Sports Comments: D-fense!, Nike, Darcy Tucker, Dominique Wilkins, AC Milan

-The hatred for defensive teams tends to reach irrational levels some times. We see this with soccer fans. Even fans who should know better tend to speak with derision about defensive oriented clubs. Personally, I have no problems with a team that plays defense first. If played properly, defense is a great thing to watch. Whether it be the Baltimore Ravens, New Jersey Devils, Detroit Pistons, a baseball team with strong pitching or Italy who once played catenaccio (chain defense) in soccer, defense is an art form in itself. Some people like parity. I happen to think parity sucks. I prefer dynasties. Call me elitist.

-That new and scary Nike soccer guy (former soccer star Eric Cantona) demands the return of 'boca jonito' (Portuguese for beautiful game) looks more like a heroin dealer for the Colombians or Calabrians. He scares me.

-I guess the new 'My NHL' learned precious little from the Bertuzzi incident after all. The league made a huge error by not suspending Toronto Maple Leafs forwards Darcy Tucker and his Mapled Ass.

Tucker wears his heart on his sleeve but this thing of trying to take people's heads off with an elbow is outrageous. Even more repugnant is how hockey experts didn't think he deserved anything. I know, I know, I'm a 'non-essential' as one hockey genius once called someone for having an opinion. Maybe. But I know a dirty hit when I see one - I tore my ACL as a result of a knee on knee. It angers me to watch players go down in this manner. 'Part of the game' and 'you'd love to have him on your team' my butt. I've always hated players like that in the locker room. If Tucker had connected with Johann Hecht's head (Buffalo Sabres) we may have a Todd Bertuzzi case all over. Lindy Ruff is 100% right. The NHL, hockey experts and Tucker apologists are 100% wrong. End of debate. Plus ça change...

-I saw that Dominique Wilkins (along with Charles Barkley and Joe Dumars) was inducted into the basketball hall of fame. I'm not the biggest NBA fan -the league that has gun-toting coolsters and rap singers who happen to play basketball.

I remember how electrifying Wilkins (remember Spud Webb?) was with the Atlanta Hawks. Everyone laments how the Bird-Johnson-Irving trio has never been replaced but I seem to recall Wilkins being every bit a special player. He was one of the original stylish - along with Jordan of course - slam dunkers.



-Last but not least, a dream semi-final in the Champions League final has six time champions AC Milan and Barcelona - who has one title - squaring off. The last time these two titans met was in the final in 1994 when Milan trounced Barcelona 4-0. Incidentally, that Milan edition was easily among the greatest teams in history. This is the rematch and fans can't wait. The other semi has Arsenal facing Villareal; two teams very few selected to be here. The Milan/Barcelona should be an intense but classy, elegant affair filled with beautiful soccer.

A quick word about Internazionale's defender Marco Matterazzi; I still can't figure out why this guy is playing pro soccer. His classless, dirty play is worthy of, well, a Darcy Tucker award.

Immigration is the new buzz word in the U.S.

"...The group says it plans similar exercises along the border in California, New Mexico and Texas, and along the Canadian border in Washington, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York state..."

The Group being 'The Minutemen.' Are they really?
edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/01/minutemen.return.ap/index.html?section

The 12 million Mexican illegal immigrants working in the United States actually do provide an economic service to both countries. They - being legislators- should hammer out a special and enlightened deal to reflect the reality that Mexicans want to come and work (and possible live) in the U.S. That said, I don't agree that Americans -their hosts - should be made to feel guilty so as to allow illegals to bypass existing laws. It was interesting to note some Mexicans marching were carrying Mexican flags.

As for the Vermont border - hilarious. I go through New York and Vermont often. Don't know who they're going to protect Americans from up here. Vermont/New York/Quebec/Ontario relations are as solid and friendly as it can be. Yup, those Quebecers are running rampant.

I thought militant Arab terrorists were the problem.

Sports Comment: Montreal Expos, Michael Jordan and sweatshops, Curt Flood

-Baseball season is once again upon us and the departure of the Montreal Expos still annoys me. As I looked over projected line ups, I was reminded of how much this team is missed.

-I heard the following comment about whether athletes should be sensitive to social activism on a Toronto sports show: "Michael Jordan could have wielded his power to shut down sweat shops ...."

We really should try to make an effort to not look at things strictly from a first world perspective. To us, paying someone wages that are way below our standards for a days work not seen since the Industrial Revolution may seem outrageous. Contemplating it from a worker's - in Malaysia for instance - prism however should reveal a different angle.

For them, it's a chance for economic progress; pure and simple. Yes it modernization has its ugly side and the cost of living in these places are low.

On the other hand, the wages paid allow for them to provide for their families - through the purchase of medicine or food etc. Not to mention security and stability. With time, as is the case with all maturing economies - standards and wages will improve and increase. The people, for the most part, are grateful for such an opportunity - as are their governments. It's not pretty (especially to us) but they have to start somewhere.

Michael Jordan 'did not stop it' because basic economic theory and evolution would not allow him to even attempt it. Besides, he would have to answer to all the families who would lose their jobs. Not that we 'socially compassionate' Westerners would care. Let those economies go through the cycles and the pain that comes with it like we did.

- The modern athlete discussion had me thinking about Curt Flood, the tides of history and how people deal with such issues. Could you imagine Tiger Woods ever remotely considering a decision based on principles as Flood did? Heck, Woods won't dare give an opinion on anything not cleared with his PR team. These guys are mini-empires and they need to protect their assets. It's understandable. If this is so, let's stop interviewing them because they have nothing of relevance to say. It really is painful to listen to them. Man, buy them a personality. May as well talk to a cardboard cut-out of Alex Rodriquez. More importantly, stop using the race card.

Flood challenged the myth that governed baseball for a century and the O'Malley's of this world who profited from it. Like 'Ball Four' he essentially exposed the dark side of a human construct that captivated the people. Fans, much like today, just don't want to believe that baseball can be corrupted. As if Jefferson's yeomen ideals are still attainable.

Flood came from a typical socio-economic background for a black athlete and was primed for a 60s style social crusade against baseball's 'economic plantation' system; if this does not sound like Garland Jeffries in 'Don't Call me Buckwheat' I don't know what does. He eventually lost but no one could deny that, while black listed (white listed?), his troubles opened future ball players to gigantic contracts. But Flood challenged Camelot and at the time he was vilified.

It reminds me of an episode on The Simpsons about how Springfield was founded on a myth and a lie. Baseball is part myth, part business. Despite this, it still manages to be a symbol for things as they ought to be. In this light, Americans see a pristine tradition in the sport that reminds them of what they should strive for. Cartoons; is there anything we can't learn from them?

No one can afford to engage in this sort of stuff today. Of course blacks should be grateful to Flood but how many actually know about him? Indeed, Latinos should be a little more community oriented (as Felipe Alou who lived in my hometown of Laval a suburb of Montreal) but gosh darn it these guys earn 50 times the average salary! There's no time for any of this nonsense with 'beaver' season in high gear! The family breakdown (and to a certain extent the loss of religious faith) has as much to do with this as greed. I'll settle for a King Arthur to just bring a sense of perspective back into our moral equations.

I'll leave with two quotes: One is found on my site - "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Schopenhauer.

The second - "The Noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." Jebediah Springfield.

Law, Order and Torture: A Messy Trio

Nothing beats sitting down to wipe your mind clean with am anti-bacterial substance only to be blind sighted. A recent episode of Law & Order had me locked and engaged as it took aim at an important issue: torture as a means to an end. It was rather intriguing how it navigated through the murky swamp between justice and use of torture. My date with an idle mind had to wait.

For many, the issue is as deep as it is grey absent of any concrete black or white answers. I fall into this group. But this particular show crystallized some cold, hard realities I have chosen to write about.

The show itself revolved (and I deliberately briefly summarize) around how information was obtained by a police officer to locate a kidnapped girl. Excessive force (a difficult thing to measure to be sure) was used to gain knowledge from a con-man who attempted to use the girl as leverage to rob a bank. The means of coercion used by the Detective Fontana was the art of dunking the suspects head into a toilet bowl. By the third dip (I must confess I enjoyed this scene thoroughly), the information required was given - that'll teach the crook to tell a police officer 'screw you.' The girl was saved and all sorts of personal moral dilemmas versus Western legal traditions ensues.

Whatever intellectual considerations presented, I don't think any parent on earth would have objected to what Fontana did. I know I wouldn't. McCoy was on to something when he said it is time to use the law 'as a sword to protect the victims' for a change.

Far from being a legal expert, it was glaring (even for me) how clear it was that Detective Fontana did the right thing. So the bad guy got roughed up a little. He should have thought of that before going off to grab a six year old from her home. Yes, in this case the ends justifies the means. By extension, yes, terrorists understand the language of force. There is nothing complicated here.

What about suspected terrorists? How many would object to having a known terrorist with information that could save many lives tortured? Desperate times call for desperate measures. Alan Dershowitz most certainly concurs. I don't think the founding Fathers, in all their wisdom and glory, would be morally and intellectually depraved enough to go to extremes in protecting the rights of a person who plans to destroy their own way of life. I fully recognize what I am advocating here. Who said balancing security and liberty is easy?

Stable, strong, liberal democracies will always be faced with such issues. We will inevitably use measures that are not part of our collective belief systems, but given the inherent advanced and flexible nature of our society, these (in this case torture) are usually temporary and not likely to become part of the social norm. Democracies battling terrorism fight with two strikes against them. They need to gain a ball somewhere.

This is not to say we should flagrantly resort to torture. The point is that sometimes we just have to take a deep breath and accept the fact that in some cases it is appropriate. Torture truly is a barbaric act. It really takes a special type of character to do it. Nor am I completely convinced that the people in power possess the moral authority to conduct it. This, I'm afraid, is for another debate.

For our purposes here, never give the criminal the upper hand. At this moment, whether we choose to accept this or not, men with less than stellar ideals seek to take advantage of our obsession with providing good governance to all. Time to shift this advantage slightly back into the hands of civil citizens.

Every single person - most people anyway - understand that sometimes a sound kick in the butt works to protect something we cherish or love. Are we prepared to accept this in a time where the nature of war (in terms of how an enemy operates) is changing before us? Not that terrorist techniques are anything new in world history but in the context of Western culture since 1648 it is indeed new - and uncomfortable.

Fontana and McCoy were right. Borgia, for her part, also had a valid point. Our moral conscience should always be consulted in order to ensure our justice and the legal system protects our civil liberties. A little, calculated suspicion of people with power can be healthy. However, (in this case anyway) Fontana and McCoy were closer in line with what most of us think. It's hard to admit in public - or words- that you agree with excessive means.

That was some exercise. An idle mind - or hands - is the devil's workshop anyways.

The Undercurrent of a Myth Never Strays in Quebec

The art of political nonsense is always pushed to new heights in Quebec. A thoroughly socialist and unionized society, Quebec nationalists think with nothing but dead organs. They are, I suppose, nothing more than a collection of parochial pagan alchemists.

The insidious notion of demanding that a pro-sovereignty book - Parlons de Souveraineté å L'école (Speak of Sovereignty at School) using precarious history facts to espouse their political agenda is an affront to high civil discourse. Quebec is a place that lives partly in a surreal dream world. Sound economic and business models that remotely resemble American ideals are distrusted to ridiculous fervor here.

The real moral question is not the romantic demands of a people who forever consider themselves oppressed (nice work if you can get it) but whether they can still justify using tax dollars to pay for this sad sordid mess.

Once and for all it should be explained to Quebecers the true cost of running away from the Confederation using smoke and mirrors will be. Lay the cards out on the table and see where they stand. If the people buy it so be it.*

Quebec -as they wish to believe- is not an intellectual sophisticated place. It's completely unhinged when it comes to this issue. Quebec has far more serious issues to attend to. At least Alberta - with no less of an excuse - has the cash to do so. When, if ever, will it all end?

The school system has no place for trash history. Leave that work to the self-serving impostors of contemporary society (where the art and discipline of history is under attack) via the likes of Michael Moore and Dan Brown.

*The debate continues as to whether the separatist threat will ever succeed. One the one hand demographics (and by extension the larger global geo-political landscape) seem to be pointing to an inevitable dissolution of Canada. Yet, many French-Canadians are growing resltess over the dabte as they are slowly emerging from the Quiet Revolution with a sense that they are once again being short-changed by their masters - first it was the Church and now it is their leaders. Why do Quebecois leaders send their children to American institutions to learn or seek private care in the U.S. when French Quebecers themselves are not allowed to? It's a question circulating and answers will be demanded. It can be presented that French-Quebecers share more in common with certain American values than they care to acknowledge.

Finding Don Cherry

Don Cherry is a colorful hockey personality who is enormously popular on CBC's Hockey Night in Canada, and who also happens to be equally loathed by many others. The perfect recipe to stardom! There isn't a sports commentator in this country that remotely approaches his status. His segment on Coach's Corner, with the witty pun master Ron Maclean, is an intermission mainstay ritualistically watched by millions - including myself.

Why? I happen to be of the opinion that Cherry knows what he's talking about on most issues. Sometimes his bare-boned honesty gets the better of him, but he should not be chastised for it. So he pounds the desk and tells Ron to 'keep quiet and let me finish.' It's all part of what makes this duo unique. In a time where we cynically lament constantly about not having enough interesting and honest people in broadcasting (not to mention the dying art of poetic sports writing), Cherry serves a positive reminder that old time personalities still exist. People who like Cherry are not stupid; they just appreciate candid opinions. They surely don't need presumptuous journalists warning us that he is Rated 'R' before we listen.

Too often we get hung up on the messenger rather than the message. People can't stand his 'in your face' aggressive and brash style, but behind the persona, more often than not, lies some insightful comments about hockey - even life. Cherry goes where no journalist dares go. If the trend and fashion is to demand visors, you can bet that Cherry will offer an alternate opinion. Many may disagree, but at least he offers real debate - and this bothers many in the media.

Media hates whenever there is a dissenter among them (though the smug ones would never dare consider him a colleague) and Cherry is most definitely a vigilante; the Dirty Harry of hockey commentating. Thank God. What's the point of having the same opinion all the time? Of course, all that this has earned him is scorn and a seven-second delay on the CBC to appease mother hens. Cherry is about freedom.

Many times Cherry has outshone his brethren when it comes to predictions and thoughts about the game. For example, I often find myself comparing his analysis with one or two journalists in the Montreal Gazette sports pages that absurdly obsess over him (not to mention attack and seek to unwittingly censor him), and there simply is no comparing the two. In fact, one particular arrogant writer (who mixes sports with his political views fit for a University paper) often makes it a point to attack Cherry, though it never seems to dawn on him that he uses same shtick.

Ah, but there's the kicker! He believes he's in the right. He's too smart for Cherryesque musings. Nonsense. Those who do nothing but complain and offer no solutions to perceived problems are part of the problem themselves.

I doubt the journalists who hate him have earned, nor command, the respect Cherry does. He is in the community for various causes (including organ donation), he always sets a few seconds on his segment to honor a fallen police officer (most recently the slain QUEBECOIS POLICE WOMAN from Laval) or a young hockey player who suffered life-altering injuries. Don Cherry always finds a moment for the people and the fans. He is constantly paying homage to our troops (when so many of us forget), our collective history - which serves as a reminder that Cherry cares and there is little proof that he is a decadent barbarian.

He has been called a troglodyte and racist by those who don't get him, (one of the enduring myths is that he 'hates' French-Canadians I have seen him praise Quebec hockey players before my own eyes. One of his all-time favorite players is Guy Lafleur).

However, Cherry is not going to give any nationality a free pass. He is equally hard on all of them but he does give praise where warranted. Some have called him a know-nothing wannabe coach (he compiled a .597 winning percentage in six seasons with the Boston Bruins, taking them to the Stanley Cup finals in 1977 and 1978 - only to lose both times to the Montreal Canadiens -arguably the greatest dynasty ever).

Say what you will about Don Cherry. Some true, some not. Behind the big thumping chest lies a complex individual (and sports have always been riddled with them from Dick Butkus to Ted Williams to Bobby Knight). On the surface they are malignant characters. Scratch a little and you find interesting men with intricate world views who take words like loyalty, honor and accountability to high art. It's not hard to find Don Cherry when put in this light.

Funny, eh? Journalists pride themselves on being instinctive and perceptive. When it comes to Don Cherry, however, they have failed miserably. The paupers, on the other hand, pass with flying Cherry red colors.

Article of Interest: Politics and Society: The Easter Bunny as an Offensive Symbol

The Commentator

Thanks to Owner's Manual for this one. When does Kafka make his comeback?

Italian Community Gets Cash. No Apology. .

I've been slow to getting around to this but a piece over at Alternavision jolted me into action.

Earlier this winter, Montreal's Italian Community was presented with $2.5 million dollars in compensation by the Canadian government (then under the leadership of Paul Martin and the Liberal Party) for about 700 Italian-Canadians accused of being 'enemies of the state' during World War II.

No pubic apology was forthcoming in the House of Commons. Interestingly, just the opposite happened in 1990 when Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney offered a public apology minus the money.

Either way, the whole notion of apologies and monetary compensation for past injustices is not a game worth playing. Never mind that it was a time of war and some fascist organizations did indeed operate on the continent (though were mostly harmless). Families were destroyed and businesses lost. This is to not condone the government and its actions (there's ample reason to believe that racial overtones were part of their decision to intern Italians. Lest we forget the eugenics movement was still fresh in the minds of many Canadians.)

It was all a human travesty. Let us leave it at that.

The Italian community has moved on for the most part and opening old wounds serves little purpose. In fact, for me, what has been more irritating is how history books and columns in newspapers have usually ignored that Italians were interned at all. The popular community often cited are the Japanese but the Italians (as well as Germans and Ukranians) have taken a back-seat - our attention spans can't process too many nationalities mistreated.

As a Canadian of Italian heritage and a historian by education, I never sought a government apology. The Italian National Congress of Italians need to focus on more relevant things to enhance the community.

Last, the cheque was presented along with former Minister of Multiculturalism Raymond Chan which went straight into the coffers of the communities rather than the families of the former prisoners - whom of which are mostly deceased by now. To me, this is an injustice.

As is usually the case when it comes to post modern crusades to right past wrongs, this is the act (whatever the good intentions) of a select minor group of 'esteemed' political figures who decided the community wanted (if not demanded) this. Forget the fact that many Italians want this chapter closed once and for all.

If I were involved, which I'm not, I would have taken the cheque and given it right back to the taxpayers. Not to mention abolishing that mythical abomination - Minister of Multiculturalism.

But that's for another post at a later date.

Giving A Moderate Voice to Muslims

www.muslim-refusenik.com/

Please visit this site for those who cherish pluralism. Sign the petition to show your support. They say moderate voices need to speak up. Here's a place where they do but they also need support. This is my - however small - way of doing so.

THE MANIFESTO OF 12:
Together facing the new totalitarianism

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global totalitarian threat: Islamism.

We -- writers, journalists and public intellectuals -- call for resistance to religious totalitarianism.

Instead, we call for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values worldwide.

The necessity of these universal values has been revealed by events since the publication of the Muhammad drawings in European newspapers. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the arena of ideas. What we are witnessing is not a clash of civilizations, nor an antagonism of West versus East, but a global struggle between democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The preachers of hate bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a world of inequality. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred.

Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of greater power imbalances: man’s domination of woman, the Islamists’ domination of all others.

To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed people. For that reason, we reject “cultural relativism,” which consists of accepting that Muslim men and women should be deprived of their right to equality and freedom in the name of their cultural traditions.

We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of “Islamophobia,” an unfortunate concept that confuses criticism of Islamic practices with the stigmatization of Muslims themselves.

We plead for the universality of free expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on every continent, against every abuse and dogma.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

Signed,

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Chahla Chafiq , Caroline Fourest, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Irshad Manji , Mehdi Mozaffari, Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie, Antoine Sfeir, Philippe Val, Ibn Warraq

Harper in Afghanistan

Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a secret surprise visit to Canadian troops in Afghanistan this week. Much negative nonsense was said about Harper before he was elected but by this act solidifies himself as a leader this country has sorely missed over the last 15 years or so.

It was the right thing to do.

Neither previous PM's Jean Chretien or Paul Martin dared to go to this region to visit the military. Even when our troops were sadly killed and morale dropped they continued to mock the Canadian nation by ruling a bankrupted Liberal Party.

The debate is growing here as to whether Canada should stay in Afghanistan. The answer is clearly yes. However, for a country that has abdicated its responsibility and lac of maturity on the international stage, it is not surprising some citizens would demand we bring our soldiers home. We went into - regardless of justification - Afghanistan. The job is not finished. We must stay. This is the moral thing to do. We should stay provided that we respect local customs while maintaining a determined footing. We should proceed standing proudly next to the United States but with an independent posture. This is easier done than mistakenly thought.

It takes vision and it takes courage to do this. American special forces have been hard at work learning local languages, customs and diets among this notoriously hospitable people. It's this kind of work that wins hearts one person at a time. It's slow in its methods but deliberate in its goals.

The media is disinterested in stuff that takes too long. The big picture is not what concerns them. Hence we focus on conspiracy theories (the snake apple of our intellectual minds) that seem so plausible to believe. Not to mention our constant tabbing on the cost of the war and body bags in Iraq for example.

"In their heart of hearts Americans want to do right" was as one person put it on a national radio program. I agree. I'm not too much into the 'America is an evil empire' stuff. First, because I am a historian by education and historical evidence simply does not point in that direction. In order to believe that our leaders are rotten we need to concede our society is rotten. I'm not quite there.

Debate is necessary but how we direct it is where we fail at times. Is the demand for Harper to call back troops - which amounts to abandoning Afghans much like if the Americans were to run from the Iraqi people - a Canadian value at work we speak so highly of? I hope it is not or we have deeper troubles than we think.

The CBC is Officially Braindead

The CBC sucks. It is lead by a bunch of leaderless and visionless hogs who live off the taxpayers money. Unless true changes come to the hollow CBC put a bullet in its empty, pathetic head.

What were they thinking to not honor Bernard 'Boom Boom' Geofferion; one of the true innovators of hockey? Last I checked the CBC is meant to support all Canadians. It is clear that it is a Toronto-centric network running rampant. Especially in light that they annoyed us with that laughable ceremony honoring Tie Domi's 1000th game.

Once upon a time the CBC offered a split telecast with Hockey Night in Canada. The West got to watch the misery that were the Toronto Maple Leafs while Atlantic Canada and Quebec got the legendary Habs. My suspicion this was done so because the Montreal Canadiens were always a legitimate threat to win the Stanley Cup while the Maple Saps were not. Now that the Leafs are somewhat successful they backstab the Habs and run with this inept organization.*

I have grown tired of the CBC using MY MONEY to push the Toronto agenda. Every single one of their groupthink bosses make no sense anymore. While the CBC offers superb radio programming (though some of it feels as though they are broadcasting from early 20th century Moscow) it does need to rethink its raison d'etre. If not, privatize the sucker once and for all. Or if they are worth their salt and arrogance let them have pledge drives a-la Vermont ETV and other PBS stations. Alas, they can't do that! How will they earn their ridiculous high salaries? Nothing like a Crown corporation existing on public funds to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars, eh? Ah, capitalism - Canadian style. First they fire the talented and classy Chris Cuthbert and now they first Montreal viewers to watch the Leafs. Time to call out the CBC once and for all and wash out the shower slime.

I'll close on this note. Nancy Lee - whoever she is. I think she was the genius who fired Cuthbert and has the purse strings to money that does not belong to her - was quoted as saying that she does hope that Toronto makes the playoffs. Not only are they comedic at the CBC they apparently lack class.

Where's my Beretta?

*Note: The Canadiens are just as culpable in their ineptness. To have waited so long to retire #5 was a travesty. I would like to think they learned their lesson. I doubt it.

The New England Patriots are a dynasty

With rules that amount to nothing more than socialism, sports have become a fabricated parity fairy land. Many people just love the even playing field with the arrival of revenue sharing and salary caps. Not me. I loved watching dynasties rise and fall. Teams were rewarded for being the best and the teams were punished for not making shrewd decisions within strong organizational standards. It's not just in sports we see this.

We have seen the bar lowered in contemporary times. Don't misunderstand me, I do feel athletes are at times overpaid and that owners have not always acted in the best interest in the game they respectively operate in - no system is perfect - however imposing superficial laws and rules leaves a slight distaste in my mouth. Everyone gets a shot at winning. How nice!

That said, an interesting comment caught my attention on the radio the other day. I still can't believe people actually do not think the New England Patriots are not a dynasty - or at the very least a great franchise. In these times where team spirit is rare and where superstar athletes act like brats, the Patriots are an anomaly in pro football. They draft smart and are coached with purpose. They have standards in a time when it is hard to maintain some. To ignore them because they don't have that 'star' power is unfair. Kept in the context of the modern NFL, their accomplishments is outstanding.

They run contrary to the prevailing ethos and they have proven to be champions in the process. Three Super Bowl titles in four years? The New England Patriots easily rank among the greatest teams of all time. And they will continue to be competitive in the foreseeable future.

End of bloody discussion already.

The Montreal Canadiens dishonor their past

Why are the Montreal Canadiens reluctant to retire numbers of great players?

We all know politics and sports should not mix. In theory we all wish this to be true but the reality is that humans are political beings. And petty political vendettas sometimes gets the best of people. I could just imagine how many ball players were and are kept out of the Hall of Fame because they did not play ball - excuse the pun - with the thin-skinned media in MLB history. For example, Doug Harvey - possibly the greatest defenseman in the history of the game outside Orr - was kept out of the Hockey Hall of Fame by Frank Selke Jr.

Retiring numbers may be a small gesture by sports franchises towards a former star athlete but it's not taken lightly by players - it's the ultimate symbolic acknowledgment of ones services. That doesn't mean there aren't questionable retired numbers just as there are many people who don't belong in some Halls.

In the case of the Montreal Canadiens there is no excuse for them to wait as long as they are to retire some important numbers. They are behaving in a contemptuous fashion towards their own legacy in doing so. Frankly, it lacks class. I have no idea what their problem is and nor do I care.

With the news of Bernie 'Boom Boom' Geofferion's stomach cancer, it was sad to hear that he will not make the pre-game ceremony honoring the retirement of his number. Widely thought to be the inventor of the slap shot, Boom Boom had to recently sell his hockey memories to make some money. He deserved to have his number retired long ago. Why did they have to wait this long? All they do by doing this is run the risk of not having the person honored present as time goes on.

Geofferion was not the only one to wait so long. Earlier this year, Yvon Cournoyer and Dicke Moore had their sweaters retired years after they retired. Larry Robinson, Ken Dryden and Bob Gainey all cornerstones of a Montreal dynasty are all waiting to have their numbers retired. None of these stars were marginal players. They were all superstars that brought Montreal several Stanley Cups and help to build the Montreal mystique.

Alas, this has been forgotten by the men who run the organization these days. It's a damn shame. It really takes nothing to do it. The Habs are not only failing on the ice but in the heart and soul of its own essence.

The Barry Bonds Saga

The Barry Bonds saga is just too weird for me. For over 15 years we have heard what kind of a crummy character he is. And more recently his doped up decision to use steroids - excuse the pun. How one of the purist all-round ball players ever would succumb to cheating is a mystery. Why anyone does it given the scrutiny it gets these days is a mystery too.

It must take one darn narcissist I suppose.

In turn, Bonds blames the media for all his troubles. I don't know the guy (I can only judge what I see and that leads to relying on perceptions. Still, there has to be some truth to all this and good old-fashioned human intuition can be used here) but he seems to be failing in the game of life. He could have avoided so many head aches by simply acting as a straightforward and professional individual. Instead, he rammed his acidic and confrontational attitude right into a wall at top speed. He fell for the bait. The truth is that he has no one but himself to blame. It's all a shame. A shame. For the game, the fans, the records and above all Barry Bonds and his legacy.

George Clooney is too brave for this world

In my brave confessions,let it be dutifully be noted that I have never watched the Oscars in my life. Sure, I've come across bits and pieces here and there but never quite understood the celebrity fascination. Question: If many people feel athletes are over paid why aren't people questioning celebrities?

With sinful excessive decadence within its core, Hollywood helped spawn a lobotomy induced gossip industry that proves the idleness of our minds. Alas, not all is lost as the ratings for the Oscars were dismal this time around. Are people finally beginning to take Hollywood with a grain of salt? Seriously, how many more stories do we have to hear about divas and divos treating their staff as though they have leprosy? "Don't you dare speak an utterance to me you low life. I'm a millionaire low-life with a hint of whate trash and don't you forget it. Now cut a cheque to this charity and don't forget my tax receipt you moron."

Thank God for intellectual salt'n peppa activists like George Clooney to save us. He who is so proud to be 'out of touch.' He who feels liberalism is a dirty word - which it's not. If it is, it's possible for the reason that Classical liberalism has been hijacked by pseudo-phony liberals by Hollywood scumbags. Hollywood is not interested in the complex and elusive concept of truth but rather it seeks - wittingly or otherwise - to portray its vision of whatever events and issues in their mold and visions. Big difference between being trustworthy social commentators and purposefully manipulating stories for one's own gains. Please see Michael Moore.

What he meant of course by his out of reality gibberish is that Hollywood is the preserver and conveyor of all things progressive. Despite his fondness for his industry, I'm not sure if Holywood is ahead of the mainstream curve. At best, it imitates and copies life. In this light, Hollywood seems like a coincidental tool in pop culture; they pluck stories from the newspapers that are claimed to be alternative and they make big budget films out of them. Most of course are based on conspiracy theories. This is what they mean by alternative?

Films truly ahead of their time rarely get contemporary recognition. To seemingly put himself in a class of avant-garde actors because he made an oil film or that Hollywood made a gay cowboy film is proposterous. Time rarely vindicates selective Hollywood on such issues.

Brave new world he is proud to be a part of. How brave is Hollywood? Brave to the extent of asserting its agenda - whatever it may be. He has taken his ideals to the paupers. We should feel privileged in his eyes. Hollywood is not mainstream, no way. Nah.

The truth is that we should never look to Hollywood for any historical or political or cultural lesson. Hollywood either suffers - so it seems - from exaggerated self-importance (and why shouldn't they given how people sickenly maul celebrities?) or infantile insecurity. Since when has Hollywood ever influenced history as a serious discipline? Of course, it doesn't have to in the minds of our brilliant actors since Hollywood points out all the stuff history neglects or people don't want to talk about. What a crock of hooey.

To the well-informed and well-adjusted, his comments were harmless. Just another Hollywood actor making a forgettable comment. Delete. Then again, some will take issue and in their own way hold him to it. As it stands, there is nothing insightful out of Hollywood's narcissistic lessons - ask any historian. But don't tell that to Mr. Clooney. Hey, Mambo! Mambo Italiano...

A Rock' N Roll Soliloquy

Music in many ways imitates historical political cleavages in that it too can at times be fragmented. Or, as it often has been said, it can imitate life. In business economics the motto is location, location, location. We can add niche, niche, niche to that equation. And not just in business but the arts as well.

There is industry music and there is music for its own sake. There are amateur athletes and there are professional athletes - where the unholy alliance of music and business meet. Some are in it for the money and know how to penetrate the snobby walls of the entertainment's version of 'cosa nostra' while others are purely in for the love.

Once upon a time rules were meant to be broken. Now rules and systems control with an iron fist. Individuals are no longer trusted extensions of the corporation they work for. Need that extra half a percent on your mortgage? 'I have to clear it with upstairs. Our mutual trust means little to the big boys.' Sports went from freewheeling athletism in a showcase of ultimate franchise and player expression to a stuffy over analyzed (notice the word anal in there) and mechanized product. Follow the damn system! Improvisation will summarily be executed. Now the lines are blurred. Rock acts need to be a part of the process of authority. Who knows why?

No wonder corner doo-wop acts are dead. Tight playing is all the rage. Technical sounds soaked in political messages, blantant violence and cheap sex. All in the name of progress and style. Some modern bands are good but only if they are original. Some knock offs are talented but are in danger of following the dreaded 'blueprint'. Some of it is solid and others downright insulting.

It's hard to find a song to feel good about these days. Cynicism is to the modern hipster is what satanism was to the 60s and 70s cultural rock trends. Life is rough as it is. Hard to tell if it's imitating my life or not.

All I know is that spontaneous acts of momentary purity is usually brought out by music from another time. Only Buddy Holly or Elvis Presley can lead to a dance on a drive way in front of neighbours. On a stunning summer evening when you're not thinking of anything in particular what has your fingers popping better than Chuck Berry? Man, it was all about cars, girls, beaches and other universal themes we all shared.

These guys knew the secrets of rock'n roll. They had the fire and perhaps it should be found and rekindled. Disjointed many of us are but for one brief collection of mere seconds a good rock song can unite. It can make your soul move in ways you never thought.

The Last Olympic Post

www.tsn.ca/olympics/news_story/?ID=156180&hubname=

I don't see the point in this article. It strikes me as a tad excessive in its nit picking of Italian irreverence. Not to mention condescending and ungrateful to an Olympic host.

Torino, as a major industrial and manufacturing hub, is not the first place people think of when they plan their romantic get away to Italy. I told my wife to expect an article or two along the lines of this one before the games started. Thanks for stating the obvious Canadian Press that Torino was not like Lillehammer.

Interestingly and ironically, Italy has many other places that would have matched Lillehammer. Alas, this is not the first time Canadian sports journalists take their stab at Italy. Rare is it where I find a thoughtful piece about Italy in Canada's national sports pages. I wonder how they would react if an international journalist wrote such a piece about stunningly beautiful Vancouver in 2010.

For once, it would be nice for mainstream editorial boards to write with more care when it comes to Italy. Perhaps they should consider placing a permanent reporter there so as to pick up on the many intricate nuances that make up the Italian character - or at the very least consult someone who knows a thing or two about Italy.

As for the article's attempt to draw a link between Italy's alleged indifference to the games with poor medal counts consider this. There were 84 gold medals up for grabs at Torino. Germany won the most with 11. A total of 18 countries won at least 1 gold for an average of 4.6. Italy won 5. Fans had plenty to cheer about and be proud of. Historically, Italy has won 36 gold and 100 medals. This places them in the top 10 nations.

Incidentally, I have noticed that people attempt to judge a nation's performance by dividing the number of medals won into the population. This is erroneous because it does not consider that finite number of medals available. Countries with big populations will always 'under perform' next to tiny countries. That's why you see countries like Bermuda top such lists. In order for giant countries to measure according to this method they would have to win over 75% of the medals. I hope to revisit this in detail soon.

Let's take a look at the countries who are usually ahead in the rankings. Most are Nordic or Northern countries like Norway, Sweden, Russia, Canada, Finland, Austria, Switzerland and Germany. Italy holds its own among these nations. They were expected to win 10 medals in Torino - they won 11. While it may be far from the 20 won in Lillehammer, it's still in historical range and a decent number for a Southern European nation - though it is also considered an Alpine state.

In the land that gave the world brilliant motorbikes, exotic high performance cars, beautiful bicycles, legendary soccer moments and clubs and superb athletes, they did just fine. Italians in different parts of the country just have a different way of showing it. The reporter took on a subject that proved too big to handle.

-Watching the closing ceremonies I noticed that they handed off the games to Vancouver. During the part where the guy who was cracking the ice, it would also have been cool to unleash starving polar bears on an unsuspecting caribou tribe - or seals. Good old fashion carnage. Now that's a good way to capture the world's attention. Canada: Land of unforgiving frost, permanent Arctic darkness, dancing Natives and carnage. Works for me.

And So What About Canada in Torino?

When the Canadian Olympic Committee set a medals target of 25 I wasn't sure if that was attainable for a couple of reasons. The first is that Canada never got more than 17 medals in their history. The second was because of Canada's uncanny ability to find a way to lose.

Ever since Canada's pathetic showing in Calgary in 1988 - where the country failed to get a gold medal - Canadians began to demand a little more from our athletes. At the time, that was unfair since the government (or the public for that matter) did little to help out athletes.

It was during the 1990s did Canada begin to emerge as a serious winter athletic nation. The Albertville games in 1992 were a sign of things to come. As we improved people began to see that winning wasn't all that bad. Suddenly it was no longer acceptable to just participate.

In Torino, Canada finished third overall by virtue of winning 24 medals - its best showing ever. Germany led the way with 29 followed by the United States with 25. They even finished ahead of traditional powers Norway and Austria. It was an impressive performance. Especially considering that we led all nations with an incredible 18 4th place finishes. Imagine if Canada converted half of those misses? It would top the table of nations. We've come a long way since 1984 when we didn't even have long track speed skating facilities.

All things considered, it was an interesting performance. Depending how you see things, it can be argued we succeeded in spite of ourselves. There were too many 'what might have been' story lines. To others, this is just nit picking as it was an amazing performance for a perennial mediocre performer like Canada.

Nonetheless, things are a-changing in Canada. The COC should not sit back and pop the Asti Spumante just yet. They need to figure out how to avoid that many 4th place finishes if they want to achieve the lofty goal of 35 medals in Vancouver in 2010.

For the first time, Canadian sports rhetoric is competitive. It was unheard of 10 years ago to set such ambitious goals. However, before we get carried away in Lombardesque chants, they must also guard against developing the prototypical arrogant athlete that only considers gold as being worthy. This would be unhealthy.

In any event, Canada is the talk of a nation. Maybe we can now do away with the notion that it was not about the medals all these years. Indeed, that may have been a way too secretly comfort our collective disappointments. People have been taking an active interest in the medal count - and they are liking it. Radio sports talk hosts, reporters and commentators have all had a different tone in their voice. No more is that sarcastic hint of inferiority complex. Canada is now among the great nations and this makes people feel good.

Quick word on hockey. The games were absolutely boring to watch. After Salt Lake City, everyone was talking about how the NHL was a bad product (which it was) and that it needed to be more 'international' in its orientation. While the NHL could have learned a couple of things best to remember that the Olympics are a short, high impact tournament with nationalist emotions flying high.

Curling Draws Italian Hearts

What was the most watched sport on Italian television at the Torino games? Alpine skiing? Hockey? Speed skating? Nope. The strategic game of curling. As in hurry hard and sweep, curling. Now of course, the rest of the world just found out what a bunch of hosers from Canada already knew. That curling is pretty darn interesting - once you get past the nerdy exterior.

I decided to write about curling not because I play it (I played it once. More on that in a minute) but for how its subtle role in Canadian life. Curling is one of those games where everyone watches but dares not tell anyone. Once long ago, a buddy of mine came onto the bus while we were in high school and quietly sat down and admitted he spent the week-end watching the Brier (Canadian curling Championships). Suddenly, one by one we all stepped forward and confessed. It was one of those rare bonding moments we all shared. Our own Curling Anonymous was founded on that day.

While curling is played in urban centers its best curlers come from the outskirts of major cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. They are rural (non-urbanized citizens for pc) folk from parts of the country we hardly ever notice. The Canadian comedy movie 'Men With Brooms' made in 2000 did a fair and entertaining job of playing with the curling culture.

My brush - make that broom - with curling came during a Montreal Winter Carnival on Ile Sainte-Hélene several years ago. Off to a remote part of the carnival we stumbled across a makeshift French colony - equipped with a library and museum of course. Being a history junkie I could not resist picking up 'Montreal During the American Civil War' for $2.50 and the 'Roots of the Canadian Army: Montreal District for $3.50. Yes, I party hard.

Nearby there was an outside curling rink in its original state laid down by the British who imported the game - the Scots invented it. It was well below zero. It was January and the median temperatures during that month is always damn cold. It must have been minimum -15c. We asked if we could play and 'la jolie fille' said 'mais oui' and we did. She served us soup and we drank beer under an early evening sky. It was quite something. You know what else? We actually got hooked. We vowed to play again. Until the next day my friend called and said "Where the fuck are we going to curl?" I told him we had to join a club. "What with all those pins and tuques?" Firmly tonque in cheek of course.

And so lives the Canadian stereotype in Italy. Tuques, Mounties and curling. Moose, beavers and loons. Hockey, lacrosse and snowshoeing. It is what it is.

And now the world is in on the secret.

The Olympics are Now Officially Over in Canada

Canada could finish first over all and accumulate tons of gold medals but only one matters to most Canadians - Hockey gold. In Torino 2006 Canada will not medal in the sport that defines this country's sports culture. After Canada's 2-0 loss to a superb Russian team the usual introspective debates and endless symposiums will litter newsprint and radio airwaves. The legendary Canadian heart we were all waiting for never came.

I don't know why but this team may have been pegged to win gold by the experts but a more thoughtful mind would have been a little more suspicious. We consistently, at our own peril, under estimate the opposition. Even up until today's loss Canadian hockey pundits predicted Canada would magically 'pull it together'. If they were playing well I could see this but Canada played horribly overall in the six games they played. They thoroughly deserved the loss. I don't think it was from lack of effort.

From top to bottom the philosophy of Hockey Canada was completely out of step with the nuances of Olympic hockey.

Before I go on a couple of thoughts. International hockey is highly competitive any of the 7 powers (Canada,Russia, Sweden, Finland, USA, Czech Republic, Slovakia) can beat anybody at any time. All the more reason for hockey minds to be agile and innovative if not daring. As for Canada, they remain the supreme hockey nation in terms of talent. There is no nation (with the possible exception of Russia) that could have literally sent a second squad of high quality.

The depth of Canadian talent is deep, awesome and safe. Nothing is wrong with hockey in Canada. Just add up the titles (and second place finishes) in the major tournaments (World Cup, World Championships, Olympics and World Jr.s). Who is on top? Canada - by a long shot. The problem lies, like in any organization, with two things: the administration and setting realistic expectations. Are Canadians prepared to look at this reality? For all the 'it's our game' rhetoric' the reality is that we do not own it.

Now for the ugly. Canada simply played awful hockey. From the onset I predicted they would not win a medal and I am not happy for being right. I won $10 for my troubles.

I based my bet on one simple axiom that can be applied to anything: Past winnings is not indicative of future victories and remaining loyal to the past is not always wise. Too many players selected to this team were having sub-par seasons and this should have been honestly considered. Those try-outs were an exercise in political non sense as Gretzky already new who he was going to select.

The whole selection process was flawed. Yes, the core of this team won in Salt Lake City in 2002 and the World Cup in 2004. On the surface, only this matters. However, we have to be frank. They were lucky in 2002 and 2004. That should have been a signal for them to not go with a safe formula but a different direction.

From the get go Hockey Canada was unwilling to be daring. They repeated the same errors they committed in 1998. Rather than take hot players that deserved to be there they went political. Way too many players should have been in Torino without debate on this team. Sidney Crosby, Eric Staal, Paul Kariya, Alex Tanguay, Patrick Marleau, Jason Spezza and Dion Phaneuf to be specific. It's hard to think they would not have made a difference.

Worse, the coaching staff of Quinn, Hitchcock and Martin were abysmal in their incompetence. They may be good NHL coaches but international guys they ain't. I could not believe how they could not adjust thanks to their old style NHL stubbornness. It was a disjointed effort that was devoid of any enthusiasm. No player stepped up their play and this is unacceptable.

My coaching choices would have been the following: Dave King or Tom Renney both actually have true international experience. Arguably, the greatest coach in sports history was never consulted (for typical short sighted Canadian political reasons). How Scotty Bowman continues to be ignored is one of the great hockey mysteries. Last, Jacque Lemaire - who is a true innovator and great hockey mind - deserves to be looked at in 2010.

Sadly, Hockey Canada seems to be a Toronto-centric operation and he may never be looked at. Lemaire, to outsiders like me, seems to stand on the periphery of hockey's inner circle.

Now, Canada has to reassess their position for 2010 in Vancouver. The nation will look to the players aforementioned to win. They will be thrown into the lion's den when they should have gained some experience in Torino. They will go against the dynasty of Russian players like Ovechkin, Kovalchuk and Malkin who were all the same age but no whave the added edge of experience by being present in Italy. It was a short sighted move on Canada's part to not bring th kids. They did so with Eric Lindros (who wasn't even an NHLer but still in juniors) in 1991 at the Canada Cup and it worked out great. As a result, Canada will not be a lock in front of their home crowd and that's a shame.

Canada has already won 18 medals - most in its history. This is cause for many of us to be impressed (though with 12 4th place finishes Olympic Canadian Committee would be a tad disappointed as they aimed for 25 medals to prepare for Vancouver). But, the hockey loss will over shadow all these accomplishments. Just another day in Canada.

Note from Oct. 2007 - Hockey Canada usually gets right more often than not and so I am not concerned.

Animated Reflections on Cartoons

"Yoo-hoo! Mr. A-rab....over here!" Bugs Bunny

"Wo, camel. Wo! When I mean wo, I mean WO!" Yosemite Sam

"Oh come Lisa, everyone knows leprechauns are extinct..." Kent Brockman

This cartoon thing has legs alright. As a writer, I very rarely ever delve into the world of religion. Though a fascinating subject, my knowledge of it is limited. Not that I think other shouldn't do so. However, when it comes to art and religion, the marriage has at times been rocky.

The Muslim outrage - what aren't they ever outraged over? - is religious based. Now let me say this: I think we're over-dramatizing and over-analyzing this whole thing. It very much is about freedom of speech. We're at the point that Muslims are demanding that Denmark apologize.

How a government should apologize for something a single newspaper published points to the heart of the matter. Muslims back home at the mothership simply can't comprehend how we function here. They believe that all this is a conspiracy. Sure it is.

Oddly, their depiction of Jews as eating babies or as Nazis is perfectly within the realm of good taste for them. Conversely, here in North America we tend to tolerate anti-Christian postering (Christian iconography in general) a little too much. Time and again we see artists interpret Jesus in whatever light they choose - at times relfecting the philosophical fads of the times. Most of it not smart at all but they have the right to their expressions. Jesus still towers above them all. If you read anything into the religious revival in America. Lennon is out. Jesus is so in.

Back to Muslims, do they have armoires filled with flags of the West pulling them out as needed? It's all a scam, I tell ya. Perceptions dictate that Muslims have become the raving and ranting incoherent Uncle at family gatherings no one dares offend. Always upset that he's misunderstood, though never once looking at himself in the mirror. Indeed, perceptions are notoriously unreliable.

They wonder why we don't learn about their history (though I suspect we now know more about them then they do of us), but do they ever take a minute and actually look at how they behave at times? Worse than Ile Nastese and John McEnroe combined. Can they seriously blame people for wondering what the hem is going on within their ranks?

In fairness, Toronto and Montreal did have peaceful demonstrations but the rhetoric remains completely oblivious to how Western society functions. The cartoons should be displayed and CNN was not being respectful when they chose not to run them; just scared.

All these North American Muslim leaders keep pointing and wagging their religious fingers at my secular mindset, but they are doing a massive disservice to their own people. I don't need them to tell me what was wrong with the pictures. Most people already concluded that before the insane uprising. Then again, who am I to judge? If that's what they prefer, be my guest. Just don't make me feel guilty for anything.

Someone once told me, "I don't hate you Italians. I love lasagne." My how times change. Now I can say to a Muslim, "I don't hate Muslims. I love vine leaves." What do they think? We dream up ideas to offend Muslims in a boardroom over doughnuts? Are they that vain? We have better things to do - like watch American (or Canadian) Idol for instance.

Still, I refuse to paint all Muslims in this light - I have read a few insightful articles from Muslim North Americans. However, this is counter-balanced by Muslims disturbingly calling for those Danish cartoonists to be 'sentenced to death.'

The cartoons reveal distastefulness, not racism. One caller on a national radio show suggested we think hard before we publish things... wise and prudent words. However, what degree of thinking is needed? A left-wing newspaper will have different considerations than a right-leaning one. And what if they do and determine it's alright to publish cartoons, only to have miscalculated? Is this immoral or irresponsible? This is where balancing moderation and freedom of speech comes in. Secularism has freed us to explore the nether-regions of our culture and mind. Islam and Mohammed are one and the same.

That's the problem. Freedom itself is ignorant of race or religion. That's why many Muslims in the West have learned to balance their religion within an Occidental construct.

Protest, write to the editor and move on. Italians are still depicted as fat Mobsters; Mexicans as immoral and lazy and Irishmen as drunken pugilists. Cripes, the Poles and Newfies are punchlines to everyone's jokes! Get used to it me Muslim friends. It's part of the fun. I know, it's not the same as attacking a Prophet but it still makes a point. Is there a Muslim equivalent to George Carlin? Thought not.

Islam is home to some of humanity's greatest achievements. Yet, you would not think this in contemporary times. Everyday I have to read about how the West is killing the environment, how Americans are evil, that Jesus never existed (in some parts of the Middle-East people think he ate babies), and how insensitive and ignorant we are (to name a few).

At some point you stop and reflect over a fresh piece of apple pie and wonder if we are really that bad. Did these cartoons arise because we are the masters of evil-dom? The answer, of course, is no; unless you're Bobby Fischer or Noam Chomsky.

In the case of Jesus I find it offensive that scholars/writers would even attempt to refute his existence, but am I out bombing embassies? I'm a coward that way. Are we freaking out that Arabs think Americans and Jews (if the Freemasons prove me wrong so be it) plotted the attacks of 9/11? The West should speak as one clear voice in this matter.

The American and British weak response was absolutely shocking if not maddening. We should stand behind Denmark. Not as enemies to Muslims but as allies to freedom.

Sports Comment: Propecia, The Olympics, IOC, Wayne Gretzky

-Propecia. Who knew? According to Zach Lund and Josée Theodore it works like a charm. Now, are there any endorsements lined up? Lund was given the major political shaft. His Federation and fellow athletes should stand firmly behind him. It would be nice if they would protest the absurd last minute call to ban him.

-Corrupt, filled with nepotism and bureaucratic red tape. Sounds like many corporations and political parties. Isn't it interesting to note that the one organization on the planet that seeks to pander to human virtues -gulp, the Olympics - has succumbed to the vices we find in other international bodies? Like the UN for example. The Olympics are a joke in many ways in and in many languages.

-Should he or shouldn't he? Personally, Gretzky did the right thing going to Torino. If not, simply because many in the media think he should stay home. Suggesting otherwise based on the facts lacks proper rational logic.In any event, professional athletes should not be allowed to participate at the Olympics. It's like asking a punk band to perform at a Jazz festival. Speaking of which, the Montreal version is not too far off from crossing that line.

Skating on Melting Ice for the Great One?

And not just because he coaches the Phoenix Coyotes. If there is any truth about the allegations that Wayne Gretzky and Rick Tocchet were involved in illegal gambling it will have some obvious implications for them and hockey in general. However, in the case of Gretzky in particular, the outcome will have an impact on an entire nation.

Wayne Gretzky is a national symbol to Canada. Like the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has become an integral part of our political culture, so has Gretzky. One will be hard pressed to find a sport figure in North America that has meant more to his country than Wayne Gretzky. The closest to my mind is Babe Ruth. Indeed, baseball players captivated the publics imagination more than any other athlete once upon a time in the U.S. I'm not sure Michael Jordan reached such an esteemed level.

America is littered with sports legends but they seem more regional in their legend than national. Though Red Grange, Junior Johnson, Jim Thorpe etc. all were national heroes to an extent, did they ever reach Gretzky's Arthurian image like in Canada?

Gretzky's iconic image is quintessentially how Canadians want to be looked upon on the global stage. This is why if any of these reports are true and evidence implicates Gretzky, the national psyche of entire people may be ruptured. One will be able to hear the collective sighs of disbelief all the way to Torino. It may take some time before the story unfolds but in the mean time Canada is holding its breath.

When are we going to learn to not turn athletes into mythical figures? If Gretzky goes down (which by the way is highly unlikely) so should the entire ethos to which we hold athletes in high regard. Every parent may have to sit down with their kids and delicately explain to them how to balance admiring someone's talents and achievements with outright infatuation that flowers the athlete with obscene adulation.

On a side note, I met Wayne Gretzky in 1983 when he was visiting the city of Laval north of Montreal. At the time, Mario Lemieux was playing in Laval and the hockey world was buzzing with anticipation of Gretzky's heir apparent. Gretzky was being sponsored by the now defunct GWG Jeans (come to think of it I have no idea whatever happened to the company). Laval is predominantly French speaking city and I still remember the look on everyone's face while waiting in line. You did not need to speak any language to know who Gretzky was. I waited in line and he signed the picture of him in his GWG's and stylized 80s blonde hair.

I taped it on the wall off the side of my bed where it stayed for a long while. Strange enough, I can't help but wonder if that pristine memory is just that - a distant memory from an innocent time bound to disappoint.

Nah. Gretzky's image will always age better than, say, Barry Bonds.

The Unsolved Mystery of Freedom's Death

Those intellectual homes we call Universities have long been on tenuous ground as preservers of freedom. In the minds of our best and brightest - students and administrators - suppressing is a mode of compassionate and thoughtful defense. What fecal rot have we allowed to set in on the grass of our soiled institutions of higher learning? It is to tread a thinnish line to condemn part -if not an entire - system of upper education. If insignificant animations drawn in a distant land have the capabilities of exposing the death of healthy debate then perhaps we do what we must to revive this precious commodity.

Freedom is dead on campuses. The University of St. Mary's and Prince Edward Island have reminded us of this. Their reactions -save some brave souls - to the the impending wave of Muslim wrath is all too common in our schools. So sensitive are we to not offend we find ourselves on our knees with our wrists twisted in mangled pain. The one place where all people of all nationalities can bond in a brotherhood of intellectual exchange has chosen to immolate freedom of thought and speech. Stifen and swiffer away these young minds of the future slated to shape and form our collective future. The beautiful minds of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison are but mere mirages for posterity.

One-dimensional debate dictate the arguments of the offended and thus the plaintiffs. Liberty and secularism - as defendants- simply do not figure into their minds when assessing the cartoons.

For its disreputable part, Concordia University - by which a History degree was earned and long denounced - dismay and disappointment is the operative words to describe the spineless individuals who roam its decaying bricks. Within its weak arms they hold the hand of tyranny on its campus.

Perhaps the cartoons traveled a little far. However, the reaction to it is a shocking validation of the utter lack of good judgment and common sense among those who feel attacked.

Debate is about freedom and freedom allows for our most humanistic of values to flower and grow but Universities are corporations now. Its administrators operate like CEO's ensuring that their shareholders are taken well care of. Some have become a little to insidiously and comfortably partisan either with political party's or ideologies. All in a day's work in a post modern life.

In the skeleton halls of our schools that bequeath upon our future minds supposed tools that exercise the mind we find nothing but ghosts and murderers. Universities are fine for those single-minded souls out to get a degree in esteemed and important disciplines in the mold of accounting or engineering. It may as well be for those such specific oriented minds, the micro-management of hollow intellectualism is what we all excel at.

The price has been rendered and it is high.

My Liberty: Shared Realities Make France and the United States Partners

It all depends if you believe there's a legitimate terrorist threat or not. From here, it can be determined the degree of security measures needed - if any. Such is the reality of living in a free and democratic society. No one ever said it was going to be easy.

Cynics, skeptics and leftists (artists and political theorists alike) obviously take the position that it's a gross exaggeration fed to us by a media kept in line by the government. Some of their arguments are valid and others should be dismissed outright. What intrigues me is how many who stand against the government threaten to move to France to voice their displeasure.

Is the grass greener in France? Let's look at it, shall we? Ironically, the perception is that France is a freer society. Culturally the French are indeed more liberal - and anti-American. But that's another story. French anti-Americanism is hardly how conservatives like Hannity and O'Reilly describe it. It's just a typical philosophical position taken by a quarrelsome society that enjoys taking a devil's advocate stand. This is not to demean their recent posturing on this front, but a sense of perspective is needed here.

France has a reputation of being an inept military society; as if Inspector Clouseau ran the show. This, too, is selective, for the descendants of Gaul and the Franks are noted for their military abilities. We always remember the most recent things in life, because we have short attention spans when it comes to history, and France - until they prove their worth in another war - will always pay the price for their record during World War II. People care little for the big picture for it will inevitably shatter their narrow perceptions.

On a governance level France is a unitary Republic that wields widespread power unseen in the United States. On the terrorist front France is a key partner. They are efficient at breaking up cells and plots. It is here that we begin to see a breakdown in people's arguments against Bush, who wants to use simple and controversial, but effective measures like wiretaps and internet tools such as 'Google' to fight terrorists.

It may come as a surprise to many but France has been a police state for decades. France has been dealing with terrorists for centuries, but specifically since the 1950s with Algeria. Since then an organization calling itself Groupe Islamique Armé (GIA) has made France a target. France has responded with three police services responsible in fighting terrorism: Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire (DST), Direction Centrale des Renseignements Généraux (DCRG) and Division Nationale Anti-terroriste (DNAT), each with specific roles and duties that cooperate with one another.

France is a sophisticated civil society that makes no qualms about the fact that the threat is real. One need only examine the networks they have dismantled and destroyed either by mass arrests or targeted killings. The list is daunting if not frightening. France has some of the toughest anti-terrorism laws on earth. For their part, Germany, Britain and Italy all have functional intelligence units that are experienced in this field and together they form as formidable a power group. Interestingly, France and the United States have been cooperating behind the scenes to devise plans on how to fight terrorism. On this front, the uncomfortable alliance remains strong.

In 2001, Americans were introduced to an act of murder Europeans had grown accustomed to. As such, its government has sought to introduce various responsible, expensive, imperfect and unpopular security measures and organizations necessary to defend themselves. As time moves forward, Americans will become better at balancing civil liberties and security. After all, France has done so (they did manage to fool entertainers). This is the nature of the beast Western societies face.

It is up to Americans if they want to use short-term considerations to drive their responses to security concerns. Will someone stand up and speak for the big picture? Big pictures always reveal some surprising truths.

Sports Comments: Winning is all that matters, History and QB's, Hockey goalies, Super Bowl XL

-It's all about winning. Once upon a time, sports was viewed as an integral component of what made up a renaissance man; a gentleman in the Victorian age. It was more important to shake a hand and lose graciously than to win by cheating or at all costs. Slowly, the philosophy (or idea anyway) of amateur sports helping to form men of integrity and high morals gave way to the professional ethic. No, this did not happen recently but rather early in the 20th century. It only reached the levels we are accustomed to late in the century. Things take time, you know.

Anyway, here's the trade-off: better athletes with more money who operate in a sports business environment that cares little for the 'spirit' or 'essence' of the sport. All rivalries are superficially created, whereas before it was athletes with no financial security who played for love of sport and hatred of opponent. That's why we romanticize the earlier decades as 'golden.'

-We've all heard the saying "history judges the quarterbacks who win a title." Just like history gets to be written by the winner in a war. This is true but not necessarily right. Many great nations have lost critical wars. Some wars are won by the slightest of margins that is usually determined by intangible factors not thought of by military 'geniuses.' Like nature, for instance. Outside factors do have an impact.

Dan Marino is the latest sad sack figure among football fans. The King of 'Never won the big one' syndrome. 'Great regular season figures but he never won.' Some people disregard stats and go straight to the heart of the matter: did he win or not? I thought there was no 'I' in team. While there is some merit to these arguments, they are rather shortsighted to me.

Is Marino (or Dan Fouts, Fran Tarkenton and to a lesser extent, Jim Kelley and Warren Moon) to be judged less favorably than lesser QB's (and there many) who have won? Jim Plunkett, Mark Rypien, Doug Williams, Brad Johnson, Jeff Hostetler and Trent Dilfer have all won super bowls, yet we are to somehow believe by this virtue that they stand ahead of Marino? One could argue that people will remember Plunkett over Marino because he won. Baloney. The fact is that Marino is far superior than many QB's who have won the SB. It's not his fault the Dolphins weren't good enough. There are limits to what a person can do and I somehow doubt lesser QB's made their teams better.

-Interestingly, hockey goalies suffer the same type of nonsense. 'He's great but he's never won anything.' One such goalie is Curtis Joseph. I can barely recall a goalie that stood more on his head for bad playoff teams than he. Time and again in St.Louis and Edmonton he made saves that only a hockey immortal can pull off. Yet, those teams were not good enough to make him a winner. Furthermore, in 2003 Joseph allowed only 10 goals in 4 games for Detroit, while his teammates popped six behind Jean-Sebastien Giguere of the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. Joseph was absurdly made the scapegoat for the loss. Does the same fate await great young goalies like Roberto Luongo? FYI: The rate of great goalies winning the Stanley Cup is higher than great QB's winning a Super Bowl. The same goes for all sorts of great players in different sports: Barry Bonds, John Stockton and Karl Malone, Marcel Dionne etc.

-Just want to comment on the officiating during Super Bowl XL. Let me first say that Seattle lost the game on their own. Pittsburgh, while not doing anything that forced Seattle to make mental errors, still made the plays when they had to. End of story. Sports is driven by results. However, bad officiating is a momentum killer. Seattle had some calls go against them that were hard to overcome.

It's not the first time we see this sort of thing. Buffalo Sabres fans will recall Brett Hull's 'toe in the crease' infraction that was overlooked. What was interesting about that non-call was the fact that all year long the referees called that infraction with consistent fervor then suddenly they ignored it. During the 2002 World Cup in soccer, the third-rate officiating was an absolute disgrace. There should be an asterisk next to that one. Anyway, these are just two tiny examples among many that have happened. Everyone has a memory of one. Seattle did get the shaft, but hey, join the club.

Pittsburgh Steelers Reach Super Bowl Pinnacle

Super Bowl XL has come and gone and you can still hear the many screams of the destitute in Vegas all the way to Memphis. As I watched the Seahawks give the game away (though they were unlucky on some calls), I could not help but think about what is a more important position in today's game; running back or receiver? Receivers are the glam-boys but do running backs drive an offense more? Come to think of it, and on a side note, why does Terry Bradshaw remain under rated when it comes to the Steelers dynasty of the 70s? Tangents aside, the Pittsburgh victory adds some spice to those who like stats and placing them in their historical context.

With nine completions (Roethlesberger - who looked like one of the apostles - went 9 for 21 for 123 yards. Hasselbeck 24-49 for over 200 yards) and a paltry offensive output, the Steelers beat the Seahawks 21-10 in unspectacular fashion. I'm still unsure how Pittsburgh pulled it off. Yes, timely interceptions and bad penalties on Seattle's part helped but one can't help but notice Seattle sinking their own ship. We've seen this play out many times before where a team that seems out of the game just know how to hang around long enough to win. The Montreal Canadiens were masters of this; especially against the Boston Bruins in the 1970s.

Seattle dictated the game in the first half and came away with 3 lousy points (though the interference call seemed a tad harsh that would have given them a deserved touchdown). Worse, with double the time possession and yardage, they were down 7-3 at the half! Right then and there most people probably thought like I did and felt they were in trouble.

Which goes to prove no matter how well prepared you are if you don't execute and improvise you're dead. The Seahawks seemed like the better prepared team early but Pittsburgh knew how to play and stay close while they warmed up. They seemed to go with the flow very well all year. That's why they were not picked to win anything. No one could quite get a grip on them.

With the victory, Pittsburgh joins Dallas and San Francisco as the 'Elite Three' with 5 Super Bowl titles. Between the Triumvirate, they have have won 15 titles or 38% of the Super Bowls. To purists 5 titles is nothing next to the feats of Cleveland, Chicago and Green Bay and all those AAFC and NFL titles.

Anyway, not only did Pittsburgh win their 5th title in 6 appearances in the finals, they have the distinction of being the only 6th seed to ever win. The city of Pittsburgh itself has now won their 13th pro title. Right about now some of you are saying "let's see, Steelers 5, Pirates 5, Penguins 2...hey that's 12 bonehead!" I added the Pipers of the ABA in the total.

As for the legendary Rolling Stones who performed at half time, not that they were terrible but for a group that was predicated on the notion of anti-establishmentarianism they sure embrace corporate life very well. They traded in their drugs for Evian water; rags for Armani's. Who said life was not a mere collection of contradictions over time? It's fine they still play but a cynic may ask are they still relevant? Does it matter? They do seem to connect to each passing generation. Blues musicians still sing the blues even though the days that brought them the blues are long gone.

Then again, human grief and despair will always be with us. When Muddy Waters was rediscovered in the 60s and 70s, he toured with rock acts but by then his folkloric legacy was a distant memory. But in the process a whole new demographic was reconnected to it. For that they deserve credit. I would have liked to have seen them play 'Sister Morphine.'

-Quick hockey note: Josee Theodore's sudden and mysterious inability to goaltend for the Canadiens has many scratching their heads in this town (maybe throughout the league). Reason, excuses and theories abound. To me, it reminds me of the story of former Pirate pitcher Steve Blass. In the early 70s, Blass went from effective pitcher to losing all sense of location. His career ended on a mystery. While he's still far away from a Blass type obscurity, Theodore seems to be on the path. Now, he may just be in a funk or perhaps a change of scenery may revive his career but it's still something that entered my radar. He's on the watchlist.

Here's to the Danish People, Economy....and Freedom!

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/05/cartoon.protests/index.html

Denmark: Area 43 075 sq km; Population 5.3 million; Human Development Index 92.1; Capital: Copenhagen; GDP 162 billion; Per Head $30 420; Principal Exports: Manufactured Goods; Known for: Generous social programs and introspective and peaceful civil society. In addition, butter cookies, Hans Christian Andersen, Soren Kierkegaard and ferocious Vikings.

I can't let this story go. It's simply too rich and irresistible.

Do Christians go around burning flags and dying whenever people characterize the Pope in a distasteful manner? Do Italians fatalistically run amok whenever they are drawn as fat, lazy mobsters eating pizza and smoking cigars while placing bets on the NFL in a murky coffee bar? And why do Muslims out on the infamous Arab street have Danish flags handy to burn?

The cartoons were expressions of freedom, poor judgment notwithstanding - though I don't know what the fuss is all about. Bin Laden sure loves his guns and being a tough macho psycho. The Muslim reaction to it was pure insecure tyranny. The question must be asked: Are our most cherished values - freedom of speech and the press - as defined by our culture, simply incompatible with Muslim sensibilities? Everyone is fair game in a free society. You didn't like it? Write to the editor. There are other ways to voice disagreement than absurdly burning down embassies. And I would classify burning down an embassy as a tad excessive.

Rightly or wrongly, who looks worse once again? Sadly, this type of hysterical fear-mongering has led to the Danish newspaper apologizing. Instead of looking at the cartoons and asking themselves what they are doing wrong to garner such a perception (hey, we ask the Americans to do it all the time), they chose the usual low road of blaming others. Sometimes you just need to laugh at yourself. The West does that all the time - sometimes a little too much.

According to statistics, the Muslim boycott of Danish goods and services is costing that economy $1 million dollars a day. I fear they stand to lose a lot more than a few pennies if they don't stand their ground. We should support them. Or else freedom is on the run my friends.

NOTE: Since the writing of this post The Commentator has changed his name and moved to Wyoming.

Danes'N Muslims

It can't be this easy to provoke Muslim insecurities can it? Then again I rarely believe whatever comes out of police states. Most people you see at rallies from Cuba to Syria are organized by the state and thus do not reflect the feelings of the general population at large. Nonetheless, the latest anger showcased from the infamous (and possibly mythical) 'Arab Street' does reveal some intriguing things about how we deal with 'outrage' in that part of the world. In the process, we learn a little about ourselves.

Many a Scandal-navians are scratching their blond hairs today I am sure.

Let's see, a cartoon in a Danish newspaper which is circulated throughout the Scandinavian paper circuit leads to the burning of the Danish embassy by Muslims in Beirut? So, if Muslims were the leaders of modern polity it stands to reason that Americans should have reacted to a Turkish movie depicting American soldiers as brutal animals by burning down the Turkish embassy on U.S. soil? Another persons absurdity is another persons reality I suppose.

How should we rationalize all this? The Arab world is justifying their actions by pointing out that the cartoon was inflammatory. If you do not like something there are other ways to voice your opposition. Notice the different approaches to perceived ill-will; the general American reaction to the Turkish film has been indifference while Muslims reacted by burning the Danish flag. Oh dear, if the peaceful Danes are not immune to this sort of thing what hope do the major powers have?

And where exactly did they get these flags? I can barely get my hands on a Canadian flag and these people have Danish ones handy? The American 'drapeau' I can see since everyone wants a piece of one but Denmark? No offense to the great Danes, but Denmark?

Obviously, someone supplied the protestors with them. "Hello, they did what? Allah wants us where? I'm so there."

"People, here are some matches, mustaches and two Danish flags. Burn them wisely. Don't mind the cameraman he's just working on term paper."

What about propaganda? A cynic grown disillusioned with democracy will point that democratic propaganda is far ore subtle and sophisticated. The apparent free state is not, well, free if you get their drift. I'll stop here.

The whole episode is entirely preposterous to our sensibilities in the West. Therein lies the massive differences between the two societies. Muslims have yet to flick off certain things in order to choose their battles wisely. The West is constantly chastised, belittled and attacked by vitriolic commentators and religious clerics in the Middle-East. Where's our outrage?

Usually immature, less developed and insecure societies react with anger to innocuous stories. How their leaders react to it will greatly dictate the degree of the people's 'will.' Being distasteful is not the same as being racist. Here in Canada we have been known to over react at times. Out come the curling brooms and hockey sticks in thin-skinned anger when our peaceful sophisticated society is made fun of.

What also caught my eye in the CNN report of the story was the disclosed line at the end of the article stipulating that they decided not to reprint the pictures out of respect for Islam.

Cheat me out of some laughs, will they? Ok, as I shake my head furiously, let's see if I follow this. As we have seen, the media in the West (and in the U.S. in particular) have no problem fighting to print information that can be sensitive to national security or questionable stories that can amount to treason by invoking the freedom of the press. Yet they show restraint, responsiblity and sensitivity to Islam about lousy cartoons? Curious stuff.

Freedom is a selective process for the media elite. The only casualty here is exactly that - liberty. Do we fear Muslim backlash to the point of sacrificing our own rights? We are slowly losing grip on perspective.

Sigh, where do I buy a Turkish or Syrian flag?

History Rewards The Kinks' Bad Timing

"Picture yourself when you’re getting old,
Sat by the fireside a-pondering on
Picture book, pictures of your mama, taken by your papa a long time ago.
Picture book, of people with each other, to prove they love each other a long ago.

"Picture book, your mama and your papa, and fat old uncle charlie out cruising with their friends.
Picture book, a holiday in august, outside a bed and breakfast in sunny southend.
Picture book, when you were just a baby, those days when you were happy, a long time ago." The Kinks, Picture Book. 1968.

So go the lyrics of a song from a forgotten album. A mighty difficult challenge it is for a thirty-something gent to comment on a wild period such as the 60s musical scene. Then again, it's just history and some of us are capable of grasping its lost nuances.

In the mind of popular public opinion, the 60s is all about gratuitous sex, drug experimentation and Satanism all rolled up in the spirit of Woodstock - a mythical time and place so long ago it may as well be Camelot or Atlantis. The period is best remembered under the musical umbrella of rock immortals like The Beatles, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, The Doors, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, The Who, Led Zeppelin - and on and on. But what about the lesser known members of 1960s musical heritage?

For me, the 60s have become hopelessly dated - especially politically. John Lennon is a hero to many still; I sometimes want to vomit when I hear him described as the world's greatest pure soul. It was all a moment in time and while many baby-boomers hang on to the notions they espoused then, it doesn't resonate all that well anymore. In a way, I'm glad foreign policy resisted the onslaught. What was good for the baby-boomer wasn't necessarily good for the nation moving forward.

There were bands and albums being made that went against the grain. I came across 'The Kinks are the Village Green Preservation Society' a couple of years ago and thought nothing of it. Ignorance is not only bliss, it's downright indiscriminate. If one is not acquainted with history, we can easily overlook relevant gems before our eyes. Fast forward to 2006 and something hit me about this album. The sound struck me as so contrary to what was being recorded back then. In fact, the lyrics were not only intimate but also hilarious. If the 60s were about hope and youthful exuberance (the Renaissance belief in man run amok if you will), Ray Davies' masterpiece comes off as a little too sober and pragmatic for the period. It's as if he was saying 'Grow up people. Pay attention!'

Alas, this is just my perception. I never interviewed Ray Davies but if I did I'd know exactly what to ask him and what to talk about. Nothing can be more frustrating than to write relevant stuff and not be recognized on the spot. Then again, true relevance ages like a fine wine. It finds a way to reconnect. Inside John Mellencamp's 'Scarecrow' album jacket reads 'There's nothing more sad or more glorious than generations changing hands.' With this album, Davies can sit back and, well, derive satisfaction that a young blogger is writing about his soul.

Worse, it can be quite the uphill battle trying to shake a stigma. The Kinks, as most already know, are the creators of some of rock's most recognizable anthems - 'Lola' and 'You Really Got Me' immediately spring to mind. As a result, they were forever associated as a hitmaking pop rock band that every garage band must copy and master in order to be legitimate. Marketed as part of the British Invasion, Ray Davies and The Kinks were not allowed to spread their intellectual musical wings.

While The Beatles and Brian Wilson were blowing everyone away with 'Revolver', 'Rubber Soul' and 'Pet Sounds' in a game of one-upmanship, Davies quietly offered his perspectives that flopped in the construct of musical business models. Who knows why certain pieces of art get ignored? Maybe the kids were too burnt to truly understand. They were too busy trying to be cool.

What attracts me to The Village Green is its call for a lost time. The whole album seems to try and preserve parts of history. The opening line of 'The Village Green Preservation Society', "We are the VGPS, God Save Donald Duck, Vaudeville and Variety" blasted me with so many realities of modern times. Sadly, Al Jolson is just another forgotten historical relic. No longer central to a people so addicted to immediate self-gratification. Our collective attention spans are that of a tiny fly that has little interest - let alone appreciation - for all things from another era. Fret not, there are many people who are preserving our beauty against the terrible avalanche of profiteering. History on its own is just a word. Add a human face to it and it becomes something more.

Above all, the album hits with a hint of humorous irreverence, as revealed with the references to 'Scooby Doo' and 'Fat Uncle Charlie' in the addictive 'Picture Book.'

Someone once contended that 'The Kinks' are the greatest and most under appreciated rock band ever. Now I know what this astute person meant. The Kinks (who had achieved cult status in the mid-70s) had the courage to go against a grain and a current much like Jonathan Richman did in the early 70s. The price was to forego eternal immortality in the annals of popular consumption.

Now that I think of it, who cares? What albums like VGPS have given is far more profound. Is Davies 'the last of the good old choo-choo trains?' No, but he's a dying breed in the face of Ashlee Simpson.