LEAFS FANS WONDER: IS THIS FINALLY THE YEAR ?

Pffffttt.... NO ! .... get serious.  Maybe next year, as always !

STANLEY CUP ROUND THREE ROUND-UP

Like everyone else, I was surprised by the quick exits of the Pittsburgh Penguins and the Los Angeles Kings. It's not easy to explain why this happened. In the case of Pittsburgh, it was obvious that the Boston Bruins surprised them with their toughness and willingness to battle along the boards and in front of the nets. The Penguins didn't know what hit them until game three, where they launched a determined effort to win, but were stymied. The same happened in game four, with the confident Bruins rolling. In the case of Los Angeles, it was too much reliance on their goalie, Jonathan Quick. The Kings mounted some serious challenges to the 'Hawks, but Chicago had too many answers.

So now we come to the match-up I predicted way back at the start of the playoffs: Chicago vs Boston. An "Original Six" series, between two teams who have never met in the Cup final before.

Chicago is riding the wave of confidence that started back in January with the beginning of this strange and short hockey season. In the playoffs, they are getting stellar goaltending from Corey Crawford, who nobody counted as an elite goalie before. The 'Hawks also have sold and mobile defencemen, skill on the penalty kill and power play, and good efforts from their role-players. When their stars finally start scoring like they should, this team becomes a scary force.

But the Bruins are no slouches themselves. After their first-round scare from the Leafs, the Bruins have been gaining in confidence, poise, and skill. Tukka Rask has emerged as a front line goalie, the defence, which has been decimated by injuries, remains solid, and the forward core is tough and willing to battle along the boards. Like Chicago, many of their top forwards have not been scoring as they should, but the back line has contributed important goals.

In the playoffs, it is often the unsung players, the ones who labour anonymously throughout the season, who come to the fore. The stars are checked into the ice by the tougher grinders and get bogged down in frustration. The role players, bred for this type of competition, start scoring in place of the stars.

In this series, it is easy to hope for a long and intense competition. I expect it will be that way, Initially, I said Chicago would best the Bruins, but now doubt has crept into my predictions. I'll stick to my guns and say Chicago will emerge as Cup champions, but will add that if Boston breaks through to win, I won't be surprised. The only surprise for me will be if one of the teams loses its way and the series ends in only 4 or 5 games.

Sit back and enjoy, hockey fans. This will probably be the best Stanley Cup final in many years. Go 'Hawks !!

STANLEY CUP ROUND TWO ROUND-UP

There was some excellent hockey played over the last few days, as the quest for the Cup continues. I must admit, I am quite impressed with my predictions. I am getting the series winners mostly right, and getting close on the number of games and quality of play. Here's the round up for round two and how I see round three going:

Bruins vs the Rangers

I said this would be the best series in round two, and, boy, was I wrong. I correctly picked Boston as the series winner, but thought it would go 7 hard fought games. Instead, the Rangers barely showed up and were lucky to win a single game. I started thinking "what might have been" ... had the Leafs hung on in the first round and gone up against this woeful Rangers squad, they could easily have made round 3. Oh well ...

Penguins vs the Senators

I correctly picked Pittsburgh to win here. The Sens played pretty well, but were no match for the super-charged Pens. It was nice to see Spezza and Karlsson play for Ottawa... there is much potential for this Sens team down the road. But I was disappointed in Daniel Alfredsson's comments before the elimination game. He is done in Ottawa and it was too bad for a good career to end like this.

Kings vs the Sharks

I said the Kings in 6 and it took 7 hard fought games. I didn't see any of the games live, but Jonathan Quick looks like he is absolutely unbeatable right now. Los Angeles is serious about its Cup defence and are ready to roll.

'Hawks vs the Red Wings

I watched pretty much all of this series. I predicted Chicago would win in 6 and it took 7. It really was a tale of two teams. Detroit looked ready for the upset based on Jimmy Howard's amazing performance in goal. But then Howard played a little less than spectacular in the last two games, and the Wings ran out of gas. The 'Hawks simply out lasted them. But the 'Hawks performance was still impressive. This was a good, hard fought, old fashioned hockey series. Wings look like their "re-tooling" is ahead of schedule and they will be a force again next year.

As for round three:

I am sticking to my guns for the predictions.

Chicago will beat the Kings in 7.  Chicago have already faced and beaten a hot goalie, so Quick will present a challenge, sure enough, but not enough to derail the 'Hawks. This could be another tough series.

Boston will shock Pittsburgh in 6 games. The Penguins are highly ranked based on their firepower, but the goaltending of Tomas Vokoun is OK, not brillliant. Boston has had a few days to rest up their battered warriors and will attempt to physically beat the Pens. But the Pens are no sissies, and this could be the toughest series of the entire playoffs.

I still like an original six match up for the Cup: Boston vs Chicago. We'll see !!

STANLEY CUP ROUND ONE ROUND-UP

Two of the first round series presented problems, which has now altered my Stanley Cup bracket significantly. Here is a quick summary of how I did in my predictions, and what will happen next.

Chicago 4, Minnesota 1

Nailed this one. Chicago looks ready to reclaim the Cup

Detroit 4, Anaheim 3

I had the number of games correct, but picked the wrong team. The Wings proved there's life in the old boys yet. But they get Chicago next and, well, let's just say they've done better than perhaps they should have.

San Jose 4, Vancouver 0

I picked the Sharks, but I thought they'd do it in 6 games. This proves that Vancouver needs a big overhaul in the off-season.

Los Angeles 4, St. Louis 2

Nailed this one too. It was, by all accounts, a good series. Kings are ready to defend their Cup ( not their jockstraps )

Pittsburgh 4, New York Islanders 3

I picked Pittsburgh, but in 4 straight. The Islanders have proved that they are a good young team with a bona fide superstar in John Tavares, and they will be heard from when they move to Brooklyn.

Ottawa 4, Montreal 1

I picked the Senators, but in 7 games. Montreal folded like a cheap suitcase .... looks good on them !! Now I can cheer lustily against the Senators, whom I hate almost as much as the Habs.

New York Rangers 4, Washington 3

I had the number of games right, but went for the Caps. Just goes to show, never underestimate New York teams. Their goaltender was the difference.

Boston 4, Toronto 3

I am heartbroken over this one. Oh, what might have been ..... Boston looked tired and uninterested, while the Leafs, like the Islanders, have served notice that they are a team on the rise. They were the youngest team in the playoffs. I had the Bruins in 6, but the Leafs fought hard. Proud of my boys.

Round Two

Chicago will dust off the Red Wings in 6 games. This will be a nice original six match up, but the 'Hawks have too much for the re-tooling Wings.

Los Angeles will crown the Sharks. The Kings are ready to defend and their goaltender looks like he's ready for more playoff hockey. This will take 6 games.

Pittsburgh will defeat the Senators. Penguins got a scare, so now they are taking this seriously. Senators are from Ottawa, so they will mess up.

Boston will beat the New York Rangers. Another original six match-up. Bruins got a big scare and are now ready for the playoffs. Injuries might tell the tale, but they should have enough to beat the Rangers, although Lundquist is a superb goalie. Might take 7 games, and will be the best series of the second round.

Round Three

Chicago will beat the Kings.

Boston will beat Pittsburgh.

Stanley Cup

Chicago will beat Boston in the fourth original six match-up of the playoffs.

THE ROAD TO THE STANLEY CUP

With the coming of spring in Canada, with the melting snow and gathering of people to shiver on patios with the slightest hint of sunshine and warm temperatures, we turn our thoughts to the great ritual of the new season: NHL playoff hockey. Hockey is supposed to be a winter sport, but the truly meaningful games are now played in spring, when we should be thinking of baseball .... wait a minute, the way the Jays are playing right now, bring on the Cup!!

I know that there are many readers ( 2 or 3 of you ) who are not hockey fans, but who really need to participate with your fellow Canadians in this ritual. I humbly offer to you these predictions as to who will win the various playoff rounds and, ultimately, the Stanley Cup itself.  This service will make even the most hockey illiterate person sound like a reasonable version of Don Cherry. ( If you aspire to such lofty heights of hockey red-neckism ) Read on, gentle puck-head !!

ROUND ONE

1) Chicago Blackhawks vs Minnesota Wild

The 'Hawks had a season to remember ... well, 48 games to remember. They have a top 5 that is, arguably, the best in the league, and a solid defence and goaltending. The Wild are an NHL team ... that's about all I know about them.

'Hawks in 5 games.

2) Anaheim Ducks vs Detroit Red Wings

Nobody saw any Anaheim games on TV, but apparently they are a good team. Getzlaff and Perry ( not a law firm) had good seasons. Bruce Boudreau is the coach and he swears a lot. Detroit had to get used to losing their best player and one of the greatest defencemen in NHL history this year and had an up and down year. But they've been good lately and have lots of veterans and a hot goalie.

Ducks in 7 games. Could be a really good series.

3) Vancouver Canucks vs San Jose Sharks

Vancouver seemed to survive the goaltending controversy quite nicely, but they are a team with a reputation of not really delivering the goods. San Jose is also a team that is usually in the playoffs but haven't gone far or deep since Arturs Irbe was their goalie. Still, I don't like Vancouver, so I'm picking

Sharks in 6 games.

4) St. Louis Blues vs Los Angeles Kings

Kings are the defending champs and still have a good young team. They seem to save their best for the playoffs ( just ask Brian Burke ... hockey fans will get that joke ). St. Louis has always been a miserable team as far as I'm concerned, but I like Brian Elliot as a goalie because he's from Newmarket.

Kings in 6 games.

5) Pittsburgh Penguins vs New York Islanders

Penguins have an abundance of star players, and if they get Crosby back, they will be hard to stop. The Islanders are looking for Denis Potvin and Chico Resch to see if they're interested in lacing them up again. Actually, the Islanders had a good season, coming back from the NHL version of purgatory, but it ends this week.

Penguins in 4 games.

6) Montreal Canadiens vs Ottawa Senators

In my version of the hockey universe, both teams would lose. However, since that's not possible, I must grudgingly admit that this has the potential to be the best series in the first round. Habs had a great season ... I have no idea how they did it. Ottawa survived injuries to key players and just kept grinding away. Karlsson is back and Spezza is rumoured to be close. This could be really good.

Senators in 7 games.  Seven games in overtime ???

7) Washington Capitals vs New York Rangers

Capitals sucked for most of the season, then went on an outrageous roll when Ovechkin realized that he was still a good hockey player. The Rangers struggled at times, but have some stars on their roster. This will be close and could be a good series.

Capitals in 7 games.

8) Boston Bruins vs Toronto Maple Leafs

Leafs in the playoffs ??? Wow !! Both teams are tough and sometimes violent, but there are some good skilled players in both lineups. It really depends on the goalies, Tukka Rask for the B's and James Reimer for the Buds. Phil Kessel needs to rid himself of the timid play in Boston, and the Bruins need Chara and the defence to shut the Leafs down. My heart says Leafs, but my head says

Bruins in 6 games. Might be the bloodiest series ... Don Cherry will go apoplectic.

SECOND ROUND     ( I hope I have these match-ups right )

9) Chicago vs Los Angeles

'Hawks have too much for the Kings. 'Hawks in 5 games.

10) Anaheim vs San Jose

I might watch them in this series for the first time this year. I'm guessing Ducks in 6.

11) Pittsburgh vs Ottawa

The Sens will be inspired in the 2nd round, but the Pens have too much. Penguins in 6.

12) Washington vs Boston

Toughness wins out here. Washington need to really grow a pair, but they won't. Bruins in 6.

THIRD ROUND      (now, I'm really guessing !! )

14) Chicago vs Anaheim

Potentially a great series. Depends on injuries at this point. Still the 'Hawks are scary good. 'Hawks in 7.

15) Pittsburgh vs Boston

If the Pens stay relatively healthy, they have the skill edge. But don't count the Bruins out. Bruins in 7.

STANLEY CUP FINALS

16) Chicago vs Boston

An Original Six match-up. This will be close and hard fought. 'Hawks will win in 6 games.

Now you know. Let the debate begin. Enjoy !!

THE NEW CUBA

We have been going to Cuba since 2000. We have fallen in love with the island, the people, the music, and the culture. We affectionately call the resort we go to every year in Holguin  our "Cuban cottage." It is a place where we escape the confines of an Ontario winter and enjoy being pampered by our wonderful Cuban hosts.

We are under no illusion, though, about the reality which exists just outside the resort's gates. While we get to choose our dinner items, which are plentiful, varied,  and generally of good quality, an average Cuban gets by on a diet of rice, beans, some meat if he knows someone who raises pigs or chickens, and coffee. We have learned that Cuba is among the world's leaders for type 2 diabetes, mainly because of their diet. Back at the resort, the electricity is mostly realiable, and we enjoy power for our air conditioners, hair dryers, televisions, the bars' refrigerators, the restaurants' freezers, while average Cubans put up with regular brown-outs because the main grid is old and prone to failure. We can obtain some consumer goods if we need them, or if we forgot to pack them prior to departure, while an average Cuban is never certain what kinds of goods will show up at the local store. If we wish to travel within the country via air or bus, we can do so easily because our seat is taken away from a Cuban who would have been on the plane or bus. We can go to baseball games and sit behind home plate and have beer served to us, while Cubans sit on benches along the baselines or in the outfield. We can sit around the pool bar and engage in lively political discussions about any country in the world, but a Cuban can criticize his government only at great personal risk.

In short, Cuba is no utopia. But things are changing and we have taken notice of the new direction.

Recently, the CBC's documentary series, "The Passionate Eye", aired a piece on the changes taking place in Cuba. It was originally produced by the BBC and is called "Last Chance to see Castro's Cuba". Lou and I watched it this month and found the items contained in the documentary interesting. We have experienced some of the changes directly.

Cubans now have the opportunity to create their own businesses and run them for personal profit. This was unthinkable as recently as four or five years ago. We first noticed this phenomenon a couple of years ago when we were on the bus ride from Holguin airport to our resort. Several fruit stands were erected along the side of the road. We looked at each other with amazement. Such a simple thing, something kids do back in Canada, was the thin edge of the wedge in Cuba. Farmers were actually able to sell some of their produce to anyone who wanted to buy them, for whatever price they wanted to charge and pay, and keep the profits themselves. We were told that the bulk of the crops produced on Cuban farms still had to be turned over to the government for distribution to the population and continued to be rationed ( a hold-over from the near catastrophic "special time" in Cuban economic history), but a certain percentage could be sold privately.

We also know of Cubans who have begun to own and operate private restaurants out of their own homes. One ambitious restauranteur has printed up business cards which he freely distributes to tourists. We know of a man who has his own car and will take people on private tours of local cities and towns. All this in a relatively small backwater of the island.

The documentary showed Cubans, mostly in Havana, who were selling such things as plumbing supplies, food, operating restaurants, and perhaps most dramatically, selling real estate. Cubans are now able to sell and buy homes and apartments privately. Previously, all homes and land were owned by the government, and people, if they wished to move, had to apply to local officials to do so. Now, presumably, they are in charge of their own residential destiny. The documentary showed people gathered in parks conducting trade and negotiations for property. One home was reputedly selling for more than $800,000.00, although onw wonders what Cuban could possibly afford such a place.  People could also operate businesses in such things as construction work, automotive sales and repair, hair stylists, clothiers and a wide variety of other jobs. The most bizarre job approved by the government was that of "dandy" .... a Cuban gentleman dressed in "typical" Cuban attire, smoking Cuban cigars and offering to pose for pictures ... for a price!

The documentary, in its 45 minutes of air time, painted a rosy picture of the budding Cuban entrepreneurialism, captured in its infancy, about to rise from the ashes of a "failed" revolution, and ready to save Cuba from its past and launch it into a brave new capitalistic world. That's when my spidey sense started to tingle.

There is no doubt that Cuba is a very poor country, at least from the standpoint of a Western observer. There are the shortages and discomforts described above. There is also the truth of a nation that imprisons its citizens, not allowing them to travel or leave permanently. There is the reality of stifled aspirations: if a Cuban is creative, inventive, or ambitious, he typically had to find expression within the confines of the single party political system or not at all.

But the revolution is hardly a failure. Despite their disadvantages, Cubans are among the best educated people in the world. Their health care system is world renowned. The arts and sports flourish, albeit completely funded and administered by the government. And they are proud people, because of their achievements. They feel that they have stood up to a vast imperialistic power and have not been defeated. And they are right to feel that way.

So, why has capitalism been allowed to begin in this socialist society? The documentary confirmed what we had known for the 13 years we have been going there. The American embargo had forced them to seek help from the only alternative they had in the 1950's and 60's: the Soviet Union. When the USSR died in 1990, there was no external support for Cuba. The "special period", from 1990 until 2000 was extraordinarily difficult for Cuba and the people suffered badly. The recovery during the first decade of the 21st century was slow and painful. There seemed to be little choice for Cuba. Adapt or die. Embrace the system so vigorously denounced for decades, or watch the island sink into absolute and irrecoverable poverty the like of which is seen only in the worst countries on earth.

The documentary seemed to suggest that Cuba will very soon become a capitalist haven. Implied in this is the impending arrival of the United States to reclaim its former dependency. We have a different slant on this. The amount of change in Cuba is happening very, very slowly. The Cuban government is still in charge. And if the Cuban government wants to stop this experiment, it can and will do so any time it wants. And let's be clear: the Cuban government and, we believe, the majority of the Cuban people still regard the United States as an enemy. They will not soon let Americans come into their country in waves of free-enterprise hordes, buying and exploiting all resources, including the people,  in the country.

No, if Cuba is going to change, and there is no doubt it will, it will be done on terms dictated by the Cubans themselves. Does that mean that we can still go to the island and not run into packs of American tourists? Yes, we think so. Does it mean that we can still buy T-shirts with Che on the front? Yes. And does it mean that the unique Cuban culture, complete with its beautiful music, dance, literature and philosophy will continue unadulterated? Yes.

At least, we hope so.

So, as the documentary says, buy your ticket now to see the last country in the world where there is no McDonalds, where it is almost impossible to get a can of Coke, where '48 Studebakers and '57 Chevys still prowl the streets, where salsa music is played simply but with a genuine passion, and where children play baseball on rock-filled playgrounds with sticks for bats and a wad of tape for a ball, and turn the most remarkable double-plays and base stealing. 

The clock is ticking.

VOX POPULI

A good friend of mine sent me an email this past week and asked if I'd read it over and give him my thoughts. When I saw the title "Enough is Enough Movement", I began to cringe, knowing full well what would follow. I was not surprised by the contents of this document.

Democracy allows for a wide diversity of opinion, and gives each one of us the right to voice our ideas. However, there are limits on what a person can say. There are libel and hate laws, prohibiting people from spouting off on topics that are designed to disparage an individual's reputation or integrity, and preventing the spread of ugly and offensive hatred directed either at individuals or groups. Often, those among us who harbour strident or unsavory opinions attempt to hide behind the "free speech" shield and come dangerously close to commiting one of the offenses described above. I fear "Enough is Enough Movement" comes too close to those errors. You can judge for yourself.

The author of this piece is unknown: the article is unsigned. This is usually the first clue that what follows is pretty bad stuff. As you may have guessed, the document is a person's response to the "Idle No More" movement. Here is the opening paragraph:

I am getting really upset with all this native crap and politicians that are only concerned about their own gains while in office, and have no guts to deal with this native issue once and for all.

Hmmm ... that would be scanned. The "native crap" in question is undoubtedly the protests that have sporadically appeared in several Canadian cities throughout the winter. Our writer seems to have a strong opinion on the protests, using the word "crap", which denotes a feeling that the protests are somehow invalid or illegitimate. Further evidence of that opinion is the phrase  "deal with this native issue once and for all." Are we talking about a "final solution" here? It's been tried before, in Germany in the 1930's, with a rather unpleasant result. I suppose one could claim that the writer simply wants a fair and long-lasting settlement to the many native grievances, but the tone is off-putting and threatening. And what "gains" is the writer referring to? Are there politicians who have become wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice because of the "native crap"? But the writer continues:

On a very serious note and regarding the "Idle No More" movement.
Over the years we have all listened and watched as successive Canadian governments have tried to deal with the residue of our colonial past. On the evidence, a wide range of policies, and a huge amount of our money ( tax payers ), has failed to solve a seemingly insolvable problem of abortive aboriginal treaties, perceived entitlements, and social disaster.

If, like me, you are a lover of the written word, you must be cringing now ... rather like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard. But, style aside, one must really wonder just what it is that has our writer so worked up. I'm not sure I know what the "residue of our colonial past" is, but I suspect our writer is trying to invoke our long history of being a British or French colony, and how the British and French were rather unsuccessful in living up to the treaties they negotiated with several First Nations. If the Canadian government has not been able to "solve a seemingly insolvable problem", do we blame the British or French, our former colonial masters, or the "successive Canadian governments"? If the problem is "insolvable" in the first place, then why would anyone attempt to solve it, since it is impossible to do so? And why blame anyone who nobly tries to solve an "insolvable" problem? At least the effort was there.

Furthermore, I believe our writer means to say "aborted" instead of "abortive" treaties: "abortive" implies that the treaties, once negotiated, had a shelf life, and would self-destruct, much like the tapes used by the Impossible Missions Force in "Mission Impossible". If that is the case, then surely the blame for the "native crap" must lie at the feet of our colonial masters and the successive Canadian governments who created these flawed and short-lived treaties? But perhaps I am being too harsh. As for "percieved entitlements" and "social disasters", our writer is probably referring to aspects of the Indian Act and the various social problems faced by many First Nations people who live on remote reserves. But who know for sure? One thing is certain, though .... our writer is mighty pissed off. There really is a bee in his bonnet and we need to know what's bugging him. He continues:

The only consistent result of over 100 years of wasted time, money and lives is the fact that, for many, being a treaty aboriginal has become a business in and of itself; Aboriginal Incorporated has become a way of life, a leadership management philosophy, a negotiating tool, a public spectacle, and a very lucrative business model, at least for a few. The latest public display of Chief Spence and her Aboriginal Inc. handlers has backfired and, with the release of the audit report on her financial management of millions of tax dollars, we see what really is the issue: The criminal misappropriation of funds intended to help the social ills of an important but socially failing segment of the Canadian population.

Ah, now I see the crux of the problem. It's all those damn Aboriginal millionaires out there using the hard-earned tax payers' money to buy their Lear jets, vacations in Mustique, champagne lunches and Hugo Boss suits. And shame on you, Chief Spence! Our writer is on to you, and is not fooled by your "spectacle" of the hunger strike. I'd like to know if it is possible to buy shares in Aboriginal Incorporated: sounds like an iron-clad investment opportunity !!

Of course, the writer is, in his/her rather ham-handed way, attempting to criticize the bureaucracy that has grown over the years due to the failed law known as the Indian Act. Fair point. But where is the righteous indignation over the inflated federal and provincial bureaucracies that bedevil the mainstream of Canadian society? Could it be that a caucasian bureaucracy is preferred over an Aboriginal one?

I really shouldn't mock our writer, he/she is so earnest. And, thankfully, he doesn't leave us hanging, but thoughtfully provides solutions. Observe:

This has to stop. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over, and over, while expecting a different result. A failed policy approach is a failed policy approach and over 100 years should be sufficient evidence that enough is enough. We need to start from first principles:

Before I deal with his/her "first principles", I'd like to remind our writer and indeed everyone else, that "definition of insanity" is exactly what the Idle No More movement is trying to get across to the mainstream of Canadian society. If our writer is pissed off at the lack of progress on the "native issue", imagine how First Nations people feel ! They are not advocating the status quo at all, and are trying to convince all of us that the time for a real solution and for social justice has long passed. But, I think our writer may have missed that point. The tone of his/her document implies that the First Nations are just fine, thank-you, with things the way they are. Now for his/her "first principles":

1) No one in Canada is above the law of the land.

An obvious statement, isn't it? That also applies to corrupt and foot-dragging politicians and unscrupulous non-Aboriginal people who have swindled, tricked and out-right lied to Aboriginals for personal gain. But our writer undoubtedly is referring to people like Chief Spence who is blatantly breaking the law against hunger strikes, or the thousands of protesters who have assembled in shopping malls and public places to protest ... as per their constitutional rights according the Canadian Charter of Freedoms.

2) Your economic well-being is your responsibility. It is not the government's job to pay you to fish and hunt.

Say what?  You can get paid to fish and hunt? Well, it seems to be OK for citizens on the East Coast of Canada to fish commercially for a living and, when the cod stocks diminish, to be paid for NOT fishing. But I suppose our writer is offended by federal money going to help people who live in remote communities survive when the hunt or fishing is not good. Better they should starve ? Now, THERE'S a solution.

3) Employment rules apply to everyone. If you can't get a job where you live: Move.  Idle No More at our expense!

I totally agree. Now, all you young Canadians under the age of 25 who can't find a job, you know the rules!! Everyone move to Alberta ! Now !!!  Better yet, all of us must now move to China or India or Brazil, where all the jobs are !! Get off your lazy asses and find work ! ( And just what the hell does "Idle No More at our expense" mean? No more social assistance, I suppose. Does he/she mean for all Canadians or just the Aboriginals?)

4) If you receive public funds; you are accountable. Penalties apply.

Two minutes for inappropriate use of the semi-colon. But, seriously, this is the first part of the document that actually makes sense. There needs to be accountability in all areas of public finances. If our writer had only based his/her remarks on this point, I might be inclined to climb on board the train. But the other stuff derails him/her. And, since the budget for Indian and Northern Affairs comprises a whopping 3% of federal expenditures, I am sure our writer would want this "first principle" to apply to the other 97% of government spending: but I wonder why he/she zeros in on this issue. Oh, of course: it's "native crap".

5) Theft is theft; see 1) above.

Well, who can argue with that?

6) If the funds are badly spent or the recipients do not care for the infrastructure and benefits provided; the funds will not be replaced.

So, if the Aboriginals don't like their Lear jet, they can't get another one?  Again, seriously, our writer ignores the rather sad fact that the "infrastructure and benefits" are simply not there in several First Nations communities. So, how can the people "not care" for something that they do not have? As for funds being "badly spent", does our writer want the same principle applied to funds in mainstream Canadian society not being replaced if they are "badly spent"? And just how do we define "badly spent"? I agree that building a curling rink when people are living in poverty is wrong, but let's not confine this practice to the category of "native crap" ... there's plenty of corruption and inefficiency to go around.

This is my favourite:

7) Treaties will be respected in the context of the date of the treaty and the standards of the day.

This is our writer at his best. In other words, the mainstream of Canadian society is only responsible to live up to the literal terms of treaties negotiated in the 17th, 18th or 19th centuries. And the "standards of the day" means that swindling, lying, cheating, and confining First Nations people to the land no one else wants when they had stewardship to the entire continent is OK, since that was the standard of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Now we plainly see the underlying reason for our writer being so upset. We are not acting as responsible 17th, 18th and 19th century British, French or Canadian racists. We must turn back the clock and all of us must respect the "standards of the day". Now I get it !!

8) Your administrative costs and the pay of your local leadership will be set by the people that fund your operation.

I believe that's already happening. If not, then our writer would have us believe that the First Nations leadership simply tells Ottawa what to pay them and how much they need to administer their particular jurisdiction. That would explain all the Lear jets. This simply cannot go on .... or more to the point, why didn't I, as a teacher, tell the provincial government that my own personal services would cost the taxpayers 85 billion dollars .... annually? I really missed the boat on that one.

9) As our minicipalities are governed by provincial rules; so the reserves will be governed by federal rules.

Again, this is already the case. But I'm glad our writer got to use another semi-colon.

Now the piece de resistance:

I believe this list is a good start but is clearly a work in progress. I further believe that a valid counter to the "Idle No More" movement needs to be a strong "Enough is Enough movement." Plainly said, "We have had enough!".

What is plain to see is that our writer is upset with protest. Why? One wonders if he/she has lost his/her job because of Idle No More. Or perhaps he/she has been physically threatened or abused by some of the protesters. It is possible that our writer has lost personal property to the protest. Or could it be that he/she has been under the control of corrupt and abusive Aboriginal bosses who force him/her to hand over his/her rights and privileges as a Canadian citizen?

Or maybe, just maybe, our writer is doing what all "free speakers" do when they do not like protest: play the blame game. The reason Idle No More is protesting is not because of problems caused by us decent, hard-working, tax paying, law abiding Canadians .... no sir, it's those damn Aboriginals who have never had it so good, and are just being greedy and want more, more, more !!!

I, too, say "enough is enough".  Enough bigotry, enough racism, enough playing the blame game when we should pay attention to the concerns of Idle No More and work toward a realistic solution. We don't have to agree with everything Idle No More proposes. But surely no one is advocating keeping things the way they are. That's why Idle No More simply has to exist, and has to rattle a few cages to get people to pay attention. Well, our ridiculous writer has paid attention. Unfortuntately he/she has completely missed the point. But the semi-colons were nice !!