Indeed the bigotry knows no bounds

What follows below is from an email I received today. By no means to I subscribe to anything in this; I just wanted to share it. I thought I would share what is being said, about a political candidate... one I happen to support, but that's not even relevant to how disgusted I was by what was said. And this wasn't said by some right-wing nut-job. This was forwarded to me by someone I thought of as a nice person, a caring person, a reasonable and rational person.

I'm deeply offended by what I read, but more importantly, I think this typifies an issue I see in the whole campaign this year. It seems the right can post crap like this, and it's everywhere. The left, unfortunately, is preaching to the converted. I write this blog, and already know that 90% of my readers already agree with me. I try to speak out on my Facebook page, and the right again knocks me for forcing my beliefs on them.

But they can send me this...

A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they
imagine that America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves.
Pause a moment, reflect back. These events are actual events from history.. They
really happened!!! Do you remember?


1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male extremist.


2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and
massacred by Muslim male extremists.


3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim male
extremists.


4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by
Muslim male extremists.


5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim
male extremists.


6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old
American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim
male extremists.


7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver
trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim male extremists.


8. In 1988 , Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim male extremists.


9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim
male extremists.


10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by
Muslim male extremists.


11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles
to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into
the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers.
Thousands of people were killed by Muslim male extremists.


12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against
Muslim male extremists.


13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by-- you
guessed it-- Muslim male extremists.


No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So,
to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on
killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile
certain people... Absolutely No Profiling! They must conduct random searches of
80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification,
secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old
Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe
Foss, but leave Muslim Males alone lest they be guilty of profiling.


According to The Book of Revelations: The Anti-Christ will be a man, in
his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive
language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people
will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is
in power, he will destroy everything.


And Now: For the award winning Act of Stupidity Of all times the People
of America want to elect, to the most Powerful position on the face of the
Planet -- The Presidency of the United states of America .. A Male of Muslim
descent who is the most extremely liberal Senator in Congress (in other words an
extremist) and in his 40s.


Have the American People completely lost their Minds, or just their
Power of Reason ??? I'm sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the 'unknown'
candidate Obama... Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the
Gloria Aldreds and other stupid attorneys along with Federal Justices that want
to thwart common sense, feel ashamed of themselves -- if they have any such
sense. As the writer of the award winning story 'Forrest Gump' so aptly put it,
'Stupid Is As Stupid Does'.

I'm disgusted; how about you? And if you are, don't just tell me, forward the link. Infact, forward the link to every McCain supporter you know; every Independant you know; every undecided person you know. Forward the link to people who would agree, but only if they're going to send it on to everyone else they know who isn't already supporting Obama. We all know what's being said, and we're outraged, but the right isn't watching CNN or Bill Maher, they don't read the Huffington Post or my blog, they don't listen to NPR, and they're inbox isn't flooded with 100s of messages from my.BarackObama.com...

but perhaps they should be.

It's 10 p.m.; do you know who your candidates are?

I don't normally quote other people here. Generally what I write is my own. But in this case, others have compiled these facts more completely than I could, so in this case, forgive me for borrowing.

That being said, do any of us know who McCain and Palin really are? With McCain, I can't figure out when the McCain who ran as an Independent in 2000 became the McCain running as a Republican in 2008. Moreover, I can't figure out who this candidate McCain is, when you compare his platform to the record of Senator McCain.

The 3 McCains aside, who on Earth is Sarah Palin? Asking what she's done that merits her nomination is apparently an inappropriate line of questioning, so we may never find out. So, since they won't tell you before Novemeber, let's take a look at what I've found out about this year's Republican ticket.

We'll start with John Sidney McCain III:

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws. 1 2
   
2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi." 3 4
   
3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban. 5
   
4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned." 6
   
5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill. 7 8
   
6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations. 9 10
   
7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me." 11 12
   
8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates. 13 14
   
9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult." 15 16 17
   
10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year. 18

And now Sarah Louise Heath Palin:

1. Palin recently said that the war in Iraq is "God's task." She's even admitted she hasn't thought about the war much—just last year she was quoted saying, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq." 1 2
2. Palin has actively sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party. Six months ago, Palin told members of the group—who advocate for a vote on secession from the union—to "keep up the good work" and "wished the party luck on what she called its 'inspiring convention.'" 3
3. Palin wants to teach creationism in public schools. She hasn't made clear whether she thinks evolution is a fact. 4
   
4. Palin doesn't believe that humans contribute to global warming. Speaking about climate change, she said, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being manmade. 5
5. Palin has close ties to Big Oil. Her inauguration was even sponsored by BP. 6
6. Palin is extremely anti-choice. She doesn't even support abortion in the case of rape or incest. 7
7. Palin opposes comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. She's said she will only support abstinence-only approaches. 8
8. As mayor, Palin tried to ban books from the library. Palin asked the library how she might go about banning books because some had inappropriate language in them—shocking the librarian, Mary Ellen Baker. According to Time, "news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor." 9
9. She DID support the Bridge to Nowhere (before she opposed it). Palin claimed that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. But in 2006, Palin supported the project repeatedly, saying that Alaska should take advantage of earmarks "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." 10
   

So there's 10 things you may or may not have known -- 10 things the McCain - Palin camp never would have told you -- about the 2008 Republican ticket. Just thought you should know.

With apologies to the Dalai Lama

The games of the 29th Olympiad began on August 8th, in Beijing, China, and boy did they start with a bang. The Opening Ceremonies were a stunning amalgamation of technology and human precision that amazed, shocked, and even scared. A 500 x 70 meter LED display merged seamlessly with an enormous piece of canvas painted by the flowing movements of 5 dancers. A pyrotechnics display worthy of 10 Independence Days -- but hey, the Chinese did invent fireworks -- was overlayed by even more digital fireworks; the media had to inform us 4 days later that we had all been tricked. 2008 martial arts experts performed synchronized Tai Chi. 2008 drummers performed flawlessly synchronized... well, drumming. The list went on... and on... to the point that each performer performed only once; hundreds of thousands of performers, each performing once. This was art by an army. If this is how China opens a sporting competition, God help us if they decide to invade someone.


But China isn't invading anyone; we'll leave that to Russia. The Russian and Georgian medalist, in pistol, even, did stand peacefully next to each other on the medal podium, but 3600 miles away in Tbilisi, it's a different story. China, on the other hand, has been putting their best political face forward, something NBC's been calling the "Charm Offensive". The host nation has been open and welcoming (as long as your camera stays pointed in the right direction), and the people seem to be expressing some degree of personal freedom. That's not to say, however, that the gymnasts don't appear to fear beheading as a penalty for winning less than gold.


But they are winning gold. So are the divers. In fact, China seems to be excelling in every sport based on subjective scoring. If you have to be the first to touch the pad, look to Phelps. If it's about a ball going through a hoop or over a net, Team USA can make it happen. But, put a "judge" in the mix... well, let's say that the American uniform seems to have an adverse effect of an athlete's form. Perhaps all those stars and stripes are confusing to the eye.

I hate to be sour, and I try to be objective. I'm not the most patriotic person in this country, and often cheer on the Canadians, the Irish, the Russians, or any team that happened to catch me in a certain way. I like the Olympics for the spirit of competition, and to watch records being broken; I'm not effected by whether it's the Americans or the Ukrainians doing it. But what I've seem of the judging this year's competition bothers me. Men's gymnastics bothered me. I know China was the favourite, but that's all that seemed to matter. When the US men performed vaults of difficulty beyond any other team, their scores still couldn't touch the marks awarded to China for "adequate" performances.

Diving is a sport I understand much better. I have experience in it, I've coached it, and I understand exactly how it's judged. What I don't understand is how a dive with crossed legs, over-arched back, and over-rotation gets a 10.0. Well? Australian judge? Care to comment? OK, I won't jump to any conclusions about the character of anyone I don't personally know, but I will point out that bribes were handed out back when Salt Lake was petitioning to be a host city. Those who accepted said bribes have been discharged, so... everything has to be on the up-and-up now... right?

Speaking of money -- and while we're at it, speaking of not speaking -- let's discuss our friends at NBC. Nothing like critical journalism. Every once in a blue moon you'll hear a statement that sounds like it might want to be a dissent, but then it tapers off into "... and this is a pretty good dive, and it has a high degree of difficulty, so we should see scores in the 80's". We should see scores in the 80's because we've been instructed we will see those scores, the judges have been instructed give give those scores, and the broadcasters have been instructed to give those scores. Remember, this is still a totalitarian state.

If you missed Chinese totalitarianism, it was covered in the 1,000 year gap in the history lesson they gave us in the Opening Ceremonies. 250,000 BC: China invents fire. 2000 BC: Dynastic China begins. 1045 AD: China invents movable type. 1912 to 2006: Nothing happened. Then China got the Olympics, and China found freedom. It's akin to a German history book missing the pages from 1933 to 1945. And the media has bought into it. Once, just once, I caught an interpreter slip up, and render "I'm very happy to have won, and in front of all of China, and the Chairman is here." In every other occurrence the translation "President" seems to be preferred.

And President does sound better. It fits the image we're being handed of happy Chinese people, running little acrobatics studios out of their homes, and eating scorpion-on-a-stick at local stands. The puff pieces have been wonderful. Former pro tennis player Mary Carillo wanders around China, sampling the Government-sanctioned culture -- at one point one of her interviewees stated "entrepreneur" wasn't an appropriate term, likely because she wasn't entitled to actually make any money from her home business -- while Bob Costas (who made remarks on the China Team's possible drug use during both the 1992 Barcelona and 1996 Atlanta Olympics) instead repeatedly interviews Béla Károlyi, who's complete failure of the English languages provides us with great insight like "they must stay on the apparatus [pronounced ah-pah-rah-toose]".

Occasionally, though, there are some watchable Olympic events. Michael Phelps continues to build on his world record for the most world records, now the winningest human in Olympic History with (at the time of this writing) 11 Gold Medals. By closing ceremonies, he is expected to hold a world and Olympic record in each event he swims, a Gold Medal for each, more Gold Medals than any other Olympic athlete, and the most Gold Medals ever awarded to a single person in a single Olympiad. His mantra has been amended from "Eat, Sleep, Swim" to "Eat, Sleep, Swim, Get Medal, Get Drug Tested". Luckily, the urine, blood, hair, stool, and marrow samples he's given will prevent any questioning of his performance, and at least in this one event, there are no judges to somehow steal medals from the fastest man on Earth in water.

And so, all this said, I will continue to tune in, to watch all the events where medals are based on being the fastest, or scoring the most baskets, kills, or goals. Objectivity seems to be at a minimum at these games, but for those events where it still exists, I will watch...

with apologies to the Dalai Lama.

An Open Letter to the Greater Hartford Arts Council

Every year the Hartford Advocate and the Greater Hartford Arts Council put together a local music showcase called the Hartford Advocate Grand Band Slam. Over the years, many of my friends' bands have been nominated, many have been offered for nomination, and many have been completely overlooked. This year, I received a notification from one of these friends, Ronnie Neuhauser, calling to supporters to nominated his band for this years contest. Normally, I would think that asking your friends to nominate your band would defeat the value of a nomination process, but knowing how these things (unfortunately) work, I completely understood the call for support.

As a friend and fan of Ronnie's, a supporter of local music, and a musician myself, I felt compelled to share Ronnie's thoughts on the subject. I will add first my own editorial that Ronnie and the members of his ensemble are among the most talented individuals I have ever seen perform, and without a doubt, the most original and creative group of musicians in the area.

Ronnie's letter:

Dear Greater Hartford Arts Council,

My name is Ronnie Neuhauser, composer/guitarist for No Cheez Orchestra and Styrocultural Antidote. I wanted to bring to your attention something I feel very strongly about. It is quite upsetting that the Grand Band Slam, a contest where I imagine the intent is to support creative local artists; is nothing but a popularity contest. This is disturbing because every contest I come across, especially corporate sponsored ones, have zero to do with the art form. A contest of this fashion immediately excludes many artists who are doing something different (of course there are a few exceptions). It's bad enough that the current culture has such a narrow view of what music is because of the corporate musical landscape, but for an establishment whose intent should be to give voice to artists pushing boundaries; this is nothing short of frightening. I was hoping a contest devised by an arts council would be much different. Why not have a group of judges who at least have some idea of aesthetics decide? The contest/event should cater to artists. As I examine these events I find that the artist becomes the least important participant. I hope you give my thoughts serious consideration and I'd certainly love to speak in more detail about it.

I believe the council has an obligation to help establish ground breaking artists, and give a voice to those who are being marginalized.

Peace, Ronnie
www.nocheez.com

Wanderlust

A few things have come to convergence in my head, kind of all at once, that have brought me to a realization.


First is that I felt the need to write, but wondered if I could produce something apolitical at the moment. Everything I've felt compelled to write lately has been about the state of the nation in one way or another, and although I'm happy to share all my thoughts on the subject, I wanted to just write something more... mundane.


Also today, I came to the understanding that Waterfest 14 would not be in the cards for me. There are plenty of other VW events this summer, so I have no issue missing this one. But in thinking about the show, and why I wanted to go, I came to the realization that I haven't gone anywhere in a while. Now that relates back to the previous point, in that some of my favourite blogs have been about travel and trips.


I've also realized that I've been saying more and more often lately, that I want to move. And when I say move, I mean really move. Out of this area, out of Connecticut, and out of the country. France is really sticking with me, and although I know it's only one of many possible destinations, the idea of being ready to leave continent and language behind, without fear, proves my readiness to pack it all up and go.


So... it would seem I need to stretch my legs a bit. No, I'm not leaving for France tomorrow, but I'd like to wander. In February I drove from one side of this land to the other, and now I have a better understanding of how varied this country is. Now I want to see more. This summer seems to be a good time to do some travelling. Nothing serious; nothing costly; nothing far. Sunday, I hope to go up to Woodstock, CT (no relation to the hippy festival). Maybe I'll take a bunch of little trips like this. Gas is pricey, but at 30 miles to the gallon, I can still roam a bit on $20 to 25.

Connecticut is getting too small. Soon enough it will be too small to stay. But for now, it's time to see a bit more of it, and the surrounding area. As I learned this winter, there's much more to see than what I've come to know. On a related point, a quotation I just stumbled across. "Hitler didn't travel. Stalin didn't travel. Saddam Hussein never traveled. They didn't want to have their orthodoxy challenged." — Howard Gardner

I, on the other hand, am more than happy to have mine challenged... in fact, I welcome it.

Independence Day

Friday, July 4, is Independence Day. I hate when people call it "The Fourth of July". The 4th of July is a date, not a holiday. By that logic, I should celebrate "The Seventh of March"; seems just as valid. Or why not "The Nineteenth of May"? That one sounds good.

But the one coming up is Independence Day. It's a good holiday. About as American a holiday as one could have. We celebrate the day we declared ourselves a nation, we drink beer, we grill beef, we blow shit up. Yup, as American as they come.

I'm not against Independence Day. I'm against Independence... but at this point, I don't think the Queen would have us back. Independence Day should stand to remind us, once annually, that we are a bunch of wet-behind-the-ears punks. This year, it will be 232 whole years, which in Nation terms makes us about 12.

Would you let your twelve year old declare war?

400 years ago, a bunch of disgruntled religious extremists (Yes, don't you remember studying the Puritans in 9th grade history and English Lit?) left England to sail forth to find a new place to practice their stonings and witch-hunting. They came across this great nation -- and the great Nation that inhabited it -- and by their own arrogance, claimed it as their own... but still as a colony of their mother country (they were nuts, but not without a sense of economic prudence).

165 years passed -- we'll skip over the gloomy part about what happened to the native inhabitants -- and (as legend has it) finally got fed up one day about tea. Now in the past 168 years, they had pretty much given up the whole funny-hats, witch-stoning religious odd-ball-ity, and settled for... well basically the same religion they were practicing back home that they were oh so oppressed by (oh, and some had become Quakers... that's an interesting one... but for another time, perhaps).

So, in 1773, the blood of much tea was spilled. 3 years later, they justified their costumed vigilantism (kinda like Batman, less the cape, add Indian feathers, loose the cool gadgets, and add a distaste for tea and taxation) with a documented, ratified, and official declaration, wherein they called the British a bunch of tyrants, and said "we don't have to stand for this."

Sic semper tyrannis!

Actually that's what John Wilkes Booth said after he shot Lincoln, but the message was the same, and we declared war on Britain.

Fast forward another 232 years, and I sit on a beach, watching fireworks, and listening to bad music. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against John Philip Sousa; it's the rest of the dreck... the patriotic "pop" music... that leaves much to be desired. If there's one in particular that makes me want to kick babies, it's "Proud to be an American" by good old Lee Greenwood. "And I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free." Listen, Lee, you can be free in Finland... where you can also have Universal Healthcare and the greatest standard of living in the world. Plus, you get the added benefit of having a head of state who isn't the laughing stock of the planet.

"...at least I know I'm free." Yeah, at least you have that. Your country may unlawfully torture non-combat detainees in a secure and secretive base on the shore of an enemy nation we've been in embargo with for greater than 50 years while ignoring all UN requests for meer inspection... but at least you know you're free. It's like saying I'm proud to be complete trailer trash, where at least I know no one will rob me.

OK, but enough bashing of trailer trash.

If it's not Lee Greenwood, maiking me want to move to Bulgaria, or the 6 tone-deaf assholes behind me singing along, or the "Town Band" murdering the 120 year old classics of Mr. Sousa, then its the ignorantly inappropriate "Born in the USA". Yup, Bruce Springsteen's classic rock anthem... you know it, you love it, I love it... I will not disparage The Boss. But apparently no one knows what it means. Maybe when Bruce denied Ronald Reagan the right to campaign, we might have remembered why. No? Well, because it's not a song of nationalism or patriotism, that's why.

I got in a little hometown jam
And so they put a rifle in my hands
Sent me off to Vietnam
To go and kill the yellow man

That's patriotic, right? Killing is the name of one's nation is about as nationalist as one can get.

Come back home to the refinery
Hiring man says "Son if it was up to me"
I go down to see the V.A. man
He said "Son don't you understand"

Oh, that must be the patriotism... not being hired after coming back from serving his country?

I had a buddy at Khe Sahn
Fighting off the Viet Cong
They're still there, he's all gone
He had a little girl in Saigon
I got a picture of him in her arms

Patriotic yet?

Down in the shadow of the penitentiary
Out by the gas fires of the refinery
I'm ten years down the road
Nowhere to run, ain't got nowhere to go

Homeless vets. Yup. Yeah, not so patriotic, I agree. So... back to Independence Day.

Annoying music -- either by lyric, performance, or blatant inappriopriateness -- coupled with drunken yahoos -- any statutes forbidding drinking in public do seem to be ignored on this day -- form the bachground for the true spectacle of the Independence Day celebration: Fireworks.

Thank you to the 9th century Chinese for giving us the telltale expression of our most American holiday. Granted, these days the greatest fireworks in the US come from an Italian-American family in Long Island named Grucci, who have been making American-made firworks since 1850. A typical Grucci fireworks program costs about $100,000. Bear than in mind the next time you pay your city tax bill.

Or, you can go down to your local fireworks store, or drive to New Hampshire, South Carolina, or whatever your closest legal state to buy fireworks and illegally bring them back to your own, crack open a can of your favorite canned beer, fire up your grill, sit the kids on the lawn, and procede to blow your own hand off.

Happy 4th of July.

Summer Viewing List

In case you've been living in a cave, I'll remind you that there's a general election coming up. November is very close. So, in the interest of making an informed decision, I offer a selection of documentary films to remind you of the issues facing this country and the world; issues that should be born in mind when selecting our next president (and Senators and Representatives, should you live in a state electing one).

And so, I give you your Summer Reading List. But, since I know reading is so passé, they'll all be movies, instead. And, when at all possible, I shall give Netflix and Blockbuster online links, so you can queue or even watch the films online.

Fahrenheit 911 | IMdB | Netflix | Blockbuster
Michael Moore, in his usual fervor, goes after the US Government for its actions before, during, and after 9-11, and the ensuing war in Iraq.

Ghosts of Abu Ghraib | IMdB | Netflix | Blockbuster
What's most amazing about this film from HBO is how early they broke this story. The Abu Ghraib conspiracy may be past, but bear in mind as you watch this film, that if this could happen in Iraq, where access was available, what could possibly be happening at Guantanamo Bay, where there is no outside access.

An Inconvenient Truth | IMdB | Netflix | Blockbuster
Al Gore prevents the hard facts about Global Warming. Maybe you think another month of nice weather is good thing, or don't understand why the people of Greenland are pissed that their country is going from icy white to green... maybe it'll make more sense to you when New York City is under water.

Jesus Camp | IMdB | Netflix | Blockbuster
Not so much a political issue, but this film shows the utter indoctrination of young Evangelicals, being raised and trained to enact the political agenda of what is possibly the largest voting sect in America. If the image of 8 year olds praying to a cardboard icon of George W. Bush disgusts you in the slightest, remember this image as you vote and remind everyone you know to do the same.

Recount | IMdB | Netflix | Not available on Blockbuster
8 years ago, we had a national election, between our current president and a would-be Nobel Prize winner. The election came down to one hotly contested, disputed, and possibly cheated state. HBO films again presents the events surrounding the controversy of the election that wasn't decided by the people, but in the end, by the United States Supreme Court.

Sicko | IMdB | Netflix | Blockbuster
Michael Moore, again. Love him or hate him, he makes compelling documentaries. Before he formally endorsed Barack Obama this Spring, Moore was a supporter of the Hillary Clinton heathcare initiative. Take a look at Moore's view of the American healthcare crisis, and see what other countries, from Brance to Cuba, have done about the situation.

Unconstitutional: The War on Our Civil Liberties | IMdB | Netflix | Blockbuster
A hard look into the Patriot Act. Did our political leader sell out our freedoms? For what price? And what was our price? Also looks at internment at Guantanamo Bay, is this just a replay of the Japanese internment camps in World War II? Is that what we've become... again?

Also available from this producer:
Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War | IMdB | Netflix | Blockbuster
Uncovered: The War on Iraq (follow-up to above) | IMdB | Netflix
Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election | IMdB | Netflix | Blockbuster

Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price | IMdB | Netflix | Blockbuster
Robert Greenwald again (Unprecedented, Uncovered, Unconstitutional), shows us that we indeed get what we pay for. From the lacking standards for their employees, and refusal to allow them to unionize, to the conditions under which their products are made, to the effects the mega-store has on small-town business and their environment, Greenwald takes aim at America's Superstore with brilliant accuracy.

WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception | IMdB | Netflix | Blockbuster
Fair and Balanced? Take a look into the role the media played in "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Who was on-board the administration's Spin Machine? The answer may shock you.

There are many more fine documentaries available. I can only offer the few I've had the opportunity to see just the Spring. I hope that you have the opportunity to see some, if not all of these titles, before the upcoming election, and that just one of these points echoes in your head as you pull that voting booth lever.

One Nation Under God? Not for the first 347 years.

I just finished watching Jesus Camp, a documentary regarding Midwestern Evangelical Christians and the indoctrination of the children through Youth Ministries and Evangelical Summer Camp. It's really fascinating and terrifying stuff. And not to spoil the film for you, but I was particularly amused with the fact that the camp is held in the town of Devil's Lake, ND.

Like any good God-loving organization, these Evangelical Christians love the phrase "One Nation Under God". They use it repetitively to justify not only that Christianity has a place in American politics (at one point they're seen praying to a cut-out of George W. Bush), but that the United States of America is somehow Jesus' chosen country. Personally, I think if Jesus were to have a country, he'd like one that wasn't as crippled and divided as ours; maybe Finland.

But I digress. Upon completion of the film, I was compelled to look into this "One Nation Under God" thing. I was fairly certain it was not one of our founding principles -- not found in the Declaration of Independence, or even the Constitution -- and it was my understanding the phrase first appeared in the Pledge of Allegiance. So I sought to find out where that came from.

22 seconds later -- Wikipedia is a beautiful thing -- I had all the answers I was was looking for. In fact, this elusive phrase was more detached than I had even thought. I'm not going to reprint the entire Wikipedia article -- if you care to, you can read it here -- but let me simply throw out the pertinent facts.

The United States is considered to be founded in 1776. I don't think I need to cite anything here; this is fairly common knowledge. The beginnings of what we may consider "American" Colonial culture start considerably earlier with Jamestown in 1607, and Plymouth in 1620. Even my hometown of Milford was established in 1639. If we consider Jamestown the beginning of "America", then we're a hair over 400 years old.

400 years ago, our forefathers came to this continent seeking religious tolerance; not quite "One Nation Under God" yet. 232 years ago, 13 colonies come together as one Nation, defined by its Declaration of Independence to be "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights". So by 1776, we're acknowledging a Creator, by we're still a far cry from "One Nation Under God". So let's move ahead.

It's not from the Constitution; the words "God" or "Creator" don't even appear. So I guess we have to look to, as I was to understand, the first appearance of the phrase, the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy. Bellamy was a Baptist minister and a Christian Socialist. That must explain "One Nation Under God". Nope. When Bellamy's Pledge was printed in it's original form, in the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion, as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, it read "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. America"

Only 106 years ago, and still, no sight of "One Nation Under God". So when do we find this elusive phrase. Be patient. We know we'll get to it soon.

The Pledge was first used in public schools, by proclamation of President Benjamin Harrison, on October 12, 1892, during Columbus Day observances. Still, no change in the language.

In 1923 the National Flag Conference called for a change in the wording. They changed the words "my Flag" to "the Flag of the United States". They wanted immigrants to know to which flag reference was being made. Apparently the standing and facing the American flag wasn't clarification enough. Still no God.

Later that year, a second edit was made. No God; just "of America".

In 1940 the Pledge of Allegience came before the Supreme Court. In Minersville School District v. Gobitis (a misspelling of Gobitases), the Court ruled that students in public schools could be compelled to recite the Pledge, even Jehovah's Witnesses like the Gobitases, who considered the flag salute to be idolatry. But even at this point, there's no mention of God in the Pledge.

In 1943 the Supreme Court reversed its decision, ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that "compulsory unification of opinion" violated the First Amendment.

In 1945, after the Pledge had twice gone before the United State Supreme Court, the U.S. Congress officially recognized the Pledge as the official national pledge. I guess if we needed an "official national pledge", that would be the one. And still, it bears no reference to God.

In 1951, some 344 years after Jamestown, 175 years after the Declaration of Independence, God shows up in the Pledge... for some people. The Knights of Columbus, in New York City, felt that the pledge was incomplete without any reference to a deity. Citing language from Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, took it upon themselves to add the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, at the beginning of their own meetings.

On August 21, 1952, the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus adopted a resolution urging that the change be made universal, and copies of this resolution were sent to the President, the Vice President (as Presiding Officer of the Senate) and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. This urging was ignored.

The National Fraternal Congress meeting in Boston, on September 24, 1952, adopted a similar resolution. Several State Fraternal Congresses acted likewise almost immediately thereafter. This campaign led to several official attempts to prompt Congress to adopt the Knights of Columbus’ policy for the entire nation. These attempts failed.

Senator Homer Ferguson, finally brought a resolution before Congress, and in his report on March 10, 1954, said, "The introduction of this joint resolution was suggested to me by a sermon given recently by the Rev. George M. Docherty, of Washington, D.C., who is pastor of the church at which Lincoln worshipped." Congress passed the Oakman-Ferguson resolution, and Eisenhower signed the bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954.

And so, for days short of a mere 54 years, and due to the work of the Knights of Columbus, and a Rev. Dochery inspired Senator Ferguson, we have been "One Nation Under God". And let us not even venture into the idea of even having an oath of Allegiance, or the nazi-esque salute that went along with it for the first 50 years. That rant will have to be saved for a different blog.

I still believe in Human Rights

Bloggers Unite for Human Rights... that's the message, the task I decided to undertake. A post from Amnesty International has asked me to devote my blog on this day to the subject of Human Rights violations. Unfortunately, it's not my strongest subject, so-to-speak. Perhaps that's a good thing. As I do a little research, I too will learn as I then pass along to you the reader.

I've been a "card-carrying member" of Amnesty International since High School. Back then I was a long-haired causey. I looked the part. I had my flannel shirts, Doc Martens, and was heading off to college in Massachusetts. I was listening to the message, at the time spewed from the lips of Bono and Eddie Vedder. Apartheid was wrong. Mandela still needed to be freed.

But years later, I now work for "the Man" I had always expected to fight. I'm still political. I'm still liberal. But I thought my idealism might have been lost. Now I work for the engine that jails the people I thought needed to be freed. For years I was pretty sure the career of my adulthood clashed mightily with the ideals of my youth.

However, after some time, and tempered by the knowledge gained from 11 years in this field, I realized that doing what I do has not blinded me to injustice. Sometimes it's hard to see that I work to right injustice when the media tends to focus on the injustice of the system. But I have learned that we can protect the innocent without violating the rights of the accused.

One can be part of the system and speak out against its abuses. Change can come from within. So now I support Amnesty's work without excepting its condemnation of the system. Moreover, I have the professional knowledge to sort the hope from the hype, and understand the sides of the accused and the accusers. And armed with that knowledge, I can state that I am still in favor of the death penalty, and publicly say Free the West Memphis Three, and the Jena Six.

Then of course there are those issues that no one can really dispute, like the situation in Darfur. Or, if you are the type reticent to act unless it's happening in your own backyard, thousands of Americans are still displaced or homeless as a result of Hurricane Katrina. And of course, while we're on the subject of atrocities of our own government, let's not forget Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Even if you support our government... even if you support the imprisonment of so-called "war criminals"... torture is illegal under international law, and to try to have a discourse as to whether or not "water-boarding" violates laws against torture is simply absurd. Torture is torture, one can not justify certain types of torture to get around the applicable laws.

Then again, the United States seems to enjoy circumventing International Law and denying rights... even of it's own citizens. Soldiers, even those who only signed up the the National Guard, are being forced to serve extra tours (see the movie Stop Loss), and now being denied their freedom of speech and religion in an effort to circumvent Conscientious Objector status.

My point is this, you don't have to be a hippy, or a screaming, flag-burning radical to be in favor of human rights. Some of us work for the government. I won't be labelled a tree hugging bleeding heart because I have a heart. I believe in Criminal Justice, I believe in the Government, I believe in the Police, and I still believe in Human Rights.

Teddy Roosevelt, where are you now?

There isn't a person in this country that doesn't agree -- yes, we're united on one point -- that we need a change in government. No, we can't agree on what that change may be, but we agree it's needed. Some support McCain, some Obama, some Hillary. Some people are still holding out for Al Gore or Ralph Nader, and others are still wishing Kusinich, Edwards, Romney, Guilliani, or Ron Paul were still in the race.

No matter who you support, I don't know anyone who supports the current administration. OK, statistics say a few still do, but I can't fathom who they are.

I've been pretty public of my support of Barack Husein Obama, who is not a terrorist, not a Muslim plant, not a weakling ready to hand the country over to "Muslim Fundamentalists", and a guy who I would trust to answer the phone at 3 a.m., 2 p.m., or whenever it should ring. I find him to be appropriately experienced, having served in the same Senate as Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton, and although he did not live in the White House for 8 years, I wouldn't vote for Chelsea, Socks the cat, or Monica Lewinski; I just don't find that argument valid. Most importantly, and maybe because he's not part of the Washington establishment, I believe him when he says he's not a politician, and that's what I'm looking for in a candidate.

Really, everything the opposition points out as his weaknesses are what I find to be his strengths. He's an elitist... far better than the moron we have now; I want an intelligent President. He's inexperienced... I read that as uninfluenced. He's too young... no, not at all; most politicians are too old. His constituents and donors are all young. It's the young who are truly going to feel the effects of this presidency. Oh, he doesn't wear a flag pin on his lapel... I'm not even touching this one.

Now the new attack, his Facebook constituency. The Clinton people brought this gem to the table. “Our people look like caucus-goers,” Grunwald said, “and his people look like they are 18. Penn said they look like Facebook.”Penn added, “Only a few of their people look like they could vote in any state.”

I'm part of this Facebook constituency, I donated money to his campaign, I'm 32 years old, I vote, I voted in the last 3 Presidential elections, as well as a number of Senate, House, state, and local elections. So many people my age are contributing to his campaign, voted for him in the primaries, and support him for the election. Yes, we're young; most of us are not quite old enough to be President ourselves. We're the generation inheriting this shithole we call a country.

When it comes down to it, Barack Obama isn't even my first choice for president, but of the choices I have, I feel he's the best for the country. He's not the best for me, he's the best for the country. Maybe I'd like to have a beer with this guy, maybe I wouldn't, but I don't vote on that kind of feeling. Maybe one day he'll vote away my right to carry a pistol on a bus, or make me file an extra 6 forms to buy a new gun, but our children will have medical coverage. No one politician is going to espouse all of my ideals, and I accept that. But my ideals don't rule the rest of the country. I'm an atheist, but most people consider themselves Christian, or at least "people of faith". I accept that the President of the United States won't always agree with me, but I can hope that the President of the United States will do what's best for the country. I believe Barack Obama will.

If I were to vote my personal beliefs, I'd have to go with Kusinich. Alas, he dropped out of the race. If I had to vote for the greatest concerns I can think of, I'd vote Nader, but I fear that he doesn't have the strength to win, nor do I know his position on the issues beyond the environment. In that vein, I'd love to see Al Gore, but without him running, it's hard to elect him. If there's one person on this planet I always agree with politically, it's Bill Maher. Again, he's not running for office. He's a comedian, he's good at that, and people need to remember that.

Now, if there was one person I could vote for now, who would best serve the total and overwhelming needs of the people, and who I would agree with point by point on just about every issue, I'd vote Theodore Roosevelt.

Good old Teddy, historian, naturalist, explorer, author, soldier, progressive, and (the two down points) former President of the United States who died 89 years ago.

T.R. became the 26th President of the United States at the age of 42. For reference, Barack will be 47 by Inauguration Day, and in fact the Constitution only requires on to be 35.

He was a Progressive reformer who sought to move the dominant Republican Party into the Progressive camp. He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved forty monopolistic corporations as a "trust buster". He was clear, however, to show he did not disagree with trusts and capitalism in principle but was only against corrupt, illegal practices.

Where is this man today? This is the kind of guy who would kick George W. Bush and Dick Cheney squarely in the teeth. What do you think T.R. would say about Halliburton?

His "Square Deal" promised a fair shake for both the average citizen (through regulation of railroad rates and pure food and drugs) and the businessmen. He was the first U.S. president to call for universal health care and national health insurance. As an outdoorsman, he promoted the conservation movement, emphasizing efficient use of natural resources. After 1906 he attacked big business and suggested the courts were biased against labor unions.

It sounds to me like Roosevelt was a Social Democrat, or possibly a Libertarian. His platform sounds pretty progressive and on target for today, not bad for a guy who was in office over 100 years ago. This sounds like a guy I'd vote for.

As a second choice to voting for a dead guy who has already served his 2 terms, and is therefore ineligible to be President, I offer armed rebellion. Allow me to quote the Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Of course, I fear, despotism has taken its hold, so if I were to march on Washington with my musket in hand, I would most definitely be jailed, is not executed under the false grounds of Treason. Perhaps I'd be sent to Guantanimo Bay and be waterboarded. When we signed the Patriot Act, we threw away the Constitution. Evidently the Declaration of Independence was in with it.

We are at an important crossroads in this country. The Unites States is truly screwed up, and so is the planet, and our priorities in government seem to be equally flawed. The big issues shouldn't even be the war in Iraq. It's already a failure. The big issue is bigger, it's about the United States' place in the global community. Our foreign policy is inherently flawed. And our contribution to the deterioration of our planet is so far in excess of what a responsible modernized nation's should be. We need to think beyond our own borders and beyond our own lifetimes, and I'm not sure we can right now. It's not about gas being $4 a gallon, it's about fossil fuel technology being non-sustainable, environmentally irresponsible, and politically dangerous.

I'm in total support of any fuel source that can be tapped that is better for us and the environment than petroleum. I am leery, however, as we explore new possibilities, that what may seem the solution today may become a bigger threat to the Earth tomorrow. In many respects, I may simply be more "anti-fuel" than "pro alternative fuel". Global warming is possibly the single most important issue we face right now.

It's gone beyond contemplating change, and it's gone beyond "we need to sacrifice". The lifestyle of the Westernized person needs to change radically, and the solution is not a matter of alternative fuels -- a lack of dependence on foreign oil -- but a lack of dependence on those things that require oil. Biodiesel and hybrid cars may help, but not driving entirely is closer to what I believe the solution needs to be. It's no longer enough to buy recycled and recyclable products, it's time to buy less products. Consumerism is destroying the Earth, and I don't know if anyone noticed, but the Earth seems to be pretty integral to our existence.

It's time to change the "westernized" way of life. It's time to change the "westernized" mindset. The current administration would like to spread Christianity, freedom and democracy across the globe. We think too highly of "our" way of life. It's our way of life that's destroying this planet, both physically and politically. Look at the impact of "westernization"; I don't think we have it right. How can we be so vain and arrogant as to think our way of living is the best? Well, it's the same arrogance that shouts out that this is "the best country in world", shouted by voices who have never left its borders.

There is an absurd notion that the map of the globe as it was at the end of World War II is carved in stone. Sure, we can occasionally draw another few lines bisecting the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, but any other evolution of the Earth is not allowed. New empires may not be formed. Borders may not be shifted. Iraq may not invade Kuwait, nor may the flawed concept of Israel be abandoned.

OK, please put down your flaming arrows for a moment, I am not an anti-Semite. I just believe that the genius who decided that, as restitution for the Holocaust and the near eradication of the Jewish people from Europe, carving out a piece of Middle Eastern beach front property for them was the right move, should be shot. No, not shot; whoever came up with that well-thought plan should have been personally made responsible for ensuring it peace, armed only with a pocket-knife.

Israel is a political nightmare, for itself, for the region, and for the United States. Now, what I'm going to say next will have me labeled as a terrorist sympathizer along side Rev. Wright. Osama bin Laden made clear, prior to 9-11, that his cause was to end American involvement in Israel. He asked us simply to leave Israel to its own means and let the Middle East deal with itself. So, in completely ignoring this, because in our own arrogance we knew better what the Middle East needed than the Middle Eastern people, yes, we invited the attacks of 9-11. Now, even knowing this, the U.S. has a policy that "we do not negotiate with terrorists". OK, tell that to someone who's father worked on the 107th floor of Tower 2.

Even leaving the Middle East alone, let's go to China. Like Cuba, China is a Communist nation. We have an embargo with the tiny island nation of Cuba; we can't smoke Cuban cigars, and they have to drive cars from 1952. They seem to be doing OK repairing their 52 Chevys, and giving their citizens nearly free healthcare, and welcoming Canadian tourists. China, on the other hand, is a giant super-power nation under a totalitarian Communist regime. Do we have a trade embargo with them? No. We couldn't. How would we stock our Wal*Marts? How would Barbie poison our little girls? Where else would we get the cheap consumer goods we need to have... for 6 months... before they fill our landfills and leach lead back into the soil? And what does China import from us? Just job opportunities.

But we don't care about job opportunities lost to Southeast Asia. We're only concerned with Mexicans working here. Mexicans aren't stealing jobs from us, they're doing the jobs we refuse to. Without Mexicans picking fruit -- if we had to pay fruit pickers at least minimum wage -- do you have any clue what a gallon of orange juice would cost? And maybe illegal aliens are moving into the jobs with a fixed wage, too. I'm fairly certain the people serving my coffee at Dunkin' are illegal. That's fine by me. When I was 16, that was the type of job I had; I worked at Wendy's and later Pizza Hut, my friends worked at McDonald's, the movie theater, etc. But today's youth are too good for these types of jobs, and since I (and millions of you, too) still want coffee and hamburgers that we don't have to make ourselves, illegal workers will happily work those jobs.

Our children are too good to be employed as laborers, too. Our parents and grandparents worked in factories, making things, but they wanted better for us. They wanted us to go to college. Now we have generations of our nation's children over-educated, and of the mindset that they are too good to perform manual labor. So, we have two choices, illegal aliens in our manufacturing plants, or ship those jobs overseas with everything else. Let's face it, the only thing our country produces anymore is debt.

We make debt. Our government makes debt. We have one thriving industry in this country, and it's debt. Did you ever notice how many credit card applications we receive daily; more companies, creating debt for profit, profiting off our debt. We have domestic debt. We have foreign debt. We have unpayable mortgage debt, yet we bail out failed investment debt. We have a massive trade deficit, which is just more debt. This month the government is trying to mail you back part of its debt, hoping you'll buy something. The problem is, 90% of the things one might buy just produce more trade debt.

There are still a few American companies still benefiting from the economy. Unfortunately, these aren't companies in the U.S. right now. These companies are in Iraq. These companies are actually thriving because the government is creating more debt financing them in Iraq. At least we can say that this multi-billion dollar debacle is benefiting a few American companies, right? Sure. But do we know who owns these companies? Members of the current administration, that's who. It's no different than if Bush, Cheney, and the gang just brought bills before the Congress to make their checking accounts items on the national budget... really enormous items on the national budget. This isn't war profiteering, this is felony larceny on the grandest of scales. Now I'm sure this isn't the first time this has happened, but never before has it been so blatant. And we're letting it happen.

Why? Because we're complacent. We're happy with our westernized way of life, existing only as consumers. We're happy to destroy the planet. We're happy to be the hind end of the global community. And we're happy to be taken complete advantage of by those we put in power. I never told my Congressman I wanted to go to war. I never told my Senator it was OK to burn the Constitution and replace it with the Patriot Act. I told my Congressman I wanted to support a clean energy bill. I told my Senator I was against the use of torture in any way. Was I heard? Likely not. Will I allow him to represent me next year? Likely not.

One screaming madman with a blog is just that. 10,000 unified voices is a movement. And a movement that is quieted or ignored becomes a revolution. True patriots held a revolution; they didn't eavesdrop or wear flag pins.

I still, and will always love this game

I'd like to start on a positive note: Next year is the 100th Anniversary celebration for my beloved Montréal Canadiens. The 2008 All Star Game will be played in the Bell Centre. And the Habs will be coming off their best season in years.

The down side, The Drive for 25 ended last night.

Admittedly, I really didn't start watching the Habs until about January this year. It's hard, when your favourite sports team is 365 miles away and in another country, to really see many games. If I was a Rangers or Bruins fan, or even a fan of a more popular sport, I would have been able to see every game this year... maybe even go to one. But I'm a Habs fan. I've always been a Habs fan. I'll always be a Habs fan.

My love of Hockey obviously comes from my family in Montréal, specifically my grandparents, even though, ironically, they're Red Wings fans. The reason is rather socio-political, and has to do with the era they began watching. In the days of their teenage years there were 6 teams, 2 in Canada and 4 down in "the States". Living in Montréal, Toronto was right out. But, being English, Les Habitants were not "their" team, either. Being fans of the game in the truest way, it was a genius player of their day that brought them to support one favourite team: Mr. Hockey, Gordie Howe. I can't argue with that. So, for no less than 60 seasons they have been loyal to their Red Wings, even when 19 times the hometown Habs have taken home the Cup.

My grandmother was a sports fan all around. At one time I believe she held season tickets to both the Expos (MLB) and the Alouettes (CFL). The first professional sports game I saw live was an Alouettes game with my grandmother. I still remember the long Metro ride out to Olympic Stadium, or Stade Olympique, at the Pie IX station, in Montréal's East End. I'll also never forget watching the last hockey game with her -- this time just a CBC broadcast on TV -- in March 2004, just a couple weeks before she died.

My grandfather is a great guy to watch a game with -- not only is he a huge fan of the game, but having been so for better than 70 years, there's no one I know with as much insight as him. It wasn't just a fan's insight, the usual comments about who could do what better, and who was weak this season, but real insight from not only a fan, but a former player, and later, a referee. In the 40's and 50's, my grandfather played at the AA level. His career topped at City Champions playing for the Point AAA, but I thought he could have gone up to the NHL level. A purely academic argument, though, as he gave up hockey in order to be a husband and father, and since my existence is dependent on the decision, I can't really argue it.

But, based on his knowledge of the sport, and pure love of it, and a certain intangible element that I can only explain by his being Canadian -- if you've ever watched the Canadian telecast of a game, and the fervor with which the announcers have the play-by-play, you'd understand -- he watches every game with such passion, whether his team is playing or not. Sitting here, passively watching the Pens-Rangers game as I type, I cannot claim such passion.

Growing up, grandson of those two fans, not to mention aunts and uncles of similar die-hard passion for their own favourite teams, and even my mother who grew up watching my grandfather referee the local Youth Hockey games during her youth, being a hockey fan was just a given... simply in my blood. If there was Youth Hockey in Milford, when i grew up, I'm sure I'd have played, instead of wasting my time with Little League.

My attention breaks for a moment, as Evgeny Malkin just put Molly's Pens up 2-nothing on the Rangers, with a beautiful little backhander. OK, sorry, where was I?

The first recorded evidence of my Hockey fanaticism appears in 1976, when I'm still less than a year old. My favourite toy is a rubber hockey stick, probably originally designed as a doggy chew toy, but I could care less. I have a picture from 1978, standing in my great-grandmother's hallway, in pajamas that resemble a Canadiens uniform, holding my grandfather's hockey stick, which itself was about 2 feet taller than me. Perhaps that was the moment that started me as a Habs fan, a simple gift from my great-grandmother, probably influenced solely by the availability of such items in Montréal in the 70's.

But perhaps it was bigger. In the late 70's, we did have the Hartford Whalers, and they weren't half bad. It would make perfect sense for me to grow up a Whalers fan, but that wasn't the case. Montréal was my second home, and in my mind the epicenter of the hockey world, and so I did my best to watch my Habs when they played New York, or Hartford, or sometimes the Islanders. Any time I could catch a game, I suffered through every fuzzy, black and white, 13" minute, on broadcast television, on the other team's network. For the All Star game, and when they made it to the playoffs, I'd be rewarded with network coverage.

In 1986, perseverance paid off, and by this time, in color, on a 19" TV, I got to see my Habs win their first Stanley cup since I was 2. I survived another 7 years of drought until 1993, now having access to cable and ESPN, I watched the Habs win #24. Two years later I was lucky enough to be at Boston U. the year they won the NCAA championships. Now having much greater access to the game, and the ability to watch any game I wanted thanks to ESPN and the younger ESPN2, I thought the late nineties would be a great time to be a Habs fan. ESPN Classic even gave me access to the great games of my youth, reliving the glory days of le blue, blanc et rouge, and even watching the 1976 cup series swept by the Habs just 3 days before I was born.

My luck, and that of the Canadiens, would not be so good. Instead of a great return to glory, the next great Montréal dynasty, my adult life has been marked by the longest cup drought in franchise history. For 15 long years I have faithfully watched my Habs, only to see them miss the playoffs, or be eliminated by the likes of Carolina, or more painfully still, by long-time rivals the Boston Bruins. I've travelled to Montréal to see the Habs beat the Bruins in 2002, and to Madison Square Garden to see them foil the Rangers in their home opener after the lockout season. For 15 years I have remained a loyal fan, and I thought this year I might see the turn around I've so long waited for.

The first half of the season, I have to admit I didn't follow too close. The Versus Network coverage hasn't been what I would have hoped, focusing far more on American, and worse than that, West Coast teams. But coming out of the All Star break, the schedule gave me more opportunity to at least watch match-ups against New York and Boston. Then, in the late hours of the season, the Habs are in a race not only for the playoffs, but for number one in the East. Not only can I finally catch some games, but this is exciting hockey.

So from late February on, I've been glued to my television. I'd come to believe this could be the year. Even with Captain Koivu out for the end of the season, and into the playoffs, it's a year to have hope. Right up until April 6th, it was hard fought. Ending the season April 5th on a win against Toronto gave us an opening round match-up against long-time rivals Boston, who we'd gone 8-0-0 against in the regular season. A shootout loss by the Penguins the next day gave us first place in the East, and number 1 seeding. It was the most exciting end to a season I can remember.

That excitement carried right into the post-season. 4 to 1, April 10th at home; 3 - 2 in overtime, 2 nights later; this was the playoffs I'd been waiting for. It was hard fought, but Kovalev, Higgins, the Kostitsyn brothers, and a rookie sensation Carey Price in goal were getting it done. the Bruins came back with a 2- 1 overtime win at home the next night, but the Habs answered with a 1 -0 shutout, still in Boston, the following Tuesday. By now Price was being compared to Dryden in 71 and Roy in 86.

20 year old rookie sensations are a funny lot, though. Sometimes 20 and rookie win out over the sensation, and that was true about Price. In game 5, Carey fell apart, giving up 5 unanswered goals in a 5 - 1 loss. 2 nights later wasn't any better, and a 5 - 4 Boston victory forced a game 7. Some questioned coach Guy Carbonneau's faith in the young netminder, but Price pulled through in a stunning 5 -0 series-ending shutout. Price had been tested, bounced back, and the Habs were back in the race. Only 12 more wins to a 25th cup.

Montréal went 4 and 0 against the Flyers in the regular season, and Philly, too, had come off a hard fought 7 game series that they squeaked out in a 3 - 2 overtime victory over Washington. There was every reason to be optimistic. A 4 - 3 overtime victory in game 1 on the 24th added to that optimism, optimism that would be short-lived.

A 4 -2 loss, then a 3 -2 loss, marked by a complete break-down by price, squandering a 2-goal lead, brought big doubts. These doubts caused Carbonneau to pull Price and start Jaroslav Halak. But fixing Price wasn't enough, and in fairness, he was never the whole of the Habs' issues with Philly. Halak's night in net still resulted in a 4 - 2 loss. Game 5 would be in Montréal in 3 days, and with the Canadiens facing elimination on home ice, something had to change.

On May 3rd, in front of 21,000+ of the leagues greatest fans, their backs against the wall, it was do or die. Price got the start. Had Carbonneau made the necessary changes? Could the Habs figure out the recently stellar Martin Biron? It looked like they could when Tomas Plekanec tipped in a 30' rocket by veteran defenseman Patrice Brisbois, the only Hab besides Carbonneau with a ring from the 1993 series. The Canadiens were on the board early.

There had been 4 points where I believe the Habs were lacking thus far in the series:

Price needed to just play better. He needed to use the glove hand, he needed to be confident, and he needed to be ready and alert.

The power play needed to change. Great skating and effective cycling had made the Montréal power play the best in the league, and source of the majority of their scoring in the regular season, but in the playoffs, it was barely breathing.

Martin Biron was nigh unstoppable. The Habs needed to figure him out and figure him out fast. He seemed to only have one weakness, hard shorts from in close, 30 feet or less, and Montréal needed to exploit that.

And finally, R.J. Umberger needed to be shut down. He had at least a goal in every game thus far, and more importantly, the opening goal in 3 of 4 games. in fact, Philadelphia had shot first in all 4 games thus far.

Now in the opening minutes of game 5, it looks like Montréal may have figured it all out. Price had gone out and got himself a new glove, one it looked like he intended to use. Montréal's earlier failing defense had stopped Umberger's first period tries. Now, on a power play, from 30' out, Brisbois and Plekanec had teamed to figure out Biron. Most importantly, they got themselves on the board first.

Halfway through the period, Umberger got loose, and tied it up, but within 90 seconds, Alex Kovalev answered. Early in the second period, Higgins, who had been struggling controlling the feed, tallied an insurance marker. Thing were really looking Montréal's way. But in the last 5 minutes of the second period, Price, the Habs, and the hopes of thousands of fans fell apart.

Richards from Umberger at 14:02 -- 3 to 2. Umberger from Hatcher at 15:44 -- tied 3 to 3. Hartnell from Timonen at 17:00, and now the Habs went to the dressing room down a goal after 2.

At 2:13 of the 3rd period, it looked like the Habs might mount the comeback they needed to keep their season alive, when Andrei Kostitsyn tied it back up. But that was it, and for almost the entire rest of the period, the two teams were held deadlocked, until, with 3 minutes and 4 seconds left in the game, Scotty Upshall came up with the go ahead goal against Price. The nail in the coffin came with 50 seconds left, Price pulled net for an extra attacker, and Mike Knuble broke away for the empty net, finishing the Habs' chances and ending the game, 6 to 4.

After another few faceoffs, the clock ran out, and the Flyers poured onto the ice from their bench. It took a couple seconds of stunned silence for the reality to sink in, then 21,000+ Montréal fans applauded. No boos, no more taunting, they congratulated the Flyers, and applauded their Habs, for a great season, on the night of their last game of the season.

We couldn't go all the way this year, but I'm still proud to be a Habs fan. It felt like this was the year we could have done it, but the reality is a little bit different. When Bob Gainey took over as General manager a few years back, I was forced to say "this was a building year", but I had faith. I saw our draft picks rise up to star quality like Higgins and Price. I saw an All Star goaltender in Jose Theodore get traded away. I saw Guy Carbonneau come in as Head Coach, with Kirk Muller and Doug Jarvis on the bench with him. With Bob Gainey, all of these guys had seen cup victories with the Habs, Muller and Carbonneau both on the most recent cup team in 1993. In a short time I saw Montréal build a team that could win a cup, and a real Montréal team, not a purchased roster like Detroit in 2002, but a team built on both experience and youth, that had a chance not only to win a cup, but to do something that hasn't been seen in decades, build a dynasty.

I have faith in the next Montréal dynasty. It won't begin in 2008, but I believe it's coming.

As I've written here, the Pittsburgh Penguins have won game 5 in overtime, eliminating the Rangers, and moving on the the Eastern Conference Finals. Not wanting this season to be over for me, I will shift my attention to the team of Molly's youth, who swept Ottawa and beat New York in 5. I'm not jumping ship on the Habs, but with them eliminated, I'm going to cheer for the Pens.

At the risk of offending legions of Habs fans by paraphrasing the words that for years have been written above the lockers in the hallowed halls of the Montréal Forum and the Bell Centre, Pittsburgh, To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high.

Ever have a Hazelnut Macchiatto?

Neither have I. Nonetheless, I was in Starbucks today.

When we first got Starbucks in our area, I was very much against the concept, seeing them as nothing more than greedy corporate coffee bent only on voiding our area of local landmarks such as The Daily Café, Willoughby's, Koffee?, and Common Grounds. Lately I've seen them differently, as a member of the ranks of those independent coffee houses; one that happened to make good, but still tries to maintain it's leftist roots. Yes, the menu has become a unified and homogenized Value Menu of coffee and espresso concoctions, but even the best of the independent coffee houses I frequent only usually brew 2 or 3 coffees plus a decaf daily. Plus, for a large corporation, Starbucks' commitment to fair trade beans, healthcare for their employees, and the promotion of independently released musicians sits pretty good with me. Most importantly, no one went out of business -- well, the Daily's gone, but that had nothing to do with Starbucks -- but now I have a non-Dunkin Donuts option when a drive-thru is necessary.

So, as i said, I was in Starbucks, just trying to get an iced mocha and a frapacchino, no big whoop. So I thought. In front of me is a curious assortment of people. There's this woman, her husband, and what i gather are her two adult children. Now I guess it's OK to go grab a coffee with Mom and Dad, but, well, if this was my Mom, she's be enjoying her decaf Americano at the home.

So I walk in, and these people are already at the counter, 2 lattés, a decaf something-or-other...

"A medium American."

"Dad wants a Grandé Americano."

"He'll have an Americano."

"What size?"

"What size, dear?"

"I said he wants a Grandé."

"A Grandé."

OK, yes, it took 3 of them to relay his order to the barrista. I heard him the first time, but for some reason the barista was playing into the ridiculous game of coffee telephone. No wonder the old man was wearing earplugs. Yeah, I'm serious.

"Anything else?"

Now by this time, there's a line forming behind me. Randy Newman has asked me if I'm indeed in line. Taking a half-step forward toward the absurdity ahead of me, I respond "I think so."

It would be 1o more minutes before I'd get to order, and I'd discover that the agitated, white-haired man behind me was no more randy Newman than he was an expert on coffee.

"Anything else?"

"Do you have any samples?"

"Samples?" I was as confused as the gay barista who shared my name.

"I usually get samples of the beans. you have any sample decaf beans?"

"I don't at the moment." Not that I believe he ever did or would.

"Well, I usually get samples of the decaf when I come in."

"That will be 10.79."

"What do you have samples of."

"She usually comes in to a different store," her daughter attempts to justify.

"Your drinks will be right up."

"Can I get a sample of the decaf?" The earplugged husband is now far enough away to be the 6th person back in line, and I behind him. No wonder Randy Newman questioned if I was in line.

"Mom, he needs us to wait over here for our drinks," the gay son trying to preserve his chances with the barista sharing my name.

"Any decaf samples?" Insistent, isn't she.

"We have the decaf we roasted today. It's ground, but I can give you a sample of that? Would that work."

"OK, but I could come back tomorrow if you're going to have something else. Here, this...", picking up a pound of Pike Place Roast, "is this decaf? Oh, no, it's not" No, Pike Place isn't decaf, nor are the pound bags generally given out as samples.

The barista bagged up about a quarter-pound of the house decaf, and passed it over the counter, hoping that might drag this gaggle of loons over to the left to wait for their beverages, so he could take orders from the rest of the line now transfixed with the spectacle before us.

"There you go," assured the daughter. "Now she has coffee to make in the morning."

So, now having time to be 100% certain on my order, and feeling empathy for the people behind me, I rattled off my order with as much speed and efficiency as anyone can speaking Starbuckeese, paid, and moved over to my left.

"Is this the decaf Americano?"

"No, that's the latté," replied a second very patient barista.

"Iced Venti Non-Fat No-Whip Mocha."

"No, I'm waiting for a Grandé Americano." I tried to gently slide by her to acquire what was actually the first of my two drinks.

Finally, her infernal Americano arrived, and her children were all-too-relieved to escort her, and the earplugged father, quickly from the store. I received my second beverage and headed out shortly there after. The coffee was good, and I guess in retrospect I have a funny story to tell along with it.

3,000 miles in 3 days - Epilogue - California and the trip home

"Ventura Highway, in the sunshine. Where the days are longer. The nights are stronger than moonshine! You're gonna go, I know." - Ventura Highway, America

Had the boys in America ever been on the Ventura Highway? My experience was much different. I've driven the 101, at night, in the day, in the rain, and the sunshine. It snakes up through L.A. County, into Ventura, up through the Hollywood Hills, through the woods and around the fields. Perhaps sitting in bumper to bumper traffic does make the days longer. It could be that driving 107 miles per hour makes the night stronger than moonshine. Having been, though, I do not intend on going... at least not again. And that goes for the PCH, the 1, the 5, and the 405 as well. "Nobody walks in L.A." This is true. And because of that, they're all out on the freeways, 8 lanes wide, 2 inches between cars, moving at speeds that would make Mario Andretti nervous.

The horrors of L.A. driving aside, I did get to enjoy a day of Southern California. We made it cross-country in 3 days, getting in about 11 p.m. Saturday night, and my flight home didn't leave until Monday morning, so Sunday was to be spent in and around L.A.

We started Sunday morning by sleeping in about as much as we could force ourselves, which translated to about 10 a.m. Pacific time. Back onto the 101 to Oxnard. The motel was already north of L.A., so the drive up wasn't so bad, winding west through towns from Newbury Park, through Rancho Conejo, Camarillo, Springville, and Nyland Acres. We delivered some of Tim's belongings to his station, and checked in with his co-workers, toured a couple of the boats, and headed out.

Unfortunately, we weren't met with the warmest reception at the station, but we weren't going to let a couple of off-tempered Coasties ruin our day, and programmed TomTom to plot us a route to see Beverly Hills.

The first leg of our little excursion put us on 405 into Brentwood, to Sunset Boulevard through Brentwood and the Pacific Palisades. Tree lined streets barely obscured the driveways multi-million dollar mansions, each housing at least 2 exotic cars -- Ferraris seem the favorite. Even the Student Drivers drive BWMs, and our late-model Nissan Sentra garnered far more looks than a passing Maserati.

From there we hit the Pacific Coast Highway, out to Santa Monica Pier. We had lunch on the pier, and generally poked around like a couple of tourists. The PCH took us to the 5, and from there we hit the heart of Beverly Hills. Wilshire Boulevard, Rodeo Drive, Cartier, Gucci, Lotus of Beverly Hills... we looped the palm tree lined streets of America's most expensive zip code. Then, when we we turned From San Vicente onto Fairfax, Beverly Hills abruptly ran into Little Ethiopia; opulence directly abutted with poverty. On one side of the corner was BMW of Beverly Hills, and within spitting distance, a thrift store; Cartier blocks mere blocks from Carl's Jr.

After our brief tour of L.A., we headed back to the motel. A 6:30 a.m. flight meant waking up at 3:00, and we needed to get a bit of rest, but not before grabbing some dinner. There were a couple restaurants within walking distance, and we wandered over to see our options.

I decided on this last day, after 3 days of truckstops out on the road, that our last evening should reflect our return to civilization. We chose a typically California restaurant, enjoyed a couple of cold California-brewed beers, and dined on California-Mexican. Dinner was excellent, and not served to us by a surly waitress named Flo. We sat, relaxed, sipped our beers. After dinner, we walked over to Starbucks -- mostly because we could -- sat in oversized armchairs, and sipped lattés -- the first cups of coffee all trip not brewed at a truckstop. Not to take anything away from the various roadside eateries we'd hit along the way, but it was nice to have one night of civilized fare.

3 a.m. came quickly. And that early in the morning, the trip down to LAX was as pleasant as one could expect for L.A. driving. Surprisingly, once the airline employees arrived at 5:00, the rest of the process was painful -- I even had time for a coffee and a smoke. Unfortunately, LAX was the last time travel would be smooth that day, and in the end, driving cross-country in 3 days was easier than flying home.

US Air's East Coast hub is in Philadelphia, so rather than fly non-stop to NYC for nearly triple the price, I had selected a flight with a short lay-over in Philly. The flight to Philly was smooth and quick, which was advantageous on a transcontinental flight that didn't even offer a meal -- excuse me, I could have had the cheese tray for $7 out of my own pocket. As I would have expected -- I seem to fly Murphy Air -- I was seated next to disrespectful-cell-phone-guy, directly behind woman-with-a-baby. By some stroke of luck, this child slept through the whole flight, and never made a peep -- in fact, the guy next to me slept as well, so I bought the $5 headphones and let the in-fight movie drown out his snoring.

We touched down almost an hour early, which added to my lay-over, but gave me time for a smoke, and lunch of classic airport Sbarro's. By 3:30 (East Coast time) it was time to catch my connection, so we lined up at the gate, by section number, and boarded what they dared call a plane. Buses have more seating. We were boarded in 5 sections -- patrons scolded for lining up out of sequence -- for a plane with 11 rows of seats. When I got to my seat, someone was in it, and after double-checking both tickets, we determined the seat was double-booked. Out of 44 seats, 8 were double-booked, and after the 3rd occurrence, we determined we would consider the flight "open seating".

So, there we were, the 35 of us, including the pilot and flight attendant -- whose pre-flight instruction consisted of "read the card" -- tucking bags under empty seats due to impossibly small overhead compartments, and wondering what the possible delay could be on situating the handful of us for takeoff. 20 minutes passed before the "captain" informed us of a 45 minute arrival delay in New York -- 45 minutes we would spend on the tarmac, impossibly loud propeller engines rattling in our ears.

By the time we did take off, I feared we wouldn't have enough fuel left to make it to New York. I might have feared that all the people using their cell phones would disrupt the plane's electronics... if I believed the plane had any electronics. A couple times mid-flight I thought I heard one of the engines cut out, but it seemed to restart, and after about an hour, we did land safely. Now in New York, I had to figure out ground transportation home. The first issue was my miscalculation on "Air-Train" -- an MTA operated connecting train between the airport and other MTA transit points -- operates out of Kennedy and Newark, but not LaGuardia.

I scrambled. Now about an hour late of my carefully laid out plan, I had to get to Grand Central in time to catch the right train to New Haven, to connect with the last local train home. That train wouldn't leave New Haven until 9, but that meant leaving Grand Central by 7, and it was now after 6. A local bus could take me into Queens, to catch the number 7 train to Grand Central... but time was not on my side. Finally, I discovered the Grand Central Express bus, and $12 and 45 minutes later, I made it.

Of all modes of transportation I'd utilized in the past week, train was definitely the most regular and reliable, and with even time to grab one more quick cigarette in New Haven, I arrived in Branford, Connecticut, from Los Angeles, California, at 9:08 p.m. EST. I was hungry. I was exhausted. I was home.