Foremost on my Mind: Bring on the PC's of Canada

 

Well, it's all becoming a little clearer now: There will be a very big day next month, when all the chatter is settled, when all the uncertainty is cleared up, and and when we can move on with our lives. Early May will also be a big day for our friends to the south, because some of those involved have strong American ties to Canadian issues.

Well, you're probably saying to yourself, there goes El Fungo once again, sounding off as usual, pontificating on the politics of Canada, ranting about the unwanted election of May 2, cramming his right wing views down our unwilling throats.

Election, smell-ection. I'm talking about the National Hockey League Playoffs, people!

By early May, all the naysayers about Vancouver's ability to go deep into the playoffs will be silent; all the wondering as to whether Calgary's in or out (they'll be out, believe me) will be laid to rest; and America will be impacted by empty or full rinks, depending how far some of their teams go into the playoffs.

I was amused with Theo Fleury's recent outburst. He was adamant that Vancouver wouldn't make it past the first round. Talk about grandstanding. You'd think he was Michael Ignatieff, sounding off just to get some added exposure for yet another project of his. He must have had another book or television show to promote, and needed the free publicity. I personally think he would have a little more credibility if he was an active player, or at least try to come up with some fresh arguments, rather than the usual anti-Vancouver Canucks tripe.

I'm drooling with bias as I write this, to be sure, but I see this as the year that Vancouver could easily go all the way. At this point (ie., with only a few games left in the season), I predict either Vancouver or San Jose coming out of the West, with Boston or Washington from the East. (I just can't see either Philadelphia or Pittsburgh getting past the second round.) I won't go any further than that, though I think out a Vancouver-Boston tilt would be great for hockey.

Mind you, what would really stir my fry is a Vancouver-Montreal finale, a good ole' Canadian showdown, if you will, but I can't see Montreal getting out of the East at all.

Calgary Dames fans, and maybe the occasional Edmonton Broilers fans, make it very clear that Vancouver has never won the Good Lord S's Mug, so they have no credibility until they do. Good point, I must say; I can't argue with facts. But in the grand scheme of things, where drinking from the Stanley Cup is the ultimate goal, one must consider all sorts of other sideshows.

Let me suggest the following: Winning a division title, year after year, must mean something; simply making the playoffs is a credible factor (please check Calgary's playoff record over the past fifteen years); scoring titles, and runners up for said titles; the number of 20+ goal scorers in any given year; plus all the hardware (Hart, Calder, Ross, Vezina, etc.). It seems that Vancouver has been there, done that, and now they are about to climb the last peak of Mount Stanleycup.

In other words, the Big Dance may be the icing on the cake, but it takes a lot of other ingredients to make the cake to get there.

Vancouver will go far this year for the following reasons: 1. They have an awesome back-up goalie in Cory Schneider, if (and when) Luongo falters; 2. their defense is tougher, faster, and bigger than it has ever been before; 3. they can count on scoring from all four lines, not just the first two; 4. they have tremendous depth, both on their bench and on the farm; and 5. they are not blowing out the opposition, ie., they are not cruising their way to the top.

So, by May 2, two things should be clear in Canada: Stephen Harper will be back with a majority government, and the Vancouver Canucks will be well into the second (or third) round of the NHL playoffs.

I cast my vote for the only team that deserves it, the PC's of Canada. I believe that stands for the Precious Canucks of Canada.

Now That's a Good Question

 

There is a myth out there that the most significant part of a conversation is having the right answers. Well, right answers are much, much better than wrong answers, to be sure. But for the most part having the right question is really just as important.

The right question gets beyond the easy "yes" or "no" response. I'm sure border guards, bless their grilling hearts, are trained to ask those types of questions. Lawyers, principals, and even parents should likewise be skilled in asking the right questions.

I often hear questions these days, mostly about God and government, and usually the questioner has no real interest in the right answer—only a convenient answer. I'm thinking of such shallow questions that start with, "Where was God...?" or "Why doesn't the government...?" One of the results of a dumbed-down populace is the quest for the ever-present easy answer to a selfish question. It's this me-first mentality, with instant solutions in mind, that drives me absolutely crazy.

Don't people know that sometimes we need deeper questions to get more profound answers? (Good question, wouldn't you say, Maurice?)

Beyond God and government, we are faced with questions that may range from the ridiculous to the sublime, with ridiculous questions such as, "Should Winnipeg get an NHL franchise?" I suggest that the real question should be: "Should Phoenix and Atlanta keep their franchises?"

Or, when there are wussy questions about our severe Alberta climate, perhaps the real question should be: "Aren't you glad we're not living in Japan or China right now?" See the positive spin on the usual inane weather question? (Are you still impressed with me, Maurice?)

Then we shift to the more sublime, what with all the nonsense in the north of Africa. The one query that seems to be popping up a lot looks something like this: "Is it right for the United Nations and NATO to attack a sovereign nation?" That is a great question on a complicated issue, with no real answer in view. But I do suggest to you that this is the wrong question. The right one is as follows:

"Does any independent nation have the right to massacre its innocent civilians?"

Granted, a simple "no" should do here. To be sure, there is a fine line between defending the innocents and aiding a full-fledged rebellion. And in this case, who really is behind the rebels? We as responsible nations must look out for the genuine welfare of those who cannot look out for themselves. Where the bombing of Libya leads to, I dare not predict, but to simply stand idly by and pompously abuse those attempting to solve the problem is lame.

Funny, no one seemed to ask that questions when Rwandans were slaughtering fellow-Rwandans a decade or two ago. In fact, the world's landscape is littered with the bodies of men, women, and children—from East Timor to the Sudan to the Congo to Cambodia—because no one asked the right questions, no one stood up and asked, "Is there anything we can do?"

I hate war as much as any peacenik, but I love freedom more. And to watch Libyans kill each other is repulsive; but to do absolutely nothing about it is irresponsible. I say that guardedly, as I am no supporter of the United Nations, especially in the area of family rights. But for them to step in to stop further bloodshed, I laude them.

Short term pain for long-term gain, someone once said.

From my perspective, I think the less government intervention, the better. There is a place for the government, but the more intrusive they get, the more dependent we get. (And I am seeing the United Nations as one big mega-government.) However, when they work with other member-nations to preserve peace and punish crime—a Biblical mandate, by the way—then I can support them.

I don't know how the chaos in Libya will ultimately play out. I don't know if whatever (or whoever) replaces "Good Daffy" will be worse or better for the people. But I do know that whining about an institution (the UN or NATO, in this case) that appears to be doing its job is not good.

So, instead of ranting and raving against the United Nations and/or NATO with questions we really haven't thought through, perhaps a better approach would be to ask: "Is there any way I/we can help?" Now that's a good question.

It's March Madness

 

Let's see now: First, we had January's Jihad, which was followed by February's Fanaticism. And now, March's Madness. Whether I'm talking about some Arab state in the Middle East, the world of sports, or natural disasters, the terms apply to one and all. I am not quite sure whether this three-month stretch is a reflection of better technology or an angrier, louder populace, but the global tremors—both literal and figurative—are rocking every corner of our world.

A student of prophecy might even pull out a placard, declaring that "The End is Near."

It's easy to mix the metaphors here, and speak of the restless sea of humanity ebbing here, flowing there, and you would be confused as to whether I was speaking of public demonstrations in Yemen and Libya, the waves of corpses on the Japanese shore, or the devastating earthquakes in China, New Zealand and Japan, respectively.

I'm itching to plunge into a Biblical discussion of the end times here, but I am aware that not everyone shares my angle on prophetic events, to say nothing of the fact that this is a secular column in a community newspaper. In addition to that, when it comes to eschatology ("the study of last things"), I don't always know what I believe for certain-- in part, because there is so much symbolism (which, in turn, represents a real event), and in part, because so many of my good friends have differing views on Biblical end times.

That being said, I get the sense that Someone a whole lot bigger than you or I wants to get our attention.

If this three-month stretch has taught me nothing else, it has taught me the inter-connectedness of the global community. For example, the chaos in Libya affects the gas I buy tomorrow just around the corner. The earthquake in Japan has created some fears along the West Coast, where many of my friends live. We're one big family, but I think we're a little dysfunctional at present.

Closer to home, and at a much more trivial level, America has its own March Madness. It involves a game that allegedly originated in Canada decades ago. While it doesn't involve a puck, it does involve a net; not a rink, but a court. It's called "basketball," and the mad march of March Madness encompasses all the "good" basketball universities throughout the USA, as they strive for the glory of winning it all.

I am a hockey man myself, though I can enjoy watching a good basketball game. Years ago, in my Vancouver days, I would trundle off around this time of year to the old Vancouver Forum (home of the old, old Vancouver Canucks, circa mid-60's). I would watch boys' high school teams from all over the province strive for same glory of winning it all. That was pure amateur sport at its best.

Whether one is "teaming up" with thousands of others to overthrow a reigning dictator, or cheering with thousands of others to depose an old champion, it seems like madness either way. Obviously, the sports model is a hollow reflection of a much greater, more severe issue in some Arab state, where life and limb are on the line. (Mind you, judging by the way some fans--or is it "fanatics"?--carry on, you'd think winning the ultimate championship was a matter of life or death.)

Lost in the shuffle of riots, tsunamis, and meltdowns, is the ongoing crises of the Sudan north-south split, the Iranian nuclear threat, the North Korean repression, and the Somali pirates. And only the Lord knows what else is out that there that our on-the-spot media hounds aren't barking at.

These are restless, tumultuous times. The March Madness stateside will pass (let's hope!), but methinks the other madness will continue, jumping the fire line, if you will, and igniting in another Middle East country, creating even further instability and sending even more economic tremors our way.

Whether April's Abscess leads to May's Mayhem, I cannot predict, but I don't think any of it is going away soon. Hang on to your pennant, the trip is going to be wild. In fact, it might even have more excitement than a court side seat at a University of North Carolina vs. Duke championship game.

Unfortunately, in the arena of world politics, there is very rarely a winner, but plenty of losers.

Is Sheen Really Sheen?

 

If I hear one more titillating tidbit about Tinseltown's latest rogue, I am going to throw up. In the long litany of his recent resume, Chuck has attempted to kill his (latest) wife, gone on repeated drug-and alcohol-induced binges, frolicked with porn stars, and fought with the studio that has paid him millions of dollars over the years. And in between all those productive, healthy pursuits (not), has staggered from holiday to holiday, holiday after holiday, in the Carribbean.

Chuck, also known as Charlie Sheen, is a prime example of the ethical, sexual, and moral reprobates that the entertainment industry is producing.

His antics are nothing new to the business. There is a long list—and so little space—of men and women who have given themselves over to a depraved lifestyle. Heroes on the screen, they are heels once the cameras stop rolling. We're talking decades of decadence here, people. We know little of the sordid details, and this column is certainly not attempting to fill in the blanks.

Is there a place for drama? Indeed. Is there a niche for performances? Absolutely. I personally attend every play I can. Some of the greatest times in my life have been watching classic movies (mostly musicals, by the way). I am in two movies myself: In one, I play the western version of old Isaac in the Bible, and in the other, I am a macho Roman centurion.

In fact, my first foray into the acting business, apart from faking a headache when I didn't want to go to school, was being the wizard in the "Wizard of Oz," back in elementary school.

So, why the mess in Hollywood? Apart from the appeal of an acting career, what is the lure to such a degenerate lifestyle? You've heard of the famous Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, haven't you? Let me suggest a name for another possible road: Compromise Causeway, a highway that leads to the point of no return. And without forcing my metaphor, it is likely one-way.

Easy money, global popularity, limited accountability, and incessant competition certainly are all contributing factors to a life of vice. Interestingly enough, professional athletes struggle with many of the same issues, often resulting in many of the same returns.

Even when I stand at a checkout counter in any grocery store, I am often confronted with this racy rag and that sleazy sheet, trumpeting the latest baby born out of wedlock, or who's dumping whom. I'm not sure why moral failure is presented as something glorious. When a man can't hold his liquor or his marriage, or when a man can't control his urges or his temper, that is something to ashamed of, not proud of.

Charlie Sheen is simply one in a long line of men and women who have slowly been sucked into the vortex of rampant promiscuity. He may or may not be a good actor; that's an individual opinion. His long-running television series (from which he has just been canned), "Two and a Half Men," has set him up for life. But what we see on the tube (note: I have never watched it; I have more significant things to do in my [rare] free time) is obviously not what is really going on in his world.

I suppose someone could argue that most of us have a public persona as well as a private persona. Good point, but at least my personal life—if I can make the application here—isn't marked (or is it marred?) by out-of-control parties, pastimes, and peccadilloes.

Our communities—and by extension, our society--are weakened by unfaithfulness, drunkenness, and wantonness. I repeat: There is nothing noble or honourable about men or women who are not under some sort of personal discipline. This is no mere religious diatribe; the mental and financial fallout is incalculable, but so few seem to make the connection.

It's quite ironic that "sheen" means "a gloss or lustre on the surface; radiance or brightness." It's too bad he who appears so bright on the outside is so dull on the inside.

Fast Food Fast

 

One of life's few pleasures for many is the joy of eating. If you think I'm mistaken, go visit the Golden Corral in Great Falls anytime after 6:00 PM. When we go, we make a point to get there early, partly because we want to get a seat, partly because we want to make sure there's enough food before the Fat Pack come in.

Is it a sin to be overweight? Quite likely. I don't think of this as a religious issue, per se, so I'm not looking for a divine angle here. But I do know that being overweight is not healthy, and that bad health is a financial and emotional drain on our economy. It's one thing to suffer some chronic disease through no fault of one's own, but it is clearly another issue when there has been a careless, selfish lifestyle that has brought it on.

And I also know that being overweight may be more related to a lack of self-control—like losing one's temper, over-drinking, excessive gambling, and other vices. I can't think of one possible good that comes out of any form of an uncontrolled lifestyle. They say, in fact, that too much food can almost have the same giddy effect as drunkenness.

For years I struggled with a weight problem. And then I discovered I didn't have a weight problem at all: I had a height problem. You see, my weight was fine; it's just that I wasn't tall enough for the pounds I was carrying. With my weight of a few years ago, I should have been 6' 4".

One of the many traditions at our home is to have a salad every night. And it's not just any lettuce; none of that iceberg stuff, no sirree. My wife insists on romaine lettuce. She's probably right, and one thing I do know for sure is that my kids are very healthy. Limited exposure to sugars and processed food are also a key factor. Their understanding of fast food is when they're late for an appointment in the morning.

Part of the genius behind today's conversation is a reflection on the occasional colon-related fasts I go on. It's good to give certain body parts a break from all the work they do, a sabbath-rest for the innards, if you will. Many will see the connection between fasting and religion (and there is), but there is likely a greater link between fasting and good health.

Mind you, I hesitate to use the name "fast" when it comes to going without food for a few days. Nothing goes fast during a meal-less week. In fact, seven days without food makes one, er, weak.

They say that when you don't do what comes naturally for a few days (Maurice, I'm talking about eating here), certain internal organs respond positively. For myself, I have more energy, and my mind becomes clearer. However, during one fast, after just four days into it I started cheering for the Flames, so I had to quit. There's just something about the body getting rid of toxins that will do it every time.

I think we should all fast on a regular basis. I personally fast every day, from about 10:00 at night till about 10:00 the next morning. Mind you, I don't know if that means I am self-disciplined or just too lazy to make breakfast.

If we watched our weight, rather than looked at our weight, I think we would all be better off. That would also mean less "weight" (and "wait") at the Golden Corral.