost my intellectual virginity to that album. If someone was to ask me what I think 'Thunder Road' represents, I would not even know how to express it. The song has meant so many different things over the years. It depends in the context to which I'm listening to it. I've probably written a screenplay in my head for the amount of thoughts it has offered me.
Over the years, the album offered a dizzying account of imageries that still captivate me. It was an album that thoroughly explores so many themes and ideas it literally leaves you in a state of catatonic marvel each time you listen to it. Whether you are driving through a drive-thru or on your way to a funeral - the song connects in ways unimaginable.
30 years, and 'Born to Run' still lives and breathes in ways I'm sure Springsteen himself never imagined. It was the latest work in the evolution of rock'n roll. I am also sure a new Springsteen was born after its release. It was a redemption of sorts for him. I salute the album that brought us Mary, Bad Scooter and the Big Man, Eddie and Cherry, the Rangers, the Magic Rat and of course, Wendy.
We all imagine that we have a soundtrack to our lives. 'Thundercrack', certainly is one for me. However, if I was to pick a line - among the many memorable ones - it would be 'Tear drops on the city Bad Scooter searching for his groove.' We all are.
For those who love ironies. 1975 was the year Roy Orbison, one of Springsteen's greatest influences, released his own album - 'I'm Still in Love with you.'
2005-12-18
Max: The Declaration of Unemployment
41cm. That's the official amount of snow the befell my city. Within a day, however, the streets were functional. It's amazing how quickly the city adjusted. Me? I just sat back and took it all in. It's not like I had to go sit in traffic and work. What a majestic spectacle though.
The guy who lives next to me; I guess he's a neighbour, is a specimen. He bothers me like tartaric acid or cottonseed oil. Mind you, I've never had them on their own but with a high cholesterol count, I shouldn't even consider eating food with this stuff. It's unfortunate since they are part of the ingredients that make up my favorite Peek Freans cookies. Back to the hydrogenated old hag. He's the owner of a piece of junk automobile I call 'The Car that doesn't Drive.' All it does is sit there 365 or 366 days a year soaking up the sun and parking spots of residents. He and this other fag are always working on it. It's an old white trash unit with rust stains everywhere. It's nowhere near a classic so I have no idea why he hangs on to it. Each time I see him I want to make him drink break fluid.
My insomnia is consuming me. I now get migraines and use 222's to alleviate the pain. Tylenol, Advil are candy next to 222. One characteristic of being an insomniac is on how we get fixated on sights and sounds. Once our minds lock in to something that's it. Picture yourself listening to the slow drips from a facet...for two hours. Every drip, every tick, every car that passes outside, you mentally document. 12 days and counting and no sleep. It's to the point I'm afraid to go to bed.
Jeebies is back from rope singing in Nunavut. He has some stories to tell about his adventure. He now speaks Iglatituk or whatever it is they speak up there. He plans to use it to pick up women. And knowing Jeebie he will.
That's it for now. Please go to my Max link on the side if you want more stories. The Commentator, whoever he is, was gracious enough to provide me with archive space. He's probably sensually caressing my wife behind my wet ears. I, Dale Gribble, he John Redcorn.
The guy who lives next to me; I guess he's a neighbour, is a specimen. He bothers me like tartaric acid or cottonseed oil. Mind you, I've never had them on their own but with a high cholesterol count, I shouldn't even consider eating food with this stuff. It's unfortunate since they are part of the ingredients that make up my favorite Peek Freans cookies. Back to the hydrogenated old hag. He's the owner of a piece of junk automobile I call 'The Car that doesn't Drive.' All it does is sit there 365 or 366 days a year soaking up the sun and parking spots of residents. He and this other fag are always working on it. It's an old white trash unit with rust stains everywhere. It's nowhere near a classic so I have no idea why he hangs on to it. Each time I see him I want to make him drink break fluid.
My insomnia is consuming me. I now get migraines and use 222's to alleviate the pain. Tylenol, Advil are candy next to 222. One characteristic of being an insomniac is on how we get fixated on sights and sounds. Once our minds lock in to something that's it. Picture yourself listening to the slow drips from a facet...for two hours. Every drip, every tick, every car that passes outside, you mentally document. 12 days and counting and no sleep. It's to the point I'm afraid to go to bed.
Jeebies is back from rope singing in Nunavut. He has some stories to tell about his adventure. He now speaks Iglatituk or whatever it is they speak up there. He plans to use it to pick up women. And knowing Jeebie he will.
That's it for now. Please go to my Max link on the side if you want more stories. The Commentator, whoever he is, was gracious enough to provide me with archive space. He's probably sensually caressing my wife behind my wet ears. I, Dale Gribble, he John Redcorn.
2005-12-16
A Charlie Brown Christmas: A Commentary
40 years ago Charlie Brown wanted to find the true meaning of Christmas and in the process Charles M. Schultz created an animated Holiday classic that remained an integral part of Americana ever since. Like The Beatles, The Peanut Gang is timeless as they continue to connect to generations of North Americans.
The cartoon's plot is based on Charlie Brown's determination to not let commercialism ruin his Christmas. Snoopy, on the other hand, is not too concerned about such things as he entered a contest in an effort to win money for best decorated house, er, dog house. While the sprit of Christmas escapes everyone around him - including man's best friend Snoopy (who reminds me of Otto Von Bismarck with his ability to shift alliances in ever changing geo-political dynamics) - Charlie Brown knows there's something more to Christmas but can't quite put his finger on it. That is, until he turns to Linus who chimes in with the Oscar performance of a lifetime.
"And suddenly, there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, 'Glory to God in the Highest, and on Earth peace, and goodwill toward men,' " Linus says. "And that's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown."
I know. We still choke up whenever we see this speech. The power and timelessness of the speech lies in the innocence of the messenger. A blue blanket carrying little boy who still sucks his thumb. Not to mention that it reminds us all of who Jesus Christ was. It's a beautiful, moving and meaningful speech that little Linus gave.
What is remarkable about this as I watched the cartoon again this year is that this episode still gets aired annually. With Christianity under sharp scrutiny in post modernity, I'm surprised Linus' speech has not drawn fire from politically correct circles. Perhaps it speaks volumes of its ability to resonate even among the most cynical, or that they have jusy not gotten around to censoring it.
If it ever comes to this, it would truly be a sad day for not only freedom and art in pop culture, but for religion as an important force in our lives as well.
PEANUT GANG REVISITED
Ok, so I did not want to ruin the moment but I just had to play 'Where are they Now' with some members of the Peanut Gang. In 1965, they were probably, on average, 8-10 years old. That would make them roughly 48-50 today. What did life have in store for our animated baby boomers?
Charlie Brown: Life can be brutal on kids wth low self-esteem. Charlie was a hopeful loser. It was tough watching his sandlot team lose match after match. An inferiority complex stays with you forever. Charlie, for all intensive purposes, should have probably been diagnosed with depression - evidently he wasn't. Now he sells mattresses hooked on anti-depressants in Montana still wondering what could have been with Lucy.
Lucy: She was one mean and assertive kid. It's no wonder she became a ruthless industrialist. During the height of the 70s drug and sex revolution, Lucy - at the tender age of 16 - is reputed to have had a hand in all the era's greatest clubs, including Studio 54. Part of her empire includes pharmaceuticals (that manufacture Charlie's anti-depressants), a professional football team which has no filed goal kickers, and Porn production in California and Paris. One of her workers happens to be a member of the Peanut Gang.
Sally: Sally was on skid row after Linus left her before she was found by one of Lucy's 'directors'. While she managed to avoid porn - too many values were instilled in her - she was a sultry Cabaret dancer in Paris. A chainsmoker, Sally dyed her hair red and is now known by her stage name Saleé La Saloppe. She is reported to be living with a 20 year-old German Dada expressionist. He had the same hair as Linus.
Linus: A junkie. He fell in with the wrong crowd at an early age and was never able to climb out of this. He sniffed glue with Inuits at Davis Inlet, hung out with Shaggy, took drugs with Lou Reed and Nico and even had a fling with Margaret Trudeau in the mid 70s. He and Sally were on and off but ultimately his original feelings of indifference towards her prevailed.
Schroder: I think the movie 'Shine' was loosely based on his life. He was afflicted with a horrible spinal condition as a result of being hunched over his Fisher-Price piano all those years. A chiropractor worsened it and he remains in a perpetual hunched state. However, out of all the Peanuts, he's proven to be the most successful as he tours various concert halls in South America - partly as an out of luck musical prodigy, and partly as a freak. He married Marcy and they have one child. He was diagnosed with a mild form of autism when he was 12. Ritalin is his happiness - like a warm gun.
Peppermint Patty: One of the later members. Is it any surprise she became an activist for a myriad of causes and organizations. She is the face of anti-globalization and the anti-Bush crowd. Her pinky toe was amputated when it was frostbitten after wearing sandals in sub-zero weather in Norway at a Lapplander Reindeer Sacrifice ritual. Obviously a lesbian, Patty was heartbroken when Marcy (whom she still feels is bi-sexual) married the Piano Man.
Pig Pen: Died in 1972 of a rare affliction. Already asthmatic, his lungs could not process the high volumes of dust and dirt inhalation. His pals tried to unsuccessfully Shop-Vac the dust out of him. He also caught a bizarre mutated strain of a tropical virus after he cut himself. He caught the virus when dirt set in o the open wound. There was no hope for P.P. and he was DOA.
Franklin: Whereabouts unknown.
Snoopy: Snoopy left for Madagascar. Once a smart-alec beagle, Snoopy could not stand watching Charlie whither away. He was eternally depressed by what happened to Sally. No one has heard from him ever since. Woodstock died in 1969. The idealism of the period died with him. He was the last of his species which is now extinct.
Come to think of it, this account is not all that different from the story of the Little Rascals. Spanky, Alfalfa, Buckwheat, Dora, Spot etc....all had their issues.
The cartoon's plot is based on Charlie Brown's determination to not let commercialism ruin his Christmas. Snoopy, on the other hand, is not too concerned about such things as he entered a contest in an effort to win money for best decorated house, er, dog house. While the sprit of Christmas escapes everyone around him - including man's best friend Snoopy (who reminds me of Otto Von Bismarck with his ability to shift alliances in ever changing geo-political dynamics) - Charlie Brown knows there's something more to Christmas but can't quite put his finger on it. That is, until he turns to Linus who chimes in with the Oscar performance of a lifetime.
"And suddenly, there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, 'Glory to God in the Highest, and on Earth peace, and goodwill toward men,' " Linus says. "And that's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown."
I know. We still choke up whenever we see this speech. The power and timelessness of the speech lies in the innocence of the messenger. A blue blanket carrying little boy who still sucks his thumb. Not to mention that it reminds us all of who Jesus Christ was. It's a beautiful, moving and meaningful speech that little Linus gave.
What is remarkable about this as I watched the cartoon again this year is that this episode still gets aired annually. With Christianity under sharp scrutiny in post modernity, I'm surprised Linus' speech has not drawn fire from politically correct circles. Perhaps it speaks volumes of its ability to resonate even among the most cynical, or that they have jusy not gotten around to censoring it.
If it ever comes to this, it would truly be a sad day for not only freedom and art in pop culture, but for religion as an important force in our lives as well.
PEANUT GANG REVISITED
Ok, so I did not want to ruin the moment but I just had to play 'Where are they Now' with some members of the Peanut Gang. In 1965, they were probably, on average, 8-10 years old. That would make them roughly 48-50 today. What did life have in store for our animated baby boomers?
Charlie Brown: Life can be brutal on kids wth low self-esteem. Charlie was a hopeful loser. It was tough watching his sandlot team lose match after match. An inferiority complex stays with you forever. Charlie, for all intensive purposes, should have probably been diagnosed with depression - evidently he wasn't. Now he sells mattresses hooked on anti-depressants in Montana still wondering what could have been with Lucy.
Lucy: She was one mean and assertive kid. It's no wonder she became a ruthless industrialist. During the height of the 70s drug and sex revolution, Lucy - at the tender age of 16 - is reputed to have had a hand in all the era's greatest clubs, including Studio 54. Part of her empire includes pharmaceuticals (that manufacture Charlie's anti-depressants), a professional football team which has no filed goal kickers, and Porn production in California and Paris. One of her workers happens to be a member of the Peanut Gang.
Sally: Sally was on skid row after Linus left her before she was found by one of Lucy's 'directors'. While she managed to avoid porn - too many values were instilled in her - she was a sultry Cabaret dancer in Paris. A chainsmoker, Sally dyed her hair red and is now known by her stage name Saleé La Saloppe. She is reported to be living with a 20 year-old German Dada expressionist. He had the same hair as Linus.
Linus: A junkie. He fell in with the wrong crowd at an early age and was never able to climb out of this. He sniffed glue with Inuits at Davis Inlet, hung out with Shaggy, took drugs with Lou Reed and Nico and even had a fling with Margaret Trudeau in the mid 70s. He and Sally were on and off but ultimately his original feelings of indifference towards her prevailed.
Schroder: I think the movie 'Shine' was loosely based on his life. He was afflicted with a horrible spinal condition as a result of being hunched over his Fisher-Price piano all those years. A chiropractor worsened it and he remains in a perpetual hunched state. However, out of all the Peanuts, he's proven to be the most successful as he tours various concert halls in South America - partly as an out of luck musical prodigy, and partly as a freak. He married Marcy and they have one child. He was diagnosed with a mild form of autism when he was 12. Ritalin is his happiness - like a warm gun.
Peppermint Patty: One of the later members. Is it any surprise she became an activist for a myriad of causes and organizations. She is the face of anti-globalization and the anti-Bush crowd. Her pinky toe was amputated when it was frostbitten after wearing sandals in sub-zero weather in Norway at a Lapplander Reindeer Sacrifice ritual. Obviously a lesbian, Patty was heartbroken when Marcy (whom she still feels is bi-sexual) married the Piano Man.
Pig Pen: Died in 1972 of a rare affliction. Already asthmatic, his lungs could not process the high volumes of dust and dirt inhalation. His pals tried to unsuccessfully Shop-Vac the dust out of him. He also caught a bizarre mutated strain of a tropical virus after he cut himself. He caught the virus when dirt set in o the open wound. There was no hope for P.P. and he was DOA.
Franklin: Whereabouts unknown.
Snoopy: Snoopy left for Madagascar. Once a smart-alec beagle, Snoopy could not stand watching Charlie whither away. He was eternally depressed by what happened to Sally. No one has heard from him ever since. Woodstock died in 1969. The idealism of the period died with him. He was the last of his species which is now extinct.
Come to think of it, this account is not all that different from the story of the Little Rascals. Spanky, Alfalfa, Buckwheat, Dora, Spot etc....all had their issues.
2005-12-15
Iraq Beauteous
"...He First, I second, without thought of rest
We climbed the dark until we reached the point
where a round opening brought in sight the blest
and the beauteous shining of the Heavenly cars.
And we walked out once more beneath the Stars."
So closes Dante's immortal work 'The Inferno.' With the Iraqi people bravely leaving their homes, I allow imagery rather than perception to lead my thoughts.
'Rivers of blood' were promised by various factions opposed to the election. Instead, we got rivers of might and water. Alas, after 30 years of brutality and inhumanity, the Iraqi's have had enough. They realize that there is an occupied force because of Hussein. They realize that terrorists represent a minority and do not speak for the majority. They have learned to ignore the shameful cries from skeptics abroad and to embrace an opportunity. As they leave their homes and look to the sky, they realize they have a country now. Even the Sunni's seem to have accepted the political process.
Will this work? Make no mistake - the road will be unpredictable, long and hard. Possibly bloody. Time will tell. The important thing is there is hope now. An outlet. With hope comes motivation, with motivation comes prosperity, with prosperity comes rebirth. As we approach this cross-road in world history, might we finally get to see a Middle-Eastern Renaissance?
They know that the killers among them have no legs. It's not just about Bush. Never has been. The Sunni's, the most reticent of the three major groups, realized that the Americans were not going to cut and run as some back home have irresponsibly demanded. Peace first, honorable discharge second. We are finally seeing some results. They know all this.
To those of us in the West who scream about the alleged illegal activities of the Americans (and to be fair, one still has to question the whole notion of WMD's as the basis of invading), who yell in horror about the deaths, torture and the supposed rampant neo-con project, they have forgotten something. Their own freedoms did not come in a bloodless coup. Citizens of the West had to fight and sacrifice their sons and daughters for liberty. It's no different for Iraq. The experiment is radical but achievable.
It falls into the realm of possibility because the Iraqi's want it to be so. While we wallow in pampered cynical rhetoric that considers only short-term implications, Iraq moves forward. They move ahead as Americans have always done, leaving behind the dust of people who choose to hang on to something obsolete. Shortly, we will here their reconfigurations about how things are not so 'cut and dry' if Bush claims credit. Iraqi's know better.
On this day, Iraqi's moved from the dark caves of the inner souls and into the beacon of freedom. They emerge to stake their claim among the nations of the world - as Iraq beautiful.
We climbed the dark until we reached the point
where a round opening brought in sight the blest
and the beauteous shining of the Heavenly cars.
And we walked out once more beneath the Stars."
So closes Dante's immortal work 'The Inferno.' With the Iraqi people bravely leaving their homes, I allow imagery rather than perception to lead my thoughts.
'Rivers of blood' were promised by various factions opposed to the election. Instead, we got rivers of might and water. Alas, after 30 years of brutality and inhumanity, the Iraqi's have had enough. They realize that there is an occupied force because of Hussein. They realize that terrorists represent a minority and do not speak for the majority. They have learned to ignore the shameful cries from skeptics abroad and to embrace an opportunity. As they leave their homes and look to the sky, they realize they have a country now. Even the Sunni's seem to have accepted the political process.
Will this work? Make no mistake - the road will be unpredictable, long and hard. Possibly bloody. Time will tell. The important thing is there is hope now. An outlet. With hope comes motivation, with motivation comes prosperity, with prosperity comes rebirth. As we approach this cross-road in world history, might we finally get to see a Middle-Eastern Renaissance?
They know that the killers among them have no legs. It's not just about Bush. Never has been. The Sunni's, the most reticent of the three major groups, realized that the Americans were not going to cut and run as some back home have irresponsibly demanded. Peace first, honorable discharge second. We are finally seeing some results. They know all this.
To those of us in the West who scream about the alleged illegal activities of the Americans (and to be fair, one still has to question the whole notion of WMD's as the basis of invading), who yell in horror about the deaths, torture and the supposed rampant neo-con project, they have forgotten something. Their own freedoms did not come in a bloodless coup. Citizens of the West had to fight and sacrifice their sons and daughters for liberty. It's no different for Iraq. The experiment is radical but achievable.
It falls into the realm of possibility because the Iraqi's want it to be so. While we wallow in pampered cynical rhetoric that considers only short-term implications, Iraq moves forward. They move ahead as Americans have always done, leaving behind the dust of people who choose to hang on to something obsolete. Shortly, we will here their reconfigurations about how things are not so 'cut and dry' if Bush claims credit. Iraqi's know better.
On this day, Iraqi's moved from the dark caves of the inner souls and into the beacon of freedom. They emerge to stake their claim among the nations of the world - as Iraq beautiful.
2005-12-14
It's a Bubble Gum Life
Contemporary life is as mad as it is perplexing. Disjointed as it is neatly collected. Engaging and dynamic. Above it all lies the secret caves of ironies and ambiguities the modern world has in store for us. I know, I've seen the paintings in the caves. They are impossible to decode.
Most of it, however, can be remarkably frustrating. Recently, I recalled an episode of 'WKRP in Cincinnati' that lamented the death of the disc jockey. As the 80s rolled around, corporate cookie cutter program directors with play lists were beginning to take over. Dr. Johnny Fever and Andy Travis had become obsolete - with it went all the originality that once ruled radio. Good luck trying to hear Bo Diddley on the air. You'll hear Cher but not 'Diddley Daddley.'
There is no sense of adventure on mainstream radio airwaves anymore. Everything is watered down and safe. It panders to the least offended denominator. No one can bang on doors like they used to and speak directly to a major disc jockey or record producer and get their stuff played. Today, too many obstacles are in the way of the artist. Pig vomit types (coined by Howard Stern) abound.
It's the same if one tries their hand, for example, at food importing. Once upon a time you visited the numerous independent retail owners and you showed your product. If they liked it they bought it and you had yourself a business. Today, corporate know-nothings who wouldn't know good food if it was crammed down their numb throats make the decisions through a mechanical process known as procurement. It's where a product gets a lobotomy.
Another area is in media. If the bubble-gum stigma exists in music, it most certainly finds life in writing. Bubble-gum writing is all around us. It's in our movie scripts and it's in our newspapers. A newspaper usually has a handful of bona fide writers and the rest are just fillers talking or writing gibberish like you find in a bad contemporary rock album. Perhaps it's a function of people forgetting what the art of writing means or maybe we just want crap that satisfies our short-attention spans - or indeed, we just don't give a shit. In this light, art mirrors society.
Speaking of immediate self-gratification, the other day I was staring at a huge magazine section in a book store and was bombarded by the number of senseless idol talk. 'Why Brad and Angelina Adopted' littered the covers. At its core, these types of publications pollute our minds with clutter. Sex sells, the mind collects dust on the shelves. Pity the entertainer who must rely on flashing flesh to make a splash. Pity the person who only reads this sort of stuff. Give ad execs credit, they know what they're doing.
Same in sports. It's not about the team anymore. Rather, it's about the individual. The cult of the personality has infiltrated the sports world too. Once upon a time - it seems anyways - one lived and died by their team. A city's honour was tied to its professional sports franchise. We still see this in soccer and teams like the Yankees, Cowboys, Packers and Canadiens, who still maintain a certain cultural presence. But marketing is all directed at the people who care least for the game - witness the gimmickery of shoot-outs in soccer and hockey. It's all about convenience and entertainment now. Watching the Lions take on the Browns or Bears today, to cite one of many examples, is akin to watching a painting of a saber-tooth Tiger in all its majestic power.
I read articles, longer pieces and movie scripts from the 20s,30s, 40s and 50s and I am thoroughly astonished at the quality of the work. Once upon a time kids went to watch Chick Webb. Now they go watch 50 Cent. Something got lost in translation somewhere. A film from the 1930s, arguably Hollywood's Golden Age, has a certain writing brilliance not dared to be disclosed today on a mass level. This is strictly the domain of independents and renegades. Whenever a script that breaks the iron clad Hollywood mode of today, we automatically ordain it brilliant. Sort of like how Oprah calls her guests 'geniuses.' While it is true some contemporary music and programs offer sophisticated content (probably more so than at any point in pop culture history) on average mediocrity gets the reward. However, we should all realize, only masterpieces get the last say.
It's all around. Take a drive. We have more technology and better resources yet our architecture in urban centers is atrocious. The Renaissance spirit is dead. Yes, it is true some businessmen with means have been known to help renovate decaying arts of great cities, but new development lacks the panache we once revered. Outdoor shopping malls are like soulless mini city-states now. All have the same design; same stores. It is not uncommon to have a Wal-Mart open but a mere kilometre away from the last. Choice and originality is out, price is in. Consumers want it that way. I wish there was a balance.
Life is weird, random and unpredictable. This can, with proper confidence, channels and support, drive us to works of genius. Are we being shortchanged? Who are all these people who make important decisions for us? Many lack sense, others are afraid of their own shadows. Many can't lead. It's frightful in some ways.
Will we ever be able to decode the message in the caves?
Most of it, however, can be remarkably frustrating. Recently, I recalled an episode of 'WKRP in Cincinnati' that lamented the death of the disc jockey. As the 80s rolled around, corporate cookie cutter program directors with play lists were beginning to take over. Dr. Johnny Fever and Andy Travis had become obsolete - with it went all the originality that once ruled radio. Good luck trying to hear Bo Diddley on the air. You'll hear Cher but not 'Diddley Daddley.'
There is no sense of adventure on mainstream radio airwaves anymore. Everything is watered down and safe. It panders to the least offended denominator. No one can bang on doors like they used to and speak directly to a major disc jockey or record producer and get their stuff played. Today, too many obstacles are in the way of the artist. Pig vomit types (coined by Howard Stern) abound.
It's the same if one tries their hand, for example, at food importing. Once upon a time you visited the numerous independent retail owners and you showed your product. If they liked it they bought it and you had yourself a business. Today, corporate know-nothings who wouldn't know good food if it was crammed down their numb throats make the decisions through a mechanical process known as procurement. It's where a product gets a lobotomy.
Another area is in media. If the bubble-gum stigma exists in music, it most certainly finds life in writing. Bubble-gum writing is all around us. It's in our movie scripts and it's in our newspapers. A newspaper usually has a handful of bona fide writers and the rest are just fillers talking or writing gibberish like you find in a bad contemporary rock album. Perhaps it's a function of people forgetting what the art of writing means or maybe we just want crap that satisfies our short-attention spans - or indeed, we just don't give a shit. In this light, art mirrors society.
Speaking of immediate self-gratification, the other day I was staring at a huge magazine section in a book store and was bombarded by the number of senseless idol talk. 'Why Brad and Angelina Adopted' littered the covers. At its core, these types of publications pollute our minds with clutter. Sex sells, the mind collects dust on the shelves. Pity the entertainer who must rely on flashing flesh to make a splash. Pity the person who only reads this sort of stuff. Give ad execs credit, they know what they're doing.
Same in sports. It's not about the team anymore. Rather, it's about the individual. The cult of the personality has infiltrated the sports world too. Once upon a time - it seems anyways - one lived and died by their team. A city's honour was tied to its professional sports franchise. We still see this in soccer and teams like the Yankees, Cowboys, Packers and Canadiens, who still maintain a certain cultural presence. But marketing is all directed at the people who care least for the game - witness the gimmickery of shoot-outs in soccer and hockey. It's all about convenience and entertainment now. Watching the Lions take on the Browns or Bears today, to cite one of many examples, is akin to watching a painting of a saber-tooth Tiger in all its majestic power.
I read articles, longer pieces and movie scripts from the 20s,30s, 40s and 50s and I am thoroughly astonished at the quality of the work. Once upon a time kids went to watch Chick Webb. Now they go watch 50 Cent. Something got lost in translation somewhere. A film from the 1930s, arguably Hollywood's Golden Age, has a certain writing brilliance not dared to be disclosed today on a mass level. This is strictly the domain of independents and renegades. Whenever a script that breaks the iron clad Hollywood mode of today, we automatically ordain it brilliant. Sort of like how Oprah calls her guests 'geniuses.' While it is true some contemporary music and programs offer sophisticated content (probably more so than at any point in pop culture history) on average mediocrity gets the reward. However, we should all realize, only masterpieces get the last say.
It's all around. Take a drive. We have more technology and better resources yet our architecture in urban centers is atrocious. The Renaissance spirit is dead. Yes, it is true some businessmen with means have been known to help renovate decaying arts of great cities, but new development lacks the panache we once revered. Outdoor shopping malls are like soulless mini city-states now. All have the same design; same stores. It is not uncommon to have a Wal-Mart open but a mere kilometre away from the last. Choice and originality is out, price is in. Consumers want it that way. I wish there was a balance.
Life is weird, random and unpredictable. This can, with proper confidence, channels and support, drive us to works of genius. Are we being shortchanged? Who are all these people who make important decisions for us? Many lack sense, others are afraid of their own shadows. Many can't lead. It's frightful in some ways.
Will we ever be able to decode the message in the caves?
2005-12-09
Modern Industry Jargon is Bizarre.
A corporation seeks to unify its workers by cultivating a culture. By extension, an industry does the same, and like any culture, language is part of what defines it. Those in the medical, police, financial and other professions all have their unique language of terms.
However, at what point does the jargon go overboard? In a sense, when does it all become saturated? Some industries, like the financial industry, should publish their own dictionaries. Everyday new trendy terms and jargon enter our vernacular at a pace that is dizzying. Most of it is absolute hogwash. It is designed more to impress than insight. The more we want, the more complex our schemes become, the more the demand for big words to describe our big thoughts.
I witnessed this phenomena first hand in the financial industry. For example, one of the best places to witness new words in motion was in the boardroom. The piéce de resistance of a boardroom meeting is the presentation. Ah, the presentation; the act of showing others you are worth something; the practice by which we flaunt cuff links and assistants by our side. Like the art of networking, the presentation is a must in the corporate world. If one neglects to partake in any of these they can forget the long, smelly ride to the top. It is here that we can be sure to be introduced to a new way of expressing things.
The presentation is one of those over-rated exercises that have become the strict domain of imposters and slick salesmen. Today, our sales techniques are so advanced and sophisticated we don't even know we are being pitched. It is here - snap, snap - we learn new words invented by some loyal pit bull in upper management. 'Rick, yeah, um, go with loan loss provision to describe write-offs. It sounds, um, more professional." Sort of like the garbage man becoming the sanitizing officer.
Brokers or bankers who talk to their clients as though they are Certified Financial Analysts are Certified Fricken Anal-ysts. "Yeah, we're coming out of a trough and stocks will rally. Capital ratios are indicating that coincidental indicators are giving an indication that I am really not sure which stock to buy." Pause. "Oh, so profitability is threatened by the ever growing weight of our own bullshit?" Touché.
Whatever happened to keeping things simple? Lucid and clear? Why does everyone have to sound like they have been polished at a beauty salon? Where's the human element to it?
It's just not in my former industry. Even in academic circles certain words find their way into the mouths of people who never pronounced more than three syllables. Prior to 9/11, who the hell spoke of multi-lateralism? The truth is that uni-, multi- duo and other lateralisms were repackaged words from a different era. Except, heaven forbid we ever use terminology from four decades ago. Have we not progressed?
If finding new ways to describe the color blue is evident that I guess we are progressing. Cologne rarely relieves the bad odor. In the end, should we be worried? If hurling big words makes us all feel good about ourselves, then who am I to lower a person's self-esteem? Now, I have to go prepare my personal business plan. I would like to get a loan to expand my body and mind. My personal Quick Ratio is .51:1. What's yours?
However, at what point does the jargon go overboard? In a sense, when does it all become saturated? Some industries, like the financial industry, should publish their own dictionaries. Everyday new trendy terms and jargon enter our vernacular at a pace that is dizzying. Most of it is absolute hogwash. It is designed more to impress than insight. The more we want, the more complex our schemes become, the more the demand for big words to describe our big thoughts.
I witnessed this phenomena first hand in the financial industry. For example, one of the best places to witness new words in motion was in the boardroom. The piéce de resistance of a boardroom meeting is the presentation. Ah, the presentation; the act of showing others you are worth something; the practice by which we flaunt cuff links and assistants by our side. Like the art of networking, the presentation is a must in the corporate world. If one neglects to partake in any of these they can forget the long, smelly ride to the top. It is here that we can be sure to be introduced to a new way of expressing things.
The presentation is one of those over-rated exercises that have become the strict domain of imposters and slick salesmen. Today, our sales techniques are so advanced and sophisticated we don't even know we are being pitched. It is here - snap, snap - we learn new words invented by some loyal pit bull in upper management. 'Rick, yeah, um, go with loan loss provision to describe write-offs. It sounds, um, more professional." Sort of like the garbage man becoming the sanitizing officer.
Brokers or bankers who talk to their clients as though they are Certified Financial Analysts are Certified Fricken Anal-ysts. "Yeah, we're coming out of a trough and stocks will rally. Capital ratios are indicating that coincidental indicators are giving an indication that I am really not sure which stock to buy." Pause. "Oh, so profitability is threatened by the ever growing weight of our own bullshit?" Touché.
Whatever happened to keeping things simple? Lucid and clear? Why does everyone have to sound like they have been polished at a beauty salon? Where's the human element to it?
It's just not in my former industry. Even in academic circles certain words find their way into the mouths of people who never pronounced more than three syllables. Prior to 9/11, who the hell spoke of multi-lateralism? The truth is that uni-, multi- duo and other lateralisms were repackaged words from a different era. Except, heaven forbid we ever use terminology from four decades ago. Have we not progressed?
If finding new ways to describe the color blue is evident that I guess we are progressing. Cologne rarely relieves the bad odor. In the end, should we be worried? If hurling big words makes us all feel good about ourselves, then who am I to lower a person's self-esteem? Now, I have to go prepare my personal business plan. I would like to get a loan to expand my body and mind. My personal Quick Ratio is .51:1. What's yours?
Activists: Failing to Understand the Implications of their Own Actions
With the recent hostage taking of four members (which includes two Canadians) of the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) by terrorists in Iraq, people are once again confronted with the bizarre madness of terrorists.
Terrorists have positioned themselves as freedom fighters or liberators. While most don't buy this, many do. When it comes to manipulating the Western media, terrorists have been quite resourceful - they took a crash course from Ho Chi Minh whose "How-To Fool the Naïve" CD set for $495; far and away on the bestseller lists among evildoers in waiting.
We should not have any problems with people going off to a far away land as peace activists. Activism is integral to a functional democracy. Activists, from the legitimate to the dubious, believe in what they are doing. If they understand what they are getting themselves into and accept the possible consequences of their actions, then all the power to them. Why should people be philosophically opposed to this?
Where there can be an issue with philosophical differences is when a problem arises or something goes awry. It seems as though, in activist lexicon, it's never the fault of the perpetuator but someone else; usually the Americans or the West in general. As such, they refuse to accept part of the blame as they willingly and freely chose to go into hostile places.
This is what leads some to conclude while watching the CPT and others who think in this mode. On the CPT website, they are clear where the fault lies; with the U.S. and UK with whom the blood of the victims is on their hands.
The one thing that has remained consistently evident throughout the Iraq war and subsequent rebuilding of that country, is how utterly incapable anti-war activists are of grasping the militant Arab mind. Either they don't realize they are 'useful idiots' or they do and just don't care. They see things through one set of lenses - their own.
One of the parents of the hostages was recently pleading to the terrorists on the CBC. She asked them to 'look into their hearts.' If this is not symbolic of how we fail to see the terrorist mind for what it is -murderous and mindless - what is? We, in the guilt ridden West, feel her pain. They, in the deranged and deprived circles of Middle-East terrorism, simply do not feel her pain.
If Dante were here, he would most certainly add a circle for not only these killers but also those who willingly accept to be fooled by them.
Terrorists have positioned themselves as freedom fighters or liberators. While most don't buy this, many do. When it comes to manipulating the Western media, terrorists have been quite resourceful - they took a crash course from Ho Chi Minh whose "How-To Fool the Naïve" CD set for $495; far and away on the bestseller lists among evildoers in waiting.
We should not have any problems with people going off to a far away land as peace activists. Activism is integral to a functional democracy. Activists, from the legitimate to the dubious, believe in what they are doing. If they understand what they are getting themselves into and accept the possible consequences of their actions, then all the power to them. Why should people be philosophically opposed to this?
Where there can be an issue with philosophical differences is when a problem arises or something goes awry. It seems as though, in activist lexicon, it's never the fault of the perpetuator but someone else; usually the Americans or the West in general. As such, they refuse to accept part of the blame as they willingly and freely chose to go into hostile places.
This is what leads some to conclude while watching the CPT and others who think in this mode. On the CPT website, they are clear where the fault lies; with the U.S. and UK with whom the blood of the victims is on their hands.
The one thing that has remained consistently evident throughout the Iraq war and subsequent rebuilding of that country, is how utterly incapable anti-war activists are of grasping the militant Arab mind. Either they don't realize they are 'useful idiots' or they do and just don't care. They see things through one set of lenses - their own.
One of the parents of the hostages was recently pleading to the terrorists on the CBC. She asked them to 'look into their hearts.' If this is not symbolic of how we fail to see the terrorist mind for what it is -murderous and mindless - what is? We, in the guilt ridden West, feel her pain. They, in the deranged and deprived circles of Middle-East terrorism, simply do not feel her pain.
If Dante were here, he would most certainly add a circle for not only these killers but also those who willingly accept to be fooled by them.
2005-12-04
Andy Kim Hits All the Right Notes
The one thing that struck me during Andy Kim's Christmas Special, which took place at the Mod Club Theatre in Toronto on Friday, December 2nd, 2005, was the sheer diversity of the guests who took part. And not just in style, but in age as well. Is this a renaissance of sorts for Andy Kim? You bet it is. How could it not be? Especially when we consider the fact that musicians who were not even born when Kim began to write music are self-professed Andy Kim fans.
Let me begin with a refresher in the school of Andy Kim. At the tender age of 16, with nothing but desire and raw talent in his pockets, Kim left his native Montreal for New York City in the late 60s in search of stardom. Many Canadians found themselves in the same predicament as Kim, as there was no Canadian music industry to which local acts could develop their craft. In this light, Andy Kim is a true Canadian rock trailblazer.
Along with Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, The Guess Who and The Band, Andy Kim was part of a small but dynamic Canadian contingent that found fame in the United States. All have left an undeniable mark on the rock' n roll landscape. Not bad for Crazy Canucks, eh?
With 30 million records sold, countless tours in the United States and a rock anthem under his belt - 'Sugar, Sugar' was recently inducted into the Rock'n Roll Hall of Fame - Andy Kim has returned.
While Toronto and New York have welcomed him back, his native Montreal has ironically remained cool to his comeback. Far from keeping Andy Kim down, he will force people to notice him as he did when Jeff Barry discovered in him over 35 years ago.
This brings us back to the concert. In a sleek black suit that gave off the impression of an elegant Renaissance elder statesmen, Kim kicked off the evening with a rousing rendition of 'Rock me Gently' - a song that brought him a Juno Award in 1974. From that point forward, the tone and mood of the night were set. If there were any among the 550 plus people in attendance who were skeptical, he quickly made them a believer.
This set the stage for an impressive list of Canadian artists to showcase their music. The group included Esthero, Hayden Neale of Jacksoul, Shaye, The Hidden Cameras, Andy Stochansky, Danny Michel, Blair Packham and Jully Black. Fans were also treated to a special guest appearance by Ron Sexsmith, who performed 'What Ever Happened to Christmas?', alongside Kim, a song he co-wrote with Kim.
There was nothing formulaic to the evening. As musicians moved on and off the stage with a flair of what I would call slight unprepared coolness. Whatever it was, when the music started, each of them brought with them a unique element to the concert.
It was a magical night that reminded us how Canadian music continues to thrive and evolve. Indeed, some -including myself as far back as the early 90s - have suggested that there is a Canadian Invasion. After last night, it would be hard to argue with this notion. All we need to do is market our brand of music more aggressively. This, however, is another matter.
Above all, for 2 1/2 hours, many of Canada's musicians, who were barely in existence when Andy Kim began writing music, had a chance to perform with a rock legend. It had to be gratifying for Andy Kim - who influenced so many musicians - as he watched people of another generation connect to his music.
Of course, all good things must come to an end, and what better way to end the night than with 'Sugar, Sugar?' With everyone on stage performing it in a jam session, it was reminiscent of The Band's 'Last Waltz' or whenever great musicians congregate to perform a colleague's song. It was an awesome spectacle that was free of any tackiness that can dangerously make such things ghastly to watch.
As I listened, I observed a young punker pass by and look at the stage. She turned and walked away, though not before giving her opinion to no one in particular, 'This is so cool.' I thought two things to myself after hearing this. This is exactly how Tony Bennett revived his career when he connected to a crowd outside his genre. Indeed, Andy Kim had the aura of a rock'n roll crooner.
The second thing that came to mind, and probably more important in the larger scheme of things, is that Andy Kim belonged. He did not seem displaced artistically or technically with this group of outstanding musicians. This, in my mind, is the greatest accomplishment of the night. Well, that and the fact that proceeds went to charity.
'Sugar Sugar' was the perfect climax for an excellent show. Or was it? Not wanting to call it a night, the performers debated with which song they should continue? They settled on 'Rock me Gently', the song that began the whole affair.
This was, for those who pay attention to such things, symbolic of Andy Kim's career, which has come full circle as he connected with a whole new generation of musicians. If anything, he can watch with pride the vibrancy and brilliance of Canadian music he helped spawn.
Let me begin with a refresher in the school of Andy Kim. At the tender age of 16, with nothing but desire and raw talent in his pockets, Kim left his native Montreal for New York City in the late 60s in search of stardom. Many Canadians found themselves in the same predicament as Kim, as there was no Canadian music industry to which local acts could develop their craft. In this light, Andy Kim is a true Canadian rock trailblazer.
Along with Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, The Guess Who and The Band, Andy Kim was part of a small but dynamic Canadian contingent that found fame in the United States. All have left an undeniable mark on the rock' n roll landscape. Not bad for Crazy Canucks, eh?
With 30 million records sold, countless tours in the United States and a rock anthem under his belt - 'Sugar, Sugar' was recently inducted into the Rock'n Roll Hall of Fame - Andy Kim has returned.
While Toronto and New York have welcomed him back, his native Montreal has ironically remained cool to his comeback. Far from keeping Andy Kim down, he will force people to notice him as he did when Jeff Barry discovered in him over 35 years ago.
This brings us back to the concert. In a sleek black suit that gave off the impression of an elegant Renaissance elder statesmen, Kim kicked off the evening with a rousing rendition of 'Rock me Gently' - a song that brought him a Juno Award in 1974. From that point forward, the tone and mood of the night were set. If there were any among the 550 plus people in attendance who were skeptical, he quickly made them a believer.
This set the stage for an impressive list of Canadian artists to showcase their music. The group included Esthero, Hayden Neale of Jacksoul, Shaye, The Hidden Cameras, Andy Stochansky, Danny Michel, Blair Packham and Jully Black. Fans were also treated to a special guest appearance by Ron Sexsmith, who performed 'What Ever Happened to Christmas?', alongside Kim, a song he co-wrote with Kim.
There was nothing formulaic to the evening. As musicians moved on and off the stage with a flair of what I would call slight unprepared coolness. Whatever it was, when the music started, each of them brought with them a unique element to the concert.
It was a magical night that reminded us how Canadian music continues to thrive and evolve. Indeed, some -including myself as far back as the early 90s - have suggested that there is a Canadian Invasion. After last night, it would be hard to argue with this notion. All we need to do is market our brand of music more aggressively. This, however, is another matter.
Above all, for 2 1/2 hours, many of Canada's musicians, who were barely in existence when Andy Kim began writing music, had a chance to perform with a rock legend. It had to be gratifying for Andy Kim - who influenced so many musicians - as he watched people of another generation connect to his music.
Of course, all good things must come to an end, and what better way to end the night than with 'Sugar, Sugar?' With everyone on stage performing it in a jam session, it was reminiscent of The Band's 'Last Waltz' or whenever great musicians congregate to perform a colleague's song. It was an awesome spectacle that was free of any tackiness that can dangerously make such things ghastly to watch.
As I listened, I observed a young punker pass by and look at the stage. She turned and walked away, though not before giving her opinion to no one in particular, 'This is so cool.' I thought two things to myself after hearing this. This is exactly how Tony Bennett revived his career when he connected to a crowd outside his genre. Indeed, Andy Kim had the aura of a rock'n roll crooner.
The second thing that came to mind, and probably more important in the larger scheme of things, is that Andy Kim belonged. He did not seem displaced artistically or technically with this group of outstanding musicians. This, in my mind, is the greatest accomplishment of the night. Well, that and the fact that proceeds went to charity.
'Sugar Sugar' was the perfect climax for an excellent show. Or was it? Not wanting to call it a night, the performers debated with which song they should continue? They settled on 'Rock me Gently', the song that began the whole affair.
This was, for those who pay attention to such things, symbolic of Andy Kim's career, which has come full circle as he connected with a whole new generation of musicians. If anything, he can watch with pride the vibrancy and brilliance of Canadian music he helped spawn.
2005-12-01
Current Affairs: Christmas Trees Offend, Canadian politics, America and Iraq
-Ah, nothing like a good 'ole Christian holiday to stir up debate. The tradition of having a Christmas tree evolved from - where else?- pagan traditions among the Norse, Druids and various Germanic tribes. It began to take its more modern image during - like anything else - the Victorian age. It has come to symbolize the birth of Christ and not too many Christmas trees are decorated without a manger sheltering Mother Mary and baby Jesus along with the Three Wise Men - and some sheep. For years and years this was the tradition. It's a nice tradition.
Growing up it made me and others feel good. Yes we know, Jesus was not probably born in December (some historians have his birth in March). It's not the point. In fact, all this post-modern revisionism (on any subject matter now that I think about it) goes well beyond any point. The whole notion of Christmas is under attack for an assortment of reasons from many different groups and individuals. It seems that Christmas is a fraud. It's all about spiking consumer spending and is a symbol - mostly among leftists - of the a decadent guilt- ridden Christian religion - among other things. Don't give these people some lions and a coliseum.
Why this post? Every year the province of Nova Scotia sends a Christmas tree to the city of Boston for helping Halifax during the devastating 1917 explosion that killed over 4 000 people. The Boston Parks Department has now decided that the tree will be called a 'Holiday' tree so as to not offend anyone and to be more inclusive. Unreal. Absolutely and incredibly absurd and retarded.
Of course, as we speak, I am sure there are many people asking that we drop the term Christmas altogether. This is not progress. It's a sad reflection of what we have become. First, Christmas is not optional. It's a religious holiday. What religion on earth would question itself and subsequently degrade itself the way Christians do? None. They have managed to remove the crucifix in classes and censored Christmas carrols. Just eliminate and kill it already. This story is similar with the attack on smokers (who have no liberties or dignity left). We're at the point where special interest- who are taking care of all of us. God bless 'em- should just lobby to make smoking illegal. Have you heard about their latest crusade? To ban smoking in your own home? Anyway, on the way to killing Christmas, I hope the people who commit the murder bump into Dante and Virgil.
Far from a religious person, I have to admit all this is insane. Is it time to push back?
-Canadians will be going to the polls in January to elect a new government. Parliament confirmed a non-confidence vote and deemed the Liberals unfit to govern. Well, the Liberals are a bunch of depraved nitwits, so I hope they fall. Besides, if they would get around to it, they would eliminate Christmas because the 'polls' told them so. They lack leadership. So screw them. Where does that leave us? A Conservative party that is afraid to be Conservative and under direct attack from the Canadian media; two crappy pointless parties- the NDP and Bloc Québecois - who excel at cashing pay cheques and earning pensions while babbling like buffoons. Just like separatists and socialists. Jack Layton? Gilles Duceppe? Spare me. Canada needs an avenger to come and save us...fast. Where's Captain Canuck when you need him?
-Americans are debating whether they should set a time frame as to when they should leave Iraq. This is fine; if it is done for the right reasons. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be the case. Partisanship is forcing this and its recommendations will lead to, essentially, backstabbing and abandoning the Iraqi people. What's done is done. As I have said many times, Americans need to see this through. There is little wisdom in these actions. These are words from pathetic and petty-minded assholes who simply do not comprehend the logic of what they advocate, or what the consequences of 'cutting and running' will be. To many, Vietnam had many lessons. To me, one of them is never run from the enemy; ever.
We seem to rarely consider how our actions are viewed from the other side. Here's a possible example. Picture terrorists with a picture of Mr.Burns all saying "excellent." Useful idiots, all of you, for agreeing with this position, for real.
-Which brings me to yet another scene from The Simpsons. Long story short; Patty and Selma had just gleefully failed Homer from his driving test at the DMV. While he is talking to Marge, their superior passes by and notices two cigarettes in an ashtray at their wicket. She reprimands them and reminds them that smoking is grounds for dismissal. Marge looks at Homer to have him help them out. For Marge, he takes both cigarette's and shoves them in his mouth. Upon seeing this, the superiour apologizes to the girls and while slapping Homer tells him "You sir, are worse than Hitler."
It's one of those jokes that can easily blow by and sail right over your head. That one line says a lot about our reliance on hyperbole's to make a point in contemporary times about modern issues. And we don't have to look far. Think 'Bush is Hitler.' The litter box is filled with such history deficient reasoning.
Growing up it made me and others feel good. Yes we know, Jesus was not probably born in December (some historians have his birth in March). It's not the point. In fact, all this post-modern revisionism (on any subject matter now that I think about it) goes well beyond any point. The whole notion of Christmas is under attack for an assortment of reasons from many different groups and individuals. It seems that Christmas is a fraud. It's all about spiking consumer spending and is a symbol - mostly among leftists - of the a decadent guilt- ridden Christian religion - among other things. Don't give these people some lions and a coliseum.
Why this post? Every year the province of Nova Scotia sends a Christmas tree to the city of Boston for helping Halifax during the devastating 1917 explosion that killed over 4 000 people. The Boston Parks Department has now decided that the tree will be called a 'Holiday' tree so as to not offend anyone and to be more inclusive. Unreal. Absolutely and incredibly absurd and retarded.
Of course, as we speak, I am sure there are many people asking that we drop the term Christmas altogether. This is not progress. It's a sad reflection of what we have become. First, Christmas is not optional. It's a religious holiday. What religion on earth would question itself and subsequently degrade itself the way Christians do? None. They have managed to remove the crucifix in classes and censored Christmas carrols. Just eliminate and kill it already. This story is similar with the attack on smokers (who have no liberties or dignity left). We're at the point where special interest- who are taking care of all of us. God bless 'em- should just lobby to make smoking illegal. Have you heard about their latest crusade? To ban smoking in your own home? Anyway, on the way to killing Christmas, I hope the people who commit the murder bump into Dante and Virgil.
Far from a religious person, I have to admit all this is insane. Is it time to push back?
-Canadians will be going to the polls in January to elect a new government. Parliament confirmed a non-confidence vote and deemed the Liberals unfit to govern. Well, the Liberals are a bunch of depraved nitwits, so I hope they fall. Besides, if they would get around to it, they would eliminate Christmas because the 'polls' told them so. They lack leadership. So screw them. Where does that leave us? A Conservative party that is afraid to be Conservative and under direct attack from the Canadian media; two crappy pointless parties- the NDP and Bloc Québecois - who excel at cashing pay cheques and earning pensions while babbling like buffoons. Just like separatists and socialists. Jack Layton? Gilles Duceppe? Spare me. Canada needs an avenger to come and save us...fast. Where's Captain Canuck when you need him?
-Americans are debating whether they should set a time frame as to when they should leave Iraq. This is fine; if it is done for the right reasons. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be the case. Partisanship is forcing this and its recommendations will lead to, essentially, backstabbing and abandoning the Iraqi people. What's done is done. As I have said many times, Americans need to see this through. There is little wisdom in these actions. These are words from pathetic and petty-minded assholes who simply do not comprehend the logic of what they advocate, or what the consequences of 'cutting and running' will be. To many, Vietnam had many lessons. To me, one of them is never run from the enemy; ever.
We seem to rarely consider how our actions are viewed from the other side. Here's a possible example. Picture terrorists with a picture of Mr.Burns all saying "excellent." Useful idiots, all of you, for agreeing with this position, for real.
-Which brings me to yet another scene from The Simpsons. Long story short; Patty and Selma had just gleefully failed Homer from his driving test at the DMV. While he is talking to Marge, their superior passes by and notices two cigarettes in an ashtray at their wicket. She reprimands them and reminds them that smoking is grounds for dismissal. Marge looks at Homer to have him help them out. For Marge, he takes both cigarette's and shoves them in his mouth. Upon seeing this, the superiour apologizes to the girls and while slapping Homer tells him "You sir, are worse than Hitler."
It's one of those jokes that can easily blow by and sail right over your head. That one line says a lot about our reliance on hyperbole's to make a point in contemporary times about modern issues. And we don't have to look far. Think 'Bush is Hitler.' The litter box is filled with such history deficient reasoning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)