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.