Tag Archives: CBC

Don Cherry: You Should Be Thankful For Him

Posted on by

The Don Cherry haters are out in full force. Off with his head, they cry, or, at least, off with his mic. But here’s the news for Don Cherry bashers:

You should be thankful for him.

That’s right, thankful. While the progressive thinkers and modern hockey sages knock him down and drag him through the dirt, demanding that he be removed from the air, while they expend vast amounts of energy decrying his continued presence during their precious intermission time, while they pound the desk and turn beet-red and wail about the damage he’s doing to the forward march of hockey’s continued emergence from the dark ages, they are missing an obvious point. That Don Cherry is helpful to the cause.

Because here’s the great irony about Don Cherry’s notorious rant during Thursday night’s segment of Coach’s Corner:

It will accelerate hockey’s march towards improved player safety and intolerance for cheap shots and fisticuffs.

Don Cherry: He's actually doing you a favour.

Let’s put aside, for a moment, your great distaste for Don Cherry’s views on hockey. Let’s put aside the supposed issue of whether he should be allowed to “sully” the good name of the great tradition that is Hockey Night In Canada. None of that matters when it comes to the changing face of hockey’s physical contact rules.

Instead, let’s focus on what today has brought, in the wake of Cherry’s unabashed tirade against a gentler brand of pro hockey.

Yes, the usual outlets for discussion have been mobilized to talk about the issues of head hunting and pugilism in the NHL. Nothing new there, as there is an ongoing conversation about the state of the game and where it’s going at the sports media outlets. But check the level of vigour, intensity and frequency of these discussions. Amplified greatly in the wake of Cherry’s latest assault on progress.

As well, you’ll hear this discussion on non sports outlets as well. Jim Richards, at NEWSTALK 1010 made room for a conversation with former NHL enforcer Chris Nilan, amidst the usual current events and pop culture fare he offers on a daily basis. And this on a day where there’s no shortage of provincial election subject matter. (Note: while Richards booked both Nilan and Jim Thomson, he informed me after this blog was posted that both were no-shows)

So, what we have here, is a real spike in the conversation about the state of hockey. Born in discussions about the relevance and appropriateness of Don Cherry’s performance and standing, the back-and-forth invariably turns to tangential issues. Issues that have nothing to do with Cherry, and everything to do with player safety and where the NHL is headed.

Cherry’s strongly worded condemnations of the sport becoming too kind, too gentle, should be welcomed by those who oppose him. Because every time he overpowers even his own previous outrageous diatribes, it is met with an equally, if not more, powerful response in opposition. It’s a chemistry that jolts the conversation forward in leaps and bounds.

Ask yourself this question: Do you think Don Cherry is a buffoon? A clown not worthy of being taken seriously? Do you believe what he stands for is damaging? I’d argue that you can’t have it both ways. If Cherry is to be ridiculed, he is not to be taken seriously. Therefore, what he says isn’t nearly so damaging as you might think. After all, he isn’t going to sway you to his side. It’s also a given that you can’t sway someone who believes what he says to be the gospel truth, to your side of the equation. That part of it is a wash.

What we are left with is the malleable undecideds. Tell me, does it strike you that moderate people can generally be convinced to shift to the reckless fringes of any issue? Or are they more likely to be turned off by heavy-handed rhetoric. If it’s your kids you worry about, maybe you can keep them  from watching the “funny man in the crazy clothes.” If not, you should be able to easily combat the weekly lessons you fear they may be taught by counteracting them with lessons from the one person your kid really aspires to be like: You.

Think Don Cherry shouldn’t be allowed to “peddle his poison” on national TV? Wrong. He has a right to state his opinion. You have a right to state yours. But it is a widely held and cherished notion that we do not muzzle a Canadian’s right to his or her opinion and thoughts, unless they reach the pernicious threshold of mongering hate or discrimination. Cherry’s opinions on hockey fall far short of that and should not be the subject of banishment discussions.

Don’t like Don Cherry? Hit one of the buttons on your clicker when the time comes.

And rest assured that he’s actually doing you a favour by providing a loud,  provocative counterpoint to the glacial advance of change in the NHL.

He makes that glacier move much more quickly.

[box border=”full”]To read “Hockey Night Or Election Night? Both!” click here.[/box]

[box border=”full”]To read “140 Character Assassination,” click here.[/box]

[box border=”full”]To read “Hockey Canada’s Headshot Rules: Necessary Medicine?” click here.[/box]

[box border=”full”]To read “Gary Bettman’s Winnipeg Quotes Translated,” click here.[/box]

 

CBC: Hockey Night Or Election Night? Both!

Posted on by

So the CBC has a conflict on election night.

It seems there’s a pesky little hockey game scheduled the same night Ontario’s election results come trickling in (kind of how Leaf victories have come in recent years).

In all seriousness, the proper thing for the public broadcaster to do is to give up the very, very attractive tilt between the Maple Leafs and Canadiens and give us a steady dose of poll results. That would be more in keeping with the mandate of the corporation. As much as it hurts, the Leafs and Habs should be tossed over to TSN or some other willing participant, while the CBC gives us Peter and Rex as opposed to Ron and Don. I do see their conundrum, however. What’s more vital to the fabric of the heart and soul of Canada? Politics or hockey? They both have front row centre seats at any Tim Hortons discussion, 365 days a year. Tough one.

“All’s I’m sayin’, eh, is that McSquinty, or McGillicuddy, or whatever it is and everythink… he might as well have worn a visor on the campaign trail. Brutal.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Got a solution. Give us a hybrid. Both hockey and politics are filled with cynicism. Is the NHL’s lip service on player safety any less cynical than a candidate’s hollow rhetoric on doing what’s best for the common good? Both are blood sports. I leave it to you to decide which is more heinous. And, like hockey, politics is filled, I mean filled with analysts who can’t wait for the red light to come on so they can pontificate on every single little detail of the action.

I envision a “Very Special Hockey Night In Canada,” on October 6th. We pick up the action midway through the second period. Leafs and Habs tied at 2.

Jim Hughson: It’s close one, folks, lots of chances, lots of mistakes and lots of head shots. Neither side has been able to muster a big advantage.”

Craig Simpson: “You talking about the Leafs and Canadiens, or the election campaign, Jim?”

Jim: “Both, Craig. Let’s send it down to Elliotte Friedman.”

Elliotte: “Guys, Ron Wilson hasn’t been happy with the play of  his team so far, lighting them up with an impassioned, energetic and profanity-laced speech during the first intermission. The kind of speech that might have helped either Dalton McGuinty or Tim Hudak down the stretch. You know, maybe without the profanity. By the way, the Canadiens are out-hitting the Leafs, 10-6 at this point, and NDP leader Andrea Horwath leads in her riding with 372 votes, with 16 of 47 polls reporting. Jim?”

Jim: “Thanks, Elliotte, now over to Peter Mansbridge for a preview of the second intermission.”

Peter: “Coming up, in our second intermission… a full rundown of the key battles in ridings that will, in large part, determine the fate of Premier Dalton McGuinty’s government. Our political roundtable includes Chantal Hebert, Andrew Coyne and P.J. Stock. Don Cherry and Ron MacLean join us, once again, live from Tim Hudak’s campaign headquarters, where Don is expected to give the Tory leader a kiss on the forehead. And, Rex Murphy with out of town scores and highlights. Jim?”

Jim: A delay in the action here as game ops staff members try to unfurrow Brian Burke’s eyebrows… that gives us a chance to send it down between the benches, where Glenn Healy and Wendy Mesley are standing by.”

HEALY: “Guys, you’ve got defencemen throwing it up the middle, forwards missing checking assignments…and, seriously, who doesn’t think the issue of allowing Muslim prayer in public schools is a campaign grenade. Honestly, it’s like amateur night here.”

WENDY: “Also, it looks like P.K. Subban’s knee injury is not serious. He’s expected back in time for the loser’s concession speech, which will happen at an actual concession stand in the Air Canada Club during the 3rd period. Guys?”

Jim: “Like to remind our viewers that a special edition of  “After Hours” comes up following the game…. Scott Oake and Ian Hanomansing are joined by the cast of “Dragons’ Den.” They’ll have all the scores and news from every riding and every arena, as well as post game comments from Jacques Martin and Ontario’s Lieutenant Governor David C. Onley. Now, here’s Ron MacLean.”

Ron: “Thanks, Jim. Special announcement: Circle February 11th, 2012 on your calendar. ‘Hockey Day In Canada,’ originally scheduled to take place in Prince Edward Island, will now be called ‘Hockey and Elections Day In Canada,’ and take place in the Northern Ontario riding of  Algoma-Manitoulin. Instead of constantly changing into different hockey jerseys, I’ll continually cross the floor to join different political parties, from the powerhouse Conservatives, to the fringe parties like The Family Coalition Party, or The Liberals. February 12th, on CBC. Now, over to Elliotte.”

Elliotte: “With Canadiens’ forward Mike Cammalleri… Mike, it’s been a tight struggle so far; your thoughts?”

Cammalleri: “Yeah… sure has… uh… I don’t think anybody really thought the riding of Richmond Hill…

Elliotte: “Your hometown…”

Cammalleri: “Right, my hometown… I don’t think anybody thought it’d be this tight. To think that Reza Moridi might actually lose this… you don’t, you know, think about that…. But, hey, hats off to Vic Gupta. He’s a good candidate, a real pro. Classy guy and, uh, he worked hard.

Elliotte: “And tonight’s game?”

Cammalleri: “Uh, you know, it’s tough to think about that with Reza Moridi may be going down to defeat. So, yeah. It’s tough.”

Elliotte: “A sombre tone from one of the NHL’s feistiest political thinkers. Over to Ron MacLean, to ‘pun’ us out of it.”

Ron: “Power plays will be the key to deciding this, Elliotte. Or, rather, will it be ‘Powerplay’, with Evan Solomon?”

Jim: “Three and a half to go in the second, Leafs and Canadiens tied at two, Liberals leading or elected in 23, Conservatives leading or elected in 16….”

 

[box border=”full”]To read Rocket Ismail: Anatomy Of The Deal, click here.[/box]

BLATCHFORD’S LAYTON COLUMN: TIMING IS EVERYTHING

Posted on by

The tone is insensitive, but there’s some gleanable insight, too.

Saw, earlier today, that National Post columnist Christie Blatchford was trending big time on the Twitter machine, so I decided to, after reading some of the vitriol that was being hurled her way, see what all the fuss was about.

If you haven’t read her quick-to-become infamous column reflecting on the death of Jack Layton, and the media coverage of it, please have a look and then come back for my views on it.

In a general sense, my overall feeling after reading the column (several times) was one of unease, due to its insensitive nature and timing. However, in a more detailed sense, I find myself carrying a number of view points, not the least of which is that the column has its flaws, certainly, but also some thoughtful insight. I do believe that some have misinterpreted the column as an all-out attack on the memory of the man when, really, it appears to me to be, primarily, a damning of the media coverage of Layton’s passing.

Exclusive to that, I’m again dumbfounded by the electronic “stoning” that goes on with the age of instant messaging. Blatchford is certainly a target of that right now — check the Twitter postings or comments under her column in The Post. I won’t cover that ground again here, but suggest my column on the case of hockey agent Todd Reynolds may be an appropriate companion.

There is plenty of insensitivity to go around in her piece — good lord, does one really have to refer to Layton in his last public appearance as appearing “cadaverous” on the very day he died? Does one really need to refer to the recently deceased’s last public note as “vainglorious” even as those who feel his loss most are only beginning to mourn? I’d suggest you might wait a day or two on that one.

To say that there’s nothing unusual about the outpouring of public grief over his loss is a bit laughable. It is, of course, not usual at all for this kind of thing to happen. Many, many people die every day and it doesn’t spark public gatherings of a national sort. It is an indicator of how strongly some people feel about Layton. Blatchford’s insistence that the age of Facebook and Twitter and instant messaging somehow diminishes the spontaneity and number of people who gathered to honour Layton rings hollow. You can message me a thousand times about something, but if I don’t frankly give a damn about you or your cause, I’m not showing up.

Still, I believe Blatchford is not entirely off in her assessment of the story. Perhaps just the characterization of it. Her damning of the media coverage is also not entirely off the mark, although there, too, she occasionally shows a misunderstanding of the job and demands of a live anchor. She particularly gives a rough ride to CBC’s Evan Solomon.  She’s correct in her assertion that Prime Minister Harper’s remarks of the day needn’t have been solely focussed on Mr. Layton.

As well, I think Blatchford has struck an incisive note when she muses on the attachment people in the modern age have for someone they don’t know personally. That is either testament to the power of modern media (nice call, Marshall McLuhan) or to something else. Perhaps a longing by people to attach to someone who they believe exhibits a trait or traits to which they can easily relate or praise.

Her noting of a certain inauthenticity when it comes to media people waxing on about a person they may have only met briefly or interviewed once is bang on. Happens all the time. Regrettably, I’m sure I’ve been guilty of it too.

However, when she criticizes Solomon for his repeated use of the word “extraordinary” in reference to Layton’s final letter (a term that she agreed was actually appropriate) or his “repeatedly” speaking of the difficulty as “we all try to cope” with the news of Layton’s passing, Blatchford illustrates either a disregard for or, as I say, ignorance of the job of a live broadcaster during an unfolding story of great drama. When you’re live, and anchoring ongoing coverage, you’ve a duty to an audience that is changing. Tuning in, tuning out. In service of that, it’s quite necessary to be a trifle repetitive to the ears of those who don’t stray. It’s a little different from print where you write it once, edit it a time or two and then send it out to the world in its static form. There’s no delete button on a live broadcast. The story doesn’t end when you type the last period and hit “send.”

Blatchford asks a question that I think is an easy one to answer. She wrote:

Who thinks to leave a 1,000-word missive meant for public consumption and released by his family and the party mid-day, happily just as Mr. Solomon and his fellows were in danger of running out of pap? Who seriously writes of himself, “All my life I have worked to make things better”?

I believe many, many people leave final messages. They do it for family, friends and colleagues. That message comes in different forms. A hug, a kiss, a word of wisdom, a video or a written message. Not very many do it for the public at large. Except public figures. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Jack Layton felt obligated to record some kind of sentiment; philosophical, political or otherwise, being that he was very much a public figure. As for the last line, I’m going to give Mr. Layton the benefit of the doubt and figure he meant that all his life he’s tried to make things, in his opinion, better. I don’t think he meant that he’s definitively made things better. So, the use of the word “vainglorious” to describe the missive is bit misdirected, in my opinion.

Blatchford is right about Layton’s message being political. So it can be embraced or attacked on its merit in those passages. Nothing wrong with her taking umbrage with his line about Canada restoring “our good name in the world.” Not everyone would agree we’ve lost that good name. As well, he takes a clear political shot at the Conservatives. So, his final words include, as you’d expect, some politics. You can call that vain or cynical, or you can call it being a leader to the end. Whether she intended to or not, Blatchford’s characterization is that Layton was being a leader to the end. Sounds right to me.

While the Twitterverse has been quick to jump all over Blatchford for desecrating the memory of the man, it’s probably fair to point out that there are passages in her column that show admiration for Layton in some sense. For example:

His greatest moments — the bravest and most admirable — came during his fight with prostate cancer, the subsequent hip surgery and his most recent battle with the cancer, whose nature he never disclosed except to say it was new, which killed him.

He must have been in pain; he may have been afraid. Yet again and again, waving the cane that became in his clever hands an asset, he campaigned tirelessly.

Those are complimentary words and worthy of note.

In the immediate aftermath of the death of a beloved public figure, Christie Blatchford’s column is ill-timed. While there’s plenty to quarrel with in it, there’s also some insight that, when you peel away the veneer of insensitivity, just may ring true. Will the column look differently in 2 months?

[box border=”full”]To read SUN TV INTERVIEW ISN’T WORTH COMPLAINING ABOUT, click here.[/box]

[box border=”full”] To read THE MAMMOLITI GAMBIT: COUNCILLOR STRANGELOVE, click here.[/box]

[box border=”full”]To read WHERE IS MARSHALL MCLUHAN’S COUCH, click here. [/box]

 

THE NUTSHELL: Harper And Ford In A New Boy Band? Clinton Cashes, Indy Crashes And “Owling” Takes Over From “Planking”

Posted on by

A weekly feature, with a collection of random thoughts on random things.

I rarely ride my bike. Should do it more often. So, this week, I pedaled it over to a friend’s place. In order to offset the possibly harmful effects of the exercise, on the way back, I pulled into KFC. Because I saw a sign for the “Double Down.” Bill Hayes and I had talked a wee bit about it on this week’s podcast (hear it here).  We also discussed the pulled pork parfait. Which is a real thing. And sounds like a good idea to me. The Double Down ought to be called the Double Back. Because it felt like my stomach was going to insist on a u-turn. I’m not saying there’s too much salt in that thing, but, if you tossed a Double Down into Lake Ontario, pretty sure you could then float on your back all the way to Rochester. Look. I like KFC. I’ve fond memories of being a kid and my parents ordering up the do it yourself buffet. Chicken, fries, gravy, macaroni salad and Grecian bread. Still have the old jingle rolling around in my noggin. But the Double Down (another name might be the “We Double Dare You To Try And Keep It Down”) is an experience I won’t have again. Put it this way: Woodstock was great and all, but you needed to stay away from the brown acid. Speaking of acid, I need to stop writing for a second so I can go pop another Zantac.

SPORTS

  • The Blue Jays traded Juan Rivera to the Los Angeles Dodgers for a player to be named later or cash considerations. Uh, cash considerations? From the bankruptcy-protected Dodgers? I think it’ll unfold this way: The Dodgers will consider giving the Jays cash. Their lawyers will consider that hilarious and tell them they don’t have any.

    The player to be named later? Maybe he'd offer Bautista a little protection in the batting order.

  • Plaxico Burress is targeting the Jets,Texans and Eagles as teams he’d like to play with. Of course, with his aim, he could wind up anywhere, really.
  • The Honda Indy, run through the streets of Toronto last weekend, was filled with crash after crash after crash. Dan Aykroyd was the Grand Marshal, so I guess it’s only fitting that everybody drove like it was dark and they were wearing sunglasses.
  • Why do punters run around in the end zone when conceding a safety even when their team is BEHIND? Isn’t that like detouring into a construction zone when you’re already late picking up your kid at daycare?

 

POLITICS

 

  • While playing cowboy at the Calgary Stampede, Prime Minister Harper also found time to pal around with Hollywood’s traditional cowboy foe. While visiting the Blood Tribe Of Alberta (I’d originally thought this was a nickname for the Conservative Party) he was made an honourary chief. His name: “Chief Speaker.”  No politician should be named anything other than “Chief Talking Point.” I don’t know about you, but seeing the Prime Minister in a head dress and knowing full well his prodigious musical chops, I think he’d be an excellent member of a Canadian version of The Village People.

    "Am I delighted to be here? And how."

    Where Rob Ford might fit in, I haven’t quite figured out yet. Can he sing? We know he can dance. Proved it at the launch for the festival formerly known as Caribana. (Scroll down the page in that link a bit to see the video) The mayor danced with some fully costumed flamboyant revellers. Kinda like the Pride Parade. Bet he’s sorry he missed that now. At any rate, if he joins the Canadian version of Village People, we can rewrite the lyrics to their signature hit “YMCA” for him. “It’s fun to REE-move the Jaaaar-vis bike lanes, it’s fun to REE-move the – uh, Jaaarvis bike lay-anes….” I grant you, forming a letter “B” with your body wouldn’t be easy.

  • Apparently, Bill Clinton has made just under 76 million dollars, in speaking fees alone, since leaving the White House 10 years ago. Maybe he ought to be named Chief Speaker. Clinton charges an average of $181,000.00 per speech. More, I’m told, if you want him to do his dead-on impression of Hillary. The magic tricks he does for free because, you know, chicks dig it.

POP CULTURE

  • Tom Hanks met the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge earlier this week. Hope that, when he shook his hand, Hanks bellowed: “WILLIAAAAAAAM!”
  • Conrad Black has been ordered back to prison by September 6th. Well, at least he’ll still be able to march in the Labour Day Parade.
  • They ran with the bulls in Pamplona, Spain, again. Kids’ play. Because, in Denia, Spain, they have a little thing known as diving with the bulls. Yes. When you run with bulls, they can merely trample or gore you to death. Diving bulls can trample, gore OR drown you. That’s a man’s game.

    "Owling." Where's a rampaging bull when you really need one?

  • Apparently, “planking” is over. It’s so 2011. Or, so earlier 2011. It’s being replaced with – wait for it – “owling.” People crouch on things, or perch, like an owl. then snap a picture and send it to everybody and hilarity ensues. No thanks. No planking, no owling. I’ll wait for something really cool, like “raccooning,” where people take pictures of their buddies eating out of somebody’s green bin at 3 in the morning.
  • A guy tried to sue the CBC and Dragons’ Den because some of the Dragons were mean to him.  They didn’t like his idea and spurned him gruffly, with one of the Dragons, Jim Treliving (Boston Pizza) telling him he was “blowing air up a dead horse’s ass.” (Another possible photo alternative to planking) I love how, in the Globe and Mail story I’ve linked to, that line is followed by “He did not receive the investment he sought.” Right. Because Jim sells pizza. But if he ever does get into the business of blowing air up dead horses’ asses, I like the guy’s chances of a triumphant return to The Den.

FINAL THOUGHT

Headline: “Toronto Overtakes Vancouver As Canada’s Most Expensive City.” I think Vancouver was slowed by bridge traffic.

[box border=”full”]To see a previous THE NUTSHELL, click here.[/box]

 

[box border=”full”]To hear this week’s podcast, “THE GIST OF IT,” click here. [/box]

 

 

 

The Bodyguard, Starring Baird and Clement

Posted on by
The soundtrack to today’s media conference is available on itunes.

Kind of an odd thing, that media conference held after the Auditor General’s report on the G8/20 Summit spending was released. For a healthy portion of it, John Baird played Kevin Costner to Tony Clement’s Whitney Houston. I half expected Baird to pick Tony up at the end of it and whisk him away from the dangers of the clamouring hordes around the podium, and to the safety and serenity of an isolated cabin in cottage country. A cottage country that has waaaay smoother pavement in Clement’s riding, by the way.

“Just picture it, Prime Minister. We turn that rock cut into a giant plasma screen TV. You know, for Summit security.”

Time after time, Baird stepped in front of Clement and intercepted questions intended for the President of the Treasury Board, as though he were about to take a bullet for his friend. Which he did, I guess, in a metaphoric way, insisting that he take responsibility for the slings and arrows directed at the Tories over the AG’s report. Over and over, he repeated that he “accepted” the report and took responsibility for it. It’s great to do that when you have a majority and will not in any way be punished by anyone other than CBC’s Terry Milewski. Milewski, at times, seems to be the real Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. He did parry with Baird for a few moments, before the Minister of Foreign Affairs decided he’d had enough of the veteran reporter’s line of questioning, and dismissed him with a curt rejection of the premise.

As far as anything substantial coming of this; not too likely, is it? Once again, John Baird has stoically stepped in front of (this time literally) a wounded member of the government’s family. That merely endears him to the PM even more. And he was already daddy’s favourite. So, no docking of the allowance, even.

There will be hue and cry, lingering for days, maybe even weeks. But when you’re on a majority steamship, there isn’t a wave or iceberg mighty enough to do more than scratch the hull.

Still, if the Conservatives get annoyed by the dogged determination of Melewski and the like, and want the attention this issue is garnering to disappear, there’s an easy out. Just get a back-bencher to Twitter-link a picture of their crotch. What are rookies for?

[box border=”full”]Click here for Jim Flaherty’s Budget Speech, translated[/box]

 

THE NUTSHELL: Changebook, Shaq And “Pull My Finger…With Your Teeth”

Posted on by

A weekly feature, with a collection of random thoughts on random things.

POLITICS

  • A new parliamentary session began this week. I envision the unbridled joy of all the rookie MPs, as they run across the lawn, toward the Centre Block entrance, much the same way those little kids ran gaily through the meadow at the start of Little House (of Commons) on the Prairie. Now, which of these youngin’s is the Melissa Gilbert of the group and will grow up to become a powerful political force? By the way, if you haven’t had a gander at the Top-secret Rookie MP Handbook, click here to see it.
  • Straight away, the House was vibrating with the excitement of the election of a new Speaker. Okay, “vibrating” is a bit of a stretch, unless you count the members’ blackberries constantly going off with messages from their spouses saying “when are you coming home? How long does this have to take!?” SIX ballots were needed to make this decision. At any rate, congratulations, Andrew Scheer. Enjoy that big, comfy seat. You’re 32 years old, so, bring some new ideas to the job. I suggest a super-soaker, to be used at any time, on any member who’s out of order. Or, even just droning on and on about some kind of procedural drudgery. Fill that super-soaker with coyote urine, for real disciplinary weight.
The Provincial Tories Changebook logo. Will Jesse Eisenberg star in a movie about Mark Zuckerberg suing them to recoup the money he lost to the Winklevoss twins?
  • The provincial Tories unleashed – er, unveiled, their election platform last weekend, in a little publication called “Changebook.” Really? “Changebook?” I hear if you sign up, instead of a “poke” button, there’s a “Vote” button. If Tim Hudak really believes he can, as Premier, cut taxes by $3.5 billion AND replace the $16 billion deficit with a $1 billion surplus by 2018, then he’s Mark Suckerberg. Still, it’ll be some exciting if they’re able to change their relationship status from “opposition” to “government” on October 6th. If they win a minority, they’ll have to settle for “it’s complicated.”
  • Well, we’re into it. A postal strike. So, is anyone able to read this blog, or is it stuck in a mailroom somewhere at the sorting station? I’m not really sure how computer technology works. I remember when a postal strike could stop the nation and lead to great, great consternation among the masses. Now, the only “great great” anything affected by a strike are the grandparents who still use the mail regularly. By the way, if you read the line “stop the nation and lead to great, great consternation among the masses” aloud to one of them, they’ll likely reply: “What? Oh, yes, yes. Great, great constipation if you eat too much molasses.”

POP CULTURE

Me, in high school. Yes, I knew Ally Sheedy.
  • Had CBC News on in the background the other day, when the anchor threw to a commercial with this teaser: “If you’re sitting at your keyboard, contemplating a hack attack on the Pentagon’s computer systems, you’d better think again.” I immediately stopped attempting to hack the Pentagon’s computer systems. And all I wanted to do was play a quick round of “Global Thermonuclear War.” Either the CBC has a pretty high opinion of its viewers, or pretty low. Not sure which.

 

  • Conrad Black’s appeal was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court. I agree with the decision, as I’ve never seen the appeal.
William Shatner boldly wears what no man has, at least boldly, worn before.
  • William Shatner received an honourary degree from McGill University. Travesty. Everyone knows that , if anybody deserves and honourary doctorate, it’s Bones, not Kirk. As a young man, Shatner attended McGill, earning a commerce degree. I hear that was a bit of a surprise, since he wasn’t much on attending classes, as indicated in the nickname his chums gave him: “T.J. Hooky.”
  • Black Eyed Peas’ singer Fergie received a perfume award this week. The “Fifi” was given to her for her fragrance “Outspoken.” It got the Fifi for “New Celebrity Fragrance Of The Year.” The Fifi for new non-celebrity fragrance went to someone you’ve never heard of and don’t want to smell like anyway.

SPORTS

  • So, some guy in Los Angeles decided catching a ball was a little more important than protecting his kid. Have a look. Drops the kid as the ball approaches. Yes, the guy’s a dork for doing this. Everybody knows that if you’re holding your toddler at a game and a baseball comes rocketing toward you, you then use the child as a human shield. Kid either mans up and catches the thing, or gets plunked, and, that’s a life lesson.
  • Shaquille O’Neal announced his retirement, this week, on Twitter. Or is that Kwitter?
  • O’Neal’s basketball career, as great as it was, just got in the way of acting projects. Curious to see how good he is, now that he can concentrate solely on his true craft. Can’t wait. Just so you know, if there was such a thing as a sarcasm key on a computer keyboard, I’d have been pressing it that whole time.
Vancouver Canucks’ forward Alex Burrows: A simple misunderstanding?
  • The NHL decided NOT to discipline Canucks’ forward Alex Burrows for allegedly biting Patrice Bergeron’s finger during some pushing and shoving after a whistle. Guess they bought his argument that he was only trying to “smell the glove.” Actually, the league decided there wasn’t enough evidence to proceed against Burrows. Right. He didn’t bite Bergeron’s finger. This was just another one of those annoying pro hockey after-the-whistle scrums where the players gather around in close quarters and suck, erotically, on each others fingers. Just part of the NHL’s attempt to be more sexy, is all.

Final Thought

If I’m driving along and I see Bono on the side of the road hitchhiking, do I stop and pick him up? Yes. Because then Bono would owe me a favour. And I’m pretty sure he can get tickets to George Stoumboulopoulos Tonight, right?

 

[box border=”full”]To read a previous THE NUTSHELL, click here.[/box]