ARE WE GOOD STUDENTS ?

"History will teach us nothing"

Sting


We often speak of the lessons of history, and how, if we study the events of the past, we gain insight into the times in which we live and obtain a glimpse into our future. Theoretically, if we apply that knowledge correctly, we may avoid the mistakes of the past and create a better world for the generations to come. At least, that is the hope. But, it seems, we have not learned many lessons at all. We seem to continue to blunder from one catastrophe to another, all the while believing that, somehow, things will be better. They never seem to be better. Hence, the cynicism of Sting's song title and lyrics. He suggests that history has no lessons to offer, and that the cycle of catastrophe is doomed to be repeated.

I take another view. History is, indeed, a good teacher. We now have the ability to record almost everything that is done, said, shown or thought. The amount of stored information that is available to everyone is staggering. Even before the digital age, the amount of stored information was immense, but now, thanks to technology, it is beyond belief. And it is readily obtained by everyone. No need to make special trips to libraries or archives or historical sites to find the information. It's here literally at our finger tips.

So, the question becomes this: if there is so much historical information and knowledge at our disposal, why do we continue to make the same errors ? It is a question asked by any teacher of any subject in any part of the world and at any time in our history. Why don't our students learn ? We are good teachers, we have the resources, we know what we're doing ... why do some students fail to learn?

The eminent historian Margaret MacMillan touches on this dilemma in her latest work The War That Ended Peace. She attempts to shed light on the causes of the First World War, and it is timely that she published her book, given the fact that this month, June of 2014, marks the centennial of the start of that horrible bloodbath. MacMillan acknowledges that the topic has been examined several times in the last hundred years. Indeed, one of my favourite histories which I read about twenty years ago, covered the topic in minute detail. It was the immense work Dreadnought by Robert K. Massie, and it was excellent. Why re-visit this topic again? And what could MacMillan possibly offer to us in the way of lessons?

Briefly, MacMillan differs from Massie and the other historians who treated this topic in that she attempts to compare the events of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to our own times. In that simple way, she is trying to help us to understand that the forces of history do, indeed, seem to repeat themselves, and often seem to be cyclical in nature. But the key word here is "seems": in her examination, the events of that time do not fall into a type of inevitability that we have no control over. If we finally realize this, she suggests, we can halt the events which, in the past, were thought to be inevitable and irreversible. The most tragic aspects of her book occur at the end, in the months between mid 1913 and the summer of 1914, when general war was declared. As she takes us through this time period, she shows us that, at several points, the war could have been avoided by anyone with the courage to stop the so-called "inevitable" forces at play. And she shows us that, indeed, those forces were stopped at several times before 1913-1914. There were several crises, notably at Fashoda in east Africa, at Morocco in the early 1900's, the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, and the two Balkan Wars of 1911 and 1912, where patience and genuine efforts to mediate resulted in the de-escalation of tensions. But, she argues, in 1913 and 1914, those people of wisdom or patience were either dead or retired, and the fatigue of a world gone to the brink too often resulted in the feeling of inevitability. It was heart-wrenching to read of the failures of the leaders of the major nations who allowed themselves to be swept along by events that were completely within their control, but were allowed to go out of control because of the mind sets of the leaders and their followers. And the leaders were not the only ones to blame, she contends. Professional diplomats, military figures, journalists, business people, and the common citizens all had their roles to play in this tragedy. The fact that the war broke out in one of the most exciting, intellectually progressive, and technologically innovative times in world history adds to the tragic nature of the start of the First World War, and has haunting echoes in our own time.

No one can doubt that we live in times that are equally charged with tension and pressure. Conflict abounds. Like the age before World War One, we have lived in relative peace for decades. There has been no major, general world war, although our times are littered with several small wars, no less destructive, no less tragic. Are we on a similar course to a major disaster as the world of the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries was?  MacMillan, the astute teacher of history, shows us that we are. But she ends her work on an optimistic note:

...if we want to point fingers from the twenty-first century we can accuse those who took Europe into war of two things. First, a failure of imagination in not seeing how destructive such a conflict would be and second, their lack of courage to stand up to those who said there was no choice left but to go to war. There are always choices.

The lessons are there before us. And MacMillan and others like her have done their best to teach us these lessons. The question remains: will we finally learn the lessons, and avoid the costly errors of the past? Or are we doomed to repeat them?

Are we good students? We need to hope so.

THE RACE FOR THE CUP, PART THREE

I had a good first round in this year's playoffs, but was taken to the woodshed in the second round. I certainly did not foresee Montreal coming on strong against the Bruins, who played more like teddy bears than big, bad bears in the last two games of their series. Nor did I foresee the Rangers getting the better of a jittery Pittsburgh squad. It looks like the Penguins are in for some real soul-searching and possible rebuilding in the off-season. As for the west, I pretty much got it right with the 'Hawks looking like serious defenders of their championship, and the Kings out-duelling their cross-town rivals. Now, we move on.

Montreal Canadiens vs New York Rangers

The first game is in the books and the Rangers administered an old fashioned butt-kicking on the Habs in their own building. The Habs looked tired and slow, uncharacteristic for them this playoff year. They have impressed me with their team speed and dedication to winning. But with Carey Price on the shelf for the series now, they are very beatable. On the other side, I have been consistently underestimating the Rangers all year, and especially in the playoffs. There is a lot to like in their game, and Lundqvist seems to rounding into all-world form just at the right time. Before the series started and before Price's injury, I would have said Montreal would win in maybe 5 games. Now ..... I am still going with the Habs, disrespecting the Rangers once again. But it will be tough and it could go seven.

Chicago Blackhawks vs Los Angeles Kings

I like both teams in this series, but since there is only one winner, I'll have to make a decision. The first game is in the books here too, and the 'Hawks looked pretty good in beating the Kings. But the Kings can take a licking and come back strong, and they will do so in this series. Goaltending looks good for both teams, but the 'Hawks know what it takes to win, and they may have the grittiest corps of talented players in the league. So, the 'Hawks will take the series in seven games.

So, this sets up an original six Stanley Cup for another year. If the 'Hawks do indeed go up against the Habs, it will probably be Chicago in 6 games unless Price coms back from his injury. If the 'Hawks go up against the Rangers, it will be over in 5 games for sure, with Chicago winning. So , for the first time in a while, we will have a back-to-back defence of the Cup with the champions being...

The Chicago Blackhawks.

PRIORITIES

Since 2008, a phrase has dominated much of the discourse in the world. This phrase creeps into conversations, on news casts, and in political speeches. We have been so imbued with the words that most of us believe in its truth. The phrase is ... "in these tough economic times."

I have never believed that we live in "tough economic times." Easy for me to say, I guess, since I enjoyed working in a profession that had an excellent salary grid, good benefits package and a top-drawer pension, which I am enjoying today. But the truth of the matter is that, for most people in North America before 2008, we were enjoying similar situations. In fact, the perception is that if you go further back in recent history, times were positively giddy with almost full employment, large union membership which guaranteed good benefits and pensions and opportunities for all. What went wrong?

In fact, very little went wrong. Well, let us qualify that a bit. Certainly, things went wrong for large numbers of people. Those who lost their investment portfolios and, therefore, their retirement plans suffered. Plants shut down, sending many out of work. Large corporations struggled and saw profit margins shrink. Consumer confidence eroded drastically. Politically, in many countries, all this resulted in distrust and crises in many parliaments. It seemed that the times were, indeed, "tough." We shrugged our shoulders, did our best to hold on to what we had, and listened to the media and corporate and political leaders who exhorted us to "save", "work harder", "become more competitive", and "tighten our belts".

Utter nonsense. Why? Because the crisis of 2008 was no worse than any other downturn in the so-called "business cycle". Because media and corporate and political leaders found convenient and easy phrases to throw at us. Because many of us who suffered the above losses, or knew someone who had suffered, believed the phrase. "We live in tough economic times." It's an easy mantra to swallow and it implies that, somehow, it is the fault of something else, something huge and unknowable, something sinister and heartless, that is causing these "tough economic times".

The reality is that we are not in "tough economic times". Instead, we are in what I like to call "times of misplaced priorities." What does that mean? It means that, instead of making choices that make sense, instead of becoming more involved in decision making, instead of paying attention to situations in the world around us, we choose to take the easy road. We like to think of trivial and pleasurable things, rather than the dull, dreary nuts and bolts items that affect us greatly. We can't be bothered with details: we'd rather pay simple and quick attention to things and then turn off. We'd rather have fun than be serious. We like the glitz and glamour instead of the hard work. We'd rather leave the hard work to someone else, but we like to complain when things go wrong.

We have lost our way. How can we justify a professional athlete like Dion Phaneuf of the Toronto Maple Leafs making $7 million per year to play hockey? In fact, how can we justify a player in the American Hockey League, a minor league, making a two way salary of $894,000 per year. That is what a young man named Tyler Biggs makes playing for the Toronto Marlies. Biggs has never played a game in the NHL, and is, by all accounts, a decent but unexceptional player for the Marlies. But his salary is major league indeed.

Compare those numbers to these salaries, which I quickly researched in a google frenzy preparing for this column:

Lawyer ..... average salary $123,000
General Practitioner ..... average salary $132,000
Dentist ....average salary $131,000
OPP officer .... average salary $76,000
RCMP officer .... average salary $72,000
Bank Manager ..... average salary $101,000
Nurse .... average salary $63,000                    ( there was a wide discrepancy here )
Secondary school teacher .... average salary $90,000   (there was a wide discrepancy here )
Member of Parliament .... average salary $163,000
Prime Minister ..... average salary $327,000
Cabinet Minister, Speaker, Leader of Opposition .... average salary $242,000
Captain, Canadian Armed Forces .... average salary $77,000
General, Canadian Armed Forces .... average salary $156,000
Private, Canadian Armed Forces ..... average salary $48,000
Engineering Manager ..... average salary $113,000
Construction Manager .... average salary $160,000
Construction Worker .... average salary $39,000
Electrician ..... average salary $40,000
Plumber .... average salary $25,000      (there is a wide discrepancy here)

This list goes on. Pick your salary to complain about, we all have our bête noirs. The point is that there is clearly something wrong when we willingly accept that some people who do jobs that involve playing games, sitting in an office, telling us what to do or think, or other such things, are paid more than those who heal, protect, work with their hands, and, in the most extreme example, die or suffer grievous injuries in the name of defending the society that pays them their wage.

How did this happen? How did we allow this ? And, perhaps more importantly, what does this say about us as a society? Our priorities are indeed out of whack. In the bigger picture, it's not just about salaries or who does what kind of work. I chose salaries as a means to shed light on what I perceive to be our inability to make the right kinds of decisions in the direction we, as a society, indeed as a species, are heading. We are, as John McFarlane, the editor of "The Walrus" magazine, says, "drunk on popular culture" and are unwilling or unable or just too lazy to face certain truths. We enjoy hearing about the latest childish misadventures of pop stars or actors, but don't want to be bothered about famine, war, disease or suffering.  We pollute our environment despite the dire warnings. We allow the wealthy corporate elites to increase their profit margins by sending good-paying jobs to foreign countries. Indeed, we encourage foreigners to come here to take jobs from Canadians simply because the foreigners are willing to work for small wages and no benefits. And, out of that, we are told to believe that anyone who is different from us, who come to our shores seeking a better life than the one they left behind, are somehow sinister, threatening, or making us give up our traditions or beliefs. We don't see their humanity and wishes for working to improve their own or their family's situation. We shrink from solving our impending pension and debt crises, believing that, somehow, winning an imaginary lottery will be our salvation. We spend like there is no tomorrow. We try to keep up appearances, thus heightening our self worth and self esteem. We turn away from images of cruelty and violence in other parts of the world, yet lap up entertainment in sports and movies and video games that glorify gore and suffering. We incessantly complain about our cowardly and cynical leaders, both corporate and political, yet refuse to get involved in the process of demanding better from them. We gobble up petroleum in obscene amounts, and call those who advocate for cleaner and renewable sources of energy cranks or tree huggers. We eat and drink like obese gluttons while billions eat very little and eat very poorly. We vilify those who raise alarm bells and praise those who entertain or titillate us.

As the cartoon character Pogo once said: "we have met the enemy, and he is us."

What went wrong?    

THE RACE FOR THE CUP, PART TWO

My Cup bracket survived the first round fairly intact.  There was some interesting hockey played over the past couple of weeks: in fact, much of it was inspiring. All teams with the possible exception of the troubled Tampa Bay Lightning acquitted themselves well. Kudos to the teams who went the full seven games. In sports, a best of seven series is a severe test of stamina and will, especially in hockey, which is one of the most demanding sports, physically and emotionally.

But as Macbeth said, " we are but young in deed. "  Three rounds to go and some good hockey lies ahead. Since many of you want to know who will win in advance, I humbly reveal my choices for the second round.

Pittsburgh Penguins vs New York Rangers

I didn't think the Rangers would make it past the Flyers, and they nearly didn't. But never underestimate the power of the underdog, home ice, or veteran goaltending. The Rangers have proven to be a gritty and determined team. They deserve respect. As for the Pens, we are waiting for the superstars to show up. Crosby, Malkin et al did their least to survive the first round and it was certainly enough over a hard working Columbus team. I'm guessing that the big guys got their wake up call and will be ready to play now. But the big question, as always, is goaltending. And the Rangers have a decided edge here. Lundqvist outplays Fleury any day of the week. Will it be enough for the Rangers? Not this time. Talent will win out in this round. Penguins will win in 6 or 7 games.

Boston Bruins vs Montreal Canadiens

This should be a beauty. Montreal looked great against Tampa and they have been rolling for a while now. The big question is whether the few days off has hurt their momentum. I'm guessing it hasn't simply because they are playing their true rivals, the Boston Bruins. Sorry, Leafs, but it's true, the Habs against Bruins rivalry is more important for both teams. Montreal features fast forwards who have learned how to put great pressure on opposing defences and get quality shots on goal. And their goalie is red-hot. But the Bruins proved that they are ready to go deep in the playoffs too. When they were interested in dominating a plucky Detroit Red Wing squad, they did. Then, they seemed to go into sleep mode and Detroit were able to make a series of it. I'm guessing that there will be no lapses of concentration in the Bruins in this series. All games should be intense and exciting. The edge goes to the team with better goaltending and more ruggedness for playoff hockey and that means Boston wins in seven gruelling games. Buckle up !!

Chicago Blackhawks vs Minnesota Wild

The 'Hawks got a tougher than expected series from St. Louis, but the fact that they ground the Blues down in the last four games tells me that what I expected was correct: that the Blues were banged up to begin the series, and even though they jumped out front in the first two games, they didn't have it for the last four. The 'Hawks, on the other hand, remained calm and went about their business, as champions do. Their game is solid all the way around, and they look ready. As for Minnesota, I now refuse to write them off as unknowns. But they may have shot their bolt. I don't think they have enough for Chicago, but, as a sign of respect, I will refer to them as the North Stars instead of the Wild because the old Minnesota North Stars were pretty good playoff teams back in the day. Chicago takes this series in 6 games.

Anaheim Ducks vs Los Angeles Kings

There is always something interesting about a "local" series: bragging rights, turf wars, neighbourhood vs neighbourhood, call it what you will. That's why I will be interested in this series. The Ducks are a good team and they showed some good, hard nosed tough playoff hockey. Getzlaff and Perry took some pounding and kept coming for more. There's a lot of talent on the Ducks. But the Kings proved that they are still a solid playoff team. And Jonathan Quick seems ready to play some spectacular goal again. Logic says that the Ducks should win, but there is always an upset in any round of the playoffs ( except for the final round perhaps ) so my heart says the Kings will win in 6 or 7 tough games.

There you have it. Hopefully, we will continue to enjoy top quality hockey for a good long while yet.

WHAT IS A UNIVERSITY?

Trinity Western University is one of Canada's largest private universities and is located in Langley, BC. Normally, I would not even have heard of TWU, much less feel compelled to write a blog about this school. But a recent column in The Globe and Mail prompted some anguished thought.

Briefly, TWU is a rather new institution of higher learning. Its foundation was back in the 1960's and stemmed from a desire on the part of some well-intentioned people to found a university that not only promoted a rigorous and thorough academic programme, but combined those programmes with a devout and complete adherence to Christian ideals. Students who wish to enroll at TWU are required to sign a covenant that makes them promise to maintain high scholastic performance as well as adhere to the school's beliefs: they must forswear alcohol, drugs, premarital sex, and other behaviour the university finds contrary to its Christian ideals. The school also very publicly denounces same-sex marriage, or in fact, any acceptance of gay rights.

Recently, TWU announced its intention to begin a faculty of law. Something of an uproar ensued. Law societies in Ontario and Nova Scotia ruled that those provinces would not recognize degrees in law granted by TWU because of its discriminatory stance on same-sex marriage. The Law Society of British Columbia, however, ruled in favour of recognizing these degrees. Tony Wilson, a columnist in the Globe and Mail and a "bencher" in the LSBC, justified the Society's decision as being that of a belief in "the rule of law", which states that the Canadian Constitution defends and guarantees the expression of religious ideals. Despite his standing as a lawyer and columnist of high reputation, I found his defence disturbing, to say the least.

The criticism of TWU's potential law graduates centers around the possibility that lawyers and judges and any other officer of BC's judicial system will administer a legal system while harbouring prejudicial beliefs against gay people. To me, this criticism makes perfect sense. Why have people, many of whom are paid by society, administer justice when they are publicly and openly biased against a group of people who are supposed to be protected against bias by law?

In 2001, a similar situation involving TWU emerged. In that year, the school opened a faculty of education. A red flag emerged. That faculty would, in theory, be graduating people who espoused a bias against gay people who would quite possibly find employment in the public education system of British Columbia, and would, quite possibly, be prejudiced against students or parents from same-sex relationships, or try to foist their anti-gay views upon their students in a system where that is not supposed to happen. The education system in BC, and elsewhere in Canada, is supposed to be free of such potential bias.

Yet the College of Teachers of British Columbia were thwarted in their attempt to have teaching degrees from TWU not recognized, and to have graduates from TWU not be allowed to teach in the public system. Their case went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled in favour of the university, citing, again, the Constitution which guaranteed religious freedom. Tony Wilson, in his Globe column, stated that, as far as he was aware, no teacher in BC who graduated from TWU had been hauled before a review board for teaching anti-gay or anti-same-sex marriage ideas in a classroom or school. It would seem, therefore, that TWU has won significant victories over their critics.

For me, the criticism and concern of TWU's graduates in law, education or any other faculty where graduates may work in some type of public system is valid. I am a strong believer in the secular nature of our society, and, while I also believe in a person's freedom to hold any religious beliefs they want, I believe more strongly that society has an obligation to recognize bigotry and radical evangelicalism where they exist and treat them with suspicion and, in most cases, prohibit people who have philosophies  that contain bigotry, racism, hatred or narrow beliefs from practicing these philosophies in the performance of their duties as a lawyer or teacher etc. I believe this because I want to live in a modern society where all beliefs and life-styles are accepted. In the broadest context, this would include beliefs contained in TWU's covenant, but not when that covenant seeks to impose itself on the rest of society.

What do I mean by this? I challenge the reader of my blog to go to Trinity Western University's web site and read their mission statement. Also read their core beliefs. This is a "university" which claims a complete and strict adherence to Scripture. This is a "university" that seeks to involve itself in a training of graduates to go forth into society to excel in their chosen fields but with a decidedly Christian and evangelical zeal. This is a "university" which believes in the "Kingdom" of Christ and wants to be at the forefront of spreading this philosophy with the zeal of missionaries. What if, instead of espousing a profound dislike for same-sex marriage and, by extension, of gay rights generally, TWU espoused a belief in the natural inferiority of people of colour, or women, or Aboriginals, or people of other faiths? Would the Law Society of British Columbia or the Supreme Court of Canada rule in favour of such an institution? I would certainly hope not, and I would hope that you, the reader of this blog, would agree.

My greatest dilemma in all of this, however, is that the controversy surrounding TWU really is about the role and purpose of a university. You may have noticed in my preceding paragraph, that I wrote the word "university" in quotation marks when referencing Trinity Western University. To me, a university is supposed to be more than a place people go after high school. It is supposed to be the highest expression of human intellect, where research is performed fully and, to use TWU's word, "rigorously", where discourse and debate flourish and where there is to be no restriction on ideas or beliefs. To me, TWU's slavish devotion to its evangelical approach to everything and its mission of promoting its strong Christian beliefs in the wider context of society is anathema to what a modern university is supposed to be. Doctrine is not a guidepost in intellectual development, it is a barrier. TWU openly puts barriers on thought, and while the "university" certainly has a right to exist and preach these dogmas, it does not have a right to have its apostles preach them to students or clients in public schools or court rooms.

On its web page, TWU puts a series of Frequently Asked Questions about the gay rights issue. It is in the context of the controversy surrounding the proposed law faculty. The FAQ's are actually an imaginary debate between a concerned person and the "university" itself. The "university" claims that gay students are in fact comfortably enrolled at the school and so too are atheists and those from other faiths. They are welcome to study there: as long as they sign the covenant. If they are not comfortable doing so, they are "welcome" to go elsewhere. I find this disingenuous and repugnant. This is not freedom to choose, as TWU claims. It is a polite way of saying "it's our way or the highway." Fair enough, you might say. But it is not fair. It is exclusionary for a university. Yes, it is a private university, but it is sanctioned by the province and is graduating people who adhere to its doctrine who are ready and willing to work in society, possibly waiting for an opportunity to spread their doctrines. Politeness be damned, it is contrary to what a university is supposed to be.

THE RACE FOR THE CUP PART ONE

As of this writing, it has not been announced who the Leafs' first round opponents will be .... oh ... never mind.

A new format has certainly created an interesting grouping of match-ups in this year's playoff structure. Also new is the "bracket" concept, which means that winners of a playoff grouping will automatically meet up with a winner of a divisional and conference grouping. No more re-seeding of match-ups in second, third and final rounds. In this sense, the Stanley Cup playoffs are a true bracket similar to "March Madness" in the NCAA men's and women's basketball. So, in case you need to know who will win the first round of the NHL playoffs, I humbly offer this assessment. Let the debate begin.

Eastern Conference

Boston Bruins vs Detroit Red Wings

Much has been made about the "original six" aspect of this match-up. Indeed, it is always special when a couple of old teams renew acquaintances. And much has been made of the fact that these are two perennial playoff participants. Boston has gone deep in the playoffs in many recent years. They are true playoff warriors. They feature a bruising group of forwards, a corps of defensemen who move the puck well and take care of business in their own zone, and an all-world goalie in Tukka Rask. They miss defenseman Dennis Seidenburg, but have compensated for this loss well. The Red Wings have also suffered from the injury bug, but seem to always find players from their AHL team to fill in. The Wings also have a fine goalie in Jimmy Howard, and probably the best coach in the NHL, if not the world, in Mike Babcock. This figures to be a good series and it will go 6 tough, hard-fought games. But, despite Babcock's genius for tactically managing a game, the winner of this series will be the Boston Bruins.

Tampa Bay Lightning vs Montreal Canadiens

How the Canadiens not only made the playoffs but became an all 'round good hockey team is a mystery to me. Carey Price has emerged as another all-world goalie because of his stellar performance in the Olympics and has not missed a beat since then, except for some nagging injuries. The Habs have quick and talented forwards and a mobile defense corps. For the Lightning, it's been a strange year of adversity. The loss of Vinny Lecavalier last year and Marty St. Louis this year ( surely one of the messiest divorces in history ) seems to have galvanized the team around their one bona fide star, Steven Stamkos, who lost valuale time and an Olympic experience to injury. Stamkos is back, a tribute to his fitness and reputation as one of the best athletes in the NHL. This figures to be an interesting series, but the quirky year for the Lightning and the stellar goaltending of Price will make this a 5 game series, with the winner being the Montreal Canadiens. It kills me to say this, too.

Pittsburgh Penguins vs Columbus Blue Jackets

Pittsburgh has been one of the NHL's more exciting and also one of its most enigmatic teams over the last few years. They are loaded with talent, featuring perhaps two of the most talented players in the game, Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin.  Malkin may be banged up a bit at this time of writing, but the supporting cast is solid. The one aspect of the game that is the most inconsistent is goaltending, with Marc-Andre Fleury still on the cusp of stardom, but not quite there. Dan Bylsma is one of the game's more underrated coaches too. As for the Columbus Blue Jackets, two things emerge: first, they did well down the stretch to win a playoff spot as a wild card team: second, it is remarkable that the city of Columbus, Ohio has a team. This one figures to be a short series. Columbus did well just to qualify and it will be over mercifully quick for them. The winner in 4 straight will be the Pittsburgh Penguins.

New York Rangers vs Philadelphia Flyers

This figures to be the nastiest series in the first round. Both teams hate each other and play tough hockey, which is needed in the playoffs. The Rangers have made many changes during the last off-season and during the regular season as well. They surprise everyone with any success they have, and it's mostly due to good goaltending from Henrick Lundquist and solid coaching from Alain Vigneult. As for the Flyers, they seem to knock on the door of success every year. Vinny Lecavalier seems to have settled in for solid, but not spectacular play, and Hartnell and Simmons lend tough play along the boards. Claude Giroux, if healthy, is one of the most talented players in the game. The Flyers' Achilles heel, as always, is goaltending. As of this writing, Bob Mason may not be available, or if he is, he may be banged up. Despite the obvious goaltending edge to the Rangers, the outcome will be close and bloody. In seven war-like games, the winner will be the Philadelphia Flyers.

Western Conference

Chicago Blackhawks vs St. Louis Blues

A week or so ago, I would have said that this would be the best first-round series. Both clubs had stellar seasons and seem to have the players and coaches to win it all. But the Blues have gone into an injury-induced death spiral over the last few games. I believe they are on a 6 game losing streak to close out the regular season, and prize acquisition Ryan Miller has been less than spectacular. The 'Hawks have been banged up too, with stars Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane out with nagging injuries, but they figure to be back and contributing to the cup defense. If the Blues get their stars back from sick bay, ( Oshie, Pietrangelo, Shattenkirck ) they will give the 'Hawks all they can handle, but class wins out all the time. Joel Quennville is a much underrated coach, and Kevin Hitchcock, while a competent coach, is, in my view, overrated. So it will go 6 games, with the winner being the Chicago Blackhawks.

Colorado Avalanche vs Minnesota Wild

I don't really know much about these two teams. I do know that the Avalanche were a bunch of also-rans last year, so their turn-around is nothing short of remarkable. The addition of one of the truly psychotic personalities in the game, namely their coach, Patrick Roy, has been instrumental. After that, I don't really know much. As for the Wild, well .... Minnesota likes hockey, so they will be glad to be in the playoffs. How many games? Who will win? Who will care !! But for the record, I'll say 6 games that nobody will watch and Colorado, by virtue of the fact that they had more points, will win.

San Jose Sharks vs Los Angeles Kings

San Jose is a perennially good team that never seems to go anywhere. It won't be much different this year . Los Angeles won the Cup recently but that really doesn't matter. The Kings still have potentially the best goalie in the Western Conference in Jonathan Quick, and Drew Doughty on defense and Anze Kopitar up front are among the better players in the league. History and experience are with the Los Angeles Kings in 6 games. But, truthfully, does anyone care ?

Anaheim Ducks vs Dallas Stars

I know so very little about these teams, it's a bit embarrassing. Maybe one of them will get on an unholy roll and go all the way ? Nah, not going to happen. I know the Ducks have Ryan Getzlaf and Corey Perry, two pretty good players. And I know that one of the Dallas Stars had a heart attack during the regular season, so the Stars will be motivated to play for him. But this is such an irrelevant series, it really doesn't matter. It will be over in 4 games and the winner will be the Anaheim Ducks in probably the most one-sided series.  Or maybe both teams will just surrender now?

So, there you have it. Enter your NHL brackets now and enjoy the games. It will be a long and eventful ride.                                                                                                                                  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTES FROM PARADISE, PART FOUR

A few years ago, I enjoyed reading a novel called "In the Embrace of the Alligator" by Amanda Hale . In it, the main character, a Canadian woman, becomes involved with a Cuban man and tries to become involved in his life and those of his family and friends. What follows is a highly readable and thoughtful story about life in Cuba, the plight of Cuban people, and, perhaps more tellingly, how foreigners ( mostly Canadian ) look at their own lives and values. The Canadian character becomes so involved in Cuba that she begins to feel like a foreigner when she returns to Canada, but slowly realizes that she can never truly become involved in Cuba either. She feels both lost and part of both worlds. It is a wonderful novel and worth the read.

I bring this up to set up my own "embrace of the alligator." The alligator in all cases is Cuba itself. If you look at a map of the country, and use a little imagination, you see that it indeed resembles an alligator, with its head in the east and its large and dangerous tail in the west. Of course, the metaphor goes further: you don't have to be an animal expert to know that to be embraced by an alligator is a highly dangerous thing. Once in the alligator's grip, you are faced with two difficult choices: you can let the alligator have its way with you, which has all kinds of nasty implications, or you can choose to embrace back. The first choice is perhaps the easiest: you become passive, accept your fate and endure the results. Most people in this situation are those who go to Cuba and emerge from the visit disappointed or angry. These people never go back and are able to forget about the experience.

The second choice, however, is the more complicated one. I admit that I have made this choice and always wonder why I did. The choice is to take the alligator close to your heart, wrap yourself around it and hold on for dear life, adjusting to every twist and turn and movement the beast makes. You must hold on forever, never letting go for the obvious reasons. Most people I know who go to Cuba make this choice and, together, we hang on, hoping that the ride never stops, but wondering how much longer we can hold on before we're either exhausted or the alligator overpowers us and turns on us.

Quite a choice !

Cuba gets into a person's heart and soul. Maybe it's the climate, so warm and sunny ( most times!). Or maybe it's the history, full of tumult and triumph, chaos and suffering. Perhaps, it's the time machine aspect, where you can literally step back fifty years and see things and experience life in a different era. It could be the music, so perfect and sensual, sweeping you off your feet as you give yourself up to the rhythm and skill of Cuban musicians (aren't all Cubans musicians?).

For me, it's all these plus one thing more: the Cuban people. We have been fortunate to meet a few of them. With only one or two exceptions, they are among the most remarkable people on earth. They possess a good humour that has to be experienced to be believed. They put up with a lot, yet are happy and resourceful. They are intelligent and highly aware of the outside world, and yearn to achieve the things we take for granted, yet are unbelievably patient and stoic. Any other people would be storming the halls of power to demand more things, but the Cubans are adopting a "wait and see" attitude: perhaps the old revolution still lingers in the consciousness and they have a "one revolution is enough" mindset. They laugh and dance easily, but are also capable of tears and empathy. Family is their strength and pride: the best thing you can ask a Cuban is "how is your family?" If a Cuban calls you "my family" , then you know that they like and trust you.

None of this sounds much like a menacing alligator. So how does the metaphor work? Because you can easily be trapped and forced to think that all is well and beautiful in Cuba. But, as we have learned, it is not all good. So, a visitor has to be on guard always. Love the island, love the culture, love the people .... but be aware that the alligator has a hold on you. If you reach out and grab it to save yourself, you can never let go. And, when that happens, you can never really leave.