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I know a lot of teams that have historical references, both local and national.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.