Stanley's Cup

 

One good thing about this time of year is the start of the real National Hockey League – also known as the play-offs. The first 82 games, per team, are spent scrambling for a position in the hockey after-life - hockey heaven, if you will. And there is nothing quite as exciting as a good old-fashioned all-Canadian Stanley Cup , say, between Toronto and Edmonton. However, as they are the resident bottom-feeders for the entire NHL, that won't happen in anytime soon.

There have been some pleasant surprises in this year's race (hello there, Phoenix and Los Angeles), some intriguing surprises (watch out, Calgary and Detroit), and some refreshing surprises (back again, Chicago and Washington). Methinks the days of dynasties (adios y'all, Oilers and Islanders) are over. There seems to be a welcomed turnover of each year's finalists.

How it will all shake down within the next two weeks is anybody's guess. And beyond that, as in who will come out of the West and the East, is even a greater mystery. That has never stopped me from predicting before, so why start now?

As I stated a few weeks ago, there is really nothing that binds complete strangers together than NHL hockey, even if there are different loyalties. The recent Olympics are a case in point. I would venture to say that hockey has that special charisma that no other sport has in Canada – high school basketball and inner-city soccer, notwithstanding.

I repeat, the most desirable final would be an all-Canadian one, but that is quite unrealistic for a couple of reasons: 1. There are only four Canadian teams competing this year, and at least two of them (Montreal and Calgary) are not even guaranteed of getting into the play-offs. 2. Of the other two (Ottawa and Vancouver), Ottawa has floundered a bit since the Olympics, but appear to be righting themselves; and Vancouver has been a consistent first-round flop for years (with last year being a blessed exception).

This year, and please pardon my bias, I do believe Vancouver could quite easily make it to the Western Conference finals. In terms of opposition, it seems to me that Chicago is the one team that I can safely predict will make it that far also. However, there is no saying what Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Colorado will do – dark horses always have that quality, you know.

I will go out on a limb and predict that Boston and New York (in the East) will likely not make the play-offs this year, nor will Calgary and Anaheim (in the West). It doesn't take a lot of hockey savvy to come up with these conclusions - just look at their records for the past ten games, respectively. Nor is there a jolt, eg., fresh players from a trade, to boost them upwards in the standings. There are many new and consistent competitors vying for those now-vacant positions, so it will be very, very tight till the very last day.

As refreshing as it is to see both Phoenix and Los Angeles finally get back into the play-off fold, I don't really want them to go too far into the finals, this first year of credibility. I would much rather see the regular, diehard hotbeds of NHL hockey (eg., Vancouver and Chicago) have their efforts rewarded with an appearance in the finals. And that is more reason than sentiment, believe me.

So, whether you care or not, I wish to suggest what the West and East will look like, along with the ultimate dance, and then what team will drink from Lord Stanley's cup:

There shouldn't be any surprise out of the West, Chicago and Vancouver, and I am afraid to say that Chicago tends to have Vancouver's number. Vancouver has a superior goalie, as we all know, and that could possibly sway the series, though I still don't think that will be enough.

Out of the East, it will be Washington and Buffalo, and beyond that will be based on the play of, once again, the respective goalies. I think Buffalo's Ryan Miller will be the absolute game-breaker each time. You may recall Miller as the starting goalie for the USA Olympic team.

As far as the big dance, I am calling for a Chicago Blackhawks-Buffalo Sabres final - a rare meeting at this level - with Chicago prevailing in six. That should be by mid-June, making hockey the only sport that starts at the end of one season and ends at the beginning of the next season – the season, of course, being summer.

Good Gopher, Dead Gopher

 

I'm not sure I am ready to say that spring has finally arrived, no matter what the mannequins are wearing at Wal-Mart, no matter what happened last Saturday (among other things, first official day of spring, Horace), or no matter how balmy it seems at this point of writing.

If there are any indicators of spring, they would be gophers, of course. Gophers, as in those furry little vermin that hop, skip, and jump across every roadway in southern Alberta.

The first gopher sighting of 2010, for me, was about three weeks ago. It was one of those bittersweet sightings: bitter, because it meant that gophers are here for a while; and sweet, because it meant that spring was finally here (based on the above hypothesis).

Green, eco-ninjas would decry any objection to these poor critters. For starters, they might disagree with me calling them "vermin." I can also see them banning gopher hunting, as they would likely cite animal cruelty. So would any form of poisoning, for that matter, suggesting that this particular form of animal cruelty might actually be the worst. I even might agree with the latter sentiment, but only because it could do damage to other productive livestock or soil.

Believe it or not, I can honestly say some positive things about them.

1. It makes driving fun. Whenever I see one basking in the sun on the yellow line (also known as the yellow brick road to them), I am tempted (operative word) to run it over. It may not be fun for the driver in the other lane – or my own passengers, for that matter - but it could be for me. ("Honest, officer, I was just trying to clean up the environment.")

2. It saves on cat food. If I don't feed my cats on a regular basis, they need to eat something – and gopher pot pie is the ticket. Granted, they make the expression, "dinner on the run," take on a new meaning. Quick question here: Would that make gophers "fast food"?

3. It is a cheaper and healthier hobby than computer games, and I am thinking specifically of hunting gophers. Tramping through the fields with rifle in hand and dog in tow is the life. No, I haven't actually done it, but that's what I'm told.

4. It cleans up the environment. Getting rid of them would help our poor stressed-out planet. So many gophers make a big heap of gopher droppings, and a lot of unsanitized messes are not good for the carbon footprint on this fragile eco-system. (Good quote – eh, greens?) At least with human waste there are many positive uses for our recycled meals.

Would this world be a better place if there were fewer or even no gophers? Absolutely! Is there a better way to rid our prairies of these pests? Probably. If one could come up with a humane way to do it, I'd go for it. To twist yet another adage: The only good gopher is a dead gopher – and any way to carry that out is fine by me.

There is only one slight problem: If there were no gophers, how could we tell when it was spring? I think that's easy: If it snows in April, we would know we are only weeks away from summer, so that would make it spring already.

Spring Ahead - or Back?

 

I don't know if you have adjusted to less sleep and more light over the past three days, but I certainly haven't. No matter what the cause or the rationale, "less sleep" is never a better option than more sleep. We have been created to take a well-deserved break for a few hours within a regular twenty-four hour period. You might call it the "every day Sabbath of the body."

The "more light" advantage, on the other hand, is one that bears discussing. I suggest to you that the more light, the better. The only exception to that rule is when you're trying sleep with less light when you are used to more light. (Hold on: it's to get crazy in the next few lines.)

One reason why a March Daylight Savings Time (as opposed to the decades-old April one) appeals to me is that it should theoretically save money. (Horace, let me explain: Less power used means less power billed. Okay?) So anytime one can save money, this is good.

I would also add that with more daylight – both earlier in the day and later in the evening – there is a greater opportunity to be more productive. I believe I should have added the word "theoretically" to this reason, as in "theoretically, one should be more productive with more natural light." That would mean, again, in a theoretical sense, that there would be more time to travel, weed, jog, paint, and build – tasks that are nearly impossible when moonlight has replaced sunlight.

A jog in the dark, one might say, is no walk in the park.

I have also been told that more light is simply better for one's health. It is a proven fact that we tend to get more sick during the winter than we do in the summer. That could be for a host of reasons, with lack of natural sunlight being one of them. Vitamin D, as you know, is the best cure to a sunshine deficiency, next to the sun itself. So, if there is less sun, there must be more pills – not a great trade-off, but a reasonable replacement.

Finally, dangerous things are done more often in the dark, so "more light" should – again, I use the word "theoretically" - mean that this world is a safer, kinder place when we set our clocks ahead. But if we are cranky with less sleep, and we have some object in our hand, the world may not be quite as safe as we want it to be.

But with Daylight Savings Time comes Nighty-night Savings Time, too. Because it is hard to sleep when it is light out, it is likewise hard to crawl into bed any sooner than midnight. When it is light out, it's hard have lights out.

One simple, almost idiotic solution to the light out–lights out dilemma is to wear blindfolds anytime after 8: 00 PM. Maybe not a great idea, especially if there are walls and doors and toys

and people to maneuver around. You might get to bed early, but it would likely be a hospital bed – especially with all those potential hazards. Simulated darkness produces simulated sleep (ie., not the genuine thing), so one won't get a really good night's rest.

I am discovering, as I talk it up with friends, that less sleep needs no help from the powers-that-be. In other words, I am finding all sorts of people are having enough trouble either struggling with getting to sleep in the first place or getting back to sleep once they have woken up. The only exception would be teenagers on Saturday mornings – or actually any morning, for that matter. For them, Daylight Savings Time can come and go, but sleeping in just carries on.

So I am convinced that Daylight Savings Time is actually not necessarily a really obvious positive event on our calendar. It makes for passing news in our papers, fodder for this column, and confusion for the common man ("Is it spring forward and fall back – or the opposite?")

In the meantime, I will move my bed to the cellar – and keep my blindfolds ready, just in case.

Oh, Canada

 

One of my favourite Beach Boys songs has most a intriguing line in it. It goes something like this: "People had fun, fun fun, till their parents took their t-bird away." You do recognize it, don't you? And though I am not a huge Stevie Wonder fan, his "Someone just called to leave someone else a message of affection" has almost always moved me to tears every time I hear it.

I don't know why you are reading this with that puzzled look. After all, if Ottawa wants to play around with the words to "O Canada," then maybe we all should modify a line or two in one of our favourite songs. You are aware, aren't you, that the gender-neutral hacks in Ottawa want to tweak our national anthem? The PC PC PC's (poorly connected politically correct Progressive Conservatives) have embarked on a moronic journey of revisionism.

So, what's next – re-working doo wop, rock and roll, and barbershop songs?

In case you have been in Arizona or wishing you were in Arizona for the past week or so, you should be aware that someone in the PMO (a cool abbreviation for the Prime Minister's Office) has proposed to alter an offending line in our national anthem. The offensive line is "in all thy sons command." If you know any history about the song, you would know that there have been various changes over the past 100 years, but methinks this goes too far.

When my trusty www.CBC.ca window informed me of this move, I had three thoughts: a. I didn't know it was April Fool's Day; b. since when are the NDP and the Liberals running this country?; and c. if there was an apparent offensive line, at least to secularists everywhere, it should be "God keep our land."

But "in all thy sons command"? Surely they're kidding. Is there something evil about the word "thy"? Or is it "command"? No, people, it's "sons." So someone with far too much time on their hands, like other bureaucrats in Edmonton, has decided to suggest (so far) that a more gender-neutral line in our anthem would be appropriate for these times.

Maybe I missed something, but the timing couldn't be worse. Just as the Conservatives finally get back to Parliament Hill, just as they present their latest budget, and just when they show that they are still the most popular federal party in Canada, they pull off this gaffe. I'm a big Harper fan (how'd you guess?), but this makes me a little antsy.

And talk about irony. There were probably twenty-six million people singing that evil line a couple of Sundays ago, when Canada smacked the Americans in men's hockey. Perhaps it had been in the works for a while, but at least the nameless drone had enough tact to wait until the last Olympic medal was handed out - and for that matter, the last rendition of "O Canada" was sung.

In a few months, close to Canada Day, I plan to submit the second stanza of "O Canada" - and others, if I can get my hands on them. You'd think they came right out of a circuit-riding camp meeting – and you know, maybe they did. I don't think our great nation had the Christian foundation that our friends to the south had, but we must have had some reverence somewhere in our past.

But I digress - so back to the corrupting line in "O Canada." It looks like we have thrown reason and logic out of the cubicle. You wonder what was in that water cooler on the thirteenth floor. Let's take it further: If I post a sign that says, "Funston and Sons," I should really do my moose-and beaver duty and re-name it, "Funston and Offspring." I can no longer use the expression "son of a gun"; I guess "person of a gun" would be the more Canadian way. Does that mean someone Johnson would have to become Johnperson? Just wondering.

Got to go. It sounds like they're playing one of my favourite Roy Orbison songs: "One of us has a partner as assertive as she can be."