A Seinfeld conversation broke out in my head tonight; one of those conversations whose topic is the super-ordinary, wherein discussed are matters that swarm around us like bacteria, going unnoticed in spite of their ubiquity.
The participants were two rather rudimentary characters that were synthesized by my lazy imagination. They had no names or distinguishable attributes of any kind, except that they were of the opposite sex. They spoke to each other with a comic indifference rarely encountered in real life. They could have been out together for a cigarette or perhaps sitting in a cinema waiting for the movie to start; in one of those situations where for some reason, conversation simply must be had.
As was often the case on the show, the conversation was about relationships. "So," asks the man, "How have things been since you moved in with (let's call him) Barrack?"
"Oh," replies the woman, "Not too bad."
"Hmm, you don't sound too convincing."
"To be honest... No, never mind, it's really nothing."
"Come on, what is it?"
"Well, I love being with him, but he has this really annoying habit."
"Yeah..."
"He likes to, um, get high once in a while."
"Oh, I didn't know that bothered you."
"Well it doesn't really, except that he likes to smoke before showering, and because of his, uh, state, he's a little careless and ends up getting water all over the bathroom floor."
"Really, he gets that careless?"
"Well, we also don't have the best shower curtain. But I'm careful and get much less water on the floor."
"So, ask him to be more careful."
"I did, but he denies there is a problem; he says I'm being neurotic. Anyway, we had a big fight about it last night and we haven't made up yet"
"Are you sure it's because he gets high?"
'Yes I'm sure, he's so neat in every other situation. I'm right on this one, aren't I?"
"Well..."
"Oh come on..."
"Look, intermittent slovenliness is part of the bargain when you live with someone who gets high. It comes with the territory and you should have known that going in."
"Really?"
"Sure. If you were living with an alcoholic, and you were okay with his drinking, could you justifiably be intolerant of the way he talks too loud, or thinks he's a much better singer than he actually is?"
The conversation just trailed off from there. Sure, it was completely pointless, and not pointless in a funny way. In fact, I cannot come up with a single reason why I should be sharing this with you. No, you cannot have the last five minutes of your life back.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The Hockeyfight Manifesto
A new crusade has been unleashed upon the game of hockey, a game that has had needless change and disastrous decision-making thrust upon it for nearly 20 years. From the implementation of the instigator rule in 1992, through the profuse expansion of the 1990s and early 2000s, and culminating with the post-lockout rule changes and crackdown upon obstruction of today, the National Hockey League, more than any other sports league in North America and probably the entire world, has almost completely turned its back on those who have loved the game for more than 100 years. The new crusade, which aims to remove fighting from hockey, is part of this shameful and saddening pattern of disrespect for the fans of this wonderful sport.
Everyone who follows the game of hockey is aware of the fierce debate that is currently raging over the role of fisticuffs in the sport, and the tragic events that brought the debate to pass. In and of itself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having this discussion; in fact, with some of the serious injuries that have been suffered in recent years during fights and the tragic death of Don Sanderson, there would be something wrong if we were not talking about it. But given the aforementioned tradition of disregard for the viewpoints of those who follow the game religiously and prop up the incompetent NHL, we cannot help feeling a sense of doom, a premonition that no matter how articulately we defend the role of fighting in hockey, no matter how passionately we plead to be allowed to keep this unique element of the sport, that sooner or later, like the game itself, it will be taken from us; it is only a matter of time.
Nevertheless, I feel a sense of purpose in trying to confront the crusaders by revealing how there is no conceivable way by which a ban on fighting in hockey could be justified or defended; and I aim to do this not just for the sake of fighting itself, but because this is a symbolic struggle for the fate of the game, a fate that has for too perilously long been in the hands of those who have absolutely no idea what to do with it. If this battle can be won, then maybe, just maybe the true fans of the game will be reinvigorated and spurred to reclaim hockey for the people who play it, follow it, and love it.
Now I understand that not every true fan of the sport is in favour of fighting; that there are those who have been watching and playing hockey for decades who would rather not have to endure watching a fight when all they want to see is a good game of hockey. And while I respect this opinion, it does not change the fact that the majority of the game’s fans and probably an even greater majority of the game’s current and former players, coaches, and managers not only love this aspect of hockey, but see it as integral to the way it is played here in North America. Moreover, I am confident that when the arguments made against fighting by the crusaders are exposed as unequivocally invalid, many of those in opposition will at least realize that the game as we have known it could be irretrievably lost if we allow the crusade to succeed. So let’s take a look at the concerns that motivate this crusade, and show that there is nothing to them:
Fighting is violent and dangerous – sooner or later, someone is going to be killed
Taken on its own, this statement is completely true. In fact, as we all know, someone already has been killed. But as unfortunate and regrettable as Don Sanderson’s death has been, his death was, after all, an accident, and a fluke accident at that. While this does not diminish the tragedy, it should be noted that in the countless fights that have occurred at the various levels at which hockey is played in North America, this is the first time a player is known to have died as a direct result of a hockey fight. I do not resent those who would try and turn Don Sanderson into a martyr, for misguided though they may be, their concern for those who play the game is genuine.
Still, the fact remains that whether with fighting or without, hockey is an incredibly violent and dangerous sport. Scores of serious injuries have been incurred as a result of so-called clean hits; the ambiguity over what constitutes a clean hit is an ongoing debate in its own right. And contrary to assertions made by some, hockey, in North America at least, has always, since the very beginning of the sport, been incredibly violent. Fighting as we know it actually became a part of the game in 1922, when it was decided that participants in a fight would receive offsetting five-minute major penalties, rather than being ejected completely. This was done, believe it or not, so that violence in hockey could be regulated; so that ruthless acts of violence could be deterred by a relatively benign fistfight. Obviously this did not entirely eliminate those ruthless acts of violence, but it did curtail them.
But regardless of the history of fighting in hockey and its effectiveness as a deterrent of even worse violence, one must wonder why those who abhor the violence of fighting do not equally abhor the violence of bodychecking. Is it because bodychecking is more legitimately considered ‘part of the game’? Well what of it? If it were concern for the players that motivates opposition to fighting, certainly that concern would extend into a realm that is substantially more dangerous. Moreover, hockey could be played as a non-contact sport and remain fairly entertaining. Yet for a reason that escapes me, it is considered barbaric to enjoy a hockey fight, but completely acceptable to enjoy watching a player get slammed with full force and reckless abandon into the ice or the boards, and to enjoy it even more if the offended player has trouble getting back onto his feet; the harder the hit, the better the hit - but please, no fighting, it’s barbaric.
Rather than barring fighting for being too violent, it would be wiser for us to come to terms with the fact that hockey is a violent, physical sport in which players will from time to time get seriously injured. Unless we resolve to completely eliminate contact from the game, which I would suggest might not be too far behind a ban on fighting, we would all be a lot happier if we just accepted it for what it was, despite the shame some of us might feel for being a fan of a barbaric sport. And if fighting actually does deter violence in hockey, a suggestion made by many who have played the game (and you would think they might know a thing or two), consider it an added bonus.
Fighting in hockey is a bad influence on my kids
While you cannot fault parents for expressing concern over what their kids watch and do, do we really want to censor our game? It is one thing to have a debate over the role of fighting in hockey, but to ban fighting because kids might be watching would either set a disturbing precedent or else be a blatant double standard. For if fighting is across the line, the crusaders would then have to target mixed martial arts and boxing. Given the growing popularity of the former and the unquestioned legitimacy of the latter, I highly doubt that that crusade would be successful. So rather than open up a Pandora’s Box of censorship, parents who do not want their kids exposed to something should simply forbid them from watching it.
Besides, there is no evidence to suggest our society would be less violent without fighting in hockey. In fact, it seems that despite having a violent sport as our national game, we Canadians are actually relatively nonviolent; and the violence we are plagued with can hardly be attributed to hockey. Conversely, some of the most violent societies are absolutely nuts about sports in which violence is very heavily regulated. So clearly, we cannot expect any direct societal benefit from a ban on fighting.
As for the argument that because of fighting, fewer kids are getting into hockey, such claims are never accompanied by reliable evidence. Some crusaders would point to the recent decline in minor hockey registration in Toronto, but what they fail to point out is that the demographics of the city have changed quite a bit over the years; that more than ever, the city is populated by people from countries where hockey is played in a field or not at all. Besides, young kids playing hockey are never allowed to fight and up until a certain age, bodychecking is not even allowed. In fact, it is the prospect of their kids playing contact hockey that makes parents nervous; not fighting, which is something they would only have to worry about if their kids made it to the junior ranks. So clearly, as far as kids are concerned, there is absolutely nothing to worry about.
Fighting is not part of the game and adds nothing to it
Whether or not fighting is ‘part’ of the game is a semantic issue that gets talked about too much. Is eye-gouging a ‘part’ of rugby? Well no, but by all accounts it is rampant in those violent scrums. What about trash-talking in basketball or end zone dancing in football? While the rules may frown upon or not mention these things, they definitely impact the game or else the players would not bother with them. Fighting in hockey is a lot about intimidation and vigilante justice, two things that are completely wrong and out of place in society, yet completely appropriate in sports. At the best of times it is a byproduct of intense hatred between two teams, and in this manner it has contributed to all of the most memorable rivalries in the history of the sport. Fighting lends hockey an intensity that most sports can only dream of and significantly raises the excitement level. So in this sense, fighting undeniably adds to the game.
There is hardly any fighting in playoff games, and those are the most exciting
This is indeed a compelling argument, but again, a bit of scrutiny exposes that it is actually quite misleading. In a given campaign, the playoffs are necessarily going to be more exciting than the regular season simply because there is so much more on the line and because the best teams are involved. So sure, the playoffs are great in spite of very little fighting, but what the crusaders fail to point out is that the playoffs are also exciting in spite of lower scoring and more clutching and grabbing. So when the league is doing everything in their power to artificially increase scoring so as to make it more exciting for the Americans who love the game but just don’t know it yet, why do the crusaders not point out that based on the playoffs, this is the wrong strategy? Because in reality, comparing the postseason to the regular season simply makes no sense.
What would make sense is a comparison between the modern game and an era in which playoff fighting was common. In the ‘70s, ‘80s and early ‘90s, before the instigator penalty, fighting was rampant in the playoffs. Not coincidentally, they were decidedly more fun to watch. In fact, scoring was much higher back then in both the regular season and postseason, and while the crusaders would love the opposite to be true so that they could point out how fighting suffocates offensive play (astonishingly, some of them do!), they would never acknowledge that fighting might actually create room for the stars of the game; that it might not be mere coincidence that hockey’s most offensive era and most violent era occurred at pretty well the same time. So enjoy the playoffs, but as you watch them, think about how much better they would be if the players were allowed to go at each other all out.
There is no fighting in other sports
When critics say ‘other sports’, what they usually mean is baseball, basketball, and football (not lacrosse, for instance). And yes, those three sports do not have fighting, but they also do not have pucks or sticks, and while it is likely Gary Bettman would get rid of those things if he thought it would win him a few fans in Mobile, Alabama, I do not see the point in making that comparison. Hockey is vastly different in so many ways from the other major American sports and it is nothing short of foolish to suggest that because they do things a certain way, we should be following their lead.
Most fighters are goons that cannot even take a regular shift
This may be true today, but during the aforementioned violent era of hockey, it was not at all the case. Fighters, guys like Marty McSorley and Bob Probert, were valuable members of their teams who in addition to fighting regularly, put in valuable minutes in both defensive and offensive roles. Nowadays, at a time when there is significantly less fighting, most of it is done by behemoths who are not good players and rarely get any ice-time in the playoffs. This is hardly an indictment of fighting. If anything, it suggests that there are simply too many roster spots in the league. Should the NHL ever contract to say, 24 teams, there would be more good players to go around and teams would be weary of carrying a player who logs less than five minutes of ice-time per game. But with 30 franchises, why not have a tough guy in the lineup when there are already three or four players on the roster who do not belong in the league? At least the tough guy comes in handy if the team is being bullied. Like many of the game’s problems, the ‘goon’ phenomenon is but a symptom of a bloated league and all the more reason that we who love the game should be clamouring to take it back.
Fighting is not an effective mechanism for ‘policing’ the game
While there is no way to definitively settle this one, history suggests that more fighting, along with other factors, does paradoxically raise the respect level on the ice. For example, one of the games biggest challenges these days is the rise of so-called ‘headshots’, or bodychecks delivered to the head. While the idea of somehow legislating headshots out of the game has been floated and will probably, sooner or later, be adopted, you have to wonder why such a problem did not exist when fighting was more rampant. And when you think about it, it makes perfect sense:
Imagine you are a hockey player. You’re skating up the ice and you spot a defender not too far from you making an outlet pass and spending a bit too much time admiring it afterwards. The voice of your coach urging you to play more physically echoes in your head as you line him up and absolutely flatten him with a seemingly clean hit. However, the hit actually may have been a bit late and as it turns out, your rock-hard shoulder pad went right into his chin, knocking him instantly unconscious and leaving him in a pool of his own blood. The arena falls silent and the offended player’s teammates, angry though they may be, skate helplessly around in circles for fear of penalization and suspension. However, if, while you were lining up the helpless defender, you knew in the back of your mind that if you completely lay this guy out you might end up with a broken nose and some missing teeth, do you think you might ease up just enough that you do not knock him into the infirmary? Sure, there is more than just this to the headshot issue, including the hardness of today’s shoulder pads and the size of today’s players. But a relationship between the two is undeniable. The crusaders would suggest that rather than vigilante justice, what we need is tougher rules and longer suspensions. But the game is too fast and there is too much ambiguity over what constitutes a ‘clean’ hit for such a measure to work without an outright ban on bodychecking.
Banning fighting would make the game more physical as players wouldn’t be afraid to bodycheck
It is amazing how the same faction that denies the effectiveness of fighting as a policing mechanism could make such a claim. Perhaps fighting does discourage certain players from hitting more, but then again, there was no shortage of good physical play back when there was a lot more fighting going on. The difference is that fewer players got injured as a result of big bodychecks back then, and if fighting makes a player think twice about hitting everything in sight, the game will not suffer too much because of it.
And so, these are the charges made by the crusade against fighting in hockey, all of them flawed and misleading, and yet almost certain to eventually succeed in robbing us of another little piece of our game lest we say “No, this is our game, this is how we enjoy it and shall continue to enjoy it, for we do not need your approval.” This is not just about fighting; this is about having three teams in California and only six in all of Canada; this is about Winnipeg and Quebec City; this is about two referees; this is about three point games and shootouts; in short, this is about the latest in a series of slaps to the faces of those who make this game great, and who have for too long been turning the other cheek. Should this crusade succeed, the game will be irretrievably lost. Now is the time to take the game back for it belongs to us, and only we can restore it to its former glory.
Everyone who follows the game of hockey is aware of the fierce debate that is currently raging over the role of fisticuffs in the sport, and the tragic events that brought the debate to pass. In and of itself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having this discussion; in fact, with some of the serious injuries that have been suffered in recent years during fights and the tragic death of Don Sanderson, there would be something wrong if we were not talking about it. But given the aforementioned tradition of disregard for the viewpoints of those who follow the game religiously and prop up the incompetent NHL, we cannot help feeling a sense of doom, a premonition that no matter how articulately we defend the role of fighting in hockey, no matter how passionately we plead to be allowed to keep this unique element of the sport, that sooner or later, like the game itself, it will be taken from us; it is only a matter of time.
Nevertheless, I feel a sense of purpose in trying to confront the crusaders by revealing how there is no conceivable way by which a ban on fighting in hockey could be justified or defended; and I aim to do this not just for the sake of fighting itself, but because this is a symbolic struggle for the fate of the game, a fate that has for too perilously long been in the hands of those who have absolutely no idea what to do with it. If this battle can be won, then maybe, just maybe the true fans of the game will be reinvigorated and spurred to reclaim hockey for the people who play it, follow it, and love it.
Now I understand that not every true fan of the sport is in favour of fighting; that there are those who have been watching and playing hockey for decades who would rather not have to endure watching a fight when all they want to see is a good game of hockey. And while I respect this opinion, it does not change the fact that the majority of the game’s fans and probably an even greater majority of the game’s current and former players, coaches, and managers not only love this aspect of hockey, but see it as integral to the way it is played here in North America. Moreover, I am confident that when the arguments made against fighting by the crusaders are exposed as unequivocally invalid, many of those in opposition will at least realize that the game as we have known it could be irretrievably lost if we allow the crusade to succeed. So let’s take a look at the concerns that motivate this crusade, and show that there is nothing to them:
Fighting is violent and dangerous – sooner or later, someone is going to be killed
Taken on its own, this statement is completely true. In fact, as we all know, someone already has been killed. But as unfortunate and regrettable as Don Sanderson’s death has been, his death was, after all, an accident, and a fluke accident at that. While this does not diminish the tragedy, it should be noted that in the countless fights that have occurred at the various levels at which hockey is played in North America, this is the first time a player is known to have died as a direct result of a hockey fight. I do not resent those who would try and turn Don Sanderson into a martyr, for misguided though they may be, their concern for those who play the game is genuine.
Still, the fact remains that whether with fighting or without, hockey is an incredibly violent and dangerous sport. Scores of serious injuries have been incurred as a result of so-called clean hits; the ambiguity over what constitutes a clean hit is an ongoing debate in its own right. And contrary to assertions made by some, hockey, in North America at least, has always, since the very beginning of the sport, been incredibly violent. Fighting as we know it actually became a part of the game in 1922, when it was decided that participants in a fight would receive offsetting five-minute major penalties, rather than being ejected completely. This was done, believe it or not, so that violence in hockey could be regulated; so that ruthless acts of violence could be deterred by a relatively benign fistfight. Obviously this did not entirely eliminate those ruthless acts of violence, but it did curtail them.
But regardless of the history of fighting in hockey and its effectiveness as a deterrent of even worse violence, one must wonder why those who abhor the violence of fighting do not equally abhor the violence of bodychecking. Is it because bodychecking is more legitimately considered ‘part of the game’? Well what of it? If it were concern for the players that motivates opposition to fighting, certainly that concern would extend into a realm that is substantially more dangerous. Moreover, hockey could be played as a non-contact sport and remain fairly entertaining. Yet for a reason that escapes me, it is considered barbaric to enjoy a hockey fight, but completely acceptable to enjoy watching a player get slammed with full force and reckless abandon into the ice or the boards, and to enjoy it even more if the offended player has trouble getting back onto his feet; the harder the hit, the better the hit - but please, no fighting, it’s barbaric.
Rather than barring fighting for being too violent, it would be wiser for us to come to terms with the fact that hockey is a violent, physical sport in which players will from time to time get seriously injured. Unless we resolve to completely eliminate contact from the game, which I would suggest might not be too far behind a ban on fighting, we would all be a lot happier if we just accepted it for what it was, despite the shame some of us might feel for being a fan of a barbaric sport. And if fighting actually does deter violence in hockey, a suggestion made by many who have played the game (and you would think they might know a thing or two), consider it an added bonus.
Fighting in hockey is a bad influence on my kids
While you cannot fault parents for expressing concern over what their kids watch and do, do we really want to censor our game? It is one thing to have a debate over the role of fighting in hockey, but to ban fighting because kids might be watching would either set a disturbing precedent or else be a blatant double standard. For if fighting is across the line, the crusaders would then have to target mixed martial arts and boxing. Given the growing popularity of the former and the unquestioned legitimacy of the latter, I highly doubt that that crusade would be successful. So rather than open up a Pandora’s Box of censorship, parents who do not want their kids exposed to something should simply forbid them from watching it.
Besides, there is no evidence to suggest our society would be less violent without fighting in hockey. In fact, it seems that despite having a violent sport as our national game, we Canadians are actually relatively nonviolent; and the violence we are plagued with can hardly be attributed to hockey. Conversely, some of the most violent societies are absolutely nuts about sports in which violence is very heavily regulated. So clearly, we cannot expect any direct societal benefit from a ban on fighting.
As for the argument that because of fighting, fewer kids are getting into hockey, such claims are never accompanied by reliable evidence. Some crusaders would point to the recent decline in minor hockey registration in Toronto, but what they fail to point out is that the demographics of the city have changed quite a bit over the years; that more than ever, the city is populated by people from countries where hockey is played in a field or not at all. Besides, young kids playing hockey are never allowed to fight and up until a certain age, bodychecking is not even allowed. In fact, it is the prospect of their kids playing contact hockey that makes parents nervous; not fighting, which is something they would only have to worry about if their kids made it to the junior ranks. So clearly, as far as kids are concerned, there is absolutely nothing to worry about.
Fighting is not part of the game and adds nothing to it
Whether or not fighting is ‘part’ of the game is a semantic issue that gets talked about too much. Is eye-gouging a ‘part’ of rugby? Well no, but by all accounts it is rampant in those violent scrums. What about trash-talking in basketball or end zone dancing in football? While the rules may frown upon or not mention these things, they definitely impact the game or else the players would not bother with them. Fighting in hockey is a lot about intimidation and vigilante justice, two things that are completely wrong and out of place in society, yet completely appropriate in sports. At the best of times it is a byproduct of intense hatred between two teams, and in this manner it has contributed to all of the most memorable rivalries in the history of the sport. Fighting lends hockey an intensity that most sports can only dream of and significantly raises the excitement level. So in this sense, fighting undeniably adds to the game.
There is hardly any fighting in playoff games, and those are the most exciting
This is indeed a compelling argument, but again, a bit of scrutiny exposes that it is actually quite misleading. In a given campaign, the playoffs are necessarily going to be more exciting than the regular season simply because there is so much more on the line and because the best teams are involved. So sure, the playoffs are great in spite of very little fighting, but what the crusaders fail to point out is that the playoffs are also exciting in spite of lower scoring and more clutching and grabbing. So when the league is doing everything in their power to artificially increase scoring so as to make it more exciting for the Americans who love the game but just don’t know it yet, why do the crusaders not point out that based on the playoffs, this is the wrong strategy? Because in reality, comparing the postseason to the regular season simply makes no sense.
What would make sense is a comparison between the modern game and an era in which playoff fighting was common. In the ‘70s, ‘80s and early ‘90s, before the instigator penalty, fighting was rampant in the playoffs. Not coincidentally, they were decidedly more fun to watch. In fact, scoring was much higher back then in both the regular season and postseason, and while the crusaders would love the opposite to be true so that they could point out how fighting suffocates offensive play (astonishingly, some of them do!), they would never acknowledge that fighting might actually create room for the stars of the game; that it might not be mere coincidence that hockey’s most offensive era and most violent era occurred at pretty well the same time. So enjoy the playoffs, but as you watch them, think about how much better they would be if the players were allowed to go at each other all out.
There is no fighting in other sports
When critics say ‘other sports’, what they usually mean is baseball, basketball, and football (not lacrosse, for instance). And yes, those three sports do not have fighting, but they also do not have pucks or sticks, and while it is likely Gary Bettman would get rid of those things if he thought it would win him a few fans in Mobile, Alabama, I do not see the point in making that comparison. Hockey is vastly different in so many ways from the other major American sports and it is nothing short of foolish to suggest that because they do things a certain way, we should be following their lead.
Most fighters are goons that cannot even take a regular shift
This may be true today, but during the aforementioned violent era of hockey, it was not at all the case. Fighters, guys like Marty McSorley and Bob Probert, were valuable members of their teams who in addition to fighting regularly, put in valuable minutes in both defensive and offensive roles. Nowadays, at a time when there is significantly less fighting, most of it is done by behemoths who are not good players and rarely get any ice-time in the playoffs. This is hardly an indictment of fighting. If anything, it suggests that there are simply too many roster spots in the league. Should the NHL ever contract to say, 24 teams, there would be more good players to go around and teams would be weary of carrying a player who logs less than five minutes of ice-time per game. But with 30 franchises, why not have a tough guy in the lineup when there are already three or four players on the roster who do not belong in the league? At least the tough guy comes in handy if the team is being bullied. Like many of the game’s problems, the ‘goon’ phenomenon is but a symptom of a bloated league and all the more reason that we who love the game should be clamouring to take it back.
Fighting is not an effective mechanism for ‘policing’ the game
While there is no way to definitively settle this one, history suggests that more fighting, along with other factors, does paradoxically raise the respect level on the ice. For example, one of the games biggest challenges these days is the rise of so-called ‘headshots’, or bodychecks delivered to the head. While the idea of somehow legislating headshots out of the game has been floated and will probably, sooner or later, be adopted, you have to wonder why such a problem did not exist when fighting was more rampant. And when you think about it, it makes perfect sense:
Imagine you are a hockey player. You’re skating up the ice and you spot a defender not too far from you making an outlet pass and spending a bit too much time admiring it afterwards. The voice of your coach urging you to play more physically echoes in your head as you line him up and absolutely flatten him with a seemingly clean hit. However, the hit actually may have been a bit late and as it turns out, your rock-hard shoulder pad went right into his chin, knocking him instantly unconscious and leaving him in a pool of his own blood. The arena falls silent and the offended player’s teammates, angry though they may be, skate helplessly around in circles for fear of penalization and suspension. However, if, while you were lining up the helpless defender, you knew in the back of your mind that if you completely lay this guy out you might end up with a broken nose and some missing teeth, do you think you might ease up just enough that you do not knock him into the infirmary? Sure, there is more than just this to the headshot issue, including the hardness of today’s shoulder pads and the size of today’s players. But a relationship between the two is undeniable. The crusaders would suggest that rather than vigilante justice, what we need is tougher rules and longer suspensions. But the game is too fast and there is too much ambiguity over what constitutes a ‘clean’ hit for such a measure to work without an outright ban on bodychecking.
Banning fighting would make the game more physical as players wouldn’t be afraid to bodycheck
It is amazing how the same faction that denies the effectiveness of fighting as a policing mechanism could make such a claim. Perhaps fighting does discourage certain players from hitting more, but then again, there was no shortage of good physical play back when there was a lot more fighting going on. The difference is that fewer players got injured as a result of big bodychecks back then, and if fighting makes a player think twice about hitting everything in sight, the game will not suffer too much because of it.
And so, these are the charges made by the crusade against fighting in hockey, all of them flawed and misleading, and yet almost certain to eventually succeed in robbing us of another little piece of our game lest we say “No, this is our game, this is how we enjoy it and shall continue to enjoy it, for we do not need your approval.” This is not just about fighting; this is about having three teams in California and only six in all of Canada; this is about Winnipeg and Quebec City; this is about two referees; this is about three point games and shootouts; in short, this is about the latest in a series of slaps to the faces of those who make this game great, and who have for too long been turning the other cheek. Should this crusade succeed, the game will be irretrievably lost. Now is the time to take the game back for it belongs to us, and only we can restore it to its former glory.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Obama-mania both inspiring and nauseating
Another day for the ages. Another one, you ask? Well yes, for you see, we recently had one when Barack Obama defeated Hilary Clinton and so became the first ever African American to lead one of the major parties in a bid for the White House. Then we had another one when he inevitably defeated the hapless John McCain back on the first Tuesday of November. At long last, the trilogy was concluded today with Mr. Obama's inauguration as President of the United States, and it is finally time to get on with the business of existing in this dreadful old world.
But oh what an exciting and inspiring few months it has been. In the midst of anemic economic times, various wars abroad, and trying to deal with a planet that seems to be on the verge of rejecting us like a bad kidney, something happened to awaken our comatose optimism and faith in social progress. How long it will be before we lapse back into the nihilistic gluttony that is our nature is another story, but for now, there is no shame in surrendering ourselves to the moment, in being joyful and reflective, and in trying to absorb all that we can from this momentous occasion - no, there is no shame at all, though if media coverage is any indication, there is quite a bit of stupidity and bombastic sentimentality about the whole thing.
If it wasn't at all predictable, I'd be tempted to give the media a mulligan on their treatment of Obama-mania (I'm resisting the temptation to go with 'Obahmadan'; too early for bad taste, I guess). But from a mile away, anyone could see that on this day, the media was going to douse the proceedings with distilled schmaltz and open up an all out assault on our intelligence by unleashing their 'correspondents', whose sole mandate is to at all times be saying something - anything - lest the public start forming their own thoughts and cultivating their own emotions. It was strangely reminiscent of the coverage of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, when sombre music played in the background to make sure nobody got confused or forgot to feel sad (or worse, just didn't care).
It would be an overly ambitious task to go through all of the ridiculous things that were spouted on TV and radio throughout the day, but I will cite a couple of examples. On CNN, Wolf Blitzer (or some other of their talking haircuts) tried to earn his salary by offering his thoughts on the apparently unprecedented phenomenon of the new President escorting the old President to the helicopter that was to take him away from Washington for good. To paraphrase, he said, with a tone of nauseating importance, that while Obama disagrees with a lot of George Bush's principles and policies, he nevertheless has a lot of respect for his predecessor. Is CNN's audience really that naive? Does anyone believe that Obama has any respect or admiration for Bush whatsoever? Like almost everyone else in the world, Obama probably thinks Bush is halfwit who, much like a boy pushed into the girls bathroom, was coerced into the oval office by his friends for their own benefit. In fact, he was probably walking him to the helicopter to make sure he didn't get lost and also to slip the pilot an extra hundred so that he would got him out of their in a hurry.
Earlier, on a radio call-in show, the host was asking his loyal listeners to share any personal stories they might have that relate to this historic occasion. One of the callers passively spouted something about how wonderfully multicultural and tolerant we Canadians are. Rather than provide his listeners with a reality check, the host seized upon this bit of ignorance and said, and again I'm paraphrasing, "Isn't it nice that the Americans are following our lead for a change?" Following our lead? So every Canadian Prime Minister ever elected hasn't been a white male? I am not suggesting that we ought to be ashamed of ourselves, and that we wouldn't elect a minority Prime Minister, but technically, if we were to elect one in the coming years, wouldn't we be following their lead? Furthermore, do we not have our own demons? Is our inferiority complex so prevalent that we can overlook our own history of racism towards Natives, the Japanese, and yes, even Blacks? Apparently so (who am I kidding, we do it all the time).
But in spite of the excessive inanity, this truly has been a special day. For once, an encouraging precedent has been set. But on top of that, Barack Obama actually seems like a politician with an inclination to do something good. He could prove us all wrong, but a lot of us have a really good feeling about this guy, and it is not just because he's black. So remember this day fondly; I only hope that the media coverage didn't ruin it for you.
*******************************************************************
Some interesting trivia to pass your way. Watching Barack Obama signing his name with his left hand piqued my own left-handed curiosity. In fact, I couldn't wait to get home and find out if Obama is, on top of being the first ever Black President of the United States, also the first ever left-handed President of the United States. And after about three seconds of intrepid googling, I discovered something even more astounding: Barack Obama is not the first southpawed President, but the eighth. Interestingly, 'the button' was pushed by a finger on Harry Truman's left hand, who was the third lefty Commander in Chief after James A. Garfield and Herbert Hoover. But what is astounding is the fact that of the last six Presidents from Gerald Ford up to Barack Obama, only George W. Bush was right handed. You can draw your own conclusions about that. Oh, and in case you're wondering if any overly proud lefties out there voted for Obama merely as an expression of sinister solidarity, worry not, for John McCain is also left-handed.
But oh what an exciting and inspiring few months it has been. In the midst of anemic economic times, various wars abroad, and trying to deal with a planet that seems to be on the verge of rejecting us like a bad kidney, something happened to awaken our comatose optimism and faith in social progress. How long it will be before we lapse back into the nihilistic gluttony that is our nature is another story, but for now, there is no shame in surrendering ourselves to the moment, in being joyful and reflective, and in trying to absorb all that we can from this momentous occasion - no, there is no shame at all, though if media coverage is any indication, there is quite a bit of stupidity and bombastic sentimentality about the whole thing.
If it wasn't at all predictable, I'd be tempted to give the media a mulligan on their treatment of Obama-mania (I'm resisting the temptation to go with 'Obahmadan'; too early for bad taste, I guess). But from a mile away, anyone could see that on this day, the media was going to douse the proceedings with distilled schmaltz and open up an all out assault on our intelligence by unleashing their 'correspondents', whose sole mandate is to at all times be saying something - anything - lest the public start forming their own thoughts and cultivating their own emotions. It was strangely reminiscent of the coverage of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, when sombre music played in the background to make sure nobody got confused or forgot to feel sad (or worse, just didn't care).
It would be an overly ambitious task to go through all of the ridiculous things that were spouted on TV and radio throughout the day, but I will cite a couple of examples. On CNN, Wolf Blitzer (or some other of their talking haircuts) tried to earn his salary by offering his thoughts on the apparently unprecedented phenomenon of the new President escorting the old President to the helicopter that was to take him away from Washington for good. To paraphrase, he said, with a tone of nauseating importance, that while Obama disagrees with a lot of George Bush's principles and policies, he nevertheless has a lot of respect for his predecessor. Is CNN's audience really that naive? Does anyone believe that Obama has any respect or admiration for Bush whatsoever? Like almost everyone else in the world, Obama probably thinks Bush is halfwit who, much like a boy pushed into the girls bathroom, was coerced into the oval office by his friends for their own benefit. In fact, he was probably walking him to the helicopter to make sure he didn't get lost and also to slip the pilot an extra hundred so that he would got him out of their in a hurry.
Earlier, on a radio call-in show, the host was asking his loyal listeners to share any personal stories they might have that relate to this historic occasion. One of the callers passively spouted something about how wonderfully multicultural and tolerant we Canadians are. Rather than provide his listeners with a reality check, the host seized upon this bit of ignorance and said, and again I'm paraphrasing, "Isn't it nice that the Americans are following our lead for a change?" Following our lead? So every Canadian Prime Minister ever elected hasn't been a white male? I am not suggesting that we ought to be ashamed of ourselves, and that we wouldn't elect a minority Prime Minister, but technically, if we were to elect one in the coming years, wouldn't we be following their lead? Furthermore, do we not have our own demons? Is our inferiority complex so prevalent that we can overlook our own history of racism towards Natives, the Japanese, and yes, even Blacks? Apparently so (who am I kidding, we do it all the time).
But in spite of the excessive inanity, this truly has been a special day. For once, an encouraging precedent has been set. But on top of that, Barack Obama actually seems like a politician with an inclination to do something good. He could prove us all wrong, but a lot of us have a really good feeling about this guy, and it is not just because he's black. So remember this day fondly; I only hope that the media coverage didn't ruin it for you.
*******************************************************************
Some interesting trivia to pass your way. Watching Barack Obama signing his name with his left hand piqued my own left-handed curiosity. In fact, I couldn't wait to get home and find out if Obama is, on top of being the first ever Black President of the United States, also the first ever left-handed President of the United States. And after about three seconds of intrepid googling, I discovered something even more astounding: Barack Obama is not the first southpawed President, but the eighth. Interestingly, 'the button' was pushed by a finger on Harry Truman's left hand, who was the third lefty Commander in Chief after James A. Garfield and Herbert Hoover. But what is astounding is the fact that of the last six Presidents from Gerald Ford up to Barack Obama, only George W. Bush was right handed. You can draw your own conclusions about that. Oh, and in case you're wondering if any overly proud lefties out there voted for Obama merely as an expression of sinister solidarity, worry not, for John McCain is also left-handed.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Israel should avoid a premature ceasefire
Nobody likes war. Actually, that's not true. Many people love war, and they especially love watching it from the safety of their glass houses. It allows them to hop onto their soapboxes and express sympathy for the romantic underdogs while wagging manicured fingers at Goliath. Except, of course, if those underdogs are black; for some reason, when hundreds of thousands of Africans are being slaughtered, the self-righteous, with the odd exception, are nowhere to be found or heard from. Don't worry all ye who suffer in Darfur, I'm sure your cause will become trendy soon enough. But I digress.
I am unsure, and frankly not sufficiently informed, to know whether invading Gaza was the right thing for Israel to do in the first place. Yes, Hamas provoked it by launching missiles at Israel after a flimsy ceasefire had expired, but perhaps there were other options available to the Jewish State that would have been less devastating on a humanitarian level to both sides, particularly the Palestinians. But they're in there, and as an aside, while Israel has taken its share of criticism over this mess, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that in and of itself, is there a country on this planet that would have reacted differently? Many nations that have offered token condemnation of Israel have themselves set precedents of reacting far more viciously to conflicts thousands of kilometers from their own borders; France and England spring to mind. But again, I digress.
So whether or not it was the right thing to do, they are in there, and it would be foolish to leave now for the sake of another flimsy ceasefire. Let's face it; as much as the international community hums and haws about this latest round of Jew vs. Arab, it is in pretty well the entire world's best interest, particularly for Israel and the Palestinians, that Hamas be annihilated. Though they won't admit it publicly, don't for a second think that many heads of state are not happy that Israel is taking on the task. So if Israel's goal here is to get rid of Hamas, and if it is not then this whole exercise is indeed pointless, they should get the job done and be done with it.
I understand that there is a humanitarian toll being paid for these Machiavellian measures, but what is the alternative? To withdraw, enjoy another short spurt of quiet, and then go through the whole thing all over again? Over time, this has proven and will continue to prove much more devastating. And on the subject of that humanitarian toll, while I am not, like too many of Israel's supporters, naive enough to be offended by criticism of Israel's responsibility for this crisis, and in fact I sympathize a great deal with the ordinary Palestinians that are caught in the crossfire, I still believe that in the long run, staying in Gaza until the job is done is the best thing for both sides. Furthermore, even these criticisms are drenched in hypocrisy. For instance, many are all too eager to cry foul over the limited amount of aid that Israel is allowing into Gaza. Fair enough, but in the interest of maintaining a semblance of objectivity, shouldn't these critiques also raise questions about why Egypt, the supposed ally of the Palestinian people, hasn't allowed a morsel of aid into Gaza from its border? I guess it's just not fashionable to criticize Egypt. But again, I digress.
I am unsure, and frankly not sufficiently informed, to know whether invading Gaza was the right thing for Israel to do in the first place. Yes, Hamas provoked it by launching missiles at Israel after a flimsy ceasefire had expired, but perhaps there were other options available to the Jewish State that would have been less devastating on a humanitarian level to both sides, particularly the Palestinians. But they're in there, and as an aside, while Israel has taken its share of criticism over this mess, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that in and of itself, is there a country on this planet that would have reacted differently? Many nations that have offered token condemnation of Israel have themselves set precedents of reacting far more viciously to conflicts thousands of kilometers from their own borders; France and England spring to mind. But again, I digress.
So whether or not it was the right thing to do, they are in there, and it would be foolish to leave now for the sake of another flimsy ceasefire. Let's face it; as much as the international community hums and haws about this latest round of Jew vs. Arab, it is in pretty well the entire world's best interest, particularly for Israel and the Palestinians, that Hamas be annihilated. Though they won't admit it publicly, don't for a second think that many heads of state are not happy that Israel is taking on the task. So if Israel's goal here is to get rid of Hamas, and if it is not then this whole exercise is indeed pointless, they should get the job done and be done with it.
I understand that there is a humanitarian toll being paid for these Machiavellian measures, but what is the alternative? To withdraw, enjoy another short spurt of quiet, and then go through the whole thing all over again? Over time, this has proven and will continue to prove much more devastating. And on the subject of that humanitarian toll, while I am not, like too many of Israel's supporters, naive enough to be offended by criticism of Israel's responsibility for this crisis, and in fact I sympathize a great deal with the ordinary Palestinians that are caught in the crossfire, I still believe that in the long run, staying in Gaza until the job is done is the best thing for both sides. Furthermore, even these criticisms are drenched in hypocrisy. For instance, many are all too eager to cry foul over the limited amount of aid that Israel is allowing into Gaza. Fair enough, but in the interest of maintaining a semblance of objectivity, shouldn't these critiques also raise questions about why Egypt, the supposed ally of the Palestinian people, hasn't allowed a morsel of aid into Gaza from its border? I guess it's just not fashionable to criticize Egypt. But again, I digress.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
All I want for Hannukah is a Jew 'Fro
Ah, the holidays, a time for joy, revelry, massive credit card debt, and the predictable exchange of gifts among friends and families. And while I have never sat around a Christmas tree opening present after present, leaving a mountain of red and green paper in my wake as I ravage each carefully wrapped treasure, I am lucky enough to celebrate Hannukah, a holiday that may not be the saving grace of capitalism, but is still good for the odd trinket or gift certificate. But alas, not even Jesus and Ted Rogers rolled into one could give me what I hopelessly wish for every year: those glorious, rust-brown, frizzlocks known the world over as the Jew 'Fro.
Historians disagree over the exact origin of the now-stylish coiffe, though there is general consensus that Jews in Germany during the restoration used their natural frizziness to blend into the shrubbery of the Black Forest as a means of evading rampaging Lutherans looking for converts. The earliest written reference to the Jew 'Fro appears in an obscure 17th century treatise by a Dutch rabbi, who interpreted the erectness of the hairstyle as reaching out to God, thus confirming that the Jews are indeed the chosen people. Though this theory never gained traction, by the late 19th century diaspora Jews throughout Europe looked upon the 'Fro with a measure of quiet reverence.
The first half of the 20th century saw a decrease in popularity for the intriguing hairdo, caused mainly by ubiquitous military conscription and the popularity of the fedora and bowler hat. However, this trend was reversed with the establishment of the State of Israel and a boom in the Kibbutz movement therein. Members of these agricultural-socialist communities displayed their Jew 'Fros with pride, and it quickly became a symbol of hope within the young nation.
It was not until the 1960s, and the release of Bob Dylan's 1966 album 'Blonde on Blonde', that the Jew 'Fro became popular among gentiles. The album cover, a portrait of Dylan defiantly brandishing his gloriously mangled locks, unleashed the hairstyle onto the world in a torrent of curly brown hair. Before long, prominent musicians and artists on both sides of the pond were proudly sporting their 'Dylan curls', including Tim Buckley, Syd Barrett, and even Jimi Hendrix, who was not, as many believe, wearing an afro, but a distinct Jew 'Fro.
Today, the Jew 'Fro is worn proudly by those who are blessed to carry on its wonderful tradition. Sadly, it is my lot in life that I have not been chosen; my hair is wavy, and merely dangles at my shoulders in unspectacular mockery of my lamentation. And while I know it is not meant to be, am I to be blamed for hoping that maybe, just maybe, I will wake up on Hannukah morning (whichever one, it doesn't matter), and discover that I have grown two inches of lustrous, chaotic entanglement? But I can no longer hope, for year after year of disappointment has chased away what little faith I ever had. Nevertheless, I wish you all a Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, and a wonderful whatever else.
Historians disagree over the exact origin of the now-stylish coiffe, though there is general consensus that Jews in Germany during the restoration used their natural frizziness to blend into the shrubbery of the Black Forest as a means of evading rampaging Lutherans looking for converts. The earliest written reference to the Jew 'Fro appears in an obscure 17th century treatise by a Dutch rabbi, who interpreted the erectness of the hairstyle as reaching out to God, thus confirming that the Jews are indeed the chosen people. Though this theory never gained traction, by the late 19th century diaspora Jews throughout Europe looked upon the 'Fro with a measure of quiet reverence.
The first half of the 20th century saw a decrease in popularity for the intriguing hairdo, caused mainly by ubiquitous military conscription and the popularity of the fedora and bowler hat. However, this trend was reversed with the establishment of the State of Israel and a boom in the Kibbutz movement therein. Members of these agricultural-socialist communities displayed their Jew 'Fros with pride, and it quickly became a symbol of hope within the young nation.
It was not until the 1960s, and the release of Bob Dylan's 1966 album 'Blonde on Blonde', that the Jew 'Fro became popular among gentiles. The album cover, a portrait of Dylan defiantly brandishing his gloriously mangled locks, unleashed the hairstyle onto the world in a torrent of curly brown hair. Before long, prominent musicians and artists on both sides of the pond were proudly sporting their 'Dylan curls', including Tim Buckley, Syd Barrett, and even Jimi Hendrix, who was not, as many believe, wearing an afro, but a distinct Jew 'Fro.
Today, the Jew 'Fro is worn proudly by those who are blessed to carry on its wonderful tradition. Sadly, it is my lot in life that I have not been chosen; my hair is wavy, and merely dangles at my shoulders in unspectacular mockery of my lamentation. And while I know it is not meant to be, am I to be blamed for hoping that maybe, just maybe, I will wake up on Hannukah morning (whichever one, it doesn't matter), and discover that I have grown two inches of lustrous, chaotic entanglement? But I can no longer hope, for year after year of disappointment has chased away what little faith I ever had. Nevertheless, I wish you all a Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, and a wonderful whatever else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
