The National Anthem, eh?

This may be a very small matter, but it illustrates once again the lunacy that is with political correctness:

Outrage Grows over Cancelled Anthem

For those who don’t know, the principal of a small New Brunswick elementary school, Erik Millett, decided to cancel the school’s long-time ritual of singing the national anthem at the start of each school day, citing that certain parents did not want their children to participate in the event. The mother of a grade 5 student, Mrs. Susan Boyd, wrote to a local paper to voice her disapproval of the principal’s decision. The complaint quickly gained national attention, causing both federal and provincial ministers to comment and a heated public debate. Most feel the principal’s decision was out of line, and are demanding the school to return to this daily ritual.

What government officials say on this matter is not of my concern. For all I know and care, they are just saying what is politically the most appealing thing. I am more concerned over why the principal would come to such a decision.

While Mr. Millett would not say how many parents actually complained, and what reasons they had to complain of the singing of the national anthem, one can only imagine that the number is a very small one, and the reason probably has something to do with what these parents believe or not believe in. I am all for the respect of other people’s believes and values, but not to the point where we have to change and modify everything to suit the desires of a small number of people. Like sex-ed classes in school, parents have the right to opt out their children from participating. If some parents genuinely feel that their children should not participate in the singing of our nation’s national anthem, they can quite simply request their children to not participate. Why should the entire school change its ways for a few? What if a parent, for whatever reason, feels strongly that the school should sing the national anthem for country X instead? Should the whole school change its national anthem routine for that too?

Meanwhile, I know that there has been people who have been trying to change the lyrics of “O Canada.” In particular, they want to remove the word “God” from the lyrics of the anthem because certain people believe that there is no god. Again, this idea is just ludicrous. What these people fail to understand is that the lyrics represent the founding values and the history behind this country. Our forefathers believed that this country is governed and kept by an Almighty God. Whether you accept that belief or not, it IS a part of our nation’s history. You cannot deny history just because you do not accept or agree with that history. And for the people who preach tolerance to be so intolerant even of history past, it is a hypocrisy.

I am a proud Canadian, and would be singing every word of my national anthem whenever there is a chance. Props to Ms. Boyd to stand up against the rudeness of political correctness – it has violated us long enough.

Harper, Ignatieff, Layton, and Duceppe

Before anything else, check out the following piece of news:

NDP ads blast Ignatieff

So after the latest power-grab attempt by NDP leader Jack Layton has failed, the party is quick to blast their recently-divorced partner in the Liberal Party. Just because Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has decided that toppling the minority conservative government is not a good idea, his entire party is now the enemy of the NDP.

Astounding? Yes. Surprising? Not at all. Over the years, we have learned what Mr. Layton is all about – he is a passionate speaker who can woo you with his words, but throughout the years, he has demonstrated he is all about grabbing power in any way, shape, or form. Stephane Dion was equally desperate for power, and hence the two joined forces. I am not saying Ignatieff does not want power, but at least he is astute enough to understand that, in the face of an enormous economic crisis, the political warfare needs to halt. And for that, I applaud him.

Ignatieff’s demand of periodic financial update to the Conservatives’ stimulus package is a reasonable demand, and I am pleased to see that the Conservatives government is willing to accept that demand, as stated by Minister of Industry Tony Clement (right) on TV today (not that they had a choice, honestly). It may be wishful thinking on my part, but I hope Prime Minister Stephen Harper can find ways to work with Ignatieff and the Liberals to resuscitate our economy. If both parties are willing, we can certainly ignore the NDP and the Bloc…

Speaking of the Bloc, I must say the same criticism needs to be directed to its leader Gilles Duceppe. Both Duceppe and Layton went on record to say that they would not support the budget BEFORE the budget was released. Layton made fun of the budget when it first came out and said that Harper is turning into a NDP when the government promised funding to social housing. So the government is meeting some of your demands, and you still need to resort to childish bashing? And Duceppe would not even look at the budget before deciding that he and his party would not support it. Both leaders showed recklessness and a complete disregard to the welfare of Canadians in general. I’m utterly surprised that not more criticism has been directed to them.

So it looks like the minority conservative government will rule on for quite some time. Let’s hope politicians would truly put their selfish agenda aside, and work for those who put them in office… we can only hope.

In Need of a Team, Not a Messiah Figure

The Vancouver Canucks lost an awful, humiliating game last night to the lowly Nashville Predators to extend their pitiful home losing streaks to 8 games. What was so difficult to watch last night was that the Canucks gave up a 3-1 second period lead to surrender 4 unanswered goals (one into an empty net) to choke away what should have been an easy home win (Nashville had only scored 2 or more goals 9 times).

Mats Sundin looked awful. As seen in the report below, he cut several of his shifts short while his linemates were still going. He continued to take lazy penalties. Most importantly, he continues to be a non-factor one month after he signed with the Vancouver Canucks to play less than half a season for 5 million dollars.

http://business.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090129.WBhockeyblog20090129083353/WBStory/WBhockeyblog

I have never liked the idea of signing Sundin; but because I did not pile on previously, I would not be one saying “I told you so” right now. Still, the concept of bringing in a veteran star as the “messiah” of the hockey club has failed before (hello, Mark Messier!), and is seemingly going to fail again this time around (the Canucks had 1 win since Sundin joined them). It is time management begin to understand the method of doing things just does NOT work, no matter what professional sports you are talking about.

Hockey and football are arguably the most team-oriented sport that relies so heavily on a mutual commitment and ownership of responsibility. With the current parity in both the NHL and the NFL, a “star” can only do you so much. The Dallas Cowboys have a star-studded lineup, and they did not even make the playoffs. The Arizona Cardinals were deemed the “worst-ever playoff team,” and they will be competing for football’s supremacy this Sunday. The difference? A team whose players are committed to one another, are accountable to one another, and would go to war for the sake of the person sitting next to you in the locker room.

I have been a Vancouver Canuck fan for over 20 years, so I gather I can say I know the history of this team quite a bit. Look back at arguably the best-ever Canucks team, the 1994 team that was one goal away from winning the Stanley Cup. Sure, Pavel Bure was a prominent player on that team, but the true heart of that team lied in the likes of Trevor Linden, Kirk McLean, Greg Adams, Cliff Ronning, Geoff Courtnall, Martin Gelinas, Murray Craven, Sergio Momesso, Jyrki Lumme, Gerald Diduck, Dana Murzyn, Bret Hedican… the star player was the game-breaker who can come through for you every now and then, but you need to have a team who will stand up for one another, who would lay their bodies down to make it work.

The current version of the Vancouver Canucks had that same aura before the Sundin signing: Roberto Luongo was the backbone of the team, but he just quietly goes about his business, and so did the rest of the team. Ever since the Sundin signing, it is as if the team adapted the notion that their saviour has arrived, and no one needs to be committed anymore… When a player who has not played for eight months chose to not even skate during the all-star break, the vibe rubs on in the wrong way in the locker room.

Sorry to say this, but I think this season will go down as a bust...

From Bush to Obama

Yesterday’s inauguration of the 44th president of the United States Barack Obama created a frenzy even in Canada. Across the hallways I could feel “Obamamania” happening – people quoting Obama’s inauguration speech, imitating his gestures and tone, comparing him to the political leaders of this country… I must say, it was quite a sight, especially considering the fact that many Canadians have long been despising our neighbours down south. The whole scene was just surreal, if you ask me.

Here's the first part of Obama's speech. You can follow the "related videos" to watch the rest of them:

Drama, and emotions aside, one cannot deny that Obama’s inauguration speech was well-written, and it did deliver a message of passive, but strong determination and hope. On a personal level, I am the most impressed with the framework he has laid out on his foreign policies:

“Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint. We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort -- even greater cooperation and understanding between nations.”

While stating the obvious fact that US has the military power to dominate any other nation, Obama is also extending an olive branch of sort in wanting to cooperate and wishing for better understanding, two things that the Bush administration was not able to do well.

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

Here I see a little pride and a little threat even uttered to those who defy the “American way,” but it was nonetheless spoken eloquently in arguing that the liberal way is the better way. It also maintains the notion of not wanting to exclude anyone to get on board, as long as they are willing.

When the speech is done, it was obviously well received. But now, the true work begins. The whole world has known for quite some time that Obama can talk the talk. Now, it’s time to walk the walk. His vision seems noble, and he has mentioned over and over again that he will collaborate. Let’s hope he is truly a president of collaboration and understanding.

While talking Obama, I think it’s worthy to talk about his predecessor, George W. Bush. Unlike many people that I know, I am not an anti-Bush person per se. True, I think the war on Iraq was an unjust one, and I think his foreign policies are generally bully tactics that do not belong to this age, but that does not take away my respect for Mr. Bush for his steadfast support for the firefighters, the policemen, and the victims of the tragedy of 9-11; it does not stop me from admiring his strong stance on certain social issues that he has convictions in. One may not agree with the stances he has chosen to take, but at least, “W” has always been upfront about where he stands on those issues. Check out his national address following the tragedy of 9-11:



I have always been someone who believes that there is a time for everything (politically, in a democratic world anyway…). Bush was meant to be the leader that takes America through the horrors of 9-11; his time is up, so he is moving off the stage for someone else. May Obama be the right person for this age, and though I am not an American, like Mr. George W. Bush always says at the end of most public address to his nation, “God bless America.”

(P.S. for something lighter, here's a clip showing "W" and his impersonator, Steve Bridges, delivered a duet of a speech in 2006. It takes something special to be able to laugh at yourself, particularly if you are a person in power. Bush did that well, and I respect him for it).

Miracle on the Hudson

By now you have probably seen the pictures, and have watched the video. For those who have not, US Airway Flight 15479 took off from La Guardia Airport for a merely two minutes when large flocks of birds flew towards the plane. Both engines got disabled as birds were sucked into the jet’s engines by their powerful suction force. Fortunately, the plane was controlled by Captain Chesley B Sullenberger III (pictured), who calmly took the ill-fated plane to an emergency landing into the Hudson River. Miraculously, all 155 people on board survived.

Out from so many stories of distress and sadness came a story that was cheerful and upbeat. I have no knowledge in the difficulty of flying a plane, much less landing a plane in any type of emergency, but this much I know: most who were interviewed about the incidents said that it was a total miracle that everyone on board survived what literally was a plane crash.

Behind this heroic and miraculous act is a pilot, Mr. Sullenberger. What we must know is that this miracle was possible because Mr. Sullenberger is a well-experienced pilot who has the skills to make such an emergency landing. But more importantly, it is Sullenberger’s ability to make an instantaneous decision outside the box that saved the lives of 155: when he discovered that his plane has lost power in both engines, he reported the disaster calmly to the airport’s traffic control. He was initially told to fly back to the airport for an emergency landing. It was Sullenberger’s ability to immediately see that such a suggestion was not feasible, and his ability to decide to try the landing on a frigid river, that made the difference. Sullenberger did not just accept the “order” from the authorities; he took it, digested it, and made changes that are deemed right for the situation. And he parlayed that with a masterful job in landing the plane on the water, preventing the almost-full fuel tank from exploding, and holding the wings above water so passengers had a chance to escape.

My utmost respect to Captain Sullenberger – you have demonstrated courage and wisdom in a time of distress, and are a true model for so many of us.