If God was one of us, could he then find a seat on the 501 streetcar in rush hour?

For once, it seems as if the Toronto Transit Commission has done something right.

And in typical fashion, the only way they seem to do it right is to be passive, barely doing anything at all.

The TTC today announced that they have approved a series of humano-atheist-freethought (not sure which side is taking full responsibility yet) ads will be littered throughout Toronto's subways, streetcars and buses, telling people:

And while I would personally say they're probably right, obviously this is causing a massive controversy in the few hours since the news has broken. Many see it as a blasphemous attack on religion, while others see it as simply being yet another step (with religious ads being the first) of ads that simply don't belong on the subway, regardless of position on religion. Evangelical groups have already jumped out against the TTC, with groups like the Canada Family Action Coalition already vowing to file formal complaints with the city.

However, most others, myself included, see it not only as a valid right to free speech, but as one that is necessary in the face of constant religious advertising that has dominated Toronto transit for years. Why this is not allowed, yet quotes from scripture over my head, posters for Bible study at track level, and a seemingly endless supply of pamphlets telling me to "find" Jesus is okay, is simply mind-boggling.

As well, the subway freely advertises other "sinful" elements, such as violent television, alcoholic products, contraceptive use (and apparently only for South Asians...at least in Toronto), and now a number of endless ads promoting the next generation's new god, Lauren Conrad. While the morals of advertising is a whole other discussion in itself, its safe to say we're on our way down from an ethical level, so what's the harm in this when your child can look a giant condom or bottle of tequila in the face?

No doubt that this was to come, but its quite ironic that people are failing to heed the gospel of the non-believers and in fact, worry. Now someone just needs to tell the TTC Workers' Union (mainly Bob Kinnear) that they too, are not God...

wallet-loving-chubbly-bubbly!

It has become quite obvious in this modern era of the internet, TiVo, and my perennial punching bag The Hills (their time will come here, just you wait and see), most of humanity, besides its dumbed-downward slide into obscurity, now carries the attention span equalled only to small rodents and birds. And like any good agency, the advertising world has caught on to this, and instead of working diligently to bring you the wildest, craziest thing that your mind will filter from the thousands of ads you see per day, they are starting to cater to said attention spans instead.

Perhaps the best example (at least in Canada) has been by Due North, for the Dairy Farmers of Canada (i.e. the "Get A Load Of Milk" spots), which run in between other commercials for only 5 seconds each. Annoying as hell, initially yes, but does it do its job? Absolutely. Not only does the brand implant itself in your brain, whether out of appreciation or irritation, but you actually begin to expect the ads arrival ahead of time, sandwiched in between those other "boring" traditional 30-second spots. Just long enough to take in the brand, and just like that, now you're suddenly thinking about milk, whether you love it or hate it, being either the actual beverage, and/or the spots.

Now, in the eye of SuperBowl XLIII, which many are already calling the "Recession Bowl," companies are challenged with innovation during the biggest commercial showcase of the year, while still staying within budget. NBC has tagged a 30-second spot at a cool $3 million apiece, so Miller High Life has taken the concept Due North has used so well to the next level, airing nearly 30 one second spots, peppered throughout the game. Loaded with random oddball phrases ("back bacon!", "Tito's here!" and barking like a dog will surely please the masses), a comical pitchman, Windell Middlebrooks, and a digital campaign featuring longer spots and additional content (both via website and YouTube), this spot is sure to benefit Miller well beyond the final whistle of the game.


While the commercials are seen by many football fans as merely a bathroom break, many watch the game merely for the ads, so these are sure to please. As for the casual fan, even one or two of these "blinks" is sure to emit a "what the hell?", at least temporarily capturing their interest and attention for well beyond any normal attention span. Again, the humourous nature of the spots is sure to appeal to the target demo that makes up the majority of SuperBowl viewers, and by the middle of the game, fans are sure to be huddled with their friends, waiting for the next random catchphrase they can yell out over and over for the rest of the game. Perhaps even Al Michaels will feel the temptation to yell out "pigskin gravy!" if the game turns on a major play as it did last year...

Not since Janet's "wardrobe malfunction" will heads be snapping so fast back to their television...kudos goes out to the Miller people for these, which were apparently made in-house (evidently for costing purposes). What it says for our society, however, maybe not so much kudos is due there. Let's just blame it on the nachos and beer at least for Feb. 1, and then beyond that, who knows...

Vince Carter is a doo-doo head!

All hatred for Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment aside (really, Lee Stempniak? Brad May? CuJo again?), this is a great spot...one of those that you will remember for quite some time, especially admiring Chris Bosh's misshaped head, and the strange irony in that a player that looks like a dinosaur is the best player on the Toronto Raptors.


All the better that it's for a charity. Kudos goes to Taxi 2 and Partners Film for this.

AGENCY: Taxi 2 (Art Direction, Creative Direction and Writers unknown)

Tomorrow's pioneers of hate

First look at a picture like this, you can't help but recall good ol' Walt Disney and his crazy paranoia and anti-semitism ("are the Jews gone yet? no? put me back in!")...sadly, however, this is far from it. This is what stands for a children's television show in the Palestinian territories.


As talks for calm and peace after the Gaza Conflict have started to begin, it is this picture which represents everything that is wrong with trying to even broker any sort of a peace deal with Hamas, as this character, "Assoud, " represents the ongoing attempts to brainwash young Palestinians (viewers start watching this at 3 years old...3!) into radical anti-Westernism, anti-semitism and jihadism from the get-go.

Now even without this show, "Tomorrow's Pioneers," existing, trying to say "Hamas" and "peace deal" in the same sentence is a challenge in of itself. Hamas' political charter is led by a call to destroy Israel and replace it with an independent Palestinian nation...so how could a country, constitutionally bound to destroy Israel, ever possibly broker a long-term negotiation to live side by side? Even with the recent ceasefire reached, in which hundreds upon thousands of Gazans, both Hamas and non-Hamas affiliated, were killed, buildings bombed, and infrastructure destroyed, what was largely a mercy ceasefire by Israel is being touted in Gaza as a "victory" for Hamas, with revellers dancing in the streets and back to burning American and Israeli flags. Any political body that sees a brutal occupation resulting in thousands of deaths (with little to no retaliation) a victory has some serious challenges to face before ever laying down their arms.

But back to the show...while the show claims to represent the lives of Palestinian children, and does occasionally carry something of a worthwhile message (say your prayers, drink your milk, etc...evidently Hulk Hogan is a writer), the majority of the shows are spun to promote suicide bombings against Israel and the west, the "martyrs" of the past that have given their lives to jihad, and the rise of a globo-Islamic empire, evidently free of all other "infidels" (i.e. the 5 billion non-Muslims around the world).

The show is hosted by an 11 year old girl, Saraa, who hosts skits with the puppet characters (more on them later) and takes calls from Palestinian children, some as young as three years old, who want to vent on the issues, that let's face it, face us all as young children. Forget diaper rashes and learning cursive writing, let's talk about political strategy and building homemade rockets! Saraa has actually come out and claimed "We do not support terrorism. We are normal people, but we are defending our homeland ... We, as Muslims, are against suicide bombers. We are against the death of civilians on all sides." Yet in the same interview, when asked what she, the daughter of a university professor, wanted to do with her life, she said doctor. But of course, if that fails...martyr. It seems as if young Saraa is learning about another of those crucial issues we all face growing up: sociopolitical lies and PR spins.

As for the rest of the show, Saraa is always joined by a puppet character, whether Farfour, the suspiciously Mickey Mouse-esque mouse, his "cousin" Nahoul the bee, or her brother Assoud, the suspiciously Bugs Bunny-esque rabbit (wait, was Mel Blanc Jewish too?). However, this is no ensemble cast: each character replaced the previous one because their predecessor was martyred...on a CHILDREN'S SHOW. When was the last time you remember the Sesame Street gang hosting a funeral at Hooper's? Since when did Mr. Dressup's Tickle Trunk hold bodies?

Of course, all of these characters were killed off by the Jews (Farfour being beaten to death by an Israeli during an interrogation, Nahoul for not having accessible medical treatment for an operation, and Assoud being injured during an attack in the recent Gaza occupation), and seemingly like Hamas itself, is immediately replaced by another, ready and willing to die...again, on a kids show. As well, all of the problems the characters face before their violent deaths (once again, on a kids show) help to fuel the fires of ridiculous anti-semitic theories, pretty much blaming Jews, Israelis, Americans or any infidel for any problems. Whether it be Naboul's father's Hepatitis C, Assoud stealing money from his parents, or Farfour cheating on exam, "god willing," it is clearly the Jews' fault.

While it is one thing for the Hamas government to spew out their propaganda on the rest of the Palestinians (it clearly worked in Gaza), it is a completely different thing to indoctrinate children with this sort of rhetoric, and regardless of who you are, where you are, or what your political agenda is, this is simply sickening. Not only are the things being told to these youths well beyond the spectre of what any child should spend their days thinking of, but these shows are produced in an environment where Al-Asqa TV knows it will work best. Shows are only produced sporadically to highlight current events in the territories, rapidly sped out of the studio with awful production quality, just so it can be rushed to the air, to indoctrinate these kids as fast as possible before any other information crosses their minds.

As well, in the general argument of nature vs. nurture in terms of indoctrination and hatred, in this case it can be nothing but nurture. Anti-Zionism and anti-semitism is obviously rampant in the territories, whether it be at school, at mosque, or the burning Bush effigy in the street. This indoctrination just further brainwashes these kids, who are now completely surrounded by these thoughts on all fronts. Television, which most of the time provides an escape from the real, harsh world, especially for children, now encapsulates the real world and offers no escape...and Hamas knows this all too well.

The use of children to further Hamas' political agenda is just sickening...just over the other side of the border, Israeli children watch general children's shows, essentially Israeli versions of Sesame Street (Rechov Sumsum), Mr. Rogers (Parpar Nehmad) and Reading Rainbow (Bli Sodot), that feature what children's shows usually do: education, life lessons, and a major lack of death via violent means. It is obvious that with this hatred instilled at such an early age, these kids will rise into the future leaders of the mujahadeen, leading a new generation of Islamic warriors into battle. While the focus of Israeli and international action has been to stop the immediate problems, perhaps a deeper look into the children of the Palestinian territories is in order.

As Golda Meir once said, "peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us." And unfortunately for these kids, the hatred bleeds right through into the television, even turning the lovable Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny into gun-wielding fundamentalists. One can only wonder who will replace Bugs now that the Gaza occupation is over...hey kids, can you spell "J-I-double-h-aad"?

Take it with a million little grains of salt...

I like when they say a movie's inspired by a true story, cause that means it's not the true story on film - it means it was inspired by a true story...that's kinda silly, you know?

Like, "Hey Mitch, did you hear that story about the lady who drove her three kids into a river and they all drowned?"

"Oh yeah, I did... you know what? That inspired me to write a movie... about a gorilla!"
- Mitch Hedberg

Historical fiction has always been a bit of a strange measuring stick for our modern society, being used to show truly how inspiring and smart, or truly absent-minded and dumb, our culture is. There are those stories that educate us and inspire us, about the great events (Titanic) and about the lesser-known, yet still tremendous, stories (Flags Of Our Fathers) that do history justice and tell the story as it truly happened. Then there are films that choose to just take one's personal, and thus biased, take on history (Munich, based on the accounts of a single Mossad agent), or those that are just made for the sake of the almighty dollar (Pearl Harbor), that push historical fact aside for the sake of entertainment value.

While many films are not guilty of this bias, the sheer thought of a historical film nowadays instantly starts up the skepticism and criticism from fans and critics alike, who debate the film's legitimacy and authenticity. And one particular note of interest for me is the debate surrounding Holocaust films. In a day and age where the number of survivors is dwindling, while rampant anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial is on the rise, these stories now carry the responsibility (or apparently to some, the burden) of having to stick to the facts, so not to sully not only these specific memories, but so not as to challenge the complete authenticity of the atrocious events.

Telford Taylor, the chief prosecutor at the Nuremburg trials, once famously warned that misrepresenting history could leave an uninformed viewer with an inaccurate historical record of events shown, thus perhaps leading one to assume all they have seen and heard about said events could be fictional as well. And in an age where many probably still think today that the Japanese were herded out of Pearl Harbor by Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett, people are more impressionable than ever.

I write about this now for two reasons. Firstly, I just watched Defiance the other night, and had heard some mixed reviews about the movie, mainly due to an argument over the historical accuracies of parts of it (too long to get into, read about it here). While that film seems to be okay on the subject (the issues in question didn't even necessarily fit with the story, as the events in question happen after the movie ends), the debate came up over whether people take this literally to heart. While the Bielski brothers certainly did exist, and certainly displayed tremendous courage, strength and resolve, the film was adapted from a book by Nechama Tec, and is the story as told by her only.

With this in mind, the now-infamous story of Herman Rosenblat, the survivor who fabricated his story to Oprah this past year, in the middle of a book and movie deal, comes right to mind. Evidently, Rosenblat felt the need to "spice up" his survival story to make the story a happier one to his family and friends, before the story caught on like wildfire and thrust him into the national spotlight. Besides the fact it is deplorable to lie about such a topic (evidently for personal gain), you know what is the happiest possible story not just from his life, but from the life of any survivor? They lived! They survived! They say that the best revenge is living well, and in the case of the Nazis, the ultimate revenge is living out your days as a Jew, having Jewish babies, practicing Jewish customs, living a Jewish life. Apparently this was not good enough for Mr. Rosenblat, who will now be outcast not only for joining the Lying On Oprah club (pop: 2), but has now thrown into doubt every story ever told by any survivor of the Holocaust.

Now, while the argument should be that these films, along with any film, show, book or play, should be taken with a grain of salt (as these are only the historical interpretations of one, or a select few, people), unfortunately people don't seem to get it. While it should be brutally obvious that Tom Cruise in Valkryie isn't really a German (he doesn't even bother trying the accent!), or that The Boys From Brazil has uncovered a global conspiracy to clone little Hitler babies (yes, you read that right), some of these same people believe things as ridiculous as the Holocaust never happening, a massive global Jewish conspiracy, The Undertaker is never dead long enough to take in another WrestleMania match, or that The Hills is in fact a good, real show. Simply put, lots and lots of people are too dumb to realize this stuff isn't real.

But does this mean that the entertainment industry should dumb down their films to clarify these stories? Or does it mean they should stop making historical films? The answer to both has to be no. Touchy subjects like the Holocaust, or any genocide in general really (see Hotel Rwanda, The Killing Fields, The Last King Of Scotland, etc.) still need to be told, to be remembered. The hope is that seeing a film such as Defiance will inspire those who see it to learn more. I know I did, and while I learned all the facts may not have been 100% authentic, it doesn't matter whether their dialect of Russian was incorrect; the important thing is that now I know of a group of incredibly courageous men who risked their lives to save thousands. Other films like Schindler's List, The Pianist and Sophie's Choice have been successful at this as well, becoming popular in the mainstream while bringing these tremendous stories to life.

Obviously, many people will not do this, and just take away what they see as the final story, and hearing anything to the contrary will simply dilute any views they have on these events, assuming everything they have heard is a lie. But the true danger is this indifference in people, thinking that absolutely everything they see is wrong, when perhaps it is just a minor detail that then throws all they know, all they believe, all they understand, out the window.

We need to stop taking things so literally. This is historical fiction...just take it with a grain of salt.

It's the end of music as we know it...and I feel rage.

I could rant and rave about how the music of this era is dropping way downhill, thanks to the internet, thanks to the apparent lack of interest of MTV (remember when that was actually Music Television?) in airing actual music videos, or thanks to the desire of record labels to sign 'em young and work 'em till they drop (see: Rihanna in five years from now). But I accidentally stumbled upon what may very well be the worst music ever produced. The ultimate attempt at not only everything wrong with music today, but an attempt to mash it up all together.

I give you, Brokencyde.

Wait, sorry. I forgot to spell it the "proper" way, BrokeNCYDE. How rude of me. Let's break down how to categorize such a diverse group of musicians, shall we?

- They look like an emo band.

- They have backing tracks like an electronica band.

- Their website "categorizes" as a crunk/screamo band (and I certainly don't recall Lil' Jon sounding like this).

- Their Wikipedia page later "categorizes" them as a hip-hop band, and even have the matching names: Antz, Mik L, Phat J and Se7en (which I'm fairly sure is a copyright infringement of David Fincher's film).

- They have a lead singer who sounds like a soca singer, using that same stupid drum machine Kanye West has started using.

- And they have a backup singer who sounds like a metalcore singer, proving it is possible to be even more useless than George Pettit of Alexisonfire.

I will save you the pain if you choose not to watch their music video, which looks like a mutant hybrid of a Timbaland and The Used. But if you dare, follow the link to "Freaxxx" (again, don't ask me why).

The death of popular music as we know it, now at your fingertips.

You're welcome...and I'm truly, truly sorry.

trying to run...before learning to walk

When my generation thinks in this day and age about business ethics, sadly (or amazingly) the first thing that comes to mind is that detrimental climax of Billy Madison, where an enraged Bradley Whitford attempts shooting Billy and Veronica over a business ethics question, before saved by the lipstick-clad Steve Buscemi. However, in this time when ethics are being thrown out the window faster than Lehman Bros. stocks are tumbling, and faster than Bernard Madoff is arranging his local UPS guy to deliver his life savings out, it becomes an interesting debate. Especially for me, when the issue is ad attacks against other companies. They say that no publicity is bad publicity, but is there a line that can be crossed?

If there is, it seems like McDonald's is definitely trying to cross it, and they're doing so against the next major globalized brand (behind them, of course), Starbucks. Trying to dub Starbucks as snobby coffee, they decided to not only unveil these new billboards, but to do so on Starbucks turf, across the Seattle area:

As well, they have unveiled a new website, unsnobbycoffee.com, which among its new drink menu to rival the 'Bucks, has games and even a "snobby coffee intervention," where you can confront your friends and loved ones over their addiction to expensive drinks. Its quite the venture for McDonald's, not only in terms of general creativity (we get it...you're lovin it), but to take shots at a competitor, especially a new one, as opposed to say, other rival burger chains.

However, not only from a general taste standpoint, but speaking as both an ex-employee of Starbucks and Mickey D's, for McDonald's to align themselves as a gourmet coffee shop on the cheap is simply absurd. They cannot come anywhere close to Starbucks in terms of quality, not only because you can be sure the beans are of a much lower quality, but the staff is of much lower quality in making it, as McDonald's is all about efficiency, mechanization and speed, and as any cocky bank executive or artist can tell you, making the perfect non-fat, no-foam, half-pump, unsweetened decaf Caramel Macchiato takes time.

The major difference between these two is that with Starbucks, outside of the occasional pre-wrapped sandwich or breakfast muffin, their job is completely devoted to your coffee. McDonald's on the other hand, running around trying to scoop up fries, organize McNuggets and mix milkshakes makes frothing milk difficult. Especially considering these guys work for $6 an hour (and according to unsnobbycoffee.com, you can "keep your change, we don't accept tips"), have horrible benefits, uncomfortable uniforms, and as outlined clearly in their company guidelines (as highlighted by Eric Schlosser in Fast Food Nation), McDonald's is about absolute efficieny, essentially only needing employees to push buttons and watch while the machines do their work. Suddenly flipping this on its head and telling untrained employees to craft very unique drinks means nothing but the potential for disaster.

As well, while Starbucks' record is not exactly spic-n-span, thanks to union issues and rapid globalization (fine, the coffee is good...but a Starbucks in Beijing's Forbidden City? really?), they are nowhere near as catastrophic as McDonald's track record on environmentalism, obesity, animal rights, and no pun intended, but the "McDonaldization" of the global consumer landscape. You can be sure McDonald's wont be springing for the expensive beans, and the methods in which they received the beans, and how those who processed them were treated by the company, will be questionable at the very least.

The type of customer McDonald's will attract to purchase their cafe drinks were not likely Starbucks' main target market anyhow. Most Starbucks drinkers either drink it more for the name than the product itself, or do so not just for the drinks, but for the ambiance, the treats, the experience of the cafe (the free Wi-Fi, the new music, the pompous jackass who sits on his MacBook for 7 hours with the same cup) that McDonald's simply can't replicate. The stale apple pie Mickey D's has does not go well with your Mocha, and neither will a Filet-O-Fish.

The Seattle P.I. article notes how Starbucks has no plans to retaliate these attack ads, and they should be commended for that. Not so much for taking the higher road, but more for realizing (thanks probably in part to their new agency, BBDO) that McDonald's is attacking outside their niche market, and this will fail them in the long run. McDonald's should not be expected to counter Starbucks if they began marketing french fries, as McDonald's dominates that market niche...and the odds are is that it would backfire for Starbucks.

For McD's to try to flex their powerful global muscle in this way just to wrench extra sales (as if they need them) is foolish, especially when they are competing against the master of the market in a market they are new to. Mac vs. PC is one thing, but at least they both understand computers. But McDonald's simply does not understand the gourmet coffee market, and to start off this way is simply a waste of money and time (of which they have plenty to burn, of course). Perhaps most ironic of all? McDonald's agency, DDB Seattle, and Starbucks' agency, BBDO New York, are both owned by the same parent company, Omnicom...oops!

Now, if only Starbucks could have Conan O'Brien as a writer for the rebuttal...

best commercial of '08...Burger Queen!

I've always been fascinated by the work that Crispin Porter + Bogusky has done for Burger King...be it the Subservient Chicken, the Whopper Virgins, the Simpsons Movie tie-in, or the Whopper Junior family rebellion, they always manage to cause quite a stir with their work (whether positive or negative), which for a fast food chain is remarkable in its own right.

But the Whopper Freakout takes the cake for '08, hands down. Perhaps its the thought of a mass national panic over the potentiality of such an event, perhaps its just the angry McPalin supporter who declares the chain should now go by "Burger Queen". Either way, this is the best.

AGENCY: Crispin Porter + Bogusky
ART DIRECTION: Paul Caiozzo, Julia Hoffman, Andy Minisman, Dan Treichel
WRITERS: Nathan Dills, Omid Farhang
CREATIVE DIRECTION: Rob Reilly, Bill Wright, Ryan Kutscher, Jeff Benjamin

Perhaps I'm most fascinated by the fact that CP+B is the same agency responsible for the ridiculously insane anti-Mac Gates & Seinfeld Microsoft ads..we know the show was about nothing...but this? This is really nothing! Still, the ads did create quite a bit of buzz, which seems to be CP+B's niche...looking forward to their work in '09.

the voice of this generation...of this decade?

After watching a documentary on the cultural impact of A Clockwork Orange (Interesting sidenote: the bodyguard for the old man the droogs beat at the beginning of the film, in the skin-tight pink shirt? The guy who played Darth Vader.), one of the interviewees made an interesting note about how while the 1960's were largely defined by sex, the 1970's were about the violence. Which got me thinking, if the 60's were about the sex, the 70's were about the violence, and the 80's were about drugs (if for any reason, just to fill out the rock-n-roll trifecta of cliches), what has my generation been about?

Thinking in terms of what liberated (but also helped plague) these time periods, its probably easiest right away to define the 90's as the decade of the internet, hands down. The net has been used, and subsequently abused, by oodles more people than drugs, violence, or even sex (yes, clergymen even use the net), and has come to define that decade, our generation, perhaps our species (we will know in time), there is no doubt. Easy answer.

But then my percolating mind, hopped up on M&Ms and red wine (sounds like a lyric, doesn't it?), began to wonder if all these factors defined these eras, what will define the raging 00's? With only 354 days left until the "10's", what has this first decade of the new millennium been defined by culturally?

Money?
Environment?
Fear?

iPods?
The Hills?
Nothing?

I'm not too sure which I fear more: a decade defined by mankind's decline into a literal and metaphorical vegetative state (largely thanks to the 90's), or one defined by a "Speidi" that Stan Lee had nothing to do with. That and Kanye West.

Shall we rock 'em? Shall we sock 'em?

Just as I post a story after a long struggle for a topic, I realize a valid one: the ongoing debate over fighting in hockey.

This has become more potent than ever in Canada, after the death of a junior player from knocking his helmet-less head on the ice during a fight. Of course, its a tragic story, no doubt, but the debate over whether fighting should be completely barred from the game in the pros seems to be going a little too far, getting a tad panicky. Like low-scoring games, wider goal creases and actual entertaining All-Star Games of the past, pro hockey fans are simply bringing another displeasure to the forefront of discussion in the hopes that the NHL, led by Gary "Quest For Ratings" Bettman will swing it in their favour, in the hopes of spurred interest in the game.

Only problem is, the fighting debate goes on in Canada, where hockey is of course our national game, and we would continue to watch our teams (or any teams for that matter) with devotion, even if they began playing with ringette sticks or roller skates. The American market, which Bettman is most interested in, is very on the fence about NHL hockey, and is only really appealed to elements of the game similar to popular U.S. sports, and fighting falls right into that category. Fans in Nashville, Atlanta or Phoenix could probably care less about playing an effective trap defense, but when a rumble begins right after face off, then its "yee-haw!" in the stands, and money in the pockets of these small-market owners. So in the eyes of the NHL, this has to be a big no-no.

And even in the eyes of the fan, while the argument that it inspires kids to grow up to play like a Bob Probert or Tie Domi is somewhat valid, minor leagues these days crack down so hard on any sort of physical provocation, that by the time these kids would even reach the pros, they will have spent the last 16-or-so years playing hockey with little to no physicality, especially no fighting. We need to remember that these players are not only professionals, but adults, who know they engage in a dangerous game, even without the fighting (remember Clint Malarchuk? Bryan Berard? Steve Moore?), and even when fights to begin, they are not random attacks, they are consented contests. Wayne Gretzky only fought once in his career, because he only agreed to fight once...not interested, skate away, that's it. These guys don't need to fight, they want to, and that's their decision to make as adults.

If this rule does stand, and hockey fights are outlawed, not only does that remove a part of the game that many fans do enjoy (and especially in recent times, while watching the Leafs getting blown out, the occasional fight is a welcome change), but it opens the floodgates further to have the NHL start changing even more parts of the game. If a major part of the game can be quickly overturned like this, what comes next? No open-ice checks? Removing the centre red line? Sponsor logos on team jerseys?

The issue can be resolved without jumping to banning fighting outright, as not only do the players agree to these fights, they also make the critical choice to wear helmets with questionable tightness and face protection (or lack thereof).
- If the referees see a fight getting out of control now, they stop it. Same should go for the helmets.
- If the refs see a helmet knocked off during a fight, cut it short before the players hit the ice. If the players strip their helmets off before the fight, stop it immediately.

You managed to stop fighters from jerseying each other, this rule should manage to become the custom for fighters. Don't sully this tragedy of a young man's death just to argue the decisions professionals make. Of course fighting should be banned from minor leagues, and should probably be upheld in junior leagues as well. But as for adults? They're big boys...let them decide.

My faith in humanity...gone wild!

I have been sitting in front of this screen for about an hour now, struggling to come up with a good topic to write on. I began writing on shock value in TV, then Bill Maher, then communist China...but the words just weren't coming. Perhaps its just vacation-lag after the Christmas break, perhaps its just because its a nasty, snowy day outside. And then I read this:

Porn Kings to D.C. - Help Us Through Hard Times
Joe Francis and Larry Flynt claim the economy has made America's sexual appetite go limp, so they're going to the one place where sex is always rampant -- Congress.

Flynt (the "Hustler" guy) and Francis (the "Girls Gone Wild" dude) are asking the government for a $5 billion bailout, claiming the adult entertainment industry has taken a huge shot to the face because of the downturn -- citing the fact that XXX DVD sales are down 22% from a year ago.

"With all this economic misery and people losing all that money, sex is the farthest thing from their mind," Flynt says. "It's time for Congress to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America."

Francis sees his industry like the big three automakers, only BIGGER: "Congress seems willing to help shore up our nation's most important businesses; we feel we deserve the same consideration."

Francis says he's going to D.C. to personally make the pitch. Sounds like someone has a bone to pick.

And then I feel better, and my faith in humanity is restored.

It's amazing how unbelievably awesome this story is, Flynt going back to beg before the same Congress he offered $1 million for sex stories of Congresspeople not more than two years ago. The very man who not more than three months ago released "Who's Naylin Paylin". Yes, that guy.

Here's to praying that Joe Francis doesn't get tempted to offer Barbara Boxer beads while on Capitol Hill...