Send in the clowns

Rob Breakenridge, telling it like it is — again:

The events of last Thursday evening would seem to have laid bare the choice now confronting Albertans: either we can have a serious discussion about the future of this province’s energy sector, or we can have a discussion that involves Greenpeace. Clearly we cannot have both.

The only way in which their rafter-dangling stunt might have been more juvenile is if their unfurled banner had been emblazoned with “Grad ‘08″ in giant black letters. At least then we’d have been spared the pretension and sanctimony.

I heard about this event on the radio last week, and I was actually imagining Ed Stelmach’s name spelled with the ‘$’ sign. Lo and behold, I was right.

And Breakenridge is also right when he suggests that the time to stop paying attention to the cheap tricks of Greenpeace fools when it comes to making real, tangible decisions on the future of energy supply.

Surprise, surprise

Lack of communication, process initiated without consultation, regressive design, rushed approval — Anyone see a pattern here?

It doesn’t take a planning genius to conclude the approved alignment for the West LRT extension is a badly flawed design, especially in areas where the line will be elevated above residential communities.

What’s perhaps less obvious but becoming increasingly apparent is that the biggest flaw is the process itself.

It’s nothing short of outrageous that a 25-year-old-plan would be rammed through council’s first meeting last fall, after the October election. It was done so, despite the inexperience of four rookie aldermen and with zero public input. The newcomers, especially aldermen John Mar and Joe Connelly — who together represent every area of the new line — were given no chance to catch up on such an important file, though they’re working hard to represent their constituents.

Absolutely, this is outrageous. The idea of a west LRT has been around for at least three decades, yet as the city has grown and developed in ways unconceivable by planners circa 1970, the city leadership has held true to its 1970s design. Only now, with a mayor whose former constituency just happens to benefit from such a project, and who just happens to own real estate along the proposed route, an emergency has been declared by city council in order to rush the project through.

There has been no citizen consultation until the moment that approval must be met, meaning that stakeholders are held hostage to a procedure rather than allowed to participate in a decision which will affect the city for the next half-century or more.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, this is the mayor’s M.O. Whether it be the expansion of 16th Ave N or the new interchange at Elbow and Glenmore, His Worship has shown time and time again that what he wants, he gets, and does not let anyone stand in his way.

I encourage you to join up with the folks at Best West LRT, and speak up against this atrocity.

Loser

When I want to get ripped up, I have a few pints on a Friday afternoon with the boys, I have dinner with some more friends, and hope to sing a few at the karaoke pub near my place.

When Amy Winehouse wants to get ripped up, she does this:

1. Amy leaves home at 8.30pm on Tuesday night. She heads for a nearby pub frequented by musician friends.

2. At one point in the pub, Amy is handed what appears to be a joint of marijuana.

3. Emerging with Mick Whitnall, guitarist in Pete Doherty’s group Babyshambles, she visits a friend’s flat where she acquires a change of vests before heading for a nightclub.

4. At one point she emerges and tries to punch and headbutt a man in the street before buying the early editions of yesterday’s papers. While carrying the papers, a wobbly Winehouse runs into a lamp post.

5. Following the six-hour pub crawl, the 24-year-old drug addict breaks into her own home after losing her keys.

I don’t know who is more pathetic: Winehouse, or her degenerate friends who are going along for the ride.

How’s that sex ed treating you?

Strike another victory for sexual liberation:

As a result of Britain’s high teenage pregnancy rate – the worst in Europe – many women are becoming accustomed to looking after their grandchildren while still in their thirties – and without any sign of a husband.

The new phenomenon raises questions about the social consequences of generations of children being brought up without fathers.

The majority of the women involved don’t regret having babies but some who became parents in their teens told a BBC documentary they wished they had done things differently.

Miss Bailee, whose daughter became pregnant at 15, and has an eight-month-old daughter, said: “I put Rickeita on the Pill as soon as she started her periods at 12 or 13.

“It wasn’t a case of giving her permission to sleep around but you can’t lock a young girl in her bedroom 24/7.

“When she became pregnant I was upset, because she’s very clever and I wanted her to go to college first and get a good job.

“I’d had her at 20 and it was hard. I had to buy everything second-hand or make clothes myself.”

Thomas Sowell has long ago covered the sexual education racket in the West quite well. In The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, Sowell relates:

As sex education programs spread widely through the American educational system during the 1970s, the pregnancy rate among 15- to 19-year-old females rose from approximately 68 per thousand in 1970 to approximately 96 per thousand by 1980. Among unmarried girls in the 15- to 17-year-old bracket, birth rates rose 29 percent between 1970 and 1984, despite a massive increase in abortions, which more than doubled in the same period. Among girls under 15, the number of abortions surpassed the number of live births by 1974.

[...]

Although sex education programs have been sold to the public, to Congress, and to education officials as ways of reducing such tanglible social ills as teenage pregnancy and venereal disease, many of the leaders of this movement have long had a more expansive agenda. [...] In short, however politically useful public concern about teenage pregnancy and venereal disease might be in obtaining government money and access to a captive audience in the public schools, the real goal was to change students’ attitudes—put bluntly, to brainwash them with the vision of the anointed, in order to supplant the values they had been taught at home. In the words of an article in the Journal of School Health, sex education presents “an exciting opportunity to develop new norms.”

I’m not into the conspiracy theories as much as Sowell—though he does have a point—and I’m not one to claim that sexual education should be taken out of school altogether. Learning the facts of human reproduction are important, especially when one hits puberty. (Why on earth a child before then ought to have to know about sex is beyond me, of course.) However, just because a child understands how their mechanics work doesn’t mean they should jump in the car and go for a lap around the speedway.

What was missing from my own experience in sexual education were the moral implications to having sex before I was psychologically mature to do so. I’m glad I was brought up in the church and was raised by parents who generally disapproved of sexual relations of teenagers, and although I’m probably still screwed up about sex (who isn’t?), at least I had that moral base upon which I would make my decisions regarding sex during my formative years.

The problem with leaving sexual education under the sole guises of the state is three-fold: First, you’re putting your trust in the government, and when has the government ever screwed up a social engineering project?

Second, in a secular nation such as ours, moral implications are only drawn to that of the lowest common denominator. We can all agree that murder is wrong, we usually all agree that vandalism is wrong, we have mixed feelings about different forms of illicit drug use, and there is a wide discrepancy among citizens for when a child may decide to take part in sex. I have my opinions, you have yours, and ne’er the twain shall meet. Therefore, in a government which tries to be all things to all citizens, it will usually opt for the path of least resistance, that being, we’ll try not to offend anyone by pushing any nosy morals in the mix.

Lastly, these are kids we’re talking about. They are seeking guidance, they need to know the boundaries, and they have to understand the consequences of their actions before they undertake them. A parent’s responsibility is to make sure their kid is ready to face the temptations of the world. While the church does help prepare these life lessons, it still falls to the parent to raise that child and prepare that kid properly.

To the woman in the above article who says that she can’t keep an eye on her child 24/7, I say raise your kid to take responsibility for herself before she goes out with her friends. Provide her with the moral tools so that when she does go off with her friends, she realizes that the choices she makes then will affect her for the rest of her life.

It isn’t going to stop teenage pregnancies or VD completely, but it’s better than letting a stranger teach the facts but not the lesson.

Nothing new, feeling Blue

Whilst scrounging through the soon-to-be obsolete McNally-Robinsonon Stephen Avenue recently, I came across this interesting display in the music section:

Being a fan of music in general — and CanRock culture in particular — I couldn’t help but pick up this book and examine its contents right there in the store, mostly because I had no intention of actually buying anything that day.

Of course, being well aware of the overly nationalistic tendencies of our cultural cognoscenti, I knew to expect plenty of old-school Canadiana to dominate the listings.

And — boy! — was I right. There were no less than 8 Neil Young albums in the Top 100, including 2 in the top 3. In addition, there were 2 selections from the Band in the top 10, and a whole bevy of Leonard Cohen albums, all of which I have never heard and will likely never do so in the future.

What really bothered me, however, was the perhaps inevitable high status of Joni Mitchell’s “Blue” by the voters of the list. I have known for years that this supposedly ground-breaking album is considered by many music aficionados to be among the greatest of all time.

To each their own, of course, but I just don’t get it. I own it, I’ve listened to it a few times, but I simply can’t get into it. Her songs are pretty, I admit, and she is a hell of a lyricist. Yet, her lilting singing grates on the ears about 3 songs in. The stories are incredibly personal, so much so that they tend to lose the universality which defines the lyrics of the truly great pop masterpieces. Her trills and wavering voice is unique, of course, but that style ultimately renders her songs almost completely unsingable by anyone else. I can’t abide a pop song if I can’t sing along with it, in theory or in fact.

I also have a problem with “Gord’s Gold”, Gordon Lightfoots seminal ‘best-of’ release ubiquitous in the collections of many Canadians. I own it, love it, but I cannot condone a greatest hits package within a Top Albums list. If it ain’t original, it don’t belong.

Outside of that, I was pleased to see Arcade Fire’s “Funeral” crack the top 10, as well as Bryan Adam’s “Reckless” given a strong showing. I’m also glad to know that the Lowest of the Low’s “Shakespeare … My Butt” and Our Lady Peace’s “Naveed” got mentions. I go against conventional thinking with my belief that Sloan’s “One Chord to Another” is far superior to their more acclaimed “Twice Removed”, but I do appreciate the Halifax quartet’s inclusion among CanRock’s pantheon. There were a few notable absences, including Sandbox’s self-titled debut, I Mother Earth’s “Dig”, or any reference to the great King Cobb Steelie.

Still, it is an interesting read, more so when you don’t have to pay for it, and should spark debate among lovers of modern Canadian rock ‘n’ roll.

Game 3 (or “Character”)

Due to the certain vortexes in the space-time continuum, whereby a good friend scored tickets for last night’s game at the Saddledome, coupled with his pregnant wife feeling under the weather, in addition to my own being available at short notice, I was able to be in attendance at the greatest second season showing in Cowtown since the Flames knocked off Detroit in Game 6 of the second round of their 2004 run.

The performance I witnessed included an outstanding, character-driven comeback from a 3-0 deficit from less than 4 minutes into the game into a thrilling 4-3 victory, putting Calgary ahead of San Jose 2-1 in this opening round series. My larynx is swollen, my body tired, but I wouldn’t trade that experience for almost anything.

Except, perhaps, my marriage.

And, I suppose, the birth of my future children.

A few notes:

• Has there even been a more brutal yet clean hit in the playoffs since Brian Campbell coined the term “to be umbergered” in that Buffalo-Philadelphia tilt a few years back? Patrick Marleau has been terrific so far, and he’s tough as they come. But after getting plastered by Phaneuf and then completely demolished by Sarich, the man was stepping a lot more lightly for the rest of the game and, perhaps, for the rest of the series.
• Even superstars have a rough night, and kudos to Mike Keenan for getting the team composed after their dreadful start. He was right to pull Kiprusoff, and by showing confidence in his entire team.
• The most impressive late-season acquisition in this series (so far) is not Campbell coming to California, but Curtis Joseph. He’s old, he handles the puck like an off-colour joke at a church social, but he’s got experience and leadership enough to calm the team in front of him. I don’t think he deserved the first star last night (Sarich should have gotten it for his wrecking job on Marleau), and he didn’t have to make any Hollywood moves in the crease; still, he’s making Darryl Sutter look like a genius again.
• While I don’t necessarily disagree with Matt at Battle of Alberta that Thornton is not a “gutless, soft wuss”, though I do disagree with him that there are qualities which prevent him from being a big-time player. It has to do with style and flair: Thornton is smooth, quiet and dangerous; yet big games call for someone who don’t merely wrack up points, but do it in an inspiring fashion. A team can be lifted by a monster hit (like last night), an unbelievable save, a big fight, or a spectacular scoring rush. Think Ovechkin, Iginla, Phaneuf, Crosby, Kovalev, Pronger or even Marleau. They are exciting players with a penchant for the dramatic. Thorton has never really grasped this, and until he does, he will continue to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune.
• As I noted earlier, Nabokov doesn’t win games for his team, and last night was the obvious example. He was terrific in goal, but he had a 3-0 lead for the entire game and lost it in the end. He team failed in front of him, of course, and there were a few lucky bounces, but the greatest goaltenders find a way to hang on when it matters most, and Nabokov ultimately was responsible.
• Every line fielded by the Flames outplayed every line of the Sharks for the final 55 minutes. Case in point: with the game tied in the third period, Keenan had Eric Goddard and the 4th unit going against Thornton & co. Why? Because they were doing their job, clogging up the middle, disrupting lead passes, and supporting Regehr, Sarich and Joseph in their own zone effectively. When a team is firing on all cylinders, it shows the power of good coaching over any individual player, no matter how talented.

It’s a long series and San Jose will be back with a vengeance. However, you got to think that any team which blows such a fine start must have their confidence shaken horribly.

Game 1

It might have surprised some people, but not this cat. The Sharks and Flames fought a close battle last night at the Tank, closer than the shot clock might indicate. In fact, while Kiprusoff turned aside 37 shots in the Flames’ 3-2 victory in Game 1 of the opening round, the scoring opportunities were much closer.

The Sharks were pretty good, particularly Patrick Marleau, though they were sporadic in their attack. The Flames also played an excellent road game, keeping the normally ballistic San Jose crowd out of the match from the get-go.

A couple of notes:

1) The weaknesses of Brian Campbell were evident last night. For one, the Flames defenders were not only watching for his Savardian Spin-o-Rama, they were waiting for it. He tried it a couple of times and was met head-on. Seems as if the ice got a lot smaller one when the regular season becomes a memory. For another, he was utterly incapable of winning a one-on-one battle with Iginla, as evidenced by what turned out to be the game-winning goal. He’s a great player, he can handle the puck and he is going to get his share of points, but it will take more than Campbell’s slick moves to get the Sharks a championship, let alone out of the first round.

2) Kipper’s better than Nabokov. There is no question. I like Nabokov, he’s a great goaltender, and he will rightly take home the Vezina. He can keep his team in the game and has a stable, cool head on his shoulders. However, I cannot remember an incidence where he had to win a game on his own. Of course, this might have more to do with the quality of teammates in front of him, but Kipper wins games almost all by himself on a regular basis. There are up to six games to go, but this difference might be all the difference needed to settle this series.

3) The Flames won this game more than the Sharks lost it. I thought the Teal played solid and tough and had plenty of chances. Their powerplay looked lethal, even if they didn’t get to capitalize. The Flames, on the other hand, still made a few mistakes and had to be bailed out by their goaltender. One might see this and suggest that the Sharks are the better team; I see this as the Flames won the game and still have room for improvement.

4) It was good to get Game 1 out of the way, but before this series started, I thought Game 2 was even more important. If the Flames had lost, then they would have needed to get back in the series; but if they’d won Game 1, the Sharks are almost guaranteed to take at least one game back in the Saddledome. San Jose has the best road record in the league and will be certainly looking to shut the crowd down like Calgary did last night. If the Flames want to win this series, I do believe that winning Game 2 is a must.

Other notes:

–> The Sens still suck, but the Pens were sloppy with their sticks and started playing Ottawa’s chippy game. If they want to win in 4 games, they will have to smarten up. Keep in mind, next round will be considerably more difficult for that young team.

–> Marty Brodeur is mortal after all. Look for him to rebound (with few rebounds) in Game 2.

–> Congrats on Joe Sakic on his extending his OT goal-scoring record to 8. I’ve always liked him, and I’ve never liked Minnesota. So I’m happy.

Bumf’s Playoff Prognosticatin’

Move over, amateurs — if you are wanting to know the real scoop, if you feel the need for intrigue, if you are a-haverin’ for a waverin’ (whatever that means), you’ve come to the right place.

Call your bookies — The 2007-08 NHL Playoff Results can be seen here first.

Round 1

The BEASTS of the EASTS

Montreal (1) v. Boston (8)

The Habs beat the Beez like a red-headed step-child this year, and they appear to keep the tradition alive and well come post-season. Their power-play ranked number one in the league, and their offensive output was outstanding. They also have a hot-shot rookie ‘tender between the pipes, harking back memories to a Liberal Member of Parliament and a certain nut-job of a head coach who sends his son off on hit missions.

Still, not all is as seems. Five-on-five, the Bruins had an identical GF/GA ratio, and they ranked a mere 23rd in total number of penalties. They’ve also been without Patrice Bergeron for most of the season, a problem which will be soon remedied, and leading scorer Marc Savard will also be back. They have some solid role players, including former Flame Chuck Kobasew, who has made a name for himself on the third line, and the always dependable Zdeno Chara will be playing 75 minutes a night (approx.)

The wild card here is Timmy “the Tank Engine” Thomas, who holds one of the best save percentages in the league, not to mention he is one of most unpredictable freaks behind a mask since Jason Voorhees. If he continues to stand on the head, the series will be much closer than analysts are predicting.

Key Phrase: “You give me 8-0 in the regular season and I’ll show you a potentially huge first-round upset.”

Habs in 6.

Pittsburgh (2) v. Ottawa (7)

… and what’s the deal with the Sens? They are complaining that a team will throw a game just to meet them in the post-season, and then sit their captain and top power forward for the entire series? What’s the deal with that? [use your best Seinfeld impersonation for full effect]

Seriously, though, the Sens suck. As for Pittsburgh, ever since Marc Andre-Fleury changed his pads from the snot-gold hue to a enamel white, the guy has been fantastic. Sergei Gonchar is playing the best defense in his life, and the top two lines are lighting it up like their own 4th of July celebration. And this is without Marian Hossa and whatsisname from Cole Harbour in the lineup.

Key Phrase: Time to refurbish the nettings behind Gerber.

Pens in 5.

Washington (3) v. Philadelphia (6)

Ovechkin is this year’s Crosby; he’s the darling of the media, he’s revived a franchise, and he’s going to have his ass handed to him in the post-season. True, the guy’s big, he’s fast, he can shoot and he’s a force to be reckoned with. To imagine him being left off the scoresheet is unimaginable. Fact: he is going to score.

Big deal? Not really. The Caps are a chippy team, chippy because they aren’t really that good. The problem for them is that Philly is also a chippy team, except they are better at it. They might not be able to completely shut down Ovechkin, but they are more than capable of shutting down those who get the puck to him. Namely, Mike Green and Nicklas Backstrom will have to keep their heads on a swivel if they don’t want to etch their facial features into the Wachovia Center sideboards.

Key Phrase: “Keep Ovechkin to a goal-a-game or less, and the series is done.”

Flyers in 6.

New Jersey (4) v. New York (5)

The Rangers dominated the Devils during the regular season, but they are also facing one of the greatest playoff goaltenders in history in a seven-game series. The problem for the Devils? The Rangers have a goalie who is just as good.

The Devils do have strong coaching and some offensive ability, but it seems as if the Rangers have built a team specifically to beat New Jersey. They have added toughness and a defensive attitude, and with the arrival of Gomez, Drury and super-pest Avery, they are hoping to go the distance.

Key Phrase: “As Luke Skywalker said a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, This is going to be close!”

Rangers in 6.

The CHESTS of the WEST

Detroit (1) v. Nashville (8)

Not much to say here. Nashville has been heroic in their comeback and Ellis might win a game or two, but they simply cannot match-up.

Key Phrase: “What was that?”

Wings in 5.

San Jose (2) v. Calgary (7)

Yeah, yeah, I know. 18-0-2. Big deal. When’s the last time a team went 18-0-2 in the post-season? Never, that’s when.

The Sharks gave themselves a big push with the addition of offensive d-whiz Brian Campbell at the trading deadline and it has certainly paid dividends. They also have the top goalie in the regular season backing them up, plus Big Joe Thornton leading the offensive charge. It seems like nothing can stop them.

Nothing, except a team which was built for the post-season, including a roster full of savvy veterans, a proven playoff goaltender, and a no-nonsense coach who has been there before. Iginla and Phaneuf both know that they have something to prove after the past two post-seasons, and believe me, they are not going to take this series lightly. Kipper has really come on the past couple of months, as has Matthew “Winged Lightning” Lombardi. Don’t be surprised to see Lombo line up between Huselius and Nolan, giving the second line a turbo injection against the Marleau unit, while Craig Conroy will be able to solely concentrate on shutting down Thornton along with Stephane Yelle and Wayne Primeau.

Key Phrase: “What has Thornton ever won?”

Key Phrase II: “And what will be his excuse this time?”

Flames in 6.

Minnesota (3) v. Colorado (6)

Damn, that Gaborik looks fantastic as of late. Scoring key goals in key games, skating around like the superstar he was always meant to be. It is very likely that he will be retaining the ‘C’ on his heart throughout the post-season, as he has finally taken control of his enigmatic team.

Colorado, with the addition of Adam Foote and Peter Forsburg, and with the resurgence of Jose Theodore, look unstoppable. Too bad this isn’t 2002. Forsburg is looking terrific and well-rested, and can only help an anemic power-play and the face of their offensive problems, Ryan Smyth. The Wild are a truly great team and have earned their seed, but it might come down between a perennial no-show in Minny versus one freakishly abnormal Swedish foot.

Key Phrase: “Hey! You’re lacing them too tight!”

Lanche in 7.

Anaheim (4) v. Dallas (5)

Ooh! Scary! The big, bad Ducks are back and looking for more. The problem is, no one told the Stars. Marty Turco, despite his reputation, actually played well in last year’s playoffs and there is no reason why he cannot continue his winning ways. Dallas has a very well-rounded team, albeit with limited scoring, but their style is more than capable of squeezing out a victory every night.

The primary factor for the South Stars, however, will be the lack of grit by Mike Ribeiro, who notched more than a point-per-game this season, but was surprisingly quiet in the second half. Brad Richards, meanwhile, might still break out of his three-year funk, and he is a proven clutch performer. That might not be enough, though, especially when matched up against an increasingly terrifying Ryan Getzlaf attack.

Key Phrase: “I need me one more win before I ride off to the ACC sunset” — Brian Burke.

Ducks in 7.

Round 2

Montreal (1) v. Flyers (6)

Montreal’s too damn good.

Key Phrase: “What do you mean? We have to play an actual NHL team this round?”

Habs in 5.

Pittsburgh (2) v. New York (5)

The Pens powerful offense gets blindsided by Tom Renney’s defensive coverage, Lunqvist’s goal acrobatics, and the Rangers’ veteran leadership.

Key Phrase: “NHL Poster Boy out 4 months due to sprained playoff run.”

Blueshirts in 6.

Detroit (1) v. Calgary (7)

Is it 2004 all over again? Nope. This time, it will take Calgary the full seven games to knock off the Wings. (I can dream, can’t I?)

Key Phrase: “Ouch, my hip!”

Flames in 7.

Anaheim (4) v. Colorado (6)

The Ducks are too big and mean for li’l ol’ Colorado, who spent too much energy ridding the Wild. They’re toast.

Key Phrase: “Forsburg’s foot? Meet Pronger’s skate.”

Ducks in 5.

Round 3

Montreal (1) v. New York (5)

The best match-up of the playoffs so far. Two well-coached, well-balanced squads facing off in front of two terrific young goalies in the two greatest cities in the NHL. Montreal’s fantastic, but the Rangers’ defensive play will rule in the end.

Key Phrase: “Toronto? Never heard of the place.”

Blueshirts in 7.

Anaheim (4) v. Calgary (7)

The two toughest, most playoff-oriented teams meet again in a rematch of 2006. That time, the Ducks were the underdogs while the Flames choked under the pressure of game 7. It’s redemption time.

Key Phrase: “Iginla continues his Conn Smythean assault.”

Flames in 6.

The Stanley Cup Finals

New York (5) v. Calgary (7)

Why not?

Key Phrase: “Ovechkin can have his Hart. Iggy’s got Stanley.”

Flames in 5.

Yah. Baby.

NHL Regular Season Wrap-up

I haven’t written much about the 2007-08 Flames lately. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, I have completely disregarded the entire NHL season on this blog altogether. That doesn’t have anything to do with a lack of interest in hockey as much as a lack of interest in keeping up a regular appearance here on Bumf. As such, I am attempting to alleviate this problem by posting more often.

Okay.

Not a bad season for the Flames. While I would have rather had the boys finish atop the Northwest Division, seeing them in the playoffs whilst the beloved Knuckleheads and Grease Monkeys take to the links in early April is almost as good.

The team itself is better than they were last year: Kipper’s played better (regular season, anyways), Phaneuf has become a bonafide star, Langkow notched another 30, Tanguay has established a two-way game, Nolan has replaced Amonte, Lombardi is set to soar, and Iginla had the best season of his career. There were set-backs, of course. The defense without Hamrlik is weaker, Warrener is at the end of his rope, and there doesn’t seem to be the promise of youth fostering down on the farm. In addition, the team is 2 points further back than last year, even though they stepped up a seed for the playoffs.

While there may not be an appreciable decline in the standings or points, this may still be the best teamed iced in Cowtown for the next few years, so now is the time they make a big push in the playoffs. For now, however, any playoff predictions is simply theoretical.

The recently passed regular season, however, is now a reality, and thus I make my own selections for the NHL awards.

HART (MVP to his own team):

Winner: Alexander Ovechkin, Washington
Runners-up: Jarome Iginla, Calgary; Nicklas Lidstrom, Detroit

Scotty Bowman is right when he says that 60 goals in the Southeast is like 50 in the Northwest. There is no denying that Washington was going nowhere until GM George McPhee picked up Sergei Fedorov and Christobal Huet at the trading deadline, and the sudden rise of rookie sensation Nicklas Backstrom didn’t hurt either. And forget the fact that he is almost invisible when he doesn’t have the puck and possesses a penchant for giving up the puck in the neutral zone because he doesn’t know how to pass. And completely disregard how he shows up opponents and teammates alike. When you lead the NHL in goals and points by a large margin, when you break the single season record for goals in your position, and when you lead a traditional whipping boy into the playoffs for the first time in five years, you will get the Hart.

It is a shame, because Jarome Iginla, the consummate power forward, future Hall of Famer and perhaps the best all-around player in the entire league, will get shut out of the award for the third time. Perhaps this year it is more justified, but it still stings to see such a consistent player and classy league ambassador remain under appreciated by the NHL cognoscenti.

VEZINA (Top Goaltender):

Winner: Evgeni Nabokov, San Jose
Runners-Up: Martin Brodeur, New Jersey; Henrik Lundqvist, NYR

Nabokov lead the league in games played and wins, was tied for second for shutouts, third for goals-against, and chalked up a respectable .910 save percentage. Brodeur might have faced more shots, and could have been more consistent, but in the end Nabokov had a better winning percentage, and that makes all the difference.

Look out for Lundqvist to grab this award next year.

NORRIS (Top defenseman):

Winner: Nicklas Lidstrom, Detroit
Runners-Up: Dion Phaneuf, Calgary; Brian Campbell, San Jose

Is there any question about the winner here?

Yes, Phaneuf is still not tackling the key defensive match-ups for the Flames — that lovely job still goes to Robyn Regehr — but then again, Brian Campbell is not the next Brad McCrimmon either. Chris Pronger might have been considered had he not been a complete asshole this year (what else is new?), Sergei Gonchar has developed his all-around game in Pittsburgh, and Zdeno Chara is still his monstrous self. However, I’ll give it to the young guns.

Keep in mind, there is more to the General than simply stats. Unlike Lidstrom, Phaneuf has a profound effect on the way opponents break out of their own end, forcing passes wide to the wing as centering feeds can result with calamitous effect. However, Lidstrom still can control the play with an almost effortless skating stride and strong arms which can turn a play away with just as much effect without all the effort. Phaneuf can wait his turn.

LESTER B PEARSON (Player of the year):

Winner: Jarome Iginla, Calgary
Runners-up: Alexander Ovechkin, Washington, Joe Thornton, San Jose

Yes, Ovechkin’s got Hart but NHLers ought to know who has a more difficult task ahead of him. Instead of facing Atlanta, Florida and Tampa Bay 8 times a season each, Iginla has to face Roberto Luongo, suffer the ham-fisted Wild, compete against the always-challenging Avalanche, and finally battle in the biggest rivalry in hockey. Added to that, Iginla has an above-average face-off winning percentage, is a vicious back-checker, and can handle the puck along the boards better than anyone in the league. He is such a complete player, his only weakness is his willingness to take on any opponent in a scrap too much, often in support of maligned teammate, when he should leave the dirty stuff to less skilled oafs. To top it off, he is the most widely recognized leader in the professional game and is well-respected everyone in the league, including (especially) his long-time opponents.

Thornton did nothing but lead the league in assists for the third straight year and lead his team on a phenomenal season-ending tear, and we already discussed Ovechkin.

JACK ADAMS (Coach of the year):

Winner: Guy Carbonneau, Montreal
Runners-Up: Barry Trotz, Nashville; Mike Babcock, Detroit

Not to disparage the Canadiens line-up, but Carbonneau was able to muster an average-looking roster on paper into the most feared power-play in the league and propelled les glorieux to claim home ice advantage in the first round for the first time since before they won their last Stanley Cup. The team was solid throughout and are gaining confidence by the boatload.

Trotz took an essentially no-name team and rallied themselves into the final playoff spot in the West, and Babcock merely ran the best defensive, the most consistent, and the all-around greatest team in the 2007-08 season.

CALDER (Rookie of the year):

Winner: Patrick Kane, Chicago
Runners-Up: Carey Price, Montreal; Peter Mueller, Phoenix

One can speculate on this result had Chicago’s Jonathan Toews not been injured for a quarter of the season, but Kane had an impressive 72 points as an 18-year-old on a crappy team. Price might also have walked away with this award had he been given the whole season, but the guy is going to earn his share of hardware in the future, so no pain there. Mueller was simply a star on a terrible team and has as much upside to his game as any rookie in the league.

SELKE (best defensive forward):

Winner: Daymond Langkow, Calgary
Runners-up: Brenden Morrow, Dallas; Ryan Malone, Pittsburgh

Just because. Langkow is one of the most underrated players in the game, and has been for years. He quietly notched 30 goals and can play in all positions against men much bigger and stronger than he is. He is an excellent neutral-ice centre and rarely makes a bad play in his own zone.

Morrow had a terrific year and is a substantial two-way player, while Malone is one of the top young leaders on a Penguins squad filled with top young leaders.

LADY BYNG (most gentlemanly player, and NOT the biggest wuss award):

Winner: Pavel Datsyuk, Detroit
Runners-Up: Jason Pominville, Buffalo; Martin St Louis, Tampa Bay

In a year which saw a vicious shot to the head during the preseason and two players stomp their hapless opponents, recognizing sportsmanship in today’s NHL is perhaps as important as it ever has been, and this award should not be taken lightly.

Once again, Datsyuk combined sheer offensive prowess without penalizing his own team more than an entire period of running time. Not only does this show that he is not a goon, but it is an indication that he is also extremely hard-working as too often it is the lazy penalties which raise a player’s PIM totals. Marty St Louis is a perennial favorite for this award, but I’d like to show some love for the Sabres new captain, Jason Pominville, who had a great season and is a class act to boot.

FIRST ALL STAR TEAM:

Centre: Evgeni Malkin, Pittsburgh
RW: Jarome Iginla, Calgary
LW: Alexander Ovechkin, Washington
Defense: Nicklas Lidstrom, Detroit
Defense: Dion Phaneuf, Calgary
Goal: Evgeni Nabokov, San Jose

SECOND ALL STAR TEAM:

Centre: Joe Thornton, San Jose
RW: Alex Kovalev, Montreal
LW: Henrik Zetterburg, Detroit
Defense: Brian Campbell, San Jose
Defense: Zdeno Chara, Boston
Goal: Martin Brodeur, New Jersey

ALL ROOKIE TEAM:

Centre: Jonathan Toews, Chicago
RW: Patrick Kane, Chicago
LW: Nigel Dawes, NYR
Defense: Tom Gilbert, Edmonton
Defense: Erik Johnson, St Louis
Goal: Carey Price, Montreal

Now, bring on the playoffs!

Gnosticism and Black Liberation Theology

I admit it — one of my regular stops during my daily blog review is Kathy Shaidle. She is rude, sometimes obnoxious, generally irreverent and always controversial. Of course, that’s not a bug; it’s a feature. She puts plenty of effort in her blog; she usually has at least one link per day which interests me, and I often find her observations to be correct, albeit quite more acerbic than I would prefer.

Yet, sometimes (okay, lots of times), she takes a slant which causes me to think, “Say what?!?”

Today’s post on the asinine views of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright strike me as one of those double-takes. Her take on Rev. Wright and those others who promote and profit from racial strife are bang-on; it’s when she starts spouting off generalized theological theories that gets me wondering:

But take Rev. Wright’s overheated interview with Sean Hannity over a year ago. He asks petulantly again and again: “Have you ever read XYZ? Do you know anything about XYZ?”

And Cone himself has been quoted as saying (again, somewhat snidely): “I’m sure Obama would be able to understand black liberation theology if it were explained to him.”

I detect a whiff of Gnosticism in all this.

The oldest heresy, Gnositicism is (to vastly oversimplify) the very unChristian notion that Jesus’ teachings are only comprensible to an enlightened elite few.

That Jesus preached to thousands of ordinary people, and interacted with people from every strata of society is something Gnostics conveniently ignore. The impulse to Gnosticism is stronger than common sense or the (mundane) facts: it is the very human desire to feel superior to “the crowd”. And so it will never be completely wiped out, even at this late date.

That two men with PhD’s present themselves as “men of the people” and leaders of a perpetual victim group, while preaching an elitist theology is pretty comical.

First off, I am far from an expert in this, but gnosticism is indeed one of the oldest “heresies”. In fact, it is so old that it predates Christ and Christianity by hundreds of years. How an ideology or theology can be considered a heresy of a religion which evolved later — and which, it is believed by some, influenced much of Christian thought and tradition — is beyond me, though denigrating other religious beliefs is something the Catholic Church and more than a few of its followers have been known to do.

Second, Shaidle conveniently misses the irony of her complaining that gnostics consider themselves to be “superior to the crowd”, that it is an ideology of elitism, while her own Catholic Church (to vastly over-simplify) is led and dictated by a highly organized elite in Rome who claim that salvation can only be had through said group.

Third, no Catholic should use the term “common sense” against a theological group which generally does not believe in the virgin birth, trans-substantiation, resurrection of the dead, the Second Coming, and the mind-bending theory of three beings in one god.

(Don’t get me wrong: a person can believe whatever they want, and I am a strong proponent of organized religion — especially Catholicism — as a force of good in the world. However, these are all articles of faith and have virtually nothing to do with “common sense”.)

The charge of elitism has persisted ever since the dawn of Christianity, where orthodox Christians — who advocated that Christ appointed a select group of followers to hold the gateway to heaven — were bound to be more organized and thus almost “wipe out” gnostic Christians — who believed that Christ taught the ancient belief that the divine spark was within everyone, and that every man, woman and child had the power to discover the God within themselves, by themselves.

I don’t know anything about “black liberation theology” and, quite frankly, any movement which blatantly promotes the victimization of any racial group as a front for racist nationalism does not interest me in the slightest. However, gnosticism has flourished for sometime in the United States, whether it be in the form of Methodism or Mormonism or any other religious -ism which claims a close, personal affinity with the Lord. (Harold Bloom in The American Religion covers this much more succinctly.) It is not confined to the so-called elitists who promote black liberationism.

Moreover, anyone who uses “Have you ever read XYZ? Do you know anything about XYZ?” as an argument during debate is not an elitist — he is merely a diminished pseudo-intellectual who cannot formulate arguments of their own and must instead quote titles of books, QED.

I truly believe that Shaidle picked up on an elitist-sounding argument by a couple of wingnuts and broadly associated it with what she believes is an elitist heretical movement. It is quite a leap in imagination to make that kind of connection, and Shaidle takes a running start at it.

Kathy, I like your blog and I like your style. However, just because a profiteer of racial strife comes across as elitist does not mean he is a gnostic, and just because you believe in the Catholic faith does not mean that “heretics” who seek to expand their insight into the nature of the divine are elitist as a result.

It is not always about you.