"Maybe if the schools and media stopped telling the males in this part of the world how totally useless, barbaric and worthless they are, men would be able to value the fact that they are men and rejoice in their maleness. Given that our genders are an important part of our identities, isn't it logical that how we regard ourselves as men and women an important part of individual self-esteem?"
More dog banning madness in the news. This time the culprits are the counselors of the Municipality of Guysborough who have passed a bylaw banning residents from owning Rottweilers.
Why Rottweilers? Well there have been a few "incidents"
Warden Lloyd Hines said he witnessed an incident in Glace Bay, N.S., last weekend that convinced him of the need for a ban.
He said a Rottweiler wandered into the backyard of Rick and Yvonne MacKenzie and killed the family's poodle.
"That could have been Mr. MacKenzie's child," Hines said. "I spoke to him and he said he took his kids in five minutes before that happened.
"I don't want to be the warden of the Municipality of Guysborough and have to go to the funeral of some kid who was eaten."
WOAH!! Dial back the indignation for a minute there Warden. First of all we are told a poodle was killed by a Rottweiler. We aren't told what kind of poodle it was. Standard poodle? Toy Poodle? There is a huge difference. First of all a Standard Poodle would probably stand it's ground against any intruder dog or otherwise in its yard. A toy poodle on the other hand is nothing more than a tasty morsel for a larger dog. Especially one with any kind of prey drive.
Heck if my dog (not considered one of those dangerous breeds) wandered into someone's backyard and saw some little yappy dog she might also kill it. She has a fondness for anything that might even resemble a cat or squirrel and once chased a Chihuahua for a couple of blocks much to the chagrin of the owner (and the delight of several witnesses - "Hey your dog wants some Taco Bell!!"). Chasing a small dog doesn't always translate to child killing.
They key issue here is once again irresponsible owners. The council of Guysborough would have served it's constituents better by enforcing stricter by-laws on owners who allow their dogs to wander through the community. Rottweilers aren't the only dogs that can bite you - all dogs can bite you. Just ask my wife who had a Golden retriever once try to take a chunk out of her leg - shall we begin banning Golden retrievers now? Actually that might help that breed since it really is getting way to overbred and becoming a shadow of the magnificent "gun dog " it used to be ditto for the Labrador retriever.
Of course avid readers of this space know there are plenty of other breeds that you can own that make a Rottweiler look like a pussy. You can find my excellent piece on the subject here.
One thing that I always wonder about these breed specific bans. Are they just creating a market for cross-bred dogs?
Ok so you've banned Rottweilers what about RottweilerXPitBull mixes? How can you tell how much of each breed is there. Do you have to have 51% Rottie? How would you prove it?
Stay tuned ten years from now when ludicrous breeding laws lead to the creation of new and even more intimidating breeds. I have heard of some criminal organizations breeding banned breeds (like pit-bulls) to a certain other breed (that I won't mention here since I don't want to perpetuate this problem) the mystery breed is one that has all the characteristics of an excellent guard dog with a very sharp brain thrown is for good measure. If we start seeing dogs like that with the brains of a good working dog coupled with the jaw power of a fighting dog Rottweilers will seem like poodles by comparison.
The NHL has proposed a number of rule changes to "save" the game. Some are worth considering. Others are flat out dumb.
For the past decade the NHL and hockey in general has seen the perfection of a system known as the neutral zone trap. This involves playing a passive forecheck style which sees one player in the opposing zone while four remain in the neutral zone to "clog" it up when the other team tries to carry the puck across the blue line.
This results in a very sluggish style of game with little flow and little excitement. However the system works, teams with very little scoring talent are able to survive the playoffs by playing a "trap" style of hockey. Last years finalists New Jersey and Anaheim both played the trap. Minnesota upset several powerhouse teams in the same fashion. Buffalo while Dominic Hasek was their goalie employed a similar style.
The "trap" leads to low scoring games and many people have seized upon the lack of scoring as an example of the deterioration of the quality in NHL hockey.
Yet for some reason pundits and GM's have decided that the real problem lies 100 feet from the neutral zone. To them the low scoring issue rests with only two people on the ice: the goalies.
Goalies have come under fire because the size of their equipment is now larger than it was twenty years ago. Advances in design have certainly made this possible but check the old film reels from 30 years ago - forwards and defensemen look like their wearing no gear at all.
In addition many goalies have become adept at handling the puck and in some cases act as a third defensemen, clearing the puck and often starting rushes.
Now people feel that this is the real problem with hockey. So proposed rule changes have included reducing the size of goalies pads and preventing them from handling the puck.
Some more radical proponents suggest making the net bigger! This is not on the table at the GM meetings but it is being constantly proposed by professional Leaf basher Damian Cox.
All this talk about goalies is well and good but the proof that goalies are not the problem is on display every year at the annual all star game. The goalies wear the same size equipment, they still handle the puck well and yet the scores are dramatically higher (sometimes bordering on the ridiculous) than the average NHL game.
Why? Well of course it's an All-Star game so no one is hitting. But mainly no one is employing any defensive systems.
Yet here we are talking about silly things like how many inches should we shave off Eddie Belfour's pads.
Don Cherry when he wasn't pointing out helpful visor statistics recently talked about goalies and made an excellent point. The level of goaltender skill has skyrocketed in the past few years. Goalies now all have a special coach that works on their game with them continuously and this just isn't at the pro-level. 11 years olds now have goalie coaches. Martin Brodeur talked about it recently how he had a trainer from a very young age. Of course all players have coaches but none have a specially dedicated coach that works one-on-one with them every day.
The fact of the matter is that goaltending as a craft has dramatically improved in the past 20 years. The NHL is supposed to be a skill game - how eliminating skills like puck handling helps the game is beyond me.
The problem we have been told over and over again is the neutral zone trap. Well the last time I looked goalies don't go near the neutral zone.
The obvious solution would be to change the offside rule eliminating the "two line pass" offside. If you want to add more flow and create more excitement this would be the easiest way to do it.
Fans want to see flow and puck movement and chances to score - whether the finally tally is 2-1 or 5-4 doesn't make a difference. One of the most exciting games I ever saw was a playoff game between Boston and Montreal in 1979. The final score was something like 3-2 or 4-3 but the flow was fantastic and the speed was furious. The goalies were superb as well (Dryden and Gilbert) but the main thing that made it exciting was the fierce end to end action. The players were skating and creating chances they weren't sitting in a shell and icing the puck at every opportunity.
The real chance to fix the game came in the mid-90's when everyone was building new rinks. All the NHL had to do was make the rinks wider and the problem would have been solved. Unfortunately NHL teams aren't the prime tenants in most arenas - NBA teams are and the NBA wanted nothing to do with the sight line changes that would result from wider rinks.
So how would I fix the game. Well here are my suggestions.
1 Eliminate the two line pass offside. This really is the only change you have to make. 2 On a penalty kill the short-handed team can no longer ice the puck. 3 A player has to serve the full two minute penalty even if his team is scored upon. 4 Move the nets back to their original location (they are talking about doing this) 5 Impose a weight tax on teams so that they pay extra if they draft big dumb slow players - the Leafs gave up a perfectly good defensemen Jason Smith and tried to turn oversized Chris McAllister into an NHL player. The only thing he had going for him was size - a trait that NHL GM's are over enamored with and in the end he failed miserably. Bring in a weight tax.
The Bolshevik Rag is threatening Damian Penny. If they are serious all bloggers need to unite behind him. I'd suggest sending me money to start a Damian Penny defense fund.
Then I will pocket the money and have Warren Kinsella defend me.
Was I the only one not "shocked" by revelations that Chretien and his trough minders had squandered great mounds of Canadians money?
Let's put this in perspective. The government confiscates a great chunk of your money under the threat of force. That is to say if you decide to refuse to pay some or all of your taxes they will bring the power of the law down on you. And you know what happens if you resist the power of the law: Click. Click. Boom!
It helps to keep this fresh in your mind when scrutinizing ANY type of government spending but few (especially our self appointed media watchdogs) seem to couch and discussion of federal waste in these terms.
Now it is even more shameful since the state police (RCMP) have been implicated in some of the shady dealings that have come to light surrounding the federal government's "sponsorship" program.
The whole affair embodies all that is sickening about Canadian politics and to a large degree our "culture" today. The program started after the perpetual whiners in the province just to the east of Ontario decided once more to see how much more money they could extort from the rest of us by threatening to secede. The closeness to defeat of the Federal side scared Chretien and his crew into action and of course they responded as only Liberals know how: They decided to throw money at the problem.
That the federal response to Quebecs continuing temper tantrum is to try to buy them off is sickening enough. The double whammy on this one is that they funneled the money through firms that were Chretien cronies. These firms apparently then did nothing.
Which in one way reveals an interesting truth: you don't have to spend money on Quebec; you just have to pretend you are spending money on Quebec.
At the same time stories appear today that the Federal government surplus will top 5 billion. Is there every a case for lowering taxes? These guys have thrown so much money away in the most blatant fashion and yet they still have a surplus?
Last election everytime the subject of lowering taxes came up Chretien fell back on the same refrain: "if we cut da taxes we 'ave to cud da 'ealth care". Of course our state controlled media bought this line without raising a single question.
The obvious one being that if you are going to cut govt. spending why would health care be first on the list?
This is a government with a 5 billion dollar surplus that wont even spring for decent equipment for our soldiers. Yet they were content to fritter over a billion away in the great sinkhole known as HRDC. So now we are up to Six Billion that could be given back to the taxpayers.
When it all gets totaled up I wonder what the final tally will be?
The total money wasted over Chretiens corrupt term in office plus the surplus. Let's say it's 7 billion. That's 233.00 for every man woman and child in Canada.
It doesn't sound like a lot but consider the effect on the economy if the government suddenly put 7 billion back into the publics hands for spending. What if each family of four took the four checks (which equals just under 1000.00) and bought something for THEIR enjoyment? Like a new TV. Or made repairs to their car? Or heck just spent it on a night at the restaurant? Wouldn't that be a better use of our money? Wouldn't that have a better effect on the health of the economy?
Or maybe 233.00 per person is chickenfeed. How about taking the 7 billion and making a payment on our national debt? Interest payments on our debt are a great millstone on our economy wouldn't it be better for the children of the future to have that money better than bankers?
I have said on many occasions that the Chretien government was one of the most corrupt in history. I am still waiting for Stevie Cameron to write a book on the subject.
According to the Economist Magazine's "Intelligence Unit" Vancouver is one of the most "livable cities" for expats. Tying with Melbourne and Vienna.
I have been to Vancouver a few times and the city has a lot going for it. The sea, mountains, decent winter weather. But I can only surmise that whoever authored the report didn't drive around Vancouver - the traffic can be worse than Toronto's. This is a major city with no real major highway to get you in and out of downtown. I remember driving from the airport to the city core on a Saturday morning and waiting at stop lights for three or more cycles before actually getting through.
And don't get me started on the weather. I just couldn't live in a place that has that much rain. One of the reasons I don't consider going back to Newfoundland to live is the crappy weather (rain drizzle fog) and I can't see how people put up with it in Vancouver.
To top it off Vancouver's real estate prices are outrageous.
To me a livable city is someplace with lots of sun, still small enough that you can get around and with reasonable housing prices. Like this one
Ringo Starr doesn't have fond memories of Montreal.
Some miscreant with an unspecified grievance had phoned in a death threat against Starr, calling him an "English Jew."
A nervous limo driver did nothing to ease the tension in the car, running two red lights before an edgy George Harrison told him to slow down.
"Assassination threats and berserk crowds the Beatles could handle, but their first experience of a Montreal driver was something else again," Brian Kendall wrote in Our Hearts Went Boom: The Beatles' Invasion of Canada
In his recently published Ticket to Ride, U.S. journalist Larry Kane, who traveled with the group throughout the tour, described an atypically angry comment from a pale and shaken Brian Epstein, the Beatles' manager. Epstein had read newspaper reports of the threat. "This is not worth it. These
f---ing Canadians - all the time, they s--- on the queen. P--- on them," Kane quoted the usually genteel businessperson as saying while the entourage made its way through the Forum's back entrance.
Y'know I am not a conspiracy theorist but it seems to me that Epstein was not talking about all Canadians but those residence of a certain province that - well hate England. Do you think his comments have been doctored a little?
More to the point is stereotyping Montreal drivers any different than commenting on the tendency of French hockey players to wear visors?
Perhaps an episode of Counterspin with an appropriately outraged group of Francophones shrieking insults at a Beatles DVD collection would be fitting?
