The Daily Struggle of the Tightrope Generation

It has been said the poor will always be with us and that may well be so, but in North America a new group is finding that while life for them may not be a daily struggle for survival it is a daily struggle to bridge the gap between pay cheques, put food on the table and keep the lights on. You can’t call these people in their thirties and forties the ‘working poor’ either. Most of the individuals in this situation have jobs; have homes, one or two cars and a couple of children. However with the rise in household debts and salaries not keeping pace with inflation, for more and more family’ life seems one endless knot in the stomach, fuelled by the anxiety over how they’re going to survive until payday comes around again.

Call them the ‘tightrope generation’, individual families that were it not for debt burdens and jobs that did not pay perhaps as much as their previous employment did would be doing just fine. These are not the people you see on the street, in front of shelters or in low rent (if there is such a thing anymore) apartment complexes. They live on crescent lots in the suburbs, in detached homes in new or established neighbourhoods, families who when their child comes home from school with a note asking for twenty dollars for a school trip worry if they won’t be needing that money for gas or groceries later in the week.

The middle class has been since the beginning of the post World War Two Era the bedrock of North American society. It was what people aspired to achieve in life at the very least, and was certainly within the grasp of most that were willing to put in a day’s work at a decent job. Even more so, it was a goal that once achieved was, again with steady work easy to maintain. Parents could say with confidence that their children would do even better than they did.

Today the dream of owning a home and at least a middle class lifestyle is still what many aspire to and is still attainable. The difference now is that the process of maintaining that goal is where you step on the tightrope and the balancing act, the struggle to stay moving forward begins. In many families today the financial and debt crisis’s affecting parts of Europe and the United States mirror their own personal financial situations.

There is a temptation to dismiss out of hand the ‘tightroper’s’, saying well they shouldn’t buy houses or cars they can’t afford or it`s their fault for maxing out their credit cards. Sound wisdom yes, however most of the people in these situations are responsible enough and could reasonably look ahead when they bought their homes to the expectation of some initial belt tightening and sacrifice, but confident they could manage and thrive over the years as they paid down their mortgages and moved up in their careers.

Things didn’t work out as expected. Jobs changed, companies moved, and wages/salaries didn’t keep pace with inflation or interest rates. Students graduated with loans that their parents never had to worry about themselves. Once married and settled down new debt was taken on in the form of a mortgage on a new home – once considered ‘good debt’ – because you were paying off something of value, something that had a worth beyond its monetary resale value. Then property taxes, lower earnings, higher prices, unexpected costs of all kinds from education to emergency car repairs and suddenly the family that could manage fine and even put away a bit for that rainy day found there simply wasn’t enough to go around.

Ideally the solution to debt is not more debt, but when families needed that extra cash there was always someone willing to offer a second mortgage or a line of credit. On paper you may have made enough to pay it back but then there`s less money for something else. Inevitably it comes again, a change in job situation or some other emergency, you turn to taking a loan against the car you`ve paid off, then sometimes to the parasitical pay day loan companies just to pay off a short term expense or bridge the gap until payday.

The wear and strain this causes on families is enormous. Holidays become not an anticipated time of joy and family togetherness, but a source of stress and anxiety for the extra spending they require. They can become a real source of conflict and embarrassment when you arrive at a party and are unable to bring something for the host, or you worry about using money budgeted for groceries that instead is going to the extra gas required to pay for the trip across town to see family.

Those caught in the tightrope generation are nothing if not resourceful. A commuter from the suburbs to downtown will take vacation and personal days once or twice a month just to save on the cost of commuting. Or monthly calls to utility companies to juggle payments or extend payment options for another two weeks.

Take a drive down many cities and towns in middle income neighbourhoods in North America and point at any random home. Behind closed doors theirs a family worried about their gas being cut. Unable to keep up on property taxes, can`t replace a broken washing machine or dishwasher. A family that needs the odd handout from relatives to get by until payday, a household that used to manage quite well enough but now the bread winner makes the occasional humiliating trip to the food bank. The scenarios are only limited by the imagination.

On top of all this, you worry about your children, not the worry of the poor and destitute, the refugee in a far off land, but of a failure to sustain the life that they have come to love and expect from you. A failure not of their own but one who`s consequences will be borne by them. A parent can at times feel like the father in the classic Italian film `Life is Beautiful`, trying to protect their children from the fear and daily struggle of living a life on the tightrope.

Changing the World One Child at a Time By: Stephen Blakely

Thought I would share with you something my eldest son Stephen wrote for a grade four writing contest. He received a runner up prize for his efforts. It's about how a child can change the word. Enjoy:


*************************************************************************************************************

My dad told me a saying that goes ‘a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step’, he also said that if you want to change the world you have to start with yourself. So I think he means when he say’s those two things that the first step to changing the world starts with me.

When was Christmas time and my brother and I were asking for presents, my mommy and daddy always tell us that we are lucky because other children in some places don’t get any presents and sometimes don’t even have a house or something to eat.

When he tells me this I feel a little sad and wonder what I can do to help other people who don’t have a nice family and home like I do. So now on this past Christmas I learned that I can change myself and start to think of those who don’t have the things I do, like toys and a home and a nice family.

Dad says I can start changing myself by following what he calls the Golden Rule. This is from the Ten Commandments, and it says “Do to others, what you would want others to do to you”. To me this means treat people the way you would want to be treated. One way I can do this is in school for example if I’m standing with my group and giving a presentation I would want people not to talk or fool around and I would want them to respect my group and I. So when other groups are giving their presentation I should also pay attention and listen quietly.

That way by changing how I act I can make the class better and make the other group feel better about themselves and I hope they would treat my group the same. That would be helping our class to be a better one.

There are a lot of other things I can change about myself to make the world a better place outside of school. I like going for walks with my family in the park near our house and also going on trips to Lake Simco or other places. I learned that by not throwing things on the ground and putting my garbage in the right place I can make the world better for others to enjoy as well as myself. If I teach my friends and my little brother to not litter then I am making an even more of a difference, because by changing myself I also was able to change others.

My mom also helps me to change myself to help me change the world. My mom was born in a different country, where there are a lot of poor people. She told me that I have cousins still living far away and they don’t have the same things that I have.

Every Christmas we send gifts to my cousins far away – my dad calls it ‘overseas’. One year my mom and dad sent one of my older stuffed animals to my younger cousin. I really didn’t like this at first but when I learned that she didn’t have as much as I do I felt a little better since I didn’t need it anymore. Later on I began to feel better and imagined that they would be very happy getting a gift from me even though I’m very far away.

So by changing myself I now feel differently and every Christmas I would like to send something to my cousins overseas.

Now I see that it’s true that a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step and that you have to change yourself before you change the world. By learning to not always think about what I want right now and to think of others, I can make my class better, my neighbourhood cleaner and even help someone in another country to feel better.

That to me is changing my world, and by changing my world I change the world around me! 

Religion and Republicans

If the mission of the Grand ol’ Party, the Republican Party; party of Honest Abe Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower was to ensure Barrack Obama gets elected to a second term, they seem to be well on the way to hanging up the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner and heading off into the wilderness for another four years.

Aside from what appears an increasingly obvious fact that there does not yet seem to be a clear front running candidate or at least one that is capable of capturing the imagination of the undecided voters they are going to need to retake the White House. There is a new wrench thrown in the works, the issue of Mormonism, or more specifically comments made recently by a pastor stating that Mormonism is a cult. Now this would not normally be a big deal but for the inconvenient fact that on again, off again front runner former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is himself a Mormon.

This is not the first time the issue of an individual’s faith has been brought up by some in or around the Republican Party. After the election of President Obama and before the issue of his birth certificate became a bone of contention, a few in the GOP looked upon Obama’s middle name ‘Hussein’, as well as the time he spent in predominantly Muslim Indonesia and questioned whether their President was really a Christian or was he in fact a Muslim in Christian clothing.

Former Bush Secretary of State, General Colin Powell (ret) answered this concern best by stating “and so what if he is”.

And that my friend is the point, so what if he is? Now full disclosure here, I myself am Anglican/Episcopalian  however for much of my adult life have attended Catholic Churches, I married a Catholic and am raising my two children Catholic, so I can hardly be considered to have an ‘anti Christian bias’.

Republicans must remember (as Tea Partiers are so fond of claiming to do) the roots of their Republic’s history, and its constitution. From the time of the Mayflower Pilgrims who fled England and religious persecution, to the drafting of the constitution, America was to be a place where men (and eventually women) could worship freely as they pleased the deity that they pleased, or if they so chose not worship at all. That freedom of worship or not to worship is an essential part of the liberty that Americans love so dearly, and made the nation such a shining light in its formative years.

The problem for Republican Party insiders is that the challenges facing any new candidate are twofold: Firstly a large core of Republican support comes from Americans who consider themselves Evangelical Christians, any candidate they choose to run against Obama in 2012 has to prove their Evangelical ‘street cred’ in order not to lose a major part of the party’s base of support. The issue is though, that these supporters may not be enough to carry whichever candidate is chosen all the way to the White House. The eventual GOP candidate has to be able to not only appeal to the Evangelical base but reach out and be considered mainstream enough to win over undecided voters and soft Democrats to whom which religious service (if any) a nominee attends on Sunday or any other day is not their primary concern.

That in a nutshell is the issue facing the party. How to choose a candidate that will appeal to a broad section of American voters without alienating a large segment of the party’s evangelical base of support. The need to appeal to this Evangelical base is what results in the unseemly sight of Republican candidates tripping over each other to express out devoutly faithful a Christian they are before they can even string together a few coherent sentences on health care or foreign policy.

The founding fathers when writing the Constitution very specifically did not want their new Republic to have a state religion as was the case in nearly every nation in the old world at the time. Surely they would not have made an issue of or wanted an issue to be made of an individual’s faith, it was considered a private matter and runs contrary to the very founding principles of personal liberty they fought for.

The problem is this type of religious libertarianism puts the Republican Party in a bind. It has to find wedge issues to separate itself from the Democrats in the minds of voters. It could do this previously by being the party that was tough on security and asserting the U.S.’s place in the world. However it’s hard to claim now that the man who ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, the world’s most wanted terrorist is soft on terrorism. So the other wedge issue is values, specifically Christian values and which party best represents the values they believe most Americans hold dear.

My advice to the current crop of Republican Candidates would be; if you’re running for public office, focus your debate on public policy not on what are personal matters of faith. While whomever eventually does become President maybe be guided by their faith in how they conduct themselves in office, they will know enough that they have to govern for all Americans of every faith.

Perhaps though a little food for thought from a higher source: “when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you” (Matthew, 6: 5- 6)

So dear Republican candidates, if you want to gain broad enough appeal to gain control of the White House in 2012, then keep private matters private and please remember that Public Office is about public policy.

The Rehabilitation of Brian Mulroney: Chretien vs. Mulroney: War, Peace & Politics

The passage of time it is said heals wounds, dulling emotions and past bitterness. This is not always the case as the passage of time can cause perceptions and opinions if left unchallenged to cement themselves into hardened clichés and accepted truths. This is certainly the case of former prime ministers Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien; one elected twice and in 1984 with the biggest majority in Canadian federal electoral history, the other winning three straight majorities. Both impressive accomplishments in their own rights, however history and public perception have treated the two men very differently. While Chretien with his ‘Little Guy from Shawinigan’ persona (he’s actually six feet tall), had the benefit of governing in a time of economic growth (with much of the credit going to Finance Minister Paul Martin) is largely looked back on favourably by a majority of English Canadians, the same cannot be said of Brian Mulroney. Who in spite of bringing in initiatives such as the unpopular yet highly successful Goods and Services Tax and the Free Trade Agreement both of which were either carried on or expanded under the Chretien government is still looked upon with disfavour if not outright revulsion by many Canadians.

As noted earlier the passage of time can dull memories or set perceptions in stone, it should also provide some clarity on the records and methods of governing of the two men. If differences in policy were not enough it is more the public perceptions of the two men that give the greatest hint as to why they are held in such different levels of regard by the Canadian public. Largely this comes down to perceptions on personal style and the fact that while Mulroney was seen as slick, smooth and by many as far too close to the United States for Canadian sensibilities, Chretien was perceived by Canadians as a ‘street fighter’ who stood up to the Americans, most importantly keeping Canada out of the Iraq War – more on that later.

The gravest, most important decision any government can make is the decision to engage in hostilities, to send its armed forces into battle, something that occurred under the watch of both Prime Ministers, twice under Chretien. The different ways each government handled these crises is illustrative of whom, despite public perception was actually more in tune with the values most Canadians profess to hold.

August 2^nd 1990 Iraq under now deposed dictator Saddam Hussein invaded the tiny neighbouring state of Kuwait, annexing it and declaring it ‘Province Nineteen’. The invasion was widely condemned and with the ending of the Cold War, Security Council Resolutions were brought forward condemning the invasion and later authorizing the use of force by the international community to remove Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait.

Canada’s response under the Mulroney government was to dispatch three warships, a reinforced squadron of CF 18 fighter – bombers based in Qatar and later an army field hospital and infantry company based in Saudi Arabia. Although most Canadians expressed pride in their forces there was a perception aided in no large part by the opposition in parliament that Canadians were just following the US lead, abandoning Canada’s ‘traditional role’ as peacekeeper and being asked to potentially kill or be killed for ‘Texaco’.

In a debate before the outbreak of hostilities the Liberal Official Opposition opposed Canada’s participation in any resulting war and Chretien called for Canadian Forces to be withdrawn from the region in the event of conflict – an action that if taken would have outraged many allies both within NATO and friendly countries in the Middle East. However Canada’s participation in the conflict although relatively small (Canada was the fourth largest contributor of forces amongst Western nations after the US, Britain and France) was perfectly aligned with its participation in past conflicts, such as World War Two and Korea where as a nation Canada responded to aggression; certainly a much longer tradition than that of peacekeeper, which only came about in a significant way after the Korean War.

Canada’s participation in the Gulf War was marked (by today’s standard) by a degree of openness unheard of; with reporters stationed at the Canadian airbase in Qatar giving regular reports and openly able to interview pilots (albeit under military restriction). Even more remarkable was that in a rare bipartisan move Brian Mulroney swore then New Democratic Party Leader Audrey McLaughlin into the Privy Council so the Opposition Parties would have access to classified briefings. A move not repeated in the three subsequent conflicts Canada would participate in.

Within just over a year of Canada’s participation in the Gulf War, far from having its reputation as a ‘peacekeeper’ ruined; the demands that Canada participate in UN missions mushroomed. With new missions in Croatia, Bosnia, Cambodia, and Namibia as well as ongoing missions in Cyprus and the Golan Heights to mention a few. Most notably the high profile assignment of a Canadian battalion led by the famed Van Doo’s to secure the Sarajevo Airport and be the muscle in a fledgling UN force there commanded by Canadian Maj Gen Lewis Mackenzie. By the beginning of 1993 fully ten percent of the worlds peacekeeping forces were Canadian, not bad for a country that a scant year earlier had seemingly ‘ruined’ it’s reputation as a ‘peacekeeper’.

In 1993 Brian Mulroney was but a memory and Jean Chretien now Prime Minister, and after campaigning vigorously against both the GST and free trade (remember his “I will axe the tax”) while in opposition. Once in government he could not say ‘no’ to the revenue generated by the hated GST, and ended up keeping it. He later in due course expanded free trade by negotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Mexico.

The decade saw a needed attack on Canada’s deficit and resulted in cutbacks in among other things, Canada’s foreign aid and diplomatic corps. Where under Brian Mulroney Canada had been at the forefront amongst western democracies in opposing apartheid in South Africa, lending non lethal military aid to ‘frontline’ Border States in the region and using it’s much maligned clout with US President Ronald Regan to get the Americans to act on reducing carbon emissions, the leading cause of acid rain that was poisoning Canadian lakes. A decade later under Finance Minister Paul Martin’s budget cutting Canada’s presence in the world was scaled back, it’s forces exhausted from budget cuts and constant overseas tours, the Canadian presence in the two Balkan missions was scaled back and the number of Canadian diplomatic missions, particularly in Africa was sharply reduced.

The end of Canada’s participation in the UN mission in Croatia and the replacing of the United Nations force in Bosnia with a larger more robust NATO one continued Canada’s presence in the Balkans under Prime Minister Chretien. However Canada’s refusal to take part in the NATO airstrikes that contributed to bringing the Bosnian Serbs to the negotiating table as well as its non-participation in the UN Forces’ newly formed Rapid Reaction Force that operated under the UN but with NATO like rules of engagement meant that our role was a marginal one at first, later expanding a year after the initial deployment of a thousand troops.

Perhaps because of this perception of Canada not pulling it’s weight combined with a more activist Foreign Affairs Minister, Lloyd Axworthy who was a driving force behind the new doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, Canada joined the UN mandated no fly zone over Bosnia, and once again trouble began to brew in the Balkans.

If anyone cared to remember back to his opposition to Canada’s participation in the 1991 Gulf War, the Chretien government’s actions in 1999 were either a tacit acknowledgement that Liberal views had changed upon returning to government (much like the position on the GST) or a stunning case of hypocrisy: A growing insurgency by ethnic Albanians was taking place in the Serbian province of Kosovo, the response by the Milosevic government was typically brutal, however unlike the case of the first Gulf War, it was essentially an internal matter for Yugoslavia. Still NATO and the west fueled by media reports of atrocities expressed growing concern and eventually outrage on the situation.

With Serbia’s traditionally ally Russia as well as China unwilling to support a UN Security Council resolution on intervention, NATO countries did not bother to seek a UN mandate for action and in March 1999 NATO forces began what was to be a seventy eight day air campaign against Yugoslav forces and infrastructure.

Based on Chretien’s opposition position on Canada’s participation in a UN approved conflict with broad international support to turn back a clear case of international aggression one would expect the Canadian government would immediately withdraw its six CF 18’s based in Aviano Italy.

No, something must have happened on the Liberal/Chretien road to Damascus; as it had once opposed the use of force even under a UN mandate in response to international aggression. On the first night of conflict in Yugoslavia four CF 18 fighters took off from Aviano Italy, three of which engaged a Yugoslav ground target with laser guided bombs. Canada was, under the dovish Chretien engaging in the bombing of a sovereign European country. A country that had not invaded its neighbors and we were doing so without a mandate from the United Nations Security Council. Additionally, access by the media was sharply reduced. No combat footage from Canadian jets was released until after the conflict and access to the pilots was limited, although there were daily briefings from National Defense Headquarters in Ottawa.

The decision by the Chretien government to participate in the bombing of Yugoslavia without even attempting to seek UN approval led to the longest continuous protests in Canadian history with daily protests by Serbian Canadians and others outside the US Consulate on University Avenue in Toronto for the duration of the conflict.

Canada played a major role in the war, although contributing only 3% of the NATO aircraft involved it conducted 10% of the strikes, increasing its commitment from six to twelve, then eventually eighteen aircraft. Later after the signing of a peace deal, Canada took a lead role in the eventual occupation of Kosovo province under the (belatedly) UN Mandated Kosovo Protection Force (KFOR); its role to oversee the removal of Yugoslav Federal Forces and effectively partitioning the province from Serbia/Yugoslavia. When viewed in the prism of 1991 it was a stunning reversal in the Liberal Party position of Canada’s roll in the world.

Perhaps the position of Mr. Chretien depended more on who was in power south of the border than on an actual abiding principle of adherence to United Nations resolutions. After the September 11^th, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, Canada contributed forces in support of the US led and UN approved Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. It was the first of four phases of Canadian involvement in that country under three different prime ministers. The move was largely supported by a Canadian public that though not exactly enamored of then US president George W. Bush was still shaken by the events south of the border.

Within a year of western intervention in Afghanistan, the Taliban government was toppled and US attention began to shift to Iraq. Yet with the exception of Britain, Australia, and a few other countries much of the world including Canada was highly skeptical of the motivations and necessity of an invasion of Iraq, especially when there still appeared to be work to be done in the Afghan theatre. 

In the House of Commons and amongst Canadians in general there was much discussion about whether Canada should contribute forces to a US led invasion of Iraq. The Official Opposition under Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper was pushing for Canada’s support and participation in any US action. However Chretien, ever the wily fox understood this had no appeal to the majority of Canadians, particularly doing so in support of a domestically unpopular US Republican president.

It turns out later as revealed in Janice Stein’s and Eugene Lang’s book ‘The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar’ (published 2007 by Viking Canada) that Canada was never asked to contribute forces to Iraq; as the hawks in the Pentagon thought additional allied forces would slow down the US advance and not be needed anyway. What US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did suggest was that Canada could contribute forces to and lead the UN Mandated International Stabilization Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul Afghanistan, as Canada had by now pulled out its forces from that country.

These high level discussions – although reported – remained unknown to most Canadians until the government announced in a one, two punch that would effectively negate any Canadian participation in an invasion of Iraq. February of 2003 a month before the outbreak of hostilities in Iraq, Canada announced its participation in ISAF billing it – misleadingly - as a peacekeeping mission and effectively tying up the bulk of Canada’s available land combat forces (the mission in Bosnia was still ongoing although Canada had withdrawn from KFOR).

A month later the prime minister announced that Canada would not participate in an invasion of Iraq without UN approval, since this was highly unlikely so would be a Canadian role in any invasion.

So you can hold the two records on war, peace and politics up to the harsh light of historical realities and how to the two men measure up on the matters of war, peace and politics?

Looking back on this period, most Canadians still give former Prime Minister Chretien credit, stating; “well at least he kept us out of Iraq”. Yet in fact he knew all along we were never asked to go to Iraq. Still to keep good favour with Canada’s American allies he agreed to the very thing the American’s asked; but in a move of political brilliance the decision appeared both to the opposition and Canadian public to fly in the face of US policy, although the governments reputation did suffer south of the border by not at least giving a public fig leaf of approval to American intentions in Iraq.

While under the leadership of Brian Mulroney, Canada expanded its diplomatic role worldwide. He used his good relations with an unpopular (in Canada) American President to gain influence on matters important to Canada. Though he did commit Canada to a war in the Persian Gulf, he did so in response to aggression against a weaker neighboring country and with a clear mandate from the United Nations; and did so in spite of a significant degree of domestic opposition. At the same time committing Canada to expanding its role as a contributor to United Nations peacekeeping missions around the globe again despite opposition predictions to the contrary.

In contrast as Prime Minister,  Chretien’s willingness to commit the Canadian Forces to combat seemed to rest less on actual principle; as based on him doing in 1999 exactly what he opposed in 1991 and 2003, but rather seemed based on what was domestically and politically palatable. Most particularly, committing forces if a US president was popular (as Clinton was in 1999) with Canadians or not, if unpopular as George W. Bush was in 2003.

Without a doubt Chretien comes out on top as perhaps the master Canadian political craftsman of the past half century. His understanding of what Canadians wanted in a leader charismatically (or lack thereof), and as to what they would deem as an acceptably ‘Canadian’ role in the world has yet to be matched. It will likely be decades before another prime minister repeats his three straight majorities.

Brian Mulroney, he paid the price for governing by his principles regardless of their popularity with Canadians. He was willing to brave the short term outrage of some segments of the Canadian populace if he believed; as in the case of Free Trade, and the GST that it would be for the betterment of the country as a whole. He made the fatal mistake of appearing too close to an American President that was largely unpopular in Canada. His opponent’s forever using footage of him crooning; ‘When Irish Eyes are Smiling’ hand in hand with Ronald Regan at the ‘Shamrock Summit’ in Quebec as evidence, not of a need to repair damaged relations with our biggest ally and trading partner, but of suspect Canadian loyalties and a secret agenda.

Maybe though in fact his real flaw was that he was just too smooth for our liking, too polished, too precise; and Chretien’s practiced though rough around the edges approach had more appeal to the average English Canadian.

Not to say that Jean Chretien was a man without principle; he is a passionate and patriotic Canadian, there can be no doubt of that. However perhaps better than any other leader of his time, he was able to navigate the turbulent Canadian political waters of his day and understand better than most of his peers what Canadians wanted and would accept from their government of the day.

Perhaps it was that willingness to bend to the combination of political practicality and expedience that was in the end the undoing of Brian Mulroney.

The End of Mubarak - The Beginning of the Hard Work

The end of the Mubarak regime is good news, let the people celebrate and then the hard work will begin. Historically the jubilation after an event like this is short lived. The type of government Egypt will have a year from now is uncertain, and will not necessarily be democratic or friendly. Let it be clear a military council has replaced Mubarak, the people have not - yet that is - won true freedom.

As time wears on and a people that are not used to managing their own affairs and the democratic process as a whole will undoubtedly have many struggles. Changes to a society such as the introduction of due process to the legal system will be seen by the average Egyptian as a double edged sword. On one hand they are free to speak as they wish without fear of a midnight arrest. Conversely it means that the thief who breaks into their house at night, will not longer be automatically jailed and tortured, but will now be innocent until proven guilty. This is not a concept that people will easily accept but is an example of a conerstone of a true democratic society.

Some disappointment inevitably sets in as issues such as unemployment persist. People older and younger may eventually even become nostalgic for the old days since they were at least stable and predictable, their pensions came on time and the government provided basic nessities (talk to an elderly Russian, Stalin was a mass murderer who starved his own people, yet some Russians still idolize him because he made them feel strong). Likewise years after a the People Power rising in the Philippines I still hear people tell me they admired Marcos because "at least he was tough". The end of the problems of one era just mean the beginning of new problems in the next one. How people deal with the responsibiliy of their new dawn will determin the long term success of "The Cario Spring"

However in the meantime, to the people of Egypt… Enjoy and celebrate the moment while the world is watching!

A Mini Version of Why "The Donald" Wouldn't Run for President

So Donald Trump has decided not to run for President, for people that looked past the media speculation and hype this should not be a surprise. I commented to a couple of friends a while ago that he wouldn't, and nothing convinced me since that I was wrong. For all his past success in business, Donald Trump has become more celebrity than anything else. Regardless of what he said publically this is why he didn't run:

Why would he not run? Many Americans would like him to, (probably many more wouldn't but that's another story), for all his bravado Trump is still a smart man. He knows that from where he is he can enjoy his celebrity status with little serious scrutiny from the press. People will still want to hear his opinions on politics and politicians and he can still give them to a national audience without having to subject himself to being dragged through the mud of a long political campaign. Having to explain every off the cuff comment he made years ago or youthful indiscretion being dredged up and coming out to haunt him again.

He also knows very well he'd be the subject of attack ads by opponents that not only question his suitability to be President but also mock him for his public persona. Those are just some of the issues he'd have to deal with in a run for office that would - given his past and present - make him say "thanks, but no thanks".

For the sake of brevity, here are a few more reason's why those that follow politics seriously, knew there was no way Donald Trump was going to run for President:

• Politics is the art of the possible, Donald Trump is a man used to getting his way and likely not used to being questioned by those around him, or under him. He'd have to compromise like he's never had to before
• As much as he's a high profile figure now, he does not have to deal with the hard core experienced journalists of the Washington Press Corps, they would eat him alive. He will be held to account like he never was in he boardroom, he could not just walk out or clear the room, and that would not sit easy with him
• His past would be under a microscope in a way it never would be as a celebrity. Every secretary he boinked after hours on his couch would come out of the woodwork, every employee that sued him for wrongful dismissal would suddenly have a second hearing in the press. He would be forced to defend himself at every turn taking attention away from whatever message his campaign would be trying to get across - again, something he's not used to in his current role.
• Political campaigning is not like a TV promo tour. Trump would have to forego the stretch limos and spend his time on long train rides, visiting small Midwest towns, flipping pancakes at breakfast rallies, kiss messy babies, sit down for coffee with farmers and factory workers and try look comfortable doing it.
• In short it's much easier to criticize from the sidelines and get some easy media coverage than it is to get down and dirty in the trenches for a long and exhausting run for the White House. A race from which his reputation and integrity may never recover from.

So sorry Apprentice fans, The Donald was never going to run for President of the United States, although I bet he enjoyed the speculation that he was

The Last NHL Hockey Fight - November 27th, 2011: The State of California vs Colton Orr

Note: The below posting was originally from a Facebook Note of mine from earlier in the year, first written in March 2011, before the series of tragic deaths of current and retired players this summer. Although I have used real names in the posting, there was no participation or input from any player or individual named in the below posting. The entire article is purely meant in the spirit of conjecture, and I wish all NHL players a safe and productive season.

*********************************************************************************
There are two national sports in Canada, hockey and lacrosse, however there is a third unofficial national sport perhaps even more common than the two mentioned above - that is talking about hockey when an incident or series of incidents raises the issue of violence in the sport.

Often when discussing the three main culprits in hockey; hits to the head, hits from behind and fighting the common refrain are "will someone have to die before they change the rules". To which I respond, "I hope it never comes to that, but if it does where the incident happens will have as big an effect on the outcome as the incident itself". More on this in the main part of the posting.

Firstly a disclaimer... I love hockey, my eldest son plays it, and next year I'll have both my sons playing. There is no sport like it on earth. It is essentially two sports. First you have to learn to skate, and then secondly you need to learn how to play the game. It's fast and physical; the games can be decided in a split second. The players themselves are unique amongst professional athletes, yes they're well paid, but largely they are nicest most down to earth people in professional sport.

Secondly, I want to be upfront… I do not want a ban on fighting in the NHL, like many people I enjoy a good hockey fight between two willing combatants, hockey fights rarely involve serious injury, usually the two parties exchange words, nod, drop the gloves, and go at it for a minute; then pat each other on the bum, acknowledge the other fighter with a nod and a statement like "good go" then skate off to the penalty box for five minutes while the fans and their team mates cheer wildly. While a mutual respect between players is maintained.

That is of course if all goes as per usual. Right now there are currently three designated NHL 'tough guys' out with concussions. Players are getting bigger and stronger, but heads aren't. One day a player will fall - likely accidentally - hit their head on the ice and never get back up. If this happens in Canada the uproar will be huge but will subside and The Game will continue as it always has after some hand wringing and a couple of token rule changes.

But what if the death happens in a "non traditional" hockey market, say in the southern United States? What if, the player is an American whose family wants justice and accountability, what happens next?

Let me also be clear, writing fiction is not my forte, and this is my first attempt at it. However here we go... The setting is Anaheim California, the date January 24th, 2012. I did a fair amount of research for this piece I just didn't want to make anything up. The family background for George Parros is accurate, as is the sentencing structure for the State of California.

The parts about the personal and professional ordeals faced by enforcers that are brought up in the trial - which many hockey fans won't like - about substance abuse rates, anxiety before games and incidents with the law I also did not make up but came from actual interviews I've read with former NHL players that generally speaking only come out after the players retirement. I based the incident on the likely next round after their January 20th, 2011 bout in Toronto.

I am also fortunate to live next to a cameraman for Rogers Sportsnet and knows many of the people in this story on a personal basis. He was a great source of inside knowledge.

So forgive me for going ‘all Tom Clancy like’ but here we go, “The Trial of Colton Orr”

************************************************************************************************


He had the date circled on his calendar, November 27th, 2011, the Leafs annual swing through the Southwestern United States to battle Pacific Division teams they only see once a year. Normally just a time for the players to experience some nicer weather, and for expat Torontonians living in California to see their home team come to visit.

Not for Colton Orr, the Leafs tough guy had suffered a concussion following a fight with Anaheim's George Parros at a game in Toronto the previous year when he fell and hit his forehead on the ice. Orr was unable to play for the rest of the season and watched in frustration as again his team missed the playoffs. After discussing his future in hockey with his family, it was decided he would continue in the game he loved the following season.

The incident itself that caused him to miss the season was unremarkable and completely accidental. He respected Parros, a tough with a heart of gold who every year grew his hair long only to shave it off at Christmas in order to donate it to charities that made wigs for children with cancer. Parros - a native of Pennsylvania - had taken an unusual route to the Big League for an NHL enforcer, the son of an executive at Toy's R Us, he arrived in the NHL not from the usual rough and tumble East Coast Hockey League or the WHL, but was an Ivy League student who came into the pros through the U.S. college system, the polar opposite of Orr.

After the fight, learning of Orr's concussion, Parros had texted Colton and wished him a speedy recovery. They were combatants, but like all tough guys there was a mutual respect that they had for each other as fellow fraternity brothers in what has to be one of the toughest jobs in all of professional sport.

As the game approached the texts followed once more, back and forth. They'd go again, in the first or second periods depending on the score and on their coaches giving the go ahead, a practice more common than most hockey fans would care to admit.

Game day came, and by the second period Toronto was ahead 3 -0. Having talked in the opening frame they agreed to 'go' on their first shift in the second period. Honor would be satisfied, the crowd and the player’s benches would go wild, and the game would continue.

Then it happened; the whistle blew to drop the puck, then blew again as the players dropped their gloves and squared off. It was a short fight, ended with not a particularly hard punch but Parros was off balance. Head turned in an awkward position, he fell, helmet off, hit the ice and didn't get back up.  Taken off in a stretcher, then an ambulance to Anaheim General Hospital. The game continued, the fight sparking the Ducks. Several more altercations followed, none with serious implications but with the Leafs losing 5 - 3 by the end of the third period.

George Parros had more than a concussion; there were multiple head and neck injuries from the awkward nature of his fall and the impact of his head with the ice. Remaining in a coma for nine days, his parents and wife Tiffany finally coming to the wrenchingly painful decision to remove him from life support.

George Parros aged 32 of Washington Pennsylvania, became the first player in NHL history to die as a result of a fight.

What followed was a perfect storm of a now perceived villain on a team with deep pockets in a foreign city that considers itself at the centre of the hockey universe and a well connected, but bereaved family who happen to live in perhaps the most litigation happy society in the world.

George was the only member of his family to play hockey, a game the rest of his parents, and family would not have paid any attention to if not for their son, and never fully understood his role as enforcer.

A complaint to the Orange County Police and the District Attorney followed. The parents of George Parros requested and received that manslaughter charges be brought against Colton Orr, George’s widow Tiffany filed a separate $250 million dollar civil suit against the NHL.

The result shook the league and brought the NHL more coverage than it had ever received, and not the kind it wanted. Immediately the league ordered a moratorium on fighting - not a ban but a temporary halt pending the outcome of the trial and civil suit. The American Hockey League and several minor leagues such as the Ontario Hockey League and the Quebec Major Junior League soon followed.

After consulting with both team, and NHL Players Association Legal counsel, Colton Orr surrendered to US Authorities in Buffalo, New York. Not considered a flight risk he was never the less held without bail in Anaheim due to the high profile nature of the case.

Attempts by the league to settle out of court we met with determined refusal by the family of Mr. Parros and the Manslaughter Trial of Colton Orr began in a media circus like frenzy on June 9th, of that same year.

Unlike if the trial was held north of the border there would be no publication ban, cell phone records were subpoenaed, expert witnesses were brought in by both the defense and the prosecution. Names that were unfamiliar to most Americans but were household names in Canada: Tie Domi, George Laraque, Nick Kypreos and Donald Brashear amongst others were brought in, cross examined; as well as coaches and general managers both past and present. Primary amongst them Brian Burke former GM of Anaheim, and the Team USA Olympic squad, and now currently also Toronto's General Manager.

While most Americans viewed the trial as a mere curiosity, Canadians were glued to their sets. Covered live on CPAC the normally barely watched Parliamentary Access channel achieved the unheard of feat of actually being competitive in the ratings, beating out both CBC and CTV in afternoon viewership.

The questions asked of the witnesses under oath laid bare many cherished NHL myths...  in rapid succession prosecutors peppered witnesses like Tie Domi and Marty McSorley with questions like: Why do players fight? What's the purpose of fighting in hockey, what is the impact on the game?"

Burke was pressed to answer why Detroit - the most consistently successful team of the past 15 years - did not feel the need to carry a full time enforcer, yet somehow did not seem to have an issue with other teams taking "liberties" with their players.

Why in an age of a salary cap and struggling franchises do teams waste cap space on players who only play maybe 4 - 5 minutes a game and don't contribute on the scoreboard? Why when the leagues most consistently successful team didn't feel the need to do so? What also was the personal impact on players, on teams of the role of tough guy?

Under oath, retired player after player admitted they largely fought to keep their jobs in the League, they fought to 'spark' their team mates and to get the crowd into the game. When pressed, all admitted - as they had done previously in interviews - that the issue of protecting team-mates was officially their job but was largely rendered useless as the resulting retaliation penalty would only put their own team at a disadvantage. Under oath player after player stated that although they saw fighting as "a part of hockey" it was only partially done for the stated reasons of protecting teammates.

Subpoenaed cell phone records again proved that as in the Orr/Parros bout, most tough guys already knew who they may have to fight in any given game, and often contact each other setting the ground rules in advance. Laying bare the myth of the noble enforcer protecting venerable team-mates - hard to swallow when you have two pages of transcripts from pregame texts between say Colton Orr and Matt Carkner talking about when they're "going to go".

The news only got worse for hockey fans on both sides of the border. What was the personal effect on player and family lives of the role of enforcer? Yes guys like Scott Thornton and Darcy Hordichuck were largely good guys off the ice who devoted hours of their free time to charity work in the community, but there was a dark side, a side that people rarely heard of and didn’t want to see.

 Hours of player testimony and police report after police report detailed much higher arrest rates, for NHL enforcers as opposed to regular players. Peter Worrell, Bob Probert, Chris Neil, the list continued, until now their transgressions largely overlooked by a hockey loving public.

The court heard from team doctors and from former players themselves, from some of the toughest guys ever to don skates. Tales of players not allowing their own children to watch their games because it gave them nightmares “seeing daddy get hurt”, of anxiety before certain games where they knew they had to face a certain opponent, of missed pregame naps. The tales of vulnerability from players with otherwise fierce reputations were heart rending. Many told of using alcohol or prescription drugs to sleep, team doctors, and NHLPA legal counsel testified under oath that if there was a substance abuse problem on a team it was usually with the "tough guy" and stemmed from personal anxiety about their role and well being.

Many like Domi and Laraque under oath spoke of family conflict, Domi of his mother not speaking to him for days if he had a fight, Laraque, of being ashamed to speak with his mother about his role. The sight of both men - the toughest of the tough in their time - in testifying under oath - sometimes in tears - was a sight not seen by many outside their closest circle, and shook the public to its core. Even hockey icon Don Cherry had to admit to his use of alcohol to calm the occasional "night before" nerves.

Finally it came, what was probably the seminal exchange of the trail, the phrase... All hockey fans know it but it was about to be exposed to the non hockey loving public... "The Code".

I don't have the transcript in front of me but the exchange went something like this in an exchange between the lead prosecutor and defense witness Scott Thornton of the Boston Bruins who was asked to testify on the role of fighting in hockey.

Prosecutor - after watching a short clip from a Boston/Pittsburgh game - Mr. Thornton, why did you assault (throughout the trial prosecutors refused to use the word fight referred to them as 'assaults' for effect on the jury) Mr. Matthew Cooke", clearly he had not attacked you personally you appear to have gone after him deliberately"

Shawn Thornton: "It was in retaliation for a dirty hit on one of my team mates from a previous game that resulted in a concussion...

Prosecutor: So you were taking revenge, taking matters into your own hands - had not Mr. Cooke already been penalized by the National Hockey League? Mr. Thornton, US law prohibits vigilantism, you cannot go taking matters into your own hands. Especially several days after the initial event" Then holding a copy of NHL Regulations in his hands he asked:
"Show me where in the rule book it allows for your actions"

Defense Attorney: "Objection Your Honor, how is this relevant"

Judge: "Overruled, Mr. Thornton, answer the question"

Silence... then the response...

Shawn Thornton: "It's not but... but, The Code... "

That was it... the moment the prosecution had been waiting for... The lead prosecutor exploded: "The Code! The Code!! What Code!!?" Mr. Thornton, where did the game of hockey originate"?

Shawn Thornton: "In Canada sir"

Prosecutor: "In Canada..., and since when Mr. Thornton.., tell me when" his voice rising for emphasis and effect, "when does an unwritten code - if such one exists - have precedent over the laws of the State of California, the State of Pennsylvania, or the Laws of the United States of America, tell me Mr. Thornton, tell me please!! Last I heard hockey rinks are not designated as Canadian Embassies, you do not have diplomatic immunity Mr. Thornton". Tell me why your unwritten 'code' can have precedence over more than 200 years of US Law!!? Can you answer that for the jury, for the family of Mr. Parros, can you Mr. Thornton?"

Shawn Thornton: "No sir, its’ just how it is."

The trial went on for two more days, with the defense stating that Colton Orr was acting as expected in his role, that both he and Mr. Parros knew the risks their role entailed. That yes the game of hockey could be played without fighting - as it is in the Olympics - and not effect the overall game, but it was an aspect of the game that both fans and players did largely enjoy.

Defense and Prosecution rested, the jury deliberated for what seemed a very tense two and a half days, then reported their verdict. A jury made up of individuals who had little or no knowledge of the game of hockey at the beginning of the trial found Colton Orr, aged 30 of Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada guilty of the lesser charge of Involuntary Manslaughter.

Under the State of California's Determinating Sentencing Protocol the judge had little room for discretion; and Colton Orr was given the standard 36 month sentence for Involuntary Manslaughter, to be served in a California State Prison. The family of George Parros had been pushing for a regular Manslaughter conviction and 10 years in prison. Both sides appealed unsuccessfully while Orr served out his sentence.

What happened in the years that followed...? A total ban on fighting in hockey in North America was introduced and two more charges brought - successfully - against NHL players for on ice assaults.

The ruling was a disaster for the National Hockey League, over the following five years the league contracted, losing 4 teams, with several more on the verge of bankruptcy. Winnipeg and Quebec City never did get their former franchises back, largely because as a result of the "Colton Orr Affair" insurance rates became too prohibitive for many cities to afford.

Colton Orr was released early on parole and but broke from the expense of his legal fees. With assistance from the Players Emergency Fund, he managed to put himself through school and now practices sports law with fellow ex NHL enforcer Stu Grimson in Nashville Tennessee, never fully though putting the ordeal behind him.

**************************************************************************************************

Could happen, but hopefully not.