Last Friday, June 27th, marked the end of an era. What era, you ask? Then obviously your homepage isn't set to msn.com or msnbc.com, as it was splashed all all over there late last week.
I'm referring to the retirement of Microsoft's Bill Gates. I wouldn't really consider myself a geek, even if I am one of the 10 types of people in the world that understand binary. (You techies will get the joke). I like Bill Gates. I'll admit I'm biased, because he put bread on my table and kept a roof over my head for several years when we lived down in Seattle. He was Microsoft's front-man and epitomized "geekdom". (Is that a real word?) Bill Gates and Microsoft: it's hard to imagine one without the other. He showed that "The Geeks will inherit the earth." I remember a very funny sketch from "The Royal Canadian Air Farce" where the Air Farce's character of Bill Gates claimed he was going to rename the US the "United Gates of America" and rename Mexico, "El Microsofto". He concluded his speech by yelling, "Geek Power!! Geek Power!!" It was priceless; I almost fell out of my chair laughing.
If you are interested at all in things "geeky" and "techy", I recommend you watch, "The Pirates of Silicon Valley" - a made-for-tv movie starring Anthony Michael Hall ("Sixteen Candles")as Bill Gates and Noah Wylie ("E.R.") as Apple's Steve Jobs. I also recommend "The Triumph of the Nerds," a documentary that tells a similar story.
Two years ago, Gates announced that he would eventually be leaving the company he founded in 1977 with friends Paul Allen and Steve Balmer. Bill, having conquered the technology world, now had his sights set on finding a cure for AIDS. Bill and his wife, Melinda, founded the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, which has been donating money for years to worthy causes: immunization, education, etc.
I admire anyone that makes it to the top and then gives back to the world. If Bill is as successful in finding a cure for AIDS and malaria as he has been with revolutionizing the way we use computers (they're not just for geeks anymore) he'll do very well. I wish him all the best. Good luck, Bill.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
A Novel Idea....
I picked up a book last evening which I was considering reading. I'm not going to mention the title, but it's historical fiction. Two of the three main characters are Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn.
To my surprise, I found the following disclaimer inside the book:
Am I the only person that sees that as funny??? I cracked up laughing.
What are we saying here? Is the disclaimer saying that Henry VIII, Catherine of Aragon, and Anne Boleyn were merely figments of the author's imagination? That Anne Boleyn was not mother to the future Queen Elizabeth I and never lost her head to an executioner's sword? Sorry if that's a spoiler. But if that comes as a surprise, then you really must not have been paying attention in school. I was approximately four to five years old when I "met" Anne at the Royal London Wax Museum in Victoria and was told that she had her head cut off. Always the master of wise-cracks, Dad asked, "Why is she wearing a pearl necklace?" When I said I didn't know, he replied, "So they could cut on the dotted line."
Is it suggesting that England and the Tower of London are make believe? If that's so, that's pretty wild. You see, I've been both to England and the Tower of London. I've seen armour that belonged to Henry and I've stood on Tower Green where Anne was executed. This was in 1981 - long before this book was written. I even have photographic evidence.
I know the intent of the disclaimer: no one knows exactly what words passed between these people, and, obviously there probably are some characters that the author created. That being said, the far-reaching scope of the disclaimer just struck me as pretty funny.
To my surprise, I found the following disclaimer inside the book:
"This book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents either are products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental."
Am I the only person that sees that as funny??? I cracked up laughing.
What are we saying here? Is the disclaimer saying that Henry VIII, Catherine of Aragon, and Anne Boleyn were merely figments of the author's imagination? That Anne Boleyn was not mother to the future Queen Elizabeth I and never lost her head to an executioner's sword? Sorry if that's a spoiler. But if that comes as a surprise, then you really must not have been paying attention in school. I was approximately four to five years old when I "met" Anne at the Royal London Wax Museum in Victoria and was told that she had her head cut off. Always the master of wise-cracks, Dad asked, "Why is she wearing a pearl necklace?" When I said I didn't know, he replied, "So they could cut on the dotted line."
Is it suggesting that England and the Tower of London are make believe? If that's so, that's pretty wild. You see, I've been both to England and the Tower of London. I've seen armour that belonged to Henry and I've stood on Tower Green where Anne was executed. This was in 1981 - long before this book was written. I even have photographic evidence.
I know the intent of the disclaimer: no one knows exactly what words passed between these people, and, obviously there probably are some characters that the author created. That being said, the far-reaching scope of the disclaimer just struck me as pretty funny.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
The Man in the Hat is Back!
After 19 years of waiting, the fourth Indiana Jones movie has finally been released. Being huge "Indy" fans, (well, that's mostly me) we went to see it opening weekend. Warning: there will be spoilers on the new movie towards the last few paragraphs.
I fell in love in with Indiana Jones with the first movie, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in 1981. It wasn't hard; I had a major crush on Harrison Ford at the time (even if he is old enough to be my Dad). I'd also always had a sneaking interest in archaelogy. That summer, I became good friends with the neighbour boy next door. We'd bonded over our mutual love of Star Wars and he told me that he preferred Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones over Han Solo. From that point on, I started nagging my Dad to take me.
After weeks of pestering my Dad, we went to the local theatre and saw it. Dad was expecting some "Star Wars" science fiction type movie, so he was surprised when he saw horses in the jungle. Then, of course, we were told it was "South America - 1936" and things began to make sense. In describing the movie to someone a few days later, Dad said it was basically "James Bond for kids." That's exactly what George Lucas intended when he and director Steven Spielberg envisioned it. Indiana Jones: mild-mannered professor by day, but leads a double-life as a treasure-seeking adventurer (or "expert on the occult and obtainer of rare antiquities" as they call it in the movie) who beats up bad guys (mostly Nazis). He's a handsome smooth-talking hero with a devilish twinkle in his eyes, wears a fedora hat and carries a bull whip. In the first movie, he goes after the lost Ark of the Covenant. It was part of the idea when Lucas and Spielberg were envisioning Indiana Jones that he would always go after religious artifacts.
It took my breath away; there are so many memorable scenes. No matter how many times I've seen it, I always crack up when Indy shoots the swordsman and when the monkey takes the Nazi salute. Along for the thrill ride was Jones' former flame, the feisty Marion Ravenwood, played to perfection by Karen Allen. Marion was no damsel in distress, she gave as good as she got. In fact, her body count may be almost as high as his. The chemistry between Allen and Ford was fantastic; you could almost see the sparks fly. "I see you haven't forgotten how to show a lady a good time!" she yells at him after her bar is burnt to the ground. Marion set a very high standard for Indy's girlfriends who followed in the next two movies - and no one came even close - but more on that later.
Raiders is a classic and - in many ways - the perfect action adventure movie. I just don't care for the weak ending. It's like they ran out of ideas from the point where they get on the ship. Other than that, it's perfect. It won a few Oscars, and was even nominated for Best Picture that year.
A sequel followed three years later, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom". By that time, I'd outgrown my crush and wasn't interested in seeing it. I finally saw it years later; it's still the weakest of the movies. It's dark. And to make things worse, they replaced Karen Allen with the awful Kate Capshaw (Steven Spielberg's future wife) and set the movie one year before Raiders in 1935. Every time I see it, I want to bash Capshaw's character, nightclub singer Willie Scott. Heck, even Steven Spielberg doesn't like it.
Then in 1989, they released the third movie, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade". The reviews were good, and I dragged my Dad to see Indy once again. It was everything the second movie wasn't. It returned to the formula which made the first one so successful. From the opening sequence you learned a little of Indy's background: how he acquired his fear of snakes and how he learned to use a bullwhip, for example. This time they brought in Sean Connery - the original James Bond - to be Indy's father. It was a stroke of casting genius (even though Harrison Ford thought that it wasn't a good idea since Sean Connery was only thirteen years older than him). The chemistry between them was great. I remember walking out of the theatre thinking I'd been on a rollercoaster ride and I immediately wanted more of the same adrenaline rush. Becuase there is no weak ending, in some ways the third one is my favourite. The dialogue between father and son was razor sharp: "I'm as human as the next man." "I was the next man." The "girlfriend" in this movie, Dr. Elsa Schneider, though an improvement Wille Scott, turned out to be a Nazi turncout. Her greed got the better of her and she got her just desserts in the end.
Speaking of rollercoaster rides, the Indiana Jones ride at Disneyland is a blast. Dad and I went on it three times when we were there in 1996. They even had the rolling stone chase you, which was the climax of the opening sequence in the original Raiders.
So, when it was announced that finally there would be a new movie and that they were bringing back Karen Allen, I was thrilled. I loved her character, Marion Ravenwood. Rumours circulated that Natalie Portman would play Indy and Marion's daughter. My immediate reaction was 'EW!" Not because I don't like Natalie Portman; I do like her. It's the fact that she plays Queen Amidala in Star Wars - the mother of Princess Leia. In other words, she's Han Solo's (Harrison Ford's character) mother-in-law. I was disappointed to hear that Sean Connery wasn't returning. It would have been nice to have a full family reunion. But, in his own words, he was enjoying retirement "too damned much". Selfish Swine :) Eventually, it was announced that Indy and Marion had a son ("Henry") not a daughter.
So, now it comes time to critique the new film (which, of course, we took my Dad to). Set in 1957, nineteen years after the last movie, it starts off in Nevada. It was good to see Indy make some wise-cracks about his age. It was also good to see Marion back. True, she'd lost a *little* of her spunk, but she was still feisty, and she's aged gracefully. Once again, there was good banter between her and Indy. That being said, I would have liked to have seen more. It's part of what made the first movie so great.
There was action; there was adventure; there were wise-cracks; there were creepy-crawlies (this time, ants). In short, there was everything you come to expect from an Indiana Jones movie. It was very good and I really liked it but I can't honestly say that I loved it - and I just can't put my finger on why. I was waiting for that adrenaline rush that I had while watching the third one - and it just didn't happen. There were too many special effects, which the first movies didn't have. Mind you, the sword fight between the young Henry and the villianess, Irina Spalko, (played by Cate Blanchett) was pretty cool. I would also have liked to have seen a catfight between Marion and Irina. Speaking of Cate Blanchett, it was good to see her playing a bad girl. She's best known for playing royalty - real (Queen Elizabeth I) and Hollywood (she won an Oscar for playing Katherine Hepburn in 'The Aviator'). DH didn't even recognize her.
It was good to see Indy and Marion finally reunited. If you knew the characters, you know that Marion is Indy's one true love. I just hope they don't plan to carry on the series with the son. I hope Indy picking up his hat at the end is a sign he's not ready to pass the torch just yet.
Long live Indiana Jones!
I fell in love in with Indiana Jones with the first movie, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in 1981. It wasn't hard; I had a major crush on Harrison Ford at the time (even if he is old enough to be my Dad). I'd also always had a sneaking interest in archaelogy. That summer, I became good friends with the neighbour boy next door. We'd bonded over our mutual love of Star Wars and he told me that he preferred Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones over Han Solo. From that point on, I started nagging my Dad to take me.
After weeks of pestering my Dad, we went to the local theatre and saw it. Dad was expecting some "Star Wars" science fiction type movie, so he was surprised when he saw horses in the jungle. Then, of course, we were told it was "South America - 1936" and things began to make sense. In describing the movie to someone a few days later, Dad said it was basically "James Bond for kids." That's exactly what George Lucas intended when he and director Steven Spielberg envisioned it. Indiana Jones: mild-mannered professor by day, but leads a double-life as a treasure-seeking adventurer (or "expert on the occult and obtainer of rare antiquities" as they call it in the movie) who beats up bad guys (mostly Nazis). He's a handsome smooth-talking hero with a devilish twinkle in his eyes, wears a fedora hat and carries a bull whip. In the first movie, he goes after the lost Ark of the Covenant. It was part of the idea when Lucas and Spielberg were envisioning Indiana Jones that he would always go after religious artifacts.
It took my breath away; there are so many memorable scenes. No matter how many times I've seen it, I always crack up when Indy shoots the swordsman and when the monkey takes the Nazi salute. Along for the thrill ride was Jones' former flame, the feisty Marion Ravenwood, played to perfection by Karen Allen. Marion was no damsel in distress, she gave as good as she got. In fact, her body count may be almost as high as his. The chemistry between Allen and Ford was fantastic; you could almost see the sparks fly. "I see you haven't forgotten how to show a lady a good time!" she yells at him after her bar is burnt to the ground. Marion set a very high standard for Indy's girlfriends who followed in the next two movies - and no one came even close - but more on that later.
Raiders is a classic and - in many ways - the perfect action adventure movie. I just don't care for the weak ending. It's like they ran out of ideas from the point where they get on the ship. Other than that, it's perfect. It won a few Oscars, and was even nominated for Best Picture that year.
A sequel followed three years later, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom". By that time, I'd outgrown my crush and wasn't interested in seeing it. I finally saw it years later; it's still the weakest of the movies. It's dark. And to make things worse, they replaced Karen Allen with the awful Kate Capshaw (Steven Spielberg's future wife) and set the movie one year before Raiders in 1935. Every time I see it, I want to bash Capshaw's character, nightclub singer Willie Scott. Heck, even Steven Spielberg doesn't like it.
Then in 1989, they released the third movie, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade". The reviews were good, and I dragged my Dad to see Indy once again. It was everything the second movie wasn't. It returned to the formula which made the first one so successful. From the opening sequence you learned a little of Indy's background: how he acquired his fear of snakes and how he learned to use a bullwhip, for example. This time they brought in Sean Connery - the original James Bond - to be Indy's father. It was a stroke of casting genius (even though Harrison Ford thought that it wasn't a good idea since Sean Connery was only thirteen years older than him). The chemistry between them was great. I remember walking out of the theatre thinking I'd been on a rollercoaster ride and I immediately wanted more of the same adrenaline rush. Becuase there is no weak ending, in some ways the third one is my favourite. The dialogue between father and son was razor sharp: "I'm as human as the next man." "I was the next man." The "girlfriend" in this movie, Dr. Elsa Schneider, though an improvement Wille Scott, turned out to be a Nazi turncout. Her greed got the better of her and she got her just desserts in the end.
Speaking of rollercoaster rides, the Indiana Jones ride at Disneyland is a blast. Dad and I went on it three times when we were there in 1996. They even had the rolling stone chase you, which was the climax of the opening sequence in the original Raiders.
So, when it was announced that finally there would be a new movie and that they were bringing back Karen Allen, I was thrilled. I loved her character, Marion Ravenwood. Rumours circulated that Natalie Portman would play Indy and Marion's daughter. My immediate reaction was 'EW!" Not because I don't like Natalie Portman; I do like her. It's the fact that she plays Queen Amidala in Star Wars - the mother of Princess Leia. In other words, she's Han Solo's (Harrison Ford's character) mother-in-law. I was disappointed to hear that Sean Connery wasn't returning. It would have been nice to have a full family reunion. But, in his own words, he was enjoying retirement "too damned much". Selfish Swine :) Eventually, it was announced that Indy and Marion had a son ("Henry") not a daughter.
So, now it comes time to critique the new film (which, of course, we took my Dad to). Set in 1957, nineteen years after the last movie, it starts off in Nevada. It was good to see Indy make some wise-cracks about his age. It was also good to see Marion back. True, she'd lost a *little* of her spunk, but she was still feisty, and she's aged gracefully. Once again, there was good banter between her and Indy. That being said, I would have liked to have seen more. It's part of what made the first movie so great.
There was action; there was adventure; there were wise-cracks; there were creepy-crawlies (this time, ants). In short, there was everything you come to expect from an Indiana Jones movie. It was very good and I really liked it but I can't honestly say that I loved it - and I just can't put my finger on why. I was waiting for that adrenaline rush that I had while watching the third one - and it just didn't happen. There were too many special effects, which the first movies didn't have. Mind you, the sword fight between the young Henry and the villianess, Irina Spalko, (played by Cate Blanchett) was pretty cool. I would also have liked to have seen a catfight between Marion and Irina. Speaking of Cate Blanchett, it was good to see her playing a bad girl. She's best known for playing royalty - real (Queen Elizabeth I) and Hollywood (she won an Oscar for playing Katherine Hepburn in 'The Aviator'). DH didn't even recognize her.
It was good to see Indy and Marion finally reunited. If you knew the characters, you know that Marion is Indy's one true love. I just hope they don't plan to carry on the series with the son. I hope Indy picking up his hat at the end is a sign he's not ready to pass the torch just yet.
Long live Indiana Jones!
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Spamalot
We all get them. Spam emails. They drive us crazy, yet some of the titles amuse me. Here are some samples of headlines in actual spam emails I have received lately.
"Am I satisfied with the size of my member?"
Hm. Sorry. Can't help you with that one. Why are you asking me? *scratches head*
"Help me Get out of Debt"
Yeah. Right. I'm in enough hot water in that area myself. Like I'm going to help you.
"You must be the Real Man with Huge Dignity"
Why thank you very much. Mind you, when was the last time you met a man named Heather?
"You Feel up my Senses"
I guess that's a compliment. *shrug*
"We let you be more a man"
Thanks but no thanks. I'm quite happy the way I am - thank you very much
"It is good, when there are experts in what that"
Well, I guess it's obvious there's one thing you're not an expert in: English grammar.
"Be the Most People in Town"
Looks like you and the above spammer need to take the same grammar class.
"They do not want to buy their shops unknown them in stores?"
See above comment.
"Make yourself look really spiny"
And why exactly would I want to do that?
"What is the Church?"
Well, it comes from the Latin eccliesia which simply " a gathering of citizens" or "called out assembly". In other words, no religious context at all. The French word for church is "eglise". Bet you're sorry you asked, aren't you?
"You look stupid in this video heather new. See Yourself."
Damn. How did that video from the office Christmas party get out?
"Am I satisfied with the size of my member?"
Hm. Sorry. Can't help you with that one. Why are you asking me? *scratches head*
"Help me Get out of Debt"
Yeah. Right. I'm in enough hot water in that area myself. Like I'm going to help you.
"You must be the Real Man with Huge Dignity"
Why thank you very much. Mind you, when was the last time you met a man named Heather?
"You Feel up my Senses"
I guess that's a compliment. *shrug*
"We let you be more a man"
Thanks but no thanks. I'm quite happy the way I am - thank you very much
"It is good, when there are experts in what that"
Well, I guess it's obvious there's one thing you're not an expert in: English grammar.
"Be the Most People in Town"
Looks like you and the above spammer need to take the same grammar class.
"They do not want to buy their shops unknown them in stores?"
See above comment.
"Make yourself look really spiny"
And why exactly would I want to do that?
"What is the Church?"
Well, it comes from the Latin eccliesia which simply " a gathering of citizens" or "called out assembly". In other words, no religious context at all. The French word for church is "eglise". Bet you're sorry you asked, aren't you?
"You look stupid in this video heather new. See Yourself."
Damn. How did that video from the office Christmas party get out?
Friday, April 4, 2008
RIP Vancouver Canucks
For the second time in three years, the Vancouver Canucks have failed to make the NHL Playoffs. Now the post-mortem ritual of fingerpointing begins. Who gets the blame?
Now, before I begin my rant, I'm going to give you a little background. I grew up on hockey. I grew up watching the Montreal Canadiens during their glory years in the 1970's. To this day, they are my second favourite team. I became a Canucks' fan in approximately 1977; this was during the years that it seemed the only teams they could beat were the Colorado Rockies (now New Jersey Devils) and the Chicago Blackhawks.
For me, the problem seems to lie with management/ownership. After years of mediocrity, the Canucks had coach and GM Pat Quinn in the late 80's/early 90's. He pulled some amazing deals as General Manager. He brought Greg Adams and goalie Kirk McLean in. He gambled on Pavel Bure's draft eligibilty and drafted him. It was a gamble that paid off; after months of legal wranglings, it was determined that Bure was indeed eligible for the NHL draft and Vancouver landed its first legitimate superstar. He was nicknamed the "Russian Rocket". That was just one of Quinn's magic deals.
Then there was the Cliff Ronning/Geoff Courtnall deal that was one of the biggest deals in NHL at the time. It was a ten player deal that brought local boys, Cliff Ronning(Burnaby)and Geoff Courtnall(Victoria), home from St. Louis. They became cornerstones of the team. It was one of Pat Quinn's best ever deals.
Team owner Arthur Griffiths was a "hands off" owner. He gave Quinn free reign to work his magic - and it worked. The Canucks went from a joke to a legitimate contender. In 1992, they won their first playoff round in ten years. In 1993, they repeated that feat, but went out too early in the second round to the Los Angeles Kings.
Then came 1994...
Quinn pulled another amazing trading deadline deal, bringing Jeff Brown and Brett Hedican from the St. Louis Blues. Then came the playoffs: the Canucks were down three games to one in the first round vs. Calgary. They fought back and won games five and six. Game seven was in Calgary. The Canucks were down by a goal with minutes remaining in the game. It looked like their season was over until Greg Adams (another BC boy) tied the game and sent it into overtime. Then, captain Trevor Linden fed the puck to Pavel Bure, who sped down the ice and scored. It was heady.
Next round was Dallas, whom the Canucks dispatched in five games. For the first time in twelve years, the Canucks were in the final four. Next up was the Toronto Maple Leafs. Greg Adams scored the series winner in double overtime in game five, eliminating the Leafs. The city went wild.
Now came the big boys: the New York Rangers. Kirk McLean was amazing in game one, stopping 54 shots. Greg Adams, once again, scored the game winner. The Rangers roared back in games three, four and five. The dream seemed dead - but not yet. The Canucks clawed back to force game seven. Sadly, the only forward that showed up that game was Trevor Linden, who scored the Canucks two goals. The Canucks lost. The Canucks maintained that it was fixed; that Rangers coach, Mike Keenan, phoned NHL Gary Bettman after the Rangers lost game six in Vancouver and screamed about the reffing. It's no coincidence to me that the first two penalties in game seven went against Vancouver, giving the Rangers the advantage, but I'm not going to delve too much into conspiracy theories here.
It was an amazing run, but after that, things went downhill. The first was the lockout. After such an amazing season, it was a slap in the fact to fans. In the abreviated season, the Canucks managed to make the playoffs and win the first round against St. Louis. They were swept the next round by Chicago.
From here on, things got worse. Team onwership changed. Arthur Griffiths brought in family friend, John McCaw, of Seattle. Hindsight says it was a huge mistake. McCaw, who made his billions in the cell phone industry, started interfering; eventually Arthur Griffiths was out completely. Pat Quinn was no longer able to make his amazing deals. For whatever reason, they brought in Mark Messier. I remember thinking at the time that this was a very bad move. As a Canucks fan, I couldn't possibly cheer for this person who robbed us of something from us only three years earlier. (To this day, I've never been able to watch Mark Messier hoist the cup after defeating the Canucks in game seven; it's too painful). The money would have been better spent on Joe Sakic, another local boy, who was a free agent at the time, and would have come a lot cheaper and would have put people in the stands.
Two years later, in the fall of 1997, Pat Quinn was fired. To add insult to injury, ownership brought in Mike Keenan as general manager. That was the day I gave up on the team. I couldn't possibly cheer for them now. The very idea was repulsive. He dismantled the team. Eventually, Keenan was fired (thank goodness) and Messier was gone. Hurrah.
By early 1999, the Canucks replaced Keenan with coach Marc Crawford. I was very happy. Crawford was a former Canuck himself, and had won a Stanley Cup with Colorado in 1996. They brought in a new gm in Brian Burke, who had been assistant gm under Pat Quinn. Burke was a worthy successor and pulled a couple of decent deals. He brought back Trevor Linden, who had been traded away under Keenan, and pulled a deal to land the Sedin twins. Then, ownership decided not to renew Burke's contract as gm. There was another lockout, but this time there was no NHL season.
Last year, the Canucks beat Dallas in the first round of the playoffs, but were bounced by the Anaheim Ducks, who eventually won the cup. This year, the Canucks have stumbled all season. It was only in the last two weeks that things collapsed. With the season on the line, they kept shooting themselves in the skates. They would blow leads of 2-0 to division rivals, ensuring the rapid fall out of the standings. Frankly, if you can't hold a two goal lead this late in the season when you are supposed to be fighing for your playoff lives, you don't deserve to make the playoffs. This happened against Calgary (losing 3-2) and Colorado (losing 4-2). All they had to do was hold those leads, and they would still be in contention. Sadly, something was lacking. Call it leadership, talent, dedication, passion, but something is sorely lacking in this team - and changes have to be made.
Rumours persist that Trevor Linden will announce his retirement after this season. That's a real shame. He deserved to go out better than this; he deserved to end his career with pride. He may not have worn the "C" for years, but he was in all but name, their captain.
I guess I'm off to cheer for Les Habs now. Go, Habs, Go.
Now, before I begin my rant, I'm going to give you a little background. I grew up on hockey. I grew up watching the Montreal Canadiens during their glory years in the 1970's. To this day, they are my second favourite team. I became a Canucks' fan in approximately 1977; this was during the years that it seemed the only teams they could beat were the Colorado Rockies (now New Jersey Devils) and the Chicago Blackhawks.
For me, the problem seems to lie with management/ownership. After years of mediocrity, the Canucks had coach and GM Pat Quinn in the late 80's/early 90's. He pulled some amazing deals as General Manager. He brought Greg Adams and goalie Kirk McLean in. He gambled on Pavel Bure's draft eligibilty and drafted him. It was a gamble that paid off; after months of legal wranglings, it was determined that Bure was indeed eligible for the NHL draft and Vancouver landed its first legitimate superstar. He was nicknamed the "Russian Rocket". That was just one of Quinn's magic deals.
Then there was the Cliff Ronning/Geoff Courtnall deal that was one of the biggest deals in NHL at the time. It was a ten player deal that brought local boys, Cliff Ronning(Burnaby)and Geoff Courtnall(Victoria), home from St. Louis. They became cornerstones of the team. It was one of Pat Quinn's best ever deals.
Team owner Arthur Griffiths was a "hands off" owner. He gave Quinn free reign to work his magic - and it worked. The Canucks went from a joke to a legitimate contender. In 1992, they won their first playoff round in ten years. In 1993, they repeated that feat, but went out too early in the second round to the Los Angeles Kings.
Then came 1994...
Quinn pulled another amazing trading deadline deal, bringing Jeff Brown and Brett Hedican from the St. Louis Blues. Then came the playoffs: the Canucks were down three games to one in the first round vs. Calgary. They fought back and won games five and six. Game seven was in Calgary. The Canucks were down by a goal with minutes remaining in the game. It looked like their season was over until Greg Adams (another BC boy) tied the game and sent it into overtime. Then, captain Trevor Linden fed the puck to Pavel Bure, who sped down the ice and scored. It was heady.
Next round was Dallas, whom the Canucks dispatched in five games. For the first time in twelve years, the Canucks were in the final four. Next up was the Toronto Maple Leafs. Greg Adams scored the series winner in double overtime in game five, eliminating the Leafs. The city went wild.
Now came the big boys: the New York Rangers. Kirk McLean was amazing in game one, stopping 54 shots. Greg Adams, once again, scored the game winner. The Rangers roared back in games three, four and five. The dream seemed dead - but not yet. The Canucks clawed back to force game seven. Sadly, the only forward that showed up that game was Trevor Linden, who scored the Canucks two goals. The Canucks lost. The Canucks maintained that it was fixed; that Rangers coach, Mike Keenan, phoned NHL Gary Bettman after the Rangers lost game six in Vancouver and screamed about the reffing. It's no coincidence to me that the first two penalties in game seven went against Vancouver, giving the Rangers the advantage, but I'm not going to delve too much into conspiracy theories here.
It was an amazing run, but after that, things went downhill. The first was the lockout. After such an amazing season, it was a slap in the fact to fans. In the abreviated season, the Canucks managed to make the playoffs and win the first round against St. Louis. They were swept the next round by Chicago.
From here on, things got worse. Team onwership changed. Arthur Griffiths brought in family friend, John McCaw, of Seattle. Hindsight says it was a huge mistake. McCaw, who made his billions in the cell phone industry, started interfering; eventually Arthur Griffiths was out completely. Pat Quinn was no longer able to make his amazing deals. For whatever reason, they brought in Mark Messier. I remember thinking at the time that this was a very bad move. As a Canucks fan, I couldn't possibly cheer for this person who robbed us of something from us only three years earlier. (To this day, I've never been able to watch Mark Messier hoist the cup after defeating the Canucks in game seven; it's too painful). The money would have been better spent on Joe Sakic, another local boy, who was a free agent at the time, and would have come a lot cheaper and would have put people in the stands.
Two years later, in the fall of 1997, Pat Quinn was fired. To add insult to injury, ownership brought in Mike Keenan as general manager. That was the day I gave up on the team. I couldn't possibly cheer for them now. The very idea was repulsive. He dismantled the team. Eventually, Keenan was fired (thank goodness) and Messier was gone. Hurrah.
By early 1999, the Canucks replaced Keenan with coach Marc Crawford. I was very happy. Crawford was a former Canuck himself, and had won a Stanley Cup with Colorado in 1996. They brought in a new gm in Brian Burke, who had been assistant gm under Pat Quinn. Burke was a worthy successor and pulled a couple of decent deals. He brought back Trevor Linden, who had been traded away under Keenan, and pulled a deal to land the Sedin twins. Then, ownership decided not to renew Burke's contract as gm. There was another lockout, but this time there was no NHL season.
Last year, the Canucks beat Dallas in the first round of the playoffs, but were bounced by the Anaheim Ducks, who eventually won the cup. This year, the Canucks have stumbled all season. It was only in the last two weeks that things collapsed. With the season on the line, they kept shooting themselves in the skates. They would blow leads of 2-0 to division rivals, ensuring the rapid fall out of the standings. Frankly, if you can't hold a two goal lead this late in the season when you are supposed to be fighing for your playoff lives, you don't deserve to make the playoffs. This happened against Calgary (losing 3-2) and Colorado (losing 4-2). All they had to do was hold those leads, and they would still be in contention. Sadly, something was lacking. Call it leadership, talent, dedication, passion, but something is sorely lacking in this team - and changes have to be made.
Rumours persist that Trevor Linden will announce his retirement after this season. That's a real shame. He deserved to go out better than this; he deserved to end his career with pride. He may not have worn the "C" for years, but he was in all but name, their captain.
I guess I'm off to cheer for Les Habs now. Go, Habs, Go.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Auntie Peggy
Fifteen years ago today, my world was rocked. Fifteen years ago today, the only grandmother figure I ever really knew passed away. I called her "Auntie" Peggy. Her parents were neighbours of my (maternal) grandparents in my ancestral home town in Scotland.
When my parents immigrated to Canada, it was Auntie Peggy and Uncle Ben they stayed with until they found a place of their own. We lived only a five minute walk from them and we were constantly in each other's homes. They were at our house for Christmas dinner every year and they seemed to see it as their duty to spoil me - as they didn't grandchildren yet and their kids were grown. In 1977, I was flowergirl in their son's wedding. When my Mom took sick in 1978 and was in hospital for weeks, it was Uncle Ben who was always there to pick me up from school every day and take me back to their place where they would have dinner for Dad and me. Uncle Ben lost his battle with cancer in 1989.
Everyone needs an Auntie Peggy in their lives. I remember once going to visit her one evening after a breakup with a beau and she said, "What's wrong wi' ya, lass? I dinna lak to see ya lak that." Sometimes I wonder what I would give to hear her say those words again. She had a great sense of humour. It was priceless to watch hockey with her. She literally nagged the Canucks on. She would say things like, "Ach, you're useless. Get off the ice." and wave her hand dismissively at the t.v. Just a few months before she died, some pianists came to visit our church. She leaned over to me and whispered, "What's wrong wi' us? Why can't we play lak that? We have ten fingers, don't we?" I had to stifle the giggles.
She went quickly and unexpectedly. She had a heart attack on April 1st and was gone by the next morning. She didn't even give us a chance to say good-bye. Perhaps that's best, as I will always remember her the way she would have wanted: vibrant, warm, funny and full of life.
The next night, a Saturday, I was at a Michael W. Smith concert with a friend. If you know him, his signature song is "Friends" a song that became an anthem to a generation of Christian young people. As he sang it, tears streamed down my face. To this day, I always associate the song with her - even though she probably never, ever heard it.
I've got it softly playing in the background as I type this post, and I can feel tears trickle down. I give you "Friends" words and music by Michael W. Smith and Deborah D. Smith.
Rest in peace, Auntie Peggy. I still miss you
When my parents immigrated to Canada, it was Auntie Peggy and Uncle Ben they stayed with until they found a place of their own. We lived only a five minute walk from them and we were constantly in each other's homes. They were at our house for Christmas dinner every year and they seemed to see it as their duty to spoil me - as they didn't grandchildren yet and their kids were grown. In 1977, I was flowergirl in their son's wedding. When my Mom took sick in 1978 and was in hospital for weeks, it was Uncle Ben who was always there to pick me up from school every day and take me back to their place where they would have dinner for Dad and me. Uncle Ben lost his battle with cancer in 1989.
Everyone needs an Auntie Peggy in their lives. I remember once going to visit her one evening after a breakup with a beau and she said, "What's wrong wi' ya, lass? I dinna lak to see ya lak that." Sometimes I wonder what I would give to hear her say those words again. She had a great sense of humour. It was priceless to watch hockey with her. She literally nagged the Canucks on. She would say things like, "Ach, you're useless. Get off the ice." and wave her hand dismissively at the t.v. Just a few months before she died, some pianists came to visit our church. She leaned over to me and whispered, "What's wrong wi' us? Why can't we play lak that? We have ten fingers, don't we?" I had to stifle the giggles.
She went quickly and unexpectedly. She had a heart attack on April 1st and was gone by the next morning. She didn't even give us a chance to say good-bye. Perhaps that's best, as I will always remember her the way she would have wanted: vibrant, warm, funny and full of life.
The next night, a Saturday, I was at a Michael W. Smith concert with a friend. If you know him, his signature song is "Friends" a song that became an anthem to a generation of Christian young people. As he sang it, tears streamed down my face. To this day, I always associate the song with her - even though she probably never, ever heard it.
I've got it softly playing in the background as I type this post, and I can feel tears trickle down. I give you "Friends" words and music by Michael W. Smith and Deborah D. Smith.
Packing up the dreams God planted in the fertile soil of you
Can't believe the hopes He's grantedmeans a chapter in your life is through
But we'll keep you close as always;it won't even seem you've gone
'cause our hearts in big and small wayswill keep the love that keeps us strong.
Chorus:
And friends are friends foreverif the Lord's the lord of them
And a friend will not say never'cause the welcome will not end
Though it's hard to let you go,in the Father's hands we know
That a lifetime's not too long to live as friends.
With the faith and love God's givenspringing from the hope we know
We will pray the joy you live in is the strength that now you show
But we'll keep you close as always;it won't even seem you've gone
'cause our hearts in big and small ways will keep the love that keeps us strong
Chorus:
(twice)
And friends are friends foreverif the Lord's the lord of them
And a friend will not say never'cause the welcome will not end
Though it's hard to let you goin the Father's hands we know
That a lifetime's not too long to live as friends
And friends are friends foreverif the Lord's the lord of them
And a friend will not say never'cause the welcome will not endin the Father's hands we know
Though it's hard to let you go
That a lifetime's not too long to live as friends
No, a lifetime's not too long to live as friends.
Rest in peace, Auntie Peggy. I still miss you
Sunday, March 16, 2008
41
Today is my birthday. I'm 41 today. Somehow, it doesn't seem possible. That seems like a fair amount of time to have been alive on this planet. Sadly, the older one gets, the faster time seems to fly. Can it really be 20 years since I turned 21?! Can it really be 11 years since I turned 30? No. It can't be. Yet the calendar doesn't lie.
I don't mind birthdays, but I don't like getting older. True, people are living longer, but at 41, I am forced to admit that I've left my youth behind me forever and have to accept the fact that I'm middle-aged. Ick. I don't like that idea.
It's weird knowing that the "kids" in their 20's weren't even born when Star Wars came out in 1977 - almost 31 years ago. It's funny knowing that there's a generation that never didn't know that Darth Vader was Luke's father until the sequel, "The Empire Strikes Back" came out in 1980. It's weird knowing there's a generation that doesn't know a life before MTV and how big Michael Jackson's "Thriller" was in 1983.
It's weird looking back at tv footage of the 70's and 80's and saying, "Hey! I remember that!" I guess our parents felt the same when we were growing up. For example, they remember the Kennedy assasination in 1963; they remember the Queen's coronation in 1953. Those were events that happened before I was born. They must have shaken their heads and smile the same way I do today. I think that's why I like watching "That 70's Show" a retro look back at life in the '70's. Though, I would be younger than the teenage characters in that show (it would be perfect if one of them had a younger sibling) I do remember the fashions and the attitudes and the gadgets around the house of that time.
So, there you have it. The musings of a middle-aged (ouch, that hurts) woman on her birthday. I'm off to enjoy the rest of the day.
I don't mind birthdays, but I don't like getting older. True, people are living longer, but at 41, I am forced to admit that I've left my youth behind me forever and have to accept the fact that I'm middle-aged. Ick. I don't like that idea.
It's weird knowing that the "kids" in their 20's weren't even born when Star Wars came out in 1977 - almost 31 years ago. It's funny knowing that there's a generation that never didn't know that Darth Vader was Luke's father until the sequel, "The Empire Strikes Back" came out in 1980. It's weird knowing there's a generation that doesn't know a life before MTV and how big Michael Jackson's "Thriller" was in 1983.
It's weird looking back at tv footage of the 70's and 80's and saying, "Hey! I remember that!" I guess our parents felt the same when we were growing up. For example, they remember the Kennedy assasination in 1963; they remember the Queen's coronation in 1953. Those were events that happened before I was born. They must have shaken their heads and smile the same way I do today. I think that's why I like watching "That 70's Show" a retro look back at life in the '70's. Though, I would be younger than the teenage characters in that show (it would be perfect if one of them had a younger sibling) I do remember the fashions and the attitudes and the gadgets around the house of that time.
So, there you have it. The musings of a middle-aged (ouch, that hurts) woman on her birthday. I'm off to enjoy the rest of the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)