A link to some very insightful (if a bit overly technical) comments on how the media's harping on "momentum" and "demons" in the Canucks-Blackhawks series got out of hand:
http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=3630
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Canucks' Fans, You May Now Exhale...
What a difference 2 weeks can make.
For example, just over 2 weeks ago, I posted this:
And for one week, I was right. The Canucks went 3 games to none in the series against the Blackhawks. Revenge was already tasting sweet. The Canucks were aggressive, confident; they were physical; Luongo was sensational when he needed to be (which was, frankly, not that often). Our team looked as if it had no weaknesses. We could roll four lines; we could trust all our defensemen; we weren't worried about our goaltending.
Game 4 looked like it was going to be much of the same. Tied 1-1 after the first period. Both teams had chances and were playing well. Another one-goal game. And then Chicago broke the game open in the second period, scoring 4. It ended as a 7-2 loss for Vancouver, and Luongo ended the game on the bench.
Still, I had not lost confidence. I had predicted Vancouver would lose one game. The Hawks had their backs to the wall, I thought; it was their last hurrah in front of their home crowd. Game 5 would be different.
As it turned out, Game 5 was even worse. At least the Canucks had shown up for the first period in the last game; this time they were the Canucks in name only. What they played was nothing like Vancouver Canucks' hockey. It was a gong show from start to finish. Chicago was again making them look foolish.
Game 4 I was able to shrug off, but Game 5 made be downright angry, and more than a little concerned. As I posted on Facebook after I turned off the Game 5 in disgust after 2 periods:
In Game 6, there were encouraging signs. Vancouver was forechecking well again; they were standing up in the neutral zone and not letting Chicago walk through the middle; they were hitting. It was a closely-contested game, like the first 3 had been. Cory Schneider had been a last-minute replacement for Luongo - and he looked good in the net. Once he came out of the net to play the puck, different story. Two giveaways by Schneider, two goals. Then Chicago was awarded a penalty shot, on which they scored. Schneider was holding his leg in pain after the goal and had to be helped off the ice. Back to Luongo.
But Luongo looked fine. Perfect through the end of regulation. Then overtime came. The Canucks were all over the Hawks in overtime. But Chicago managed to hold them off, then score a goal, off of a bad rebound by Luongo. After being in complete control of the series for a week and 3 games, Vancouver was in a tied series. They had lost all momentum for 2 games. They got some back for Game 6 but fell short. Now what?
Game 7 pretty much reflected how the whole series had gone. Vancouver scored early, and then the goalies shut everything down the rest of the way. Just when it looked like Chicago was done, Jonathan Toews tied it up on what should have been an unimportant play, with the Canucks on the powerplay and only 2 minutes left in the game. Vancouver had a chance to put Chicago away quickly and quietly, and had failed yet again.
Now it was Game 7 overtime. It should have taken 4 straight wins to decide this series - now whoever scored the next goal would walk away the winner. Alexandre Burrows took a bad holding penalty in the Hawks' zone less than a minute in. I was dying as I watched, knowing how lethal Chicago's powerplay had been in the last 3 games.
But that penalty kill was a defining moment. My Canucks were aggressive, tight-checking and physical - all the things that spelled success. They needed only one more thing, and that was a brilliant save by Roberto Luongo on Patrick Sharp, on the only shot the Blackhawks managed on the powerplay.
A few minutes later, Blackhawk defenceman Nick Leddy attempted a routine high-backhand clearing attempt. No one was expecting Burrows to leap 2 feet in the air and catch the puck: Jim Hughson was busy talking about something unrelated; The CBC cameramen were moving the camera towards the Canucks' zone, anticipating a rush for Chicago. They all caught up with what was going on in time to see Burrows drop the puck onto the ice, walk in behind all the Chicago defenders, and shoot a knuckleball slapshot into the top corner of the Chicago net. After being forced to wait until the last possible moment, Vancouver Canucks fans finally could cheer about a series win for Vancouver.
Elation. Ecstasy. Celebration.....And a deep sigh of relief. Right now, it seems, Vancouver is back on track. Luongo is his normal stingy self. The depth players for Vancouver, like Burrows, are making the difference. The Canucks dictated the play and the pace of the game.
In a post-Game 7 interview, Canucks' captain Henrik Sedin summed up the series:
Two weeks ago, Canucks' fans thought their team was unstoppable. One week ago, they realized that they were stoppable. Yesterday, they feared they might be beaten in the worst possible way: by a team that had done it before two years in a row, and after that team had been down 3-0 in the series. Today, the Canucks are, more or less, the team that started the series, capable of dissecting their opponent and shutting them down.
Perhaps being pushed to the brink is a blessing in disguise; it's a reminder of how important it is to never let up, even for a second. And it's a true test of the Canucks' character in the face of huge adversity. Resiliency is the stuff of which champions are made.
But all that aside, I would like to make one humble request to the Vancouver Canucks:
DON'T YOU EVER, EVER, EVER PUT ME THROUGH THAT AGAIN!!!!!
For example, just over 2 weeks ago, I posted this:
"C" is for Canucks: Where to begin? 40th season in the League. Winners of the President's Trophy, for the best regular season record. Luongo recorded his best season as a pro, and along with Cory Schneider won the Williams Jennings trophy for fewest goals allowed. Daniel Sedin won the Art Ross trophy, a year after Henrik did the same - he'll also have a chance to win the Hart trophy a year after his brother. Led by the Sedins, the Canucks have also scored the most goals of any team - the first time the same team has led in goals-for and goals-against. They lead in faceoff percentage and powerplay percentage. They have the third-best penalty-kill. It's been a great year to be a Canucks fan.Note the swagger, the confidence, nay, the arrogance! I, an ineffable Canucks' fan, sounded as if I cheered for a team that could not be beaten.
"C" is for Cup (as in Stanley): See above.
And for one week, I was right. The Canucks went 3 games to none in the series against the Blackhawks. Revenge was already tasting sweet. The Canucks were aggressive, confident; they were physical; Luongo was sensational when he needed to be (which was, frankly, not that often). Our team looked as if it had no weaknesses. We could roll four lines; we could trust all our defensemen; we weren't worried about our goaltending.
Game 4 looked like it was going to be much of the same. Tied 1-1 after the first period. Both teams had chances and were playing well. Another one-goal game. And then Chicago broke the game open in the second period, scoring 4. It ended as a 7-2 loss for Vancouver, and Luongo ended the game on the bench.
Still, I had not lost confidence. I had predicted Vancouver would lose one game. The Hawks had their backs to the wall, I thought; it was their last hurrah in front of their home crowd. Game 5 would be different.
As it turned out, Game 5 was even worse. At least the Canucks had shown up for the first period in the last game; this time they were the Canucks in name only. What they played was nothing like Vancouver Canucks' hockey. It was a gong show from start to finish. Chicago was again making them look foolish.
Game 4 I was able to shrug off, but Game 5 made be downright angry, and more than a little concerned. As I posted on Facebook after I turned off the Game 5 in disgust after 2 periods:
What the bloody hell happened to my Canucks?!?! Chicago isn't that good - any team will win 7-2 if you GIVE them the middle of the ice. Now they're up 5-0...why the hell aren't the Canucks mad about Game 4? They picked the Hawks apart in the first 3 games, now they've forgotten how to score and forgotten how to defend. What has Vigneault been doing the last two days? They've bloody well given up. Un. Be. LievableAs one writer in the blogosphere wrote, the Blackhawks were now leading the series, two games to three.
In Game 6, there were encouraging signs. Vancouver was forechecking well again; they were standing up in the neutral zone and not letting Chicago walk through the middle; they were hitting. It was a closely-contested game, like the first 3 had been. Cory Schneider had been a last-minute replacement for Luongo - and he looked good in the net. Once he came out of the net to play the puck, different story. Two giveaways by Schneider, two goals. Then Chicago was awarded a penalty shot, on which they scored. Schneider was holding his leg in pain after the goal and had to be helped off the ice. Back to Luongo.
But Luongo looked fine. Perfect through the end of regulation. Then overtime came. The Canucks were all over the Hawks in overtime. But Chicago managed to hold them off, then score a goal, off of a bad rebound by Luongo. After being in complete control of the series for a week and 3 games, Vancouver was in a tied series. They had lost all momentum for 2 games. They got some back for Game 6 but fell short. Now what?
Game 7 pretty much reflected how the whole series had gone. Vancouver scored early, and then the goalies shut everything down the rest of the way. Just when it looked like Chicago was done, Jonathan Toews tied it up on what should have been an unimportant play, with the Canucks on the powerplay and only 2 minutes left in the game. Vancouver had a chance to put Chicago away quickly and quietly, and had failed yet again.
Now it was Game 7 overtime. It should have taken 4 straight wins to decide this series - now whoever scored the next goal would walk away the winner. Alexandre Burrows took a bad holding penalty in the Hawks' zone less than a minute in. I was dying as I watched, knowing how lethal Chicago's powerplay had been in the last 3 games.
But that penalty kill was a defining moment. My Canucks were aggressive, tight-checking and physical - all the things that spelled success. They needed only one more thing, and that was a brilliant save by Roberto Luongo on Patrick Sharp, on the only shot the Blackhawks managed on the powerplay.
A few minutes later, Blackhawk defenceman Nick Leddy attempted a routine high-backhand clearing attempt. No one was expecting Burrows to leap 2 feet in the air and catch the puck: Jim Hughson was busy talking about something unrelated; The CBC cameramen were moving the camera towards the Canucks' zone, anticipating a rush for Chicago. They all caught up with what was going on in time to see Burrows drop the puck onto the ice, walk in behind all the Chicago defenders, and shoot a knuckleball slapshot into the top corner of the Chicago net. After being forced to wait until the last possible moment, Vancouver Canucks fans finally could cheer about a series win for Vancouver.
Elation. Ecstasy. Celebration.....And a deep sigh of relief. Right now, it seems, Vancouver is back on track. Luongo is his normal stingy self. The depth players for Vancouver, like Burrows, are making the difference. The Canucks dictated the play and the pace of the game.
In a post-Game 7 interview, Canucks' captain Henrik Sedin summed up the series:
I would rather win in 4 [games], but I'll take it....It's different winning in Game 7 in overtime. The season is on the line. That makes it sweet.... For 5 games we played awesome; we made it tough on ourselves because we played 2 really s***ty games. That's our fault as players. We took our foot off the gas a little bit, and that's when they hurt us. It was really a strong effort for us to get the momentum back, I thought, in the last game. And then tonight, they had no business tying up the game.Truer words were never spoken.
Two weeks ago, Canucks' fans thought their team was unstoppable. One week ago, they realized that they were stoppable. Yesterday, they feared they might be beaten in the worst possible way: by a team that had done it before two years in a row, and after that team had been down 3-0 in the series. Today, the Canucks are, more or less, the team that started the series, capable of dissecting their opponent and shutting them down.
Perhaps being pushed to the brink is a blessing in disguise; it's a reminder of how important it is to never let up, even for a second. And it's a true test of the Canucks' character in the face of huge adversity. Resiliency is the stuff of which champions are made.
But all that aside, I would like to make one humble request to the Vancouver Canucks:
DON'T YOU EVER, EVER, EVER PUT ME THROUGH THAT AGAIN!!!!!
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Hockey Night in Canada's 3-Star Goof-ups
I don't understand how the folks at Hockey Night in Canada pick the 3 Stars of the Game.
After Game 1 of the Canucks-Blackhawks series, in which Vancouver shut out the Hawks 2-0, they named the 3 Stars as:
After Game 1 of the Canucks-Blackhawks series, in which Vancouver shut out the Hawks 2-0, they named the 3 Stars as:
- Roberto Luongo
- Jannik Hansen
- .....Patrick Sharp?!?!
Luongo posted a shutout and Hansen scored a beautiful breakaway goal, so there's no problems there. But what's with Patrick Sharp? Is this the same Patrick Sharp who plays for the team that failed to score a goal in the game? Is this the same Patrick Sharp who was on the ice for both goals for Vancouver?
If your team gets shut-out, you'd think that would make a fairly strong case for your team not to get any mention in the 3 stars. Even if a player on the losing team played well (which Patrick Sharp clearly did not), it doesn't mean he was one of the stars of the game. In this case, if anyone on Chicago merited the 3rd star, it would almost have to be Corey Crawford, who didn't allow a goal in the final 50 minutes of the game and gave his team a chance to win. Why is CBC honoring a forward from the losing team who was ineffective offensively and no better defensively?
Then, after tonight's Game 3, a 3-2 win for the Canucks, there were again some goofy selections:
- Roberto Luongo
- Ryan Kesler
- Patrick Kane
OK, now this is weird. Luongo is once again a solid pick for Number 1. But there were 4 players who had multi-point nights, and Kesler and Kane were not among them. Daniel Sedin and Christian Ehrhoff both scored once and added an assist for Vancouver, while Henrik Sedin assisted on 2 of the goals. For Chicago, Jonathan Toews set up both Chicago goals and was easily the Hawks' best player.
On the other hand, Ryan Kesler, despite having a game-leading 6 shots, had no points. He did play some significant penalty-killing minutes and block numerous shots, but he also screen Luongo on the first goal. In the end, he was good, but not really a star.
And come on, Patrick Kane? Once again, he was held to one lone assist, was a -1, and was frustrated all night long by Luongo and the defense for Vancouver. Again, not star material.
Interestingly, once the 3-Stars picks for this game had made it to the HNIC website they had been changed to:
- Henrik Sedin
- Jonathan Toews
- Daniel Sedin
At least who ever writes the game summaries for cbc.ca knows a "star" when he sees one...
Extra! Extra!
I was browsing online and came across two major stories (to me, at least):
Online Poker Sites Under F.B.I. Indictment: The four largest online poker rooms in the world (among whom are two on which I hold accounts) were charged with bank fraud and money laundering, in what amounts to the latest in the long struggle to end online poker in the U.S. If you visit the U.S. websites for Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars, you'll get a message that the domain names have been seized. Both of those companies have moved their sites to European domains.
What does this mean for online poker players in the U.S? Only time will tell, but it doesn't look good: players who had money in accounts with any of the four sites indicted by the F.B.I cannot access any of their funds, which is bad news if you happened to have several million dollars, as some players do.
What does this mean for online poker players in Canada, including me? Actually, nothing. The U.S. is the only country whose government has actively tried to shut down online poker, and the FBI's indictment affects U.S. players only. So, other than the annoyance of having to go to a new domain location now, their is essentially no difference.
SUN TV News is coming this Monday: A new private news channel is coming to Canada on April 18th, 2011, and it features two of my favourite media personalities Ezra Levant and Charles Adler, both of who will be hosting their own shows.
How do I know Sun TV News will be good?
Online Poker Sites Under F.B.I. Indictment: The four largest online poker rooms in the world (among whom are two on which I hold accounts) were charged with bank fraud and money laundering, in what amounts to the latest in the long struggle to end online poker in the U.S. If you visit the U.S. websites for Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars, you'll get a message that the domain names have been seized. Both of those companies have moved their sites to European domains.
What does this mean for online poker players in the U.S? Only time will tell, but it doesn't look good: players who had money in accounts with any of the four sites indicted by the F.B.I cannot access any of their funds, which is bad news if you happened to have several million dollars, as some players do.
What does this mean for online poker players in Canada, including me? Actually, nothing. The U.S. is the only country whose government has actively tried to shut down online poker, and the FBI's indictment affects U.S. players only. So, other than the annoyance of having to go to a new domain location now, their is essentially no difference.
SUN TV News is coming this Monday: A new private news channel is coming to Canada on April 18th, 2011, and it features two of my favourite media personalities Ezra Levant and Charles Adler, both of who will be hosting their own shows.
How do I know Sun TV News will be good?
- Because of the aforementioned involvement of Levant and Adler
- Because they market themselves as the home of "hard news and straight talk", and call themselves "Controversially Canadian". When was the last time CBC or CTV dared to call itself controversial?
- Because opponents of the new network refer to it as "Fox News North" and "Tory TV" (For the record, Sun TV News has no affiliation with either Fox or the Conservative Party)
- Because Margaret Atwood herself has very publicly signed an online petition to stop Sun TV, calling it "American-style hate-media" and "hate-filled propaganda" (the CEO of Sun TV pointed out that the hatred for right-wing views is precisely why Canada needs a right-wing network which doesn't fall into bland political correctness)
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Why I Love the Letter "C"....
"C" is a wonderful letter, don't you think? It can be used to begin so many beautiful words and phrases. Here are a few of my personal favourites:
"C" is for Canucks: Where to begin? 40th season in the League. Winners of the President's Trophy, for the best regular season record. Luongo recorded his best season as a pro, and along with Cory Schneider won the Williams Jennings trophy for fewest goals allowed. Daniel Sedin won the Art Ross trophy, a year after Henrik did the same - he'll also have a chance to win the Hart trophy a year after his brother. Led by the Sedins, the Canucks have also scored the most goals of any team - the first time the same team has led in goals-for and goals-against. They lead in faceoff percentage and powerplay percentage. They have the third-best penalty-kill. It's been a great year to be a Canucks fan.
"C" is for Cup (as in Stanley): See above.
"C" is for Conservative: Let's face it, the Opposition parties called a needless election in a desperate attempt for Ignatieff to grab power. But Stephen Harper is likely going to march right back into the Prime Minister's Office. But this time, he stands a chance of doing so with a majority Parliament. That's certainly the way his campaign is being run - choose between a Conservative majority or a coalition (the letter "c" can't always save some words) involving the enigmatic Ignatieff, the evil New Democrats, and the irrelevant Bloc Quebecois. I'd love to see a Conservative majority - a stable government (no election for another 4 years!), with a Party that will eliminate our deficit while decreasing our taxes. Should be an interesting election. I'm hoping that Linda Duncan (the NDP incumbent to the Edmonton-Strathcona riding in which King's is situated) gets kicked out of office - that would be a welcome sight.
"C" is for Chamber Choir: The Chamber Choir at King's is touring Germany for two weeks, beginning May 1st! Among the sightseeing highlights will be an old concentration camp, and the castle where Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. (Forgive me, I don't know the names of these places yet). This will be my first time in Europe. Should be a blast. Super excited.
"C" is for coffee, Coca-Cola, Canada, Criminal Minds, "Classes are almost finished!", "Can I order a Large Pizza?"...
I love the letter "C!"
"C" is for Canucks: Where to begin? 40th season in the League. Winners of the President's Trophy, for the best regular season record. Luongo recorded his best season as a pro, and along with Cory Schneider won the Williams Jennings trophy for fewest goals allowed. Daniel Sedin won the Art Ross trophy, a year after Henrik did the same - he'll also have a chance to win the Hart trophy a year after his brother. Led by the Sedins, the Canucks have also scored the most goals of any team - the first time the same team has led in goals-for and goals-against. They lead in faceoff percentage and powerplay percentage. They have the third-best penalty-kill. It's been a great year to be a Canucks fan.
"C" is for Cup (as in Stanley): See above.
"C" is for Conservative: Let's face it, the Opposition parties called a needless election in a desperate attempt for Ignatieff to grab power. But Stephen Harper is likely going to march right back into the Prime Minister's Office. But this time, he stands a chance of doing so with a majority Parliament. That's certainly the way his campaign is being run - choose between a Conservative majority or a coalition (the letter "c" can't always save some words) involving the enigmatic Ignatieff, the evil New Democrats, and the irrelevant Bloc Quebecois. I'd love to see a Conservative majority - a stable government (no election for another 4 years!), with a Party that will eliminate our deficit while decreasing our taxes. Should be an interesting election. I'm hoping that Linda Duncan (the NDP incumbent to the Edmonton-Strathcona riding in which King's is situated) gets kicked out of office - that would be a welcome sight.
"C" is for Chamber Choir: The Chamber Choir at King's is touring Germany for two weeks, beginning May 1st! Among the sightseeing highlights will be an old concentration camp, and the castle where Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. (Forgive me, I don't know the names of these places yet). This will be my first time in Europe. Should be a blast. Super excited.
"C" is for coffee, Coca-Cola, Canada, Criminal Minds, "Classes are almost finished!", "Can I order a Large Pizza?"...
I love the letter "C!"
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
The REAL story behind Ignatieff's "generosity":
Kelly McParland: Michael Ignatieff wants to give me $1,000 I don’t need
Mar 30, 2011 – 11:47 AM ET | Last Updated: Mar 30, 2011 3:51 PM ET
Phil Carpenter/ THE GAZETTE
Don't bet on it
As the parent of an offspring in university, I could have used an extra $1,000 a year towards the tuition.
I have a number of friends and relatives in a similar position. University is expensive, so why pay full freight if you don’t have to?
Except, like me, most of these people are lucky enough that they can afford it. Maybe tuition hurts, but they can scrape it together and not go hungry. Some have two or three kids racking up post-secondary bills at the same time.
They’d all be happy to get the free $1,000 per year, per student, promised by the Liberals’ biggest election promise to date, the “Canadian Learning Passport,” which promises $1,ooo a year for four years for any kid who wants to go to college or university. Students from low-income families would get an extra $500 a year.
Nice. But look: According to Statistics Canada, 75% of tax-paying Canadians make less than $50,000 a year. Only 5% make over $100,000. That means much of the $1 billion annual cost of Mr. Ignatieff’s promise will come from Canadians who can least afford university tuition, and go to those who can.
How does that make sense?
Statistics Canada says students from high-income families are far more likely to enrol in university than those from low-income groups. The Liberals say the “passport” will remedy that disparity by making tuition more affordable. But will it?
Studies show income level is one element in whether or not students go on the university. But another key factor is parental expectations. Kids in high-income families tend to be pressed harder by their parents, who have higher expectations. An extra $1,000 won’t change that much.
Nor will it do much to offset the cost of school. In addition to tuition, there are books and plenty of incidental costs to university, which can quickly add up to $10,000 or more, even if a student is able to live at home. An extra $1,000 might help, but $9,000 is still a pretty big cheque to write for someone earning less than $50,000. And once the provinces know every student is getting a free $1,000 from Ottawa, how long do you think it will take for them to figure out a way to increase tuition costs accordingly?
So the odds are that Mr. Ignatieff’s well-meant plan will result in many middle- to high-income Canadian families being subsidized by the 18 million workers to whom university is a much more distant dream.
It may sound like a nice idea, but it would prove to be a cruel joke on a lot of people who can’t afford to send their own children to university, but would have to contribute to subsidies for those who don’t need the money. And since university graduates tend to have higher incomes than others, low-income Canadians would find themselves financing a system that perpetuates the income gap they’re trying to overcome. The rich would get help staying richer, and the bills would go to the lowest incomes.
National Post
Monday, January 24, 2011
A Letter to the Editor...
Below is the letter to the editor of the Student Newspaper, which was published just this afternoon:
Dear Editor,
I began reading a poster advertising the I.S. Conference quite literally a matter of seconds after it was posted outside the admissions office. As soon as I read it, my curiosity was piqued, for two reasons: first, because the conference would be addressing a subject which could not fail to provoke lively, productive and interesting debate, namely Alberta’s Oil Sands. The second reason was a single unassuming phrase on the poster, whose brevity betrayed its significance.
The poster’s description of the conference included the phrase “is [Alberta oil] ‘ethical oil’, as some have claimed...?” Perhaps this means little to my fellow students, so I will explain. Ethical Oil is the title of a book written by conservative pundit Ezra Levant, and published just last year. In it, Levant makes the case that oil from Alberta oil sands, while far from being perfect, is displacing, barrel by barrel, oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela and Iran (to name only a few) – countries run by thieves, murderous dictators and fascists; countries who care little for democracy, peace or human rights, much less the environment. Thus, to slow oil sands production would actually be doing a great disservice to the world, by allowing those countries’ governments to continue financing their inhumane regimes by meeting the billions-of-dollars-worth of extra demand for oil created by Alberta’s slowed production pace.
Love it or leave it, this simple argument is changing how the debate over the oil sands is being conducted. To give readers an idea of how influential this book has been in the few short months since its publication: both the Prime Minister and the Federal Environment Minister referenced the main arguments of the book in recent media addresses defending the oil sands. Proponents of oil sands production are laying hold of a new catchphrase – “ethical oil” – coined by Mr. Levant.
Now, given the remarkable influence of Mr. Levant’s book, and given the direct reference to the book on the poster I was reading, I was rather puzzled not to see Mr. Levant’s name appear on the list of speakers at the conference. When I asked Roy Berkenbosch to clarify this dilemma, he confirmed that Mr. Levant had not been extended an invitation. The explanation I received for this was that there simply was not enough space in the two-day conference to accommodate all speakers.
Fair enough. But is this merely a scheduling issue? This same schedule included 4 time slots allotted to professors at King’s (2 for the same professor) whom we have the opportunity to hear from every day while attending school. I don’t mean to disrespect our wonderful professors, all of whom gave us poignant insight. But, then again, we receive their insight daily – would it have been unreasonable to sacrifice time listening to our professors, which could very easily have been made up at some other juncture, to listen to someone else?
What is even more telling to me is that anti-oilsands author and journalist Andrew Nikiforuk was not only invited to speak to us, but was given two 45-minute time slots. Now, Mr. Nikiforuk is an important and influential voice in his own right, and his book Tar Sands certainly merits him an opportunity to speak at the conference. Yet it begs the question – what logical reason could there be for extending a double invitation to a nationally-bestselling author and journalist who writes a book opposing the oil sands, while neglecting to extend an invitation of any kind to a nationally-bestselling author and journalist who writes a book supporting the oil sands, which has now become the crux of the federal government’s argument for the oil sands? What a simple way to promote balanced discussion (as we were repeatedly told the purpose of the conference was) – two men with virtually identical credentials taking two opposing views!
To make matters worse, Mr. Nikiforuk, and later the NDP’s Federal Environment Critic, Linda Duncan, both directly challenged Ezra Levant’s arguments in their own addresses to us. (Actually, while Linda Duncan challenged his arguments, Mr. Nikiforuk saw fit only to throw out an unsupported accusation of Mr. Levant, and I quote, “making stuff up.” But I digress). It is an utterly remarkable paradox: Ezra Levant writes a book which is important enough to be quoted by the highest levels of our government; it is important enough that two oil sands detractors deemed it necessary to directly address its arguments in their speeches; Yet, for all that, the same book is not important enough for the author of that book to make the short list of invitees to the conference! What perverse logic rendered that conclusion? Or, a more pointed question: at what point does administration and logistics end, and censorship begin?
The idea of an Interdisciplinary Studies Conference is a noble one. But among the student body there is often a significant degree of scepticism and ambivalence towards the conferences. One reason often cited by the students is that the conferences seem “narrow” or “one-sided”. Given Mr. Levant’s absence, one can hardly blame them for these sentiments. It is hard to conduct a “balanced discussion” when a voice so significant to a current understanding of the oil sands debate is muzzled, while those who disagree with that voice are given a microphone and a platform.
In short, I consider Mr. Levant’s non-invitation to the conference, at best, a gross oversight. At worst, it is censorship. Either way, it is a failure.
Sincerely,
Jeff Godley
Friday, January 21, 2011
The I.S. Saga, Part 1: Addendum
Interestingly, I noticed that the ad poster bearing the phrase "ethical oil" was taken down. I looked on several bulletin boards throughout the school, but all the I.S. Conference posters simply bore a list of speakers, without the descriptive blurb.
Coincidence?
Coincidence?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
