Newsradio was one of the meanest critically acclaimed show nobody (at least that I know anyone ) ever watched. It was a screwy, wacky sitcom where WNYX in New York met WKRP in Cincinnati which ran from 1995 to 1999 on NBC. One of the reasons, I think, why the show was special is how it really didn’t fit into a network “formula”. The producers of Newsradio stuck to their guns (by writing smart plots to navigate network demands) but eventually paid the price when it was finally canceled in 1999. Prior to this, it had its time slot moved a whopping 11 times. Not good if you want to garner a loyal audience.

The show wasn’t without a Canadian connection. Dave Foley of ‘Kids in the Hall’ and the late Phil Hartman (we miss you Lionel Hutz) were part of the original cast and one can detect a certain “Kids in the Hall-esque” influence and humor in a couple of episodes.

This particular hilarious clip is about Dave’s co-workers discovering his secret: That he was Canadian.

Springtime in Montreal used to be a special time for me. Why? It wasn’t about leaving winter behind. Rather, it was about the promise of a new season for the Montreal Expos. Of course, the Expos are no more. Their soul is said to be in Washington somewhere.

The day the Montreal Expos - Nos Amours - left our fair city was the day Montreal ceased being a major league town. 100 years of professional baseball history in the city gone - poof! Just like that.

Unknown to me and my buddies at the time, the Expos were part of one final memorable summer night for us. During a pick up game in Laval, a friend decided to blast the broadcast of an Expos game from the trunk of his car equipped with loud speakers. It was a late game and Montreal was on a west coast swing. As baseball fans know, this usually meant facing the San Diego Padres, San Francisco Giants and Los Angeles Dodgers.  On this particluar night, the Expos faced the Dodgers. I don’t remember more details beyond this. All I remember was playing a fascinating game with the boys.

There’s something about the tonal beat of baseball that meshes well with summer nights and personal thought.

The Expos game was still on by the time we were done. So we quietly sat down on the bench, had a few pops and beers, talked and listened to the final innings.

Soon after, the Expos were gone.

Baseball is the quintessential American passtime. It defined an entire nation for a century (to be displaced by football in the 1960s) and created a legacy of stories, myths and icons still revered.

But baseball had a Canadian face too and it was largely thanks to a gem of a team called the Montreal Expos. And for 35 years they defined and delivered a piece of Canadiana (along with the Toronto Blue Jays who continue to survive) for which sports fans in this country are forever grateful. It did for us that cool summer evening.

“In our modern eagerness to be tolerant, we have come to tolerate things which no society can tolerate and remain healthy.” Brian Cleeve, 1938.

Did you hear about the ethics and religious cultural course (well, debate is a strong word. Did you expect being consulted?) and its aim to make us all tolerant and transcendent souls?

I have nothing against the course itself (you’re reading a post by a guy who feels “Humanities” courses have great merit) but I don’t see the point in paternalistically forcing private schools to comply - even if taught alongside religious courses. Furthermore, if parents don’t want it taught to their kids that’s their decision.

Which gets to the heart of my point: what happened to free choice?

Whenever the government (with the aid of intellectual masters) acts as a “progressive” agent I always treat it with a healthy scepticism. After all, is this not a society and government that held “reasonable accommodations” hearings and still wages its own private and petty war against the English language? Never mind about the poor state of the French language and the difficulties with “integration” in our classes.

I wasn’t sure what to make of the course itself until UQAM Professor Micahel Schleiffer recently offered his defense of the course in the Montreal Gazette. Here are some excerpts and my middling thoughts:

“A battle is raging around the world, between the vast majority of people who strive for moderation and universal values that transcend culture and religion, against fanatics and extremists of all sorts. Attacks on Quebec’s new Ethics and Religious Cultures course are helping the cause of the extremists.”

Really? I didn’t realize having a differing opinion makes you an attacking extremist. My interpretation of this passage is the world is concretely divided between “open-minded free thinkers” and “close minded enslaved sloths”.

However, is it possible, some “open minded” individuals are against not the course itself but the fact it A) trumps the parents authority (an all-too disturbing trend in Canada) and B) removes free choice from the equation?

Wasn’t President Bush derided for his “us against them” depiction of global politics in 2001?

“This course, obligatory in all Quebec schools, introduces students to the major religions and is designed to help them to deal with ethical issues independently of specific religious instruction.”

There it is. That word. Obligatory. Why must everything be “compulsory” and “obligatory”. We’re like a bunch of psychopaths. Incidentally, I once dated a girl who was Zoastroarian. It didn’t work out since my rigid Catholicism kept getting in the way. Gee, I wish I had the ethics course to make me “tolerant”!

He goes on to assure us “relativism” will not pollute our students but then he says two conflicting things,”

“…As professors, we often have to confront the university student’s view that “it’s all a matter of opinion” or “it’s all relative…”

Fair enough. Although, one can argue it is vulnerable to relativism. Can you really teach this course from a neutral bias?

But then:

“That student or child might be looking, mistakenly, for the one “right” or “correct” answer, a quest inappropriate in the context of a discussion about moral values, choices, or dilemmas.”

I’m sure I’m missing something here. “Inappropriate”? Mistakenly”? Doesn’t this sound a lot like relativism in that there are “no absolutes”?

I don’t know but from what I’ve observed some people do have moral clarity (whether you like them or not) and stick by them.

Then he gets all rhetorically goofy:

“We want children to understand about honesty, respect, responsibility and co-operation, and to see the importance of personal virtues including consideration, generosity and kindness.”

Is he insinuating religious classes (who by the way are more universal than given credit for) or parents are incapable of imparting these values? Heck, even Sesame Street covered all these bases.

If, with this piece, Professor Schleiffer (and there were other parts of the article that are up for debate) was hoping to enlighten little extremists like me, I remain in the dark.

He shouldn’t feel bad. Tolerance is a tricky thing. It’s called a FREE SOCIETY.

The Liberals are claiming this is an attack ad by the Conservatives. Is it? Is it not a fact Michael Ignatieff lived abroad (the UK and U.S.) for about three decades? Or is it enough to just have a Canadian passport to lead this country to which point this video is misguided?

Naturally, geography and history plays a vital role in shaping societies and cultures. Canada is so busy racking its brain attempting to define itself in writing (we live vicariously through it these days) it forgets about the heritage staring right back at it.

Wood Buffalo National Park in Alberat and Northwest Territories

Canada’s sense of history is often (and justifiably) criticized; especially when the CBC publishes its infantile”top” Canadians list.

However, many Canadians are proud of this land’s natural beauty and Unesco agrees with its World Heritage project since most of its 15 properties protected by Unesco are of the natural variety (valleys, cliffs, etc.) as opposed to cultural (buildings, cities etc.). By contrast, the majority of sites protected in Italy and Spain, who lead the list with 43 and 40 sites respectively, are cultural. For example, the entire city of Verona. In fact, cultural sites dominate the list.

North America’s breakdown is naturally, well, weighed towards nature. Nine of Canada’s 15 sites are natural. In the United States, 12 of 20 and 25 of Mexico’s 29 sites are natural.

Other countries of interest: China (37), France and Germany (33), United Kingdom and India  (27), Russia (23), Australia, Brazil and Greece (17), Sweden (14).

I find we don’t debate immigration issues enough in this country. If someones does open a discussion, it sometimes takes on a negative connotation for no justified reason.

It’s possible to meaningfully pontificate about such matters without paranoid assumptions often associated with adherents of anti-immigration or politically correct minions.

A perfect example of where the law, politics, immigration and racism all conspire in a confused dance is with the problem of illegal Mexicans pouring into the United States.

The question revolves around exactly how to handle illegal immigrants presently working and living in the United States.

For many, there is a legitimate argument with the notion that illegal aliens must be forced to follow the rules. If it means deportation so be it. Those who go for this approach aren’t anti-immigration or racist; they just want to maintain the integrity of the law.

Is it fair for illegals to be granted amnesty? Not when measured against the reality that thousands of people are patiently and legally waiting in line.  Indeed, how is this fair to them?

So America has to wrestle with its own immigration issues including Muslim immigration and racial profiling.

At least the debate is in the open in the United States. Not so here in Canada. This is unfortunate because once in a while we need to vigorously question and challenge our leaders. It’s the only way to really keep democratic public discourse alive.

Is discussing immigration in Canada a taboo subject? Does the media offer a fair and balanced picture of it?  Is Canada’s  immigration department is secretive and non-transparent?

Sometimes I wonder if we simply shy away from facing questions that force us to look into the mirror.

Who we are has a direct correlation in what we become. But if the road is littered with misguided ideas or faulty immigration policies, what we become may mean we won’t care about who we are.

Here are some links regarding immigration:

Immigration Watch Canada

CanadaVisa.com

Refuge

Canada and Immigration by Freda Hawkins (Google Books)

Double Standard: The Secret History Of Canadian Immigration

The thing about perusing the internet is you never know what you’ll find on a spontaneous cyber-journey.

So Canadiana

Finding lost pieces of our heritage is certainly a mystery always worth solving. For instance, I discovered a book titled The Collected Doug Wright: Canada’s Master Cartoonist.

I must admit, although my knowledge of Canadiana is probably above average, I never came across Doug Wright (1917-1983) and if I did, he slipped through my consciousness.

More familiar to me (or at least managed to stick in my head) were - among others - Joe Shuster (creator of Superman), Jim Unger (Herman), Ben Wicks (The Outcasts), Lynn Johnston (For better or for worse) and Todd McFarlane (Spawn).

Speaking of Unger, this reminds me of something. Some of you reading this may remember being given an order form from Scholastic books in grade school. For my part, I recall stocking up on Herman and Heathecliff (the real bad cat. Garfield was nothing next to ‘Cliff).

Writer’s note: You don’t know this (because you can’t see or read time) but I just spent one hour retrieved and reading some Heathecliff’s I kept. He cracks me up that crazy cat.

Back to Wright. As I marched on getting aquainted with his work, it also became evident Canada has a long animated history.

Wright is a distinguished part of this country’s rich cartoon heritage. Thanks to a brilliant career,  he became an internationally reknowned artist best known for his wordless masterpiece Nipper (later Doug Wright’s Family) which ran for over three decades in succession.

Follow the links to learn more about a great and prolific creative artist.

The problem I have with multiculturalism is the strict and steadfast adherence of preserving cultural identities (through taxpayer funding) at the expense of forging a unified, albeit elusive and confusing,  national Canadian identity.

I much rather prefer a pluralist society free of state intervention where citizens are the driving force. And yes, there’s a difference between pluralism and multiculturalism. Creating a “community of communities” organically from a grass roots level is far more meaningful than legislating culture through a bureaucratic hand. But that’s just me. I’m a sucker for power residing in the sovereign individual. Lost concepts of a time…aw forget it.

Of course, thinkers, politicians and people alike have been divided about multiculturalism since it was made a policy in 1971 (and inserted into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Section 27) by the Liberal party.

Read the remainder of this post ››

A few years ago I wrote an article on Intersportswire exploring two unlikely sports teams: the Montreal Canadiens of the NHL and soccer club Athletic Bilbao in Spain’s La Liga. The crux of the piece was about how sports and politics collide.

Sports and politics are often intertwined, sometimes unwittingly and sometimes by design. What makes Montreal and Bilbao unique is their conscious effort to maintain identity in a global sports environment. Can a team maintain a local cultural identity and still win on a global scale?

It must be said that Bilbao’s case is more rigid than Montreal’s. Bilbao rarely, if ever, employs anyone outside its Basque heritage. Pragmatically, Montreal doesn’t constrict itself at the player level this way, or else they simply wouldn’t compete – especially considering they don’t have the rights of French-Canadian players through the territorial draft anymore. However, at the coaching and management level it’s a different matter.

Recently, Montreal Canadiens president Pierre Boivin publicly proclaimed the next coach of the fable (but faltering) Canadiens would be a francophone - or at the very least a coach who spoke French. Boivin further stipulated it was the duty of the club to give Quebecers a chance to coach in the NHL.

To some this was an odd (if not discriminatory) assertion to make. The only duty of a sports franchise is to win and make profits.

To others, there was nothing obscure in what he said. In fact, it’s a question of being practical. He was merely stating the reality of the Canadiens being intricately woven into the French-Canadian fabric of Quebec society. They are one and the same, and not to be separated.

I think both arguments are valid. For the most part, the organization does seek a healthy balance but when push comes to making hard decisions that benefits the team will they lead with conviction?

However, there are consequences to both scenarios aforementioned. The first may mean tolerating no French-Canadian representation for a coaching stint, while the second can lead to mediocre results.

Employing a person to lead a great brand like the Canadiens is a serious thing and a question we can ask is, should it come at the expense of a better candidate? If it does, then are the Montreal Canadiens a meritocracy operating in a free market system or are they a provincial operation in a global competitive system?

A blunter question is, are Quebecers willing to accept mediocrity in the name of identity? We often hear about how we Montrealers don’t tolerate losing seasons.

As a prominent member in the community, Boivin should stay clear of cultural nationalist rhetoric and speak as a business leader. In this way, he could help change the public narrative concerning this issue and usher in a fresh way of looking at its hiring practices.

After all, as the greatest hockey franchise in history, isn’t it beholden to the Montreal Canadiens to give its fans nothing but the best?