Friday, March 3rd

1 - Almost one month since the last post. I've been busy the last few weeks. To quote Emerick: 'I went to the concession to buy a goal for Team Canada. They were out.'

2 - Cartoon riots, eh. Maybe free speech and freedom of the press means nothing to you, but to an ex-reporter I find it somewhat intriguing. When three Canadian media outlets and one university newspaper published the controversial cartoons depicting Muhammad they touched off a debate regarding the right to dissent and the responsibilities of free speech. The media outlets felt the cartoons were news, and since they were news reporters, they felt an obligation to bring their readers the news, no matter how offensive. Critics noted that publishing the cartoons could lead to even worse violence. I realize that this is a very simple summary of the entire debate (I'm banking on you guys having a little bit of knowledge regarding current events). From there columnists began dissecting the idea of multiculturalism, respect for other religions, and the responsibility that comes with freedom. This is a slippery slope, because in a multicultural society, not everyone plays by the same rules. What if my religion requires me to kill you because of your lifestyle, in order for me to be faithful to its teachings? It could happen. Keep an eye on the battle brewing between gay-rights groups and Islam, because politically correct Canada seems to have a stake in seeing both those groups succeed, even though the Koran says they can't co-exist. It's happened in The Netherlands, where gays have slowly began to leave the country because of Islamic hostility. This is the fundamental flaw of multiculturalism, and this is why the Canadian values of tolerance, respect and openness can never be achieved completely. There is no gray area here. Only black and white, and a sheet of paper can't be completely black and completely white at the same time. I don't claim to be prophetic or anything, but it wouldn't surprise me to see similar disagreements in the near future.

3 - Here's some articles that deal with freedom of speech, the right to dissent, multiculturalism, etc. I found them interesting: Yahoo, National Post, CBC, The Economist, The Globe and Mail, (I know you can't see the whole Globe article, but the first few lines are interesting). Thanks to Dave Mader for pointing out those last two articles.

4 - Now that Canada has lost it's Gold Medal in men's hockey we can let the second guessing begin. The general consensus seems to be that (a) Canada's defense was slow, (b) we had too many players taking dumb penalties, (c) there were too many distractions, (d) our power play sucked, and (e) we never came together as a team. I think Canada's team was way to slow as a whole, defense and forwards. A player with above-average speed in the NHL has below average speed in the Olympics, because all the players who were slower than they were stayed home. Case in point, Adam Foote, Jay Bouwmeester, and Robyn Regehr all struggled to keep up. I don't think the intensity was there either. Canada had nothing to prove coming into this tournament. On the other hand, the Swedes, Russians, and Slovaks were busting chops waiting to play. The Swedes were under tremendous pressure from their own countryman, something similar to what Canada had to play through in 1998 and 2002. The Slovaks wanted to prove they actually belonged among the elite group of hockey nations, and the Russians brought a bunch of young kids who had nothing to lose and everything to gain. That makes for a bad combo. The lawsuit against Bertuzzi, and the investigation into Gretzky's gambling ring affiliations didn't help either.

5 - It's no wonder Canada couln't score goals. Look who their coaches were: Pat Quinn, Jacque Martin, and Ken Hitchcock. Those guys specialize in winning 1-0 and 2-1 games. This is where Canada's anemic power play really killed them.

6 - I thought these two items were interesting: Rich at Heart and Money Really Can Buy Happiness

The second article kind of irked me. Money can't buy happiness all the time, otherwise you wouldn't see so many pro-athletes and Hollywood superstars in drug rehab. Can it buy happiness some of the time? Temporarily, maybe. Superficial happiness perhaps. I think this writers definition of happiness, and what real happiness really is, are different things. Hollywood superstars do drugs because they aren't content. I don't think you can separate contentment from happiness. Somebody smart once said everyone is created with a God-shaped hole in their heart. If that hole is filled, it won't matter how many landmines you have to walk past to get your water. Fame can fill that hole almost perfectly. Success can fill that hole almost perfectly, and yes, money can fill that hole almost perfectly... almost. Wealthy people can always say to themselves, 'when I get that new car, then I'll be happy,' or 'I just need to get that promotion, then I'll be happy'. But the new car and the new promotion are never what they're cracked up to be, and that's where fame, success, and money fail to plug the God shaped hole.

P.S. The reason why Paris Hilton always seems to be smiling and blissfully distant from the trials of the real world is because she's an airhead.

7 - From 'The Family Guy':

Peter: There's a message in my Alphabits. It says 'Oooooo.'
Brian: Those are Cheerios.

M.O.F.