Something on my Mind --Part Two

Hope you kept toque (and your head) on over the weekend. For me, it was just the usual 6:00 am start everyday, and with a further adjustment to write "2017" on all my cheques. Okay, so I'm not Mr. Excitement anymore (actually, I never was), but at least I have my mind and body intact.

Here are two more wishes for the New Year for you.

3. a greater accountability in Edmonton. Private education and, by extension, home education, has gone through the wringer these last few years, in general, and these last few months, in particular. Thee government has given the appearance of making sure those schools in question are using the government money appropriately. So far, so good.

But in doing so, the NDP may have revealed their true motive: Is it really about the money, or is it about something bigger? I don't know. But I do know that between all private schools (and most are not religious, by the way), and home schools, they have saved the Alberta government millions upon millions of dollars.

Over the years? No, just last year alone!

I just read where private and home education in the past five years alone have saved the government $750 million. Over the years, then, the answer would be billions of dollars saved. And in order to "save" the government money, by making sure it's spent correctly, it seems the government has hired a bevy of auditors. Let me re-state that: In order to make sure money is not being wasted on "wrong" things, the government appears to have added more staff--or pulled them in from other ministries.

To be honest with you, I don't know how many, for how long, and how much money is being spent. I just know that that there is something terribly wrong with this whole scenario. There needs to be more accountability here (on the government's part)—and I'm only addressing the education fiasco.

Earth to NDP: I have a fairly simple, practical solution: Let the private and home education programmes continue to save the government money and continue to produce great students.

And what about accountability in the area of shortsighted bills (but with far-reaching ramifications) that deal with farm safety, carbon tax, and climate change, just for starters? There have been rallies, protests, newspaper articles, and letters to the editor.

Earth to NDP—are you listening?

In its roots, the NDP was a populist party. They are neio longer populists nor popular these days. One way to improve things would be if they were more accountabie to Albertans.

4 a clear definition of terms. This wish is a real problem here in leftist Alberta, but it applies to any other left-leaning regime, media, and agency—and there are plenty of them everywhere. My simple point is let's all say what we mean and mean what we say.

These are issues I have discussed before, so I don't want to take up your time again. Simply put if we speak of "activists" when we really mean "anarchists," let's just say it. Those who defy conventional processes and institutions, all in the name of their rights (but never their responsibilities), are anarchists.

I am all for peaceful, law-abiding protests. I've done my share in my day. Let's have more of them. Protests are a mark of a free society. But blatant disregard for the law, is wrong.

And when we speak of "traditional marriage," the foundation of every civil and enduring society, let's not re-label it "homophobia." I am not a homophobe because I believe in traditional marriage. I'm not even a homophobe. Why can't I believe in what I believe, without being labelled something that I'm not? That's a pretty irrational and creative language twist.

My wish for you and yours for the New Year (or is it "new year"?) is to think through everything I have written about. It's not just an out-of-touch and out-of-control government these concerns apply to. We all as individuals need to start afresh, to hold to conservative principles, to be more accountable, and to express ourselves accurately.

That would make for a very good New Year.

Something on my Mind: New Year's Wish List (Part One)

This is a delicate time of year for most of us, that time between lining up to return those unwanted gifts and hoping to not get punched out by a cranky customer, and returning to line up at the time clock to punch in at work. Presents at the store, presence on the job—take your pick.

It's also the time when we make promises to ourselves and for everyone else.

You know: the weight loss agendas, the nicer-to-the-dog routine, and the increased friendly greetings to those dumpy, grumpy neighbours. News flash: the weight will stay off till about the second week in January, the dog will be kick-free till around the same time, and the neighbours will respond with a two-finger-or less wave back, so that promise will last all of about an hour.

I have my own wish list, the usual in-your-face one, and, yes, it is fairly political. It's also very realistic, unlike those other, seemingly noble wish lists we all grapple with. As I think about the government, I'm trying to work in a quip here about "dead weight" right about now.

The following are themes that I have wrestled with, so it's a mix of reflections on the past year (wishes that will just not go away), and vision for the coming one. They are as follows, in no particular order:

1. a new provincial government. I know that the socialists are in for another two years, more (gasp) or less (yea), but there must be a legal or political way (not always the same process) to roust them sooner. I don't know where to start to describe all the damage they have done, and I have dealt with all the evidence before anyway.

Suffice to say, they are dead wrong on agriculture, education, the environment, and natural resources, and they haven't even been in office for two years. This means they have messed up (or have threatened to) with the ground we plow, the minds we fill, the air we breath, and the riches beneath our feet. That's quite a legacy they're. (And they are leaving soon, aren't they?)

Even if the right party gets in, it will be years before the damage will be undone.

I know whereof I speak: I saw the same sort of political catastrophe in British Columbia (BC), when the Socreds were ousted and the socialists seeped in. They, too, made repeated and irresponsible decisions; they implemented flawed policies. It took years for BC to recover.

I see the same calamity happening here.

2. a bonafide right wing alternative . That would be the Wildrose party. They have come a long way under Brian Jean's leadership, and I think they are headed in the right direction (another pun, mercilessly intended).

It could also include the right-of-centre members of the Progressive Conservatives. Anything closer to centre would still be too dangerous. Somehow it is assumed that the closer one party is to the centre, the more moderate or balanced they are. No, it means they are further away from a right, conservative viewpoint.

And when we speak of "conservative," we use the lower case "c" (versus upper case, an actual party). Most importantly, a truly conservative party must be conservative all respects, in every aspect: morally, fiscally, and socially. Not every party that claims conservative principles is marked by conservative practices.

Their views would be right right across the board: big business, the environment, taxes, health, education, families, and so on. That would be a good start to frame questions for the next time any (wannabe) politician canvases for your vote.

Those are two New Year's wishes that I have on my mind, with two more coming next week.

Another wish is for you to keep safe this coming weekend.

Something on my Mind: It's Got That Christmas Look About It

It's that Big Day within five days (or if you're a really slow reader, three days). I hope you're ready for the turkeys, presence, and little angels.

(Yes, Maurice, I do know how to spell; I'm just being witty. Let me explain: turkeys [more than one...relative]; presence, as in people (invited and uninvited) being there; and the little angels that aren't on top of the tree; and they would be little angels (as in sweet little girls), until they discover they didn't get their special doll.

Christmas can be one of the happiest times of the year. A famous county-wide columnist wrote about that last week. It can also be, however, one of the unhappiest times of the year, for any of the following reasons:

1. The excessive financial stress. That would be excessive and unnecessary financial stress. The pressure to over-spend is unbearable; that is, the pressure to buy beyond one's means is the expected thing to do. It's just one of those tragic traditions we have in our culture.

The real pain comes in the first or second week in January, when the bills come due. It's like waking up after a wild time the night before. The wild night is now just a memory, usually a bad one. It was a good time then, but the reality of the headache, mess, and regrets set in the next morning and must be dealt with. (I speak only out of an active imagination, thanks.)

2. The heightened sense of entitlement on the part of the kids. The kids see something on television, or the neighbours got one last year, or they take a stroll down the aisle where all these useless, over-priced toys are at eye-level of a six-year-old. What do you expect?

While I think Christmas is great, there must be a way to curb the uncontrolled grasping for more and more. Kids become teens, teens become adults (often), and the cycle continues when they start having kids.

It's good for business, especially for Valium sales...

Also, there is a thinking among certain parents that the more you buy, the happier the kids will be. No, friends, the less you buy, but the more you give (play on words for you), the better off (but not necessarily '"happy, happy") the kids will be.

3. The work: cooking, serving, and cleaning up. Where's women's lib and feminism when it matters (as if it matters)? You would think that after decades of gender liberation so-called, the ladies would get this one right, namely, get out of the kitchen and make the men do the work—or at least help. Christmas is a prime examples of the failure of that movement.

Not that we as a family are an example of much, but we all have always chipped in with getting everything ready (food and house), serving and cleaning up. And no one is more liberated than my wife.

4. Relatives that suddenly appear for days on end. Christmas may be one those consistent times of the year when the moochers come out of the mountains I'm not referring to Aunt Bob, by the way, but if the snowshoe fits...

The other challenge is, Who are they? There appears to be no interest at all in you and yours, until there's a free meal and a few free beds. Now, if only you knew their names...

5. Getting creative with the turkey (the poultry kind, this time). Let's see: turkey jerky, turkey soup, turkey bacon, turkey sandwiches, turkey pizza, turkey pie, and turkey ice cream.

I find that turkey happens to be one of the most versatile meats on the market, and you can do a lot of creative things with it. This is perhaps one of Christmas's most redeeming qualities, at least when it comes to all the trappings.

So just a few tidbits of free advice for you, from years of not doing it right.

Have a good one. And by the way, scrap the turkey ice cream.

Something on my Mind: All I Want for Christmas...

I think Christmas is one of the "most wonderful times of the year." There is something about the genuine goodwill and heartfelt wishes that makes me feel really good, whether I'm giving or receiving. It's the time of year to slow down, play games, and do all those family things.

I believe lurking within each of us is that longing to express the joy of Christmas. I'm not reversing my views on human frailty and fallen nature, not for a second. I'm simply saying that there is an element within each of us that wants to rise to the occasion of giving and serving.

I hope you're with me in that you lament the crass commercialization of the season—which now actually covers parts of three seasons (end of summer, fall and beginning of winter). Just a little over the top for my liking.

On the other hand, you may resent the religious overtones of the big day. As "religious" as I am, my worldview is based on fact (followed by faith), so I have no issue with the religious-historical element to this grand season. Others like me see that the centre of Christmas is Christ (eg., CHRIST-mas) and His birth. Historical facts don't lie, so they don't need defending.

I do see the problem of the secularization of the season, but I am concerned about the cold abstention from anything joyous, fun, exciting—apparently based in the biblical side of things. These are two extreme views of this season. I'm scrambling to find the spiritual equivalent of the term "holy(?) bah humbug."

I humbly suggest that the truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle, a "balanced approach to Christmas," if you will.

"Crass commercialization" is a strong term, and maybe that is over the top when it comes to this great time. Which brings me to the business side of the season: being a bit of a businessman myself, I get it. Anything that gives the economy a boost, generates employment, spurs further financial incentives, is good.

"Good," of course, so long that there is nothing immoral, unethical, or illegal taking place.

Christmas trees in Walmart in August may be an irritation, but it's not immoral. Christmas ornaments on Costco just after Hallowe'en is a stretch, but it's not unethical. Spending hordes of money at Christmas may be stupid, but it's not illegal.

I have other issues with the secularization (a cousin of commercialization) of the big day. As you know, I sincerely believe that the revisionism that is taking place in our textbooks, news outlets, and including holidays, is a far greater threat than whether I can (or cannot) get Christmas lights at Home Depot in early September.

The polar opposite response, while not as dangerous, is equally unfortunate. No trees, no lights, no gifts, maybe even no turkey. That is fine and well, but please, don't use faith or Scripture as your motivation! Both faith and Scripture are key to understanding what Christmas is all about, and there is no place for extremes.

Somewhere in the middle is the true spirit of Christmas: It's a time for giving , games, and gifts—probably in that order. Not excessive or expensive, of course, but a balanced approach.

Whether you believe (or care) that there was a Babe in Bethlehem, I do not know. Secular historians recorded His birth; songwriters (eg., Handel and Beethoven) wrote about it over the following decades. I do not know if His birth anything more than factual, but that is a great place to start.. What I do know is that they acknowledged it.

We're just talking about history, people, not even religion. I struggle with the cavalier approach to historical facts, and worse, the misleading interpretations of those facts. And then there is the really frightening thing, namely, the lame justification of those inaccurate interpretations that leads to the mess we're in now.

You can celebrate the season without being overtly religious. Hardly, but it can be done. Christmas, first and foremost, is about a special birth of a special Person. It's a historical fact. Ignore it all you want, but just don't try to stop me.

You can leave the Christ-child out of your Christmas festivities, your songs, even your holidays. Or you can likewise ignore the true spirit of the season by moping about its crass commercialization and empty secularization.

I say let's celebrate it in a balanced, simple way.

Maybe I should have started this column earlier in the season, like at the end of August.

Something on my Mind: Vancouver Canucks...Not Anymore

I'm hearing a lot about the "inappropriate" names of certain teams these days, so I will give my two-bits' worth. My response, in terms of First Nation monikers, is why stop over the use of at the Braves, Indians, and Redskins?

I suggest there should be a lot more push back when it comes to nasty nicknames.

Take our animals rights anarchists, er activists, , for example--please...take them.

Sorry, where was I? Oh yes, I think I speak on behalf of them in their possible outrage when teams are called the Panthers, Cougars, and Tigers. Shocking, isn't it? Animals have feelings, you know—right down to their itty-bitty claws. Think of a sweet little diamondback being the object of derision at over-paid and under-played athletes smacking little balls and spitting tobacco juice.

Do you think broncos, bucks, and blue jays like to be part of a sports enterprise, with no say or benefit from it? Hardly. Maybe even, gasp, being a mascot? I don't think so.

So all animal names have got to go, too. We need to be consistent, you know.

Even the other kind of a living creature—the human type, you know—have feelings. We should ban any name that divides one human grouping against another. I think of Canadiens: They can't even spell the name right. (Oh, actually they can, but it's the French spelling.) Well, then, what about the rest of us who aren't Canadien? Ouch.

I'm Irish , but I'm not Fighting Irish. That really makes those guys from the Emerald Isle look bad. How about the San Diego Padres? Have the PC Gestapo in the States checked with their Spanish citizens as to whether they feel good about using the name for "father" as a team name?

By the way, it also has a religious overtone: Should we mix sports and religion? I don't think so.

And the list is endless when it comes to nationalities: Yankees, Canucks, Canadians (the other spelling), Texans, and Americans. Every stakeholder needs to be consulted on this one, too.

Shouldn't all redblacks, rebels, and rangers be be surveyed first before we take the liberty of using their titles for sports enterprises? I think they should. If we want to be consistent, we should check with all royals before we use the term Royals for any team.. The same could be said about all the warriors of the world.

I know a lot of teams that have historical references, both local and national. With the desperate de-emphasis of facts and the slinking embrace of revisionism in our schools and media, all historical nods must go. Good-bye Tarheels and Volunteers; even the Blue Jackets would have to be outlawed.

You see, if those three companies won their respective battles, some others must have lost. How do you think they feel? And now the losers are left out in the cold? Unbearable.

One of the monikers that intrigues me the most is the Giants (Vancouver or New York, take your pick). Is there something wrong with being short? Are they sending a message against dwarfism with those teams? I think so. I would get rid of those nicknames as soon as possible.

You can't be too careful these days, you know.

Well, actually you can. In a culture run amok with nauseating political correctness—where, for example, it's really hard to fail someone who has failed—I think this edgy response to team names has gone too far.

Personally, because I don't have the hang-ups that I have pointed out in jest above, I never thought that Braves and Indians and Redskins had any racial connotation. Maybe I'm too naive or have too much common sense to get caught up in that skirmish.

So here's my solution: All teams should simply be numbered.. It could be any number: two examples being an area code (the Vancouver 604's), or a street number (the Taber Mains). We just can't use the number 1, as Number One suggests victory, first place, top of the heap, king of the hill.

And that would mean someone else is not Number One, and we can't have that now, can we?

Something on my Mind: Make America Great Again...Please

The America that I was raised next to has been slowly falling apart for the past fifty years. With the exception of Ronald Reagan, there hasn't been a real man in the White House for decades. As a result, then, there has been a ripple effect of insipid nationalism and conservatism.

I don't know if Uncle Donald Trump reads this county-famous column, but if he does, I want to pass along some advice to him. He really needs to keep his election promises, although a tweak here or there may be in order. I didn't follow his every promise, but his over-arching theme of "making America great again" can be met if he heeds the following the advice.

1. Make America loyal again. The national anthem debacle comes to mind. Please do something about showing respect for the flag, the anthem, and by extension, the nation. I know "nation" is the start of the word "nationalism" and nationalism can be very dangerous. And that, in turn, may produce a dangerous protectionism, loyalty, and fervour that may not be healthy.

And I don't like big brother telling me to show my allegiance to the flag. But these cautions aside, however, common sense should prevail.

When I see million-dollar athletes as an example, defying the national anthem, as they protest all the injustices they face in America symbolized by that flag, I want to throw up. It's because of what that flag represents that they have the right to earn millions of dollars—and exercise all their freedoms, including the freedom to protest..

If they don't like the great life they have, move elsewhere...just not north.

2. Make America work again. The economic woes are third only to spiritual woes, and second to moral ones. They are not the same, but close, especially if morality is tied into spirituality. And I'm not sure if Uncle Donald is qualified to advise anyone on morality or spirituality.

So let's stick with economics for now. What better president than a successful businessman to put America back to work? If he gets America back to work, then many of the professional anarchists won't have so much time to travel around the country wreaking havoc, shooting cops, and attacking innocent people.

People would be off the streets, working at fairly meaningful jobs, with no time to loaf, indulge, and vent their supposed grievances on the wrong targets. Besides, work is good for the bank account and the mind. A productively-employed populace is a much happier populace.

3. Make America safe again. These are law and order demands. I know there is a lot of fear about ISIS sleeper cells throughout the USA—a very real fear. That's all well and good, but our greater fear should be America's home-grown anarchists.

The spirit of lawlessness that pervades every segment, every street, of America, is alarming. Even protesting the election results were acts of anarchy, in my opinion. Carjackings, kidnapping, home invasions, mass shootings, muggings—and that's just before breakfast. One of Clinton's platforms was more gun control. She was dead wrong wrong on that one: We need a more armed populace-- that is, less gun control—now, more than ever.

But that's only part of the solution. More freedom with weapons will produce a well-armed population, and that's a wise start.. But we need to get the bad guys (and gals) off the street (Maurice, that means put them in the big house. We need to speed up the justice system and dole out appropriate time for the crime.

4. Make America full again. I see where Planned "Deathhood" is falling apart over the pro-life president, versus a pro-death president.(Clinton). I wonder how many babies lives and mothers' health will be saved with the results of the election? Even putting the scare factor into that killing industry is a good start.

When the death rate exceeds the birth rate, a national catastrophe that has already begun in many countries, that is bad economically, morally, and practically. Killing babies at any stage of their gestation period is wrong on every score. Perhaps Trump will be able to the stem the tide.

You're welcome for the advice, Uncle Donald. Anytime.

Something on my Mind: Trick or treat, America-style

As I sit here in the brave solitude of my lonely office, I think I hear a pronounced rumbling to the south of me. It is, I believe, the noise of desperate Democracts and leftists (or is that redundant?), still threatening to load up their earthly toys and heading north to the land of the neo-Democrats, also known as "leftist Canada."

Or maybe the noise is the whining and snivelling from all quarters of the Union, in reaction to the recent election. It actually sounds like little babies when they don't get their way.

I know Hallowe'en was a few weeks ago, but I suggest that the recent presidential election was another night of tricking and treating for the American public. In other words, were the American people expecting a trick or a treat from whomever they voted in?

I am writing this within days of a Donald Trump election victory. By the time you read this column, there will have been protests, muggings, death threats, and a general state of unrest in various quarters of the Not-so United States of America.

Talk about ugly losers.

I am hoping that the hysteria against a Trump-led White House will slow down by the time you read this. Three reasons come to mind: One, there is no Trump-led White House yet, as he doesn't even take office till the New Year, so calm down; two, when the reaction to a "monster in the White House" is by people themselves being monsters in the streets, we're facing a serious inconsistency.

And three, can he actually be any worse than an Obama-led presidency—or even a (Bill) Clinton-led presidency? I'll answer that for you: No. It couldn't be any worse, and is likely bound to be much, much better. Just my perspective, that of a small-c conservative .

You see, when you value a robust economy, safe streets, reasonable immigration, and balanced leadership, you will be happy with the outcome of the election. If you want to perpetuate the chaos, instability, debt, and weakness of the previous eight years, I understand why you wouldn't be happy with the outcome.

I am convinced that babies will be safer, as will school-aged children, women, workers and the environment; even national security will be in better shape.

I could fill this column with Trump's flaws, no doubt; but then again, I would need two columns for Hillary's (no, make that three or four). And don't get me going on Barack's grievous missteps. Ideologically, I am personally galaxies apart from Ms. Clinton's stance on abortion, gun control, feminism, the environment, immigration, ISIS, big government—and it looks like most Americans were, too.

Trump has been seen in the eyes of many as the lesser of two evils. I agree; he was not my first choice. Had I the right to vote in the primary, I would have gone for Cruz, Huckabee, or Carson—likely in that order. While I struggle with his immorality, inter-personal skills, and arrogance, I see him no more obnoxious than many other US presidents who had problems with immorality, inter-personal skills, and arrogance.

If you know your American history, the questionable lifestyles and habits of, say, Hoover, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton come to mind. And those are just the ones we know the most about.

I laugh at the hysteria over Trump's election, even here in Canada. In one sense, the preference for Hilary is consistent with the cabal of socialist leaders we have here, namely, Trudeau, Wynne and Notley—so why not one more on the continent?. Well, one reason is that we already have at least three too many ourselves.

So, people threatening to move north, while others are burning, looting, and pillaging—and hTrump hasn't even taken office yet! One wonders how these anarchists will react when he actually comes through on some of his campaign promises.

Trick or treat, American-style? I hope the American public has not been tricked into loud, empty promises. I trust the next four years will be a treat for them, us, and the rest of the world.

Looks like it may be Hallowe'en year round for a while--inside and outside the White House.

Something on my Mind: Up, Up, and Away We Go

There is nothing like air travel to restore one's faith in humanity. That is, unless the flight involves someone yelling "Allah," and waving a rifle. Celestial jihad aside, flying from Point A to Point B can give a new perspective on society...usually.

But then again, maybe placing one's "faith in humanity" is the wrong focus these days. Either way, it's just an expression, friends, meant to add colour to one's speaking or writing—likely at the expense of theology.

All above considerations aside, I found a recent trip was most encouraging, despite my personal resistance to flying.

I took a trip to Prince George, BC, the other week, for some speaking engagements. That involved flights from Calgary to Vancouver, the Vancouver to Prince George, and then a return trip, totalling four separate flights.

Four flights meant four of everything, including the attendants' spiels about safety, oxygen masks, and bathrooms. By the time Number Four came around, I had memorized the French version. .

Four flights also meant that I could have four small glasses of this or that, and either a couple of cookies or some pretzels. The other foursome was the attempt to be friendly to my respective seatmates. Not an easy task when we're complete strangers, squished together for just over an hour, per flight.

By and large, I am not good at attempting conversations with people I don't know, and gave up somewhere over Williams Lake. I must add that my conversation on the third leg of the flights went along the lines of : "Hey there, may I borrow your newspaper, please?"

You're probably wondering where I'm going with this, aren't you? Well, so am I.

Sitting with complete strangers for hours and hours gives pause for reflection—and observation. And what I saw, I liked. That's where this "faith in humanity" comes in.

I saw married couples—you know, the veteran kind, the old-fashioned kind (male and female)--enjoying each other. There was a touch here, a giggle there; some holding hands here, a warm look there.

One flight had me behind a man that had obviously suffered a stroke somewhere in his past. He was pretty gutsy, though, trying to shift his luggage on his own terms. I saw his wife's look of both affection and concern with his efforts.

If I believed everything that the media and the politicians tried to convince us of concerning the state of traditional marriage, the normalcy of same-sex relationships, and the general deterioration of family life, I'd lose my mind .

A plane trip can suggest otherwise.

Another encouraging observation regarding faith in humanity was the rest of the passengers. They were all civil to each other, even laughing with the crying baby in seat 21c. (No, wait, that was me crying in seat 21c. The baby was in 17a.)

Again, complete strangers accommodating complete strangers, something they would never do if they were compressed in a "mobile sardine can" at 27,000 feet above sea level.

Humanity is intriguing that way: Crammed together for hours at a time, it either breaks or blooms.

So, all in all, my recent flight was a great experience, as well as a great expression of the state of society these days.

Now if they can just change the cookies and pretzels, I think things would even be so much better.

Something on my Mind: Hockey Views and Hues

If this is early November, then we must be a few weeks into a brand-new NHL season. This is the third column I have written on hockey, and I also know there is another columnist who writes sports stuff, but, hey, I'm human, too, you know—and a Canadian human, to boot.

One of the iconic symbols of being a Canadian is his or her love for hockey, whatever form it takes. My form includes blathering about the game.

For the most part, things are falling into place, in terms of winning and losing, scoring and saving, and the usual death watch on which coach will lose his head, er, job first.

The one rare exception (at this point of writing) is the Edmonton Oilers: They're winning and winning well. Good on them. I can't bring myself to make a comment about the Canucks. They started so well and now they look like, well, the Canucks. Maybe Desjardin will be the first coach to be given his head on a platter..

As much as I like the Canucks, I am still a fan of the New York Islanders and Minnesota Wild. This is not to say that they will come out of the East and West, respectively, and battle for Lord Stanley's Thing. I just happen to like both teams.

And then there's the "exciting" news about the brand-new Las Vegas franchise. They will be needing a team name, logo, and colours. I feel it is my moral duty to help with the process, so I will help the powers-that-be with some suggestions—assuming they are reading this column.

For a name, it's going to be hard to be original. What with dozens upon dozens of professional teams out there, there's bound to be some duplication. However, I understand from my sources that they are working with something with the word "hawks" in it.

Let's see: "Night Hawk," "Desert Hawk," even just "Hawk." It can't be Blackhawk (Chicago) and should not look like it's named after anything to do with a so-called First Nation. They're pretty touchy about teams with Indian names. So that rules out the Las Vegas "Tomahawks" I guess.

Either way, I can't resist the quip "hawkey" club somewhere. (Yes, thank you: I thought that was quite witty, too.)

I'll pass on the logo until I know that name. However, if those same powers-that-be are still with me, the hawk could have a hawkey stick (sorry) in its beak or claws, not unlike the San Jose Sharks shark having one in its mouth.

Now on to colours. Here is a list of what colours they can't choose: red, blue, or black. With a palette of so many colours and so many shades within those colour schemes, I cannot believe how many teams have red, blue, or black (count them up yourself).

For that matter, here's a trivia question: How many teams have some shade of yellow (the next most common colour) on their jerseys?

I humbly (okay, maybe I'm not all that humble) urge the Las Vegas team to develop a mix of burgundy and gold. Only Colorado has some burgundy and no team has gold, though there are degrees of yellow on some teams (and I believe "seven" is the answer to to the trivia question).

Burgundy is a distant cousin to red, but different enough to be distinctive. Most teams have an intriguing mix of two to three colours, plus the home white, so maybe a shade of brown could be a fit.

Or perhaps just green and white would satisfy me, green being the colour of money and "Lost Wages" (Los Vegas—get it, Maurice?) being the city that takes peoples' (green) money all the time.

Oh, by the way, I did have another name for the team, but it doesn't include the word "hawk." It does conjure up the sense of strength, power, toughness, and machismo. You probably thought of it already, and I thank you:

The Las Vegas Craigs. C-r-a-i-g-s, as in the name of the writer of this column.

And the logo could be this really swell dud, er, dude, with a hockey stick cracked in two over his bald head., missing a few teeth, with a dishevelled look about him—kind of like me first thing in the morning.

Either way, the idea would be a crapshoot—but isn't that was Las Vegas is all about?

Something on my Mind: The Big Business of Hockey

Let's face it: Hockey is big business and big business is good for any economy. There are exceptions to this rule, but they are few and far between.

Considering the role that the NHL has here in Alberta, we have ample evidence of the financial benefits of hockey Even though I take good-natured shots at the Calgary Flames franchise, I see them as a great example of the beneficial role the hockey business plays in a provincial economy.

While my loyalties will always be with the Vancouver Canucks, my greater loyalties are with all NHL-based teams when it comes to the positive business influence each team has. On that basis, I root for every NHL team.

Money, of course, was the main reason that Las Vegas was granted a franchise for the 2017-2018 season. If it was based on culture or tradition or even fan base, Saskatoon or Quebec City would have won out.

On the other hand, the franchise in Phoenix is a classic example of a business call by Commissioner Bettman that went wrong. While I think it is slowly recovering, how many millions of dollars have been wasted on that franchise over the decades? And let's not talk about Atlanta, now zero for two in missed opportunities.

The benefits of a professional (and amateur) hockey franchise in any given city is direct and immediate. Take the outside benefit: parking, accommodations, travel, and meals. Multiply that figure by how many fans attend each game, then multiply that figure by forty-one home games.

Do the math. The beneficial role is astounding!

Moving from the outside, let's look inside the rink. Consider the cost of tickets, food, and souvenirs—again, multiplied by the number of spectators, and multiplied further by the number of games per year. Granted, not all spectators blow their money on junk inside the rink (tickets, notwithstanding), but you get the sense there's a lot of money floating around.

Beyond the immediate area ,the spin-off effect is good in the general trading area, though not as good as near the core. Using Calgary as an example, Red Deer or Camrose will definitely benefit from NHL hockey to some extent.

On a personal note, I can take in a Hurricanes game for $15, and my co-fan (not a word, Maurice) picks up the tab for the fancy coffee. I'll put a few dollars in for gas, maybe grab another coffee or burger on the way home. It's a good feeling: having fun and helping the economy at the same time.

Back to hockey in the big leagues: Think of all the goods and services, the jobs, the gas and food, hotel revenue that's generated. These are provided to make the game work, and are all good for the economy.

Even something as monumental as the new arena in downtown Edmonton is a wonderful example. Yes, it's not on-going in the sense that money is always being generated on a game-by-game basis, but the building stage, and now the booking stage are huge. Drawing more people into the downtown core is very fashionable these days—and lucrative, for that matter.

Big business takes many hits these days, especially within a socialist environment that has very weak economic principles. While no one wants to water down the product on the ice, community leaders and hockey leaders need to work together to make everything, well, work together better.

The "Calgary Now" project, is great example in many ways of what I'm taking about. If nothing else, the city and the province should throw some funding towards that proposal.

When I was in Kamloops years ago, there was such serious resistance to moving the Blazers from a dumpy 2,000-seat barn to a (then) state-of-the-art arena that they now have. The shift has revitalized the downtown core. The economic benefits have been immeasurable.

There is a place in a Canadian context for hockey and business. And when they combine as Peter Maher would say, "You can put it in the win (-win) column."

Something on my Mind: Hockey Night in Our Canada

By the time you read this, Canada's national winter sport (represented, in part, by the National Hockey League), will be in full swing. Most of Canada's hockey addiction goes well beyond boy millionaires skating with a piece of wood between their hands, chasing a rubber puck-thing, but it's a good place to start.

Hockey season, in this configuration, generally runs from early October through to the end of June, from training camp to the end of the Stanley Cup playoffs—then on to the start of free agency. Is it me, or is the season getting longer and longer?

The start-up of the hockey season is very much like the first day or week of school: fresh start, high hopes, and strong motivation. And then with the hockey players, there is always that chance to kiss Lord Stanley's mug—the cup, of course, not his face.

It is hard to see the NHL as a reflection of Canada's national winter sport any longer, when so many

of the teams are made up of more than just Canadians. There are seemingly just as many Americans and Europeans as there are Canadians playing. The first five picks in the draft of 2016 is a case in point.

I even heard that an Australian was trying to make one of the teams this year. Word has it that every time he threw his stick away it kept on coming back.

I was not raised with television, so watching Hockey Night in Canada on Saturday night was not a weekly ritual for me. I wish it had been, but somehow I survived to write about it. However, as an indirect result, I will watch any game I can get my eyes on. That could even include a Flames-Blue Jackets game

I have never played ice hockey, though I can hold my own when it comes to floorhockey and table hockey, if that's worth anything. I am more of a fan of the sport than anything else.

Owing to where I live, I support the Lethbridge Hurricanes over these past few years. When I first started following them, they were the WHL's version of the Calgary Flames. It's been fascinating to see their mercurial rise to the top in just two short years. Now if we could just clone their success and inject the Vancouver Canucks with it...

As I have stated before in this space, if I were involved in hockey at any level, it would be in management of some sort, possibly as an assistant general manager. I may not be good at passing the puck, but I think I would be good at passing the buck.

One thing that alarms me, though, is the excessive salaries many of these players—especially the young ones—are getting. I know they're not earning as much as baseball or basketball players, but it's too much for their own good.

There is no better time than now to be a professional hockey player. And no one is denying that they should take whatever they can whenever they can. Most players have a short shelf life (ie., play for only a few years), unless your name rhymes with Doan or Jagr.

Salary excesses notwithstanding, like every red-blooded Canadian, I love this game. It is the greatest sport on earth. And it has Canadiana written all over it. It strikes that over the years kids from many nooks and crannies throughout the Dominion have ended up in professional hockey, at one level or another. That's something we can't say about any other professional sport.

Like the first day of school, hockey players start on the same page (= even in the standings), there's no real playground bully...yet (= enforcer), there are regular breaks (= intermissions), and everyone is planning to move on to the next grade (= make the playoffs).

However, the comparison falls a little short in one definite area: One set of "students" is a whole lot richer than the other.

Something on my Mind: Thanksgiving Day(s)

This column comes a day after the big day (Maurice, that means today is Tuesday and yesterday, Monday, was Thanksgiving.  I could have penned, er, keyboarded, this last week, but a day late is probably more appropriate than six days early.

That only in occasional columns, of course. In life, early is always better.

I could come up with the usual jokes about stuffed turkeys (birds and otherwise), but I shan’t. Or I could attempt to explain the real reason for Thanksgiving. That’s it’s historical, cultural, and biblical basis, but it could come across as narrow-minded and parochial. We’ll have none of that, in these politically-correct, race-baiting, revisionist times, will we?

I love Thanksgiving, but probably for all the wrong reasons. I do love it for the right reasons, too, but sometimes my stomach has more say in the matter than my head.

As you may know, we raise our own turkeys and there nothing (as in N-O-T-H-I-N-G) like free- range, farm-fresh turkeys for dinner.. We have enjoyed this pleasure for years. We know where they’re coming from, what’s in them (and what’s not), and, oh right, they tastes really good.

I also like the thanksgiving season—the colours, the timing, the food (probably in that order). There’s nothing like the changing leaves, the nip in the air, and that serene period between summer’s labour and winter’s inconvenience.

Have you ever wondered why we celebrate Thanksgiving in early October and why that huge province to the south of us (America, Maurice, America) celebrates it in late November? I like our timing better: And for those who enjoy their stat holidays, early October is evenly spaced between Labour Day and Remembrance Day, with Christmas holidays tagging along a few weeks later.

I have a pretty good grasp as to why the American Thanksgiving came about, as well as ours. Among other factors, it has a religious basis, which, of course, has been removed from our pluralistic reference books.

Thanksgiving, (the act of versus the holiday), is also a good quality. One who is grateful, thankful, and appreciative (yes, these are synonyms; I use them for emphasis) is a well-adjusted, happy person.

Unfortunately, the inverse is true.

The pursuit of entitlement, individual rights, and fairness, is not wise. That perspective produces the spirit of crankiness. Thus, where privileges are expected then demanded, thanksgiving (and Thanksgiving) just doesn’t happen.

These often have come from two extreme perspectives: One involves the easy way (too few hardships, too much affluence); the other one comes the hard way (broken homes and many other related deprivations). Somehow there is this goofy notion that we deserve the same rights and privileges as everyone else; they we want to start where the previous generation finished off.

A bit of a generalization, to be sure. You’ll notice where I am including my generation in the blame game, too. There seems to be little commitment of working our way up from the bottom—like our parents did.

Somewhere along the way we we have imbibed the fallacy that we have unalienable rights in money matters and housing options, in employment, and possessions. Not so: Maybe we have to start small, with little to our name, and grow from there.

We teach our children to say “please” and “thank you”—and trust that a spirit of gratefulness is caught. Even if the words aren’t spoken, hopefully they develop the right attitude. I am as guilty as the next person for not thanking those who put themselves out for me—wife, kids, all authorities, just starters .

We need to be more grateful for what we have, what we don’t have, and everything in between.

So, let’s make everyday a thanksgiving (and Thanksgiving) day. Mind you, if you’re a turkey (double meaning there, Maurice), that may not go over too well.