Wow, that was one heck of an amazing game to watch. I don't have cable, but thanks to my rabbit ears being reliable (for a change), I was able to watch this history-making game in its entirety, in my Tom Brady jersey. For those haters of the Patriots, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that they are a one trick pony. These guys can win and do win any way possible. The final score was 38-35 for New England, over the New York Giants (now 10-6), but the game was even closer than that. My wife, before going to bed in the third quarter, predicted that New England was on its way to its first loss. And she had reason to think that: they were down 12 points (think it was 28-16 at that point), their biggest deficit this season, with the momentum on New York's side.]]
But just like the Baltimore game this season where New England pulled it out at the end (though barely - that was an utterly weird game with likely some very questionable calls by the refs), the Philadelphia game, where it was very close, and the Indiannapolis game, where once again, New England came out after trailing with only minutes left, I believe this team is destined to win the Super Bowl this year. I've watched the Patriots play since Tom Brady took over from Drew Bledsoe and turned the Patriots into champions. Behind the arm of Brady, who tonight set the NFL most touchdown passes in the season with 50, passing Peyton Manning (who set the record in 2004), Randy Moss, setting his own record, passing Jerry Rice with 23 touchdown catches this season, the Patriots setting a team record for most points scored in one season (beating the previous record by the Vikings) and of course, the 16-0 record, which puts them in the same company as the 1972 Miami Dolphins (who were 14-0 for that season, and ended up going perfect, winning the Superbowl).
Tonight's game had it all - a fierce attack by the Giants, who behind Eli Manning's four TD passes, gave the Patriots likely their toughest challenge all season. The Patriots' running game was crap at the beginning but Brady managed to get some key third down conversions. They scored TDs on the running game, in the air (Brady to Moss on both), and through field goals (3). My favourite play of the game was the personal record setting TD pass from Brady to Moss. Just before that play, Brady threw an identical pass to Moss which Moss dropped. Who would have though he would have heaved it again for something like 65 yards for the TD. Brady ended up with 356 yards (I forget the stat on pass completition but it was very, very good).
So now New England has the records, and has a first-round bye in the playoffs. Everyone is expecting the Patriots to Play the Colts in the Conference Championships, and I'd think that that is an accurate prediction. But the Patriots likely will play either Jacksonville or Pittsburgh in the second round, and those teams are both tough. I'd probably be more worried about Jacksonville. But remember, the Patriots, a few games ago, guaranteed home field advantage throughout the playoffs, so their opponents have a slight disadvantage in playing in Gillette Field in Foxborough, particularly if it starts to snow (this will likely prove problematic for the Colts, who play in a comfortable domed stadium all year). I, of course, hope that the Colts get kicked out in the first round, but that is probably unlikely - up to today (Saturday), the Colts are 13-2 this season, with the only losses coming to Baltimore (I believe) and of course, New England. However, in following the results all year, I have noticed that the Colts have squeaked by several games, against weak opponents. And they have played without Pro Bowler Marvin Harrison for much of the year. I think they'll give the Patriots a lot to handle, but believe that the Patriots will come out on top and will be ready for Peyton Manning and company.
Now, a prediction. Almost everyone is picking Dallas to make it to the NFC Championship game and likely play Green Bay for the right to go to the Superbowl, and these same people have picked Dallas to prevail. I'm not so sure about this. Sure, Dallas won against Green Bay a few weeks ago, but don't forget that Brett Favre was injured in that game. Tony Romo has also shown that he can have some pretty bad games (probably due to youth and inexperience). I predict a Green Bay / New England Superbowl, but you never know, as there are a lot of dark horses in the playoffs (ie. I think San Diego may be a surprise, despite the inconsistencies of Philip Rivers).
This is going to be a great NFL playoff period. Let's hope that the Patriots run the table in the playoffs and show to all that they are perhaps the best team that has ever played in the NFL.
Go Pats go!!!!
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Friday, December 28, 2007
The Assassination of Benazir Bhutto Re-Iterates Everything I Dislike About the Middle East
I read and watched with stunned silence at the news yesterday that former Pakistani Prime Minister and up until yesterday, opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. While I am hardly a fan of anything from that side of the world and Islam in general, I do admire Mrs. Bhutto's staunch defence of democracy, and up till the last minute, her courageous willingness to fight for her people, even in the face of death threats (I understand that she survived an assassination attempt only a month or two ago). And while I am hardly the feminist type, it is refreshing to see a strong-willed, intelligent woman try to put some sense into a part of the world that seems to be stuck in an endless cycle of senseless violence.
Maybe it's just me, but when you look at the news and read a newspaper these days, do you quickly flip by any news from the Middle East? I know I do. I may occasionally glance at an article if it mentions the death of children, but even that, I confess, I seem to have developed a numbness or insensitivity. It shouldn't be this way, but years and years of reading about the Middle East have dulled my senses. Is it that I don't care what goes on there? Perhaps. But I think it goes deeper than that, and it is not necessarily a geo-political irritant that I have with that area. I think it comes down to the fact that it would appear as if the prevailing cultural mindset puts such a small premium on the value of life. I imagine that those who reject this way of thinking have moved elsewhere, but for those who remain, it seems like a never-ending spiral of suicide bombings, slaughtering of innocents, fighting over something as trivial (and utterly stupid) as land.
Sure, some may say that this opinion is not uncommon these days, what, with the tragedy that was September 11 and all. I would not go so far as to say that. Some people with already inbuilt hatred of Muslims simply used September 11 as a catalyst to justify their own bigotry and hatred. Yet, if you look at everything in that region nowadays, is there really anything to like about it (we're not talking about historical appreciation here, as I am aware and agree that that region is rich with history)? Nowhere is really safe to live or work - some car bomb can go off in a crowded market, or some crazy lunatic can strap explosives to himself (usually it's a he). The sad thing is, these people have been indoctrinated into violence from an early age. Perhaps this can ultimately be blamed at the feet of Islamic fundamentalism, but the fact that Muslims in North America are generally not a violent community would indicate to me that it is not necessarily a Muslim thing, but a regional thing.
Sure, there have been assassinations and / or executions here in North America for high ranking officials (J.F.K. and several other U.S. Presidents), or for people who fight for a moral framework and equity (Martin Luther King) , or those who fight for the rights of their people (Louis Riel). But the death of a prominent politician are far and few between in North America, perhaps due to better security, but I believe (though I can't corroborate this in any way) that there is probably less assassination attempts in the Western world simply due to the higher value placed on life. Yeah, you may not agree with me, and may call me names and as such, but it is unlikely that you will try to take my life (you can try, but I am armed pretty well). And such is how politics and their subsequent disagreements get resolved. I don't like the person who represents me - I don't vote for them. I don't like someone's opinion? I don't hang around them or read their rather lengthy blogs. I don't like how a store does business (*cough* Future Shop *cough*)? I engage in a lifetime boycott of those bastards. But my disagreement with someone or some group will never get me to the point where I will incite or inflict violence on them. This is why I believe that, no matter what bleeding heart liberals will tell you, Western society is generally more civilized than Middle Eastern societies. It would be hard for anyone to convince me otherwise. Sure, I may be the victim of a mugging or a street attack, but that is not the norm. We also don't hand assault rifles to our children and teach them to kill those with whom we disagree. We don't denigrate women to subservient status (although I am a staunch opponent of the femi-Nazi feminists - usually butt-ugly - in the West who perpetually call for the destruction of all things male).
I remember playing a video game in the late 80s/early 90s. It was a really cheap two-coloured video game that more or less played like the game Risk. It was a hoot. The game was called Conflict and to no surprise, much of the action happened in the Middle East. Tensions were always high and the political alliances or opponents were as volatile as nitroglycerin. I remember playing the game in my teens and wondering, "why on earth is there so much conflict there?" Even as a child, I'd turn on the TV or read the Edmonton Journal and not a week went by that something nasty wasn't going on in the Middle East. Over time, it seems to have gotten worse, and we hear of gruesome and sad stories of dictators who obliterate their own people in the most heinous of ways. Even the more subtle of dictators like the current self-imposed leader of Pakistan, Musharaaf, has their own ways of dealing with those who seek democratic reform - it would not pass me by if Bhutto's assassination was somehow connected to the current government in Pakistan.
I suspect that there's not much of a solution here. You can talk all you want about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but I suspect that even with a fully independent Palestininan state, those two groups will continue to be at it, since that is simply their history (not unlike the Protestant/Catholic tensions in Ireland that will be there till the end of time). Condoleeza Rice, as much as I like her, is wasting her time in that region, trying to broker a peace plan, as is her boss George W. Obviously, nobody wants to see the the people in the region kill one another constantly, but until there is a collective lightbulb moment that recognizes that life is precious and that you don't solve all your problems with violence, there will continue to be assassinations of champions of democracy like Mrs. Bhutto or anyone else who refuses to live with the status quo in that region. I don't believe that there will ever be peace in that region in our lifetime, if ever at all.
Maybe it's just me, but when you look at the news and read a newspaper these days, do you quickly flip by any news from the Middle East? I know I do. I may occasionally glance at an article if it mentions the death of children, but even that, I confess, I seem to have developed a numbness or insensitivity. It shouldn't be this way, but years and years of reading about the Middle East have dulled my senses. Is it that I don't care what goes on there? Perhaps. But I think it goes deeper than that, and it is not necessarily a geo-political irritant that I have with that area. I think it comes down to the fact that it would appear as if the prevailing cultural mindset puts such a small premium on the value of life. I imagine that those who reject this way of thinking have moved elsewhere, but for those who remain, it seems like a never-ending spiral of suicide bombings, slaughtering of innocents, fighting over something as trivial (and utterly stupid) as land.
Sure, some may say that this opinion is not uncommon these days, what, with the tragedy that was September 11 and all. I would not go so far as to say that. Some people with already inbuilt hatred of Muslims simply used September 11 as a catalyst to justify their own bigotry and hatred. Yet, if you look at everything in that region nowadays, is there really anything to like about it (we're not talking about historical appreciation here, as I am aware and agree that that region is rich with history)? Nowhere is really safe to live or work - some car bomb can go off in a crowded market, or some crazy lunatic can strap explosives to himself (usually it's a he). The sad thing is, these people have been indoctrinated into violence from an early age. Perhaps this can ultimately be blamed at the feet of Islamic fundamentalism, but the fact that Muslims in North America are generally not a violent community would indicate to me that it is not necessarily a Muslim thing, but a regional thing.
Sure, there have been assassinations and / or executions here in North America for high ranking officials (J.F.K. and several other U.S. Presidents), or for people who fight for a moral framework and equity (Martin Luther King) , or those who fight for the rights of their people (Louis Riel). But the death of a prominent politician are far and few between in North America, perhaps due to better security, but I believe (though I can't corroborate this in any way) that there is probably less assassination attempts in the Western world simply due to the higher value placed on life. Yeah, you may not agree with me, and may call me names and as such, but it is unlikely that you will try to take my life (you can try, but I am armed pretty well). And such is how politics and their subsequent disagreements get resolved. I don't like the person who represents me - I don't vote for them. I don't like someone's opinion? I don't hang around them or read their rather lengthy blogs. I don't like how a store does business (*cough* Future Shop *cough*)? I engage in a lifetime boycott of those bastards. But my disagreement with someone or some group will never get me to the point where I will incite or inflict violence on them. This is why I believe that, no matter what bleeding heart liberals will tell you, Western society is generally more civilized than Middle Eastern societies. It would be hard for anyone to convince me otherwise. Sure, I may be the victim of a mugging or a street attack, but that is not the norm. We also don't hand assault rifles to our children and teach them to kill those with whom we disagree. We don't denigrate women to subservient status (although I am a staunch opponent of the femi-Nazi feminists - usually butt-ugly - in the West who perpetually call for the destruction of all things male).
I remember playing a video game in the late 80s/early 90s. It was a really cheap two-coloured video game that more or less played like the game Risk. It was a hoot. The game was called Conflict and to no surprise, much of the action happened in the Middle East. Tensions were always high and the political alliances or opponents were as volatile as nitroglycerin. I remember playing the game in my teens and wondering, "why on earth is there so much conflict there?" Even as a child, I'd turn on the TV or read the Edmonton Journal and not a week went by that something nasty wasn't going on in the Middle East. Over time, it seems to have gotten worse, and we hear of gruesome and sad stories of dictators who obliterate their own people in the most heinous of ways. Even the more subtle of dictators like the current self-imposed leader of Pakistan, Musharaaf, has their own ways of dealing with those who seek democratic reform - it would not pass me by if Bhutto's assassination was somehow connected to the current government in Pakistan.
I suspect that there's not much of a solution here. You can talk all you want about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but I suspect that even with a fully independent Palestininan state, those two groups will continue to be at it, since that is simply their history (not unlike the Protestant/Catholic tensions in Ireland that will be there till the end of time). Condoleeza Rice, as much as I like her, is wasting her time in that region, trying to broker a peace plan, as is her boss George W. Obviously, nobody wants to see the the people in the region kill one another constantly, but until there is a collective lightbulb moment that recognizes that life is precious and that you don't solve all your problems with violence, there will continue to be assassinations of champions of democracy like Mrs. Bhutto or anyone else who refuses to live with the status quo in that region. I don't believe that there will ever be peace in that region in our lifetime, if ever at all.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Merry Christmas
Well, it is 11:38PM on Christmas Eve, I'm just wrapping up things here (figuratively and literally) as my wife has hit the sack already, and has my son. We attended a very encouraging Christmas Eve service at our church and came home afterwards to get ready for tomorrow, when we will be going to our parents' place. Once we got home, we went through the annual tradition (10th year now) in reading "The Christmas Miracle of Jonathan Toomey". Our son actually asked questions this year, rather than a repeat of the attention-span deficient experience from last year. Shortly after that, both son and wife turned in, as we have a busy day tomorrow. I am pretty exhausted after a long day of work and activities, but I want to put the final touches on the gifts tomorrow as well as spend a few minutes in quiet meditation about how truly blessed I am, having a great family, all my needs cared for, family and friends and colleagues who offer support and encouragement, and for the generally good health we as a family have experienced. The blessing of a child on the way next year. Most importantly, the fact that we can celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, who personnifies God's giving humanity a second chance (and I can speak for myself how grateful I am, as at one point of my life, I know I would have ended up dead 15 or 16 years ago, had God not intervened in my life. God continues to not only provide for me, but has continually exceeded my expectations in that His timing is impeccable in order to teach some life lessons (I'll just leave it at that).
So honestly, while I may complain about things occasionally (OK, very often), it's nice to have nights like tonight where I can just bask in the truly many blessings that I do have. And laugh at the seemingly trivial things that seem to take up our attention on a daily basis. I overheard a fierce argument between two co-workers last Friday at the end of the day, and what a shame that was, as one of them was leaving for the Christmas break and not returning till the new year. These two have been friends and colleagues for longer than I've worked with them (which was been an unbelievably long time). I know they didn't exactly leave on a good note. But we all get into those types of situations sometime, it seems, don't we? I was trying to encourage him today in sharing my own experiences of making some truly embarrassing foibles at work in regards to losing my temper.
In the end, I guess it's all about perspective. People can gripe about Christmas shopping and what a truly pain in the ass experience it can be (and it can be), but they don't realize that much of the people in the world don't have the luxury of even having choices for material things - I know it's a cliche, but it's true. Even in Canada, there are lots of people who live below the poverty line and can barely afford the basics, that we all naturally just assume is a regular expense. And then, of course, there are other things that happen. A guy at my church whom I don't know very well - his father died today from a battle with cancer, and while it truly sucks that stuff like this even happens at all, I'm sure it's considerably worse when it happens in what is commonly perceived as a happy season (with an emphasis on perceived). I don't know what he's thinking right now, but if I were to put myself in his shoes and I lost my Dad over Christmas, I couldn't care less what was under the tree, or whether it was professionally wrapped or not - I'd just want my Dad back. But people seemingly bicker about the stupidest things over Christmas time, but I can tell you, there's nothing better than some quiet moments to reflect on why we seem to act like this. Our pastor aptly reminded us of this tonight through a very penetrating sermon about dispelling the notion of hallmark card moments. I've been sort of thinking about this anyway the past few days, just seeing how people seem to act - you have those who put on the fake "tis the season" happy face, be-nice-to-everyone-until-Boxing-Day mentality, and then you have those who take the consumeristic opportunity to indulge in their own selfish desires, buying extremely large TVs and what not for themselves, as if they somehow deserve this after a long year in which they put in their time on this planet. Guess as much as you think people change, it still goes back to the base me-first attitude, even if it is disguised under a plethora of Christmas-y type of of nomenclature.
Regardless, I do want to wish those of you out there who read this in the world (and I can honestly say that now since I have received emails from a few places around the globe). Be safe this Christmas, have a very merry Christmas and perhaps if I can leave you something to think about, I'd encourage you to reflect on the difference between happiness and joy, of merriment and contentment, of satisfaction and gladness. What the world sells as Christmas cheer or warm fuzzies roasting chestnuts over a open fire, is only a temporary emotional stop-gap in the whole scheme of a year. Don't believe me? Wait a week or so, when the hoopla dies down - things will inevitably go back to the way they were before this week (they always do). What happens then?
In my view and from my experience, there's only one true source of joy and contentment and gladness that will last all-year long, and that is knowing the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour. I'm not saying this because I have nothing else to tell you - I truly believe this myself, and know it from experience (so it's not just head-knowledge). Let's face it - it is a foregone conclusion that people will let you down - if it hasn't happened to you yet, it will. Even loved ones and close ones will leave, abandon you, and disappoint you. One of the many aspects of the good news of the Bible message is that God keeps his promises and He promises He will not leave those who trust in Him. Even during times where life sucks, God is there. Even when you fail Him, He won't leave you. That is really the excitement of the season, and truly worth celebration.
I wish you and yours God's richest blessings in the days and weeks ahead.
-Jeremy
So honestly, while I may complain about things occasionally (OK, very often), it's nice to have nights like tonight where I can just bask in the truly many blessings that I do have. And laugh at the seemingly trivial things that seem to take up our attention on a daily basis. I overheard a fierce argument between two co-workers last Friday at the end of the day, and what a shame that was, as one of them was leaving for the Christmas break and not returning till the new year. These two have been friends and colleagues for longer than I've worked with them (which was been an unbelievably long time). I know they didn't exactly leave on a good note. But we all get into those types of situations sometime, it seems, don't we? I was trying to encourage him today in sharing my own experiences of making some truly embarrassing foibles at work in regards to losing my temper.
In the end, I guess it's all about perspective. People can gripe about Christmas shopping and what a truly pain in the ass experience it can be (and it can be), but they don't realize that much of the people in the world don't have the luxury of even having choices for material things - I know it's a cliche, but it's true. Even in Canada, there are lots of people who live below the poverty line and can barely afford the basics, that we all naturally just assume is a regular expense. And then, of course, there are other things that happen. A guy at my church whom I don't know very well - his father died today from a battle with cancer, and while it truly sucks that stuff like this even happens at all, I'm sure it's considerably worse when it happens in what is commonly perceived as a happy season (with an emphasis on perceived). I don't know what he's thinking right now, but if I were to put myself in his shoes and I lost my Dad over Christmas, I couldn't care less what was under the tree, or whether it was professionally wrapped or not - I'd just want my Dad back. But people seemingly bicker about the stupidest things over Christmas time, but I can tell you, there's nothing better than some quiet moments to reflect on why we seem to act like this. Our pastor aptly reminded us of this tonight through a very penetrating sermon about dispelling the notion of hallmark card moments. I've been sort of thinking about this anyway the past few days, just seeing how people seem to act - you have those who put on the fake "tis the season" happy face, be-nice-to-everyone-until-Boxing-Day mentality, and then you have those who take the consumeristic opportunity to indulge in their own selfish desires, buying extremely large TVs and what not for themselves, as if they somehow deserve this after a long year in which they put in their time on this planet. Guess as much as you think people change, it still goes back to the base me-first attitude, even if it is disguised under a plethora of Christmas-y type of of nomenclature.
Regardless, I do want to wish those of you out there who read this in the world (and I can honestly say that now since I have received emails from a few places around the globe). Be safe this Christmas, have a very merry Christmas and perhaps if I can leave you something to think about, I'd encourage you to reflect on the difference between happiness and joy, of merriment and contentment, of satisfaction and gladness. What the world sells as Christmas cheer or warm fuzzies roasting chestnuts over a open fire, is only a temporary emotional stop-gap in the whole scheme of a year. Don't believe me? Wait a week or so, when the hoopla dies down - things will inevitably go back to the way they were before this week (they always do). What happens then?
In my view and from my experience, there's only one true source of joy and contentment and gladness that will last all-year long, and that is knowing the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour. I'm not saying this because I have nothing else to tell you - I truly believe this myself, and know it from experience (so it's not just head-knowledge). Let's face it - it is a foregone conclusion that people will let you down - if it hasn't happened to you yet, it will. Even loved ones and close ones will leave, abandon you, and disappoint you. One of the many aspects of the good news of the Bible message is that God keeps his promises and He promises He will not leave those who trust in Him. Even during times where life sucks, God is there. Even when you fail Him, He won't leave you. That is really the excitement of the season, and truly worth celebration.
I wish you and yours God's richest blessings in the days and weeks ahead.
-Jeremy
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Racial Stereotyping and Generalizations - Not Necessarily A Bad Thing
Last night, my brother, along with my Dad, came out to my son's Christmas concert. The concert was pretty funny, and lots of fun, watching the school staff trying to co-ordinate the singing and maintaining the enthusiasm of 90 kindergarten kids on stage, most of them, I am sure, were ready for bed, based on the sleepy faces and the confused "deer in the headlights" look. I enjoyed watching my son sing along with his fake antlers affixed to a headband that he wore, tambourine in hand. He did a fabulous job, as did all the kids.
After the concert, and a short visit to our home by my brother and Dad, I drove my brother home (about 45-50 minutes away). We had a chance to chat, and I remarked that earlier, before the concert, as we were getting our Festive Family Dinner meal at Swiss Chalet, he seemed rather irritated. He said at the time, it was possibly work related, but in discussing it all, he said that he was able to pinpoint the cause of his frustration and mood. It was because of the Toronto people in general seemingly losing all manners during the Christmas holidays, particularly on the roads and in the malls. Now, this came as no surprise to me, since, as I had previously stated in this here blog, that people in general seem very fickle during this time of year, turning on the good vibes seemingly at will, with this "Christmas spirit" crap, while they selfishly plow themselves through a mall, pushing and shoving like a bunch of refugees in seeing a box of goodies from the Red Cross. I mentioned to my brother that what he is experiencing is not unusual, since I generally avoid the malls as well for this reason, and save myself a lot of headache and aggravation.
My brother, however, added some other comments, which I found both interesting, and surprising, coming from his mouth. He indicated that people in the Toronto area are ruder in certain areas. He recently did a favour for a colleague of mine (and a former colleague of his) in getting her the much-sought-after Nintendo Wii system. As a favour to her, he delivered the unit to her in Brampton, where she lives. My brother had indicated that "I don't want to be stereotypical, but those people in Brampton are very rude - they cut you off, and don't even exercise the simplest of courtesies!" Now, I knew what he was getting at, and since him and I were in the car and could talk without the ears of bleeding-heart liberals listening, we were able to have a frank discussion. Brampton, you may not know, is a suberb of Toronto, and is populated by a heavy East Indian/Pakistani population. Just look during a general election in any Brampton riding, and you'll invariably see that all the candidates for the various political parties are East Indian or Pakistani or Tamil. Obviously my brother was talking about those people, even though he didn't name. I, of course, don't really give a rat's ass about being politically correct, so I said, "Why don't you just come out and say that you're irritated by that ethnic group?" Interestingly enough, my brother's roommate and long-time friend from university, is of East Indian background, but he is quick to indicate that she is different than the rest of them. He was careful not to sound stereotypical and I said it's OK if he stereotypes, since we live by what our experience tells us. It's not like he's riding with an NDPer left-wing "tolerance for everyone" type of person here...
I told him of my own opinions on this subject, and in particular, how I wasn't all that far off in terms of my own perceptions. I sell a lot of stuff on craigslist. And as is the craigslist method, everything is paid for during local pickup. I meet a lot of people from a lot of different demographics, and the one thing I have noticed is that people of East Indian or Pakistani (that were not born here) tend to be irritatingly hard to deal with when it comes to making the sale. Nine times out of ten, they will try to haggle the price with me, and not a reasonable haggle, but a ridiculous offer that is insulting (ie. I sell something for $60.00, which is fair market value, and they offer $15.00, at which point I tell them to go take a hike). Now, am I being stereotypical and racist? Yes, I am being stereotypical, because I go by what my own experience tells me. If I get mugged nine separate times by nine separate guys who happen to wear Toronto Maple Leafs jerseys , you'd be an idiot to not feel apprehension the next time a guy is walking behind you at night with a Toronto Maple Leafs jersey on. Now, I don't believe it's racist, because I haven't (as of yet) gotten to the point where I will tar every single person with the same brush. I do know of a few very nice and kind East Indian guys and gals, so I know better, even though I do have some formed opinions already. I think in this sense we all do.
My brother also mentioned how he detests riding the subway to certain parts of Scarborough (not the greatest part of Toronto, since there are very crime-ridden pockets of it). Again, he didn't come out and say this, so I said it for him, but there are some subways stops which are in some fairly Black-populated areas. He said that the kids there lack respect, manners, and so forth. That's generally been my experience as well with Black youth in Toronto, but again, this can be attributed primarily to the type of family structure you see in these communities (and I've discussed this before so I won't bother rehashing it) with generally no fathers present, a great deal of poverty (some of it may be residual from racism in the past, but much of it I believe continues to be self-inflicted through lack of self-responsibility, initiative, and wallowing in one's guilt and blaming everyone else. I know I'm not the only one who holds this view. Is this stereotypical? Perhaps. Generalizing? Of course. But that's been my experience, all the way from grade four, when the only black guy in the class stole my coveted video game system, to when I was bowled over by this huge black guy running down the hall in high school and not watching where he was running. He never apologize, but just laughed. To an extent, I may still carry some of the residual avoidance of coloured people that my parents harboured. However, despite my generalized perception, I know that it is unfair to paint all Black people with the same brush (as racists like to do) since I know of many Black folks who don't fit that stereotype at all (interestingly enough, some Blacks may consider these folks "trying to be White"). The best boss that I ever had was a Black man (and a very strong Christian), who took care of me
at work and helped my career progress. Two of our close friends are Black. There are a number of Black people at our church with whom I get along very well. So I know that while I still may have some perceptions based on what I see, I warned my brother not to let his observations cloud his general opinion. Now, if you have not ever met a Black person that was nice to you, then I certainly don't blame you for not being comfortable around them.
Generalizations can cause problems sometimes. This became abundantly evident a couple of months ago at my son's school. There was this kid, who was picking on my son (and many others). My son told me his name and I got pretty pissed, since to me, it was a Middle-Eastern type of name. I remember remarking to my wife, "Those stupid damn Arabs, causing trouble again", (to my shame, what I actually said was considerably worse, and I won't brother repeating it here) to which my wife responded by reminding me that as a Christian, I should have love in my heart and forgive people. She is right, and I felt bad in saying that. However, I felt even more bad the day I walked my kid to school, and he pointed out at that bully kid, and he was a white kid from Eastern Europe. Well, I learned a lesson that day about assumptions and the problematic aspects of generalizing. I have, over the years, developed a lack of fondness for those from the Middle East (and it has nothing to do with 9/11, which seems to be the catalyst for a lot of anti-muslim sentiments). It's funny, because I have known Jews over the years, and they have never been pushy to try to force their beliefs or way of life onto others. Muslims, though, I find, seemingly like to complain about Canadian society and in particular, the Western way of life, since there is much cultural clash between that and their own lifestyle. My brother and I discussed this last night and we both agreed that there should be something instituted in becoming a Canadian citizen that makes you swear off any problems you had back in your former life in your former country. Please...don't bring your shit to Canada. In Scarborough, I see all these conflicts between East Indian and Sri Lankan gangs, the origins of which came from the other side of the world. I have seen first hand that the Jewish and Palestinian conflict is well and alive in Canada. There are Asian gangs that run amok certain parts of Toronto because of conflict and irritation started back in Hong Kong or Vietnam.
I've been involved with sport shooting for almost a year now. I've discussed airgunning thoroughly here on various articles and will continue to do so. However, getting into the sport/hobby has caused my fair share of apprehension. This was due to perceptions (by others, and to a lesser extent, by me) and generalization that the shooting sport hobby is something that is enjoyed exclusively by gun-toting, loner, anti-government Caucasians. This may be, in part, fueled by stereotypes of a bunch of White guys at NRA meetings or people may attempt to make the following links:
Shooting = nothing to do = rural = farms = white guys
or
Shooting = gun nut = uneducated = trailer trash
or
Shooting = violence = video games = young white male
But as I got into sport shooting (not hunting), I realized that what the media (who typically has a hand in handing us these stereotypes) has historically depicted is simply not true. Many of the fellow airgunners with whom I correspond are very educated folks who are married and have families (in fact, the incidence of stable, married people) are much higher amongst outdoorsmen than the general population (ie. office workers and city people). All the airgunners I know have jobs. They are mostly articulate. Now, I have run into one or two stereotypical gun nuts who believe that the government is out to get them (which may be true!) and believe that they need to arm themselves to the teeth to overthrow the Zionist takeover in the future. Aside from these few glaring exceptions, having exposure to these folks has made me realize that much of the perceptions of them in the media are unfounded. And to boot, there are a lot of Asians and minorities who do sport shooting - I see them when I go into the gunshop at my local outdoors store. In fact, one of the local instructors for the Canadian Firearms Security Course in Markham is an Asian guy, who holds classes in Cantonese for his students and there is a growing interest amongst Asians in the outdoors. It's nice to see stereotypes dispelled.
Now, I don't want to leave this entry with you thinking that I have a problem with minorities, per se. As an Asian guy myself, I should be more understanding, right? Wrong. I am not a bleeding-heart liberal who expects handouts from others or the government. If my life sucks, it's because I've at least in part contributed to it. Everyone has a choice, and you look at people who have come from similar situations who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and refuse to be a victim of generalization, you can see that hard work, initiative, and taking responsibility are not unique to any one racial group. They may even fight to show that they do not fit the stereotype. I applaud these people.
After the concert, and a short visit to our home by my brother and Dad, I drove my brother home (about 45-50 minutes away). We had a chance to chat, and I remarked that earlier, before the concert, as we were getting our Festive Family Dinner meal at Swiss Chalet, he seemed rather irritated. He said at the time, it was possibly work related, but in discussing it all, he said that he was able to pinpoint the cause of his frustration and mood. It was because of the Toronto people in general seemingly losing all manners during the Christmas holidays, particularly on the roads and in the malls. Now, this came as no surprise to me, since, as I had previously stated in this here blog, that people in general seem very fickle during this time of year, turning on the good vibes seemingly at will, with this "Christmas spirit" crap, while they selfishly plow themselves through a mall, pushing and shoving like a bunch of refugees in seeing a box of goodies from the Red Cross. I mentioned to my brother that what he is experiencing is not unusual, since I generally avoid the malls as well for this reason, and save myself a lot of headache and aggravation.
My brother, however, added some other comments, which I found both interesting, and surprising, coming from his mouth. He indicated that people in the Toronto area are ruder in certain areas. He recently did a favour for a colleague of mine (and a former colleague of his) in getting her the much-sought-after Nintendo Wii system. As a favour to her, he delivered the unit to her in Brampton, where she lives. My brother had indicated that "I don't want to be stereotypical, but those people in Brampton are very rude - they cut you off, and don't even exercise the simplest of courtesies!" Now, I knew what he was getting at, and since him and I were in the car and could talk without the ears of bleeding-heart liberals listening, we were able to have a frank discussion. Brampton, you may not know, is a suberb of Toronto, and is populated by a heavy East Indian/Pakistani population. Just look during a general election in any Brampton riding, and you'll invariably see that all the candidates for the various political parties are East Indian or Pakistani or Tamil. Obviously my brother was talking about those people, even though he didn't name. I, of course, don't really give a rat's ass about being politically correct, so I said, "Why don't you just come out and say that you're irritated by that ethnic group?" Interestingly enough, my brother's roommate and long-time friend from university, is of East Indian background, but he is quick to indicate that she is different than the rest of them. He was careful not to sound stereotypical and I said it's OK if he stereotypes, since we live by what our experience tells us. It's not like he's riding with an NDPer left-wing "tolerance for everyone" type of person here...
I told him of my own opinions on this subject, and in particular, how I wasn't all that far off in terms of my own perceptions. I sell a lot of stuff on craigslist. And as is the craigslist method, everything is paid for during local pickup. I meet a lot of people from a lot of different demographics, and the one thing I have noticed is that people of East Indian or Pakistani (that were not born here) tend to be irritatingly hard to deal with when it comes to making the sale. Nine times out of ten, they will try to haggle the price with me, and not a reasonable haggle, but a ridiculous offer that is insulting (ie. I sell something for $60.00, which is fair market value, and they offer $15.00, at which point I tell them to go take a hike). Now, am I being stereotypical and racist? Yes, I am being stereotypical, because I go by what my own experience tells me. If I get mugged nine separate times by nine separate guys who happen to wear Toronto Maple Leafs jerseys , you'd be an idiot to not feel apprehension the next time a guy is walking behind you at night with a Toronto Maple Leafs jersey on. Now, I don't believe it's racist, because I haven't (as of yet) gotten to the point where I will tar every single person with the same brush. I do know of a few very nice and kind East Indian guys and gals, so I know better, even though I do have some formed opinions already. I think in this sense we all do.
My brother also mentioned how he detests riding the subway to certain parts of Scarborough (not the greatest part of Toronto, since there are very crime-ridden pockets of it). Again, he didn't come out and say this, so I said it for him, but there are some subways stops which are in some fairly Black-populated areas. He said that the kids there lack respect, manners, and so forth. That's generally been my experience as well with Black youth in Toronto, but again, this can be attributed primarily to the type of family structure you see in these communities (and I've discussed this before so I won't bother rehashing it) with generally no fathers present, a great deal of poverty (some of it may be residual from racism in the past, but much of it I believe continues to be self-inflicted through lack of self-responsibility, initiative, and wallowing in one's guilt and blaming everyone else. I know I'm not the only one who holds this view. Is this stereotypical? Perhaps. Generalizing? Of course. But that's been my experience, all the way from grade four, when the only black guy in the class stole my coveted video game system, to when I was bowled over by this huge black guy running down the hall in high school and not watching where he was running. He never apologize, but just laughed. To an extent, I may still carry some of the residual avoidance of coloured people that my parents harboured. However, despite my generalized perception, I know that it is unfair to paint all Black people with the same brush (as racists like to do) since I know of many Black folks who don't fit that stereotype at all (interestingly enough, some Blacks may consider these folks "trying to be White"). The best boss that I ever had was a Black man (and a very strong Christian), who took care of me
at work and helped my career progress. Two of our close friends are Black. There are a number of Black people at our church with whom I get along very well. So I know that while I still may have some perceptions based on what I see, I warned my brother not to let his observations cloud his general opinion. Now, if you have not ever met a Black person that was nice to you, then I certainly don't blame you for not being comfortable around them.
Generalizations can cause problems sometimes. This became abundantly evident a couple of months ago at my son's school. There was this kid, who was picking on my son (and many others). My son told me his name and I got pretty pissed, since to me, it was a Middle-Eastern type of name. I remember remarking to my wife, "Those stupid damn Arabs, causing trouble again", (to my shame, what I actually said was considerably worse, and I won't brother repeating it here) to which my wife responded by reminding me that as a Christian, I should have love in my heart and forgive people. She is right, and I felt bad in saying that. However, I felt even more bad the day I walked my kid to school, and he pointed out at that bully kid, and he was a white kid from Eastern Europe. Well, I learned a lesson that day about assumptions and the problematic aspects of generalizing. I have, over the years, developed a lack of fondness for those from the Middle East (and it has nothing to do with 9/11, which seems to be the catalyst for a lot of anti-muslim sentiments). It's funny, because I have known Jews over the years, and they have never been pushy to try to force their beliefs or way of life onto others. Muslims, though, I find, seemingly like to complain about Canadian society and in particular, the Western way of life, since there is much cultural clash between that and their own lifestyle. My brother and I discussed this last night and we both agreed that there should be something instituted in becoming a Canadian citizen that makes you swear off any problems you had back in your former life in your former country. Please...don't bring your shit to Canada. In Scarborough, I see all these conflicts between East Indian and Sri Lankan gangs, the origins of which came from the other side of the world. I have seen first hand that the Jewish and Palestinian conflict is well and alive in Canada. There are Asian gangs that run amok certain parts of Toronto because of conflict and irritation started back in Hong Kong or Vietnam.
I've been involved with sport shooting for almost a year now. I've discussed airgunning thoroughly here on various articles and will continue to do so. However, getting into the sport/hobby has caused my fair share of apprehension. This was due to perceptions (by others, and to a lesser extent, by me) and generalization that the shooting sport hobby is something that is enjoyed exclusively by gun-toting, loner, anti-government Caucasians. This may be, in part, fueled by stereotypes of a bunch of White guys at NRA meetings or people may attempt to make the following links:
Shooting = nothing to do = rural = farms = white guys
or
Shooting = gun nut = uneducated = trailer trash
or
Shooting = violence = video games = young white male
But as I got into sport shooting (not hunting), I realized that what the media (who typically has a hand in handing us these stereotypes) has historically depicted is simply not true. Many of the fellow airgunners with whom I correspond are very educated folks who are married and have families (in fact, the incidence of stable, married people) are much higher amongst outdoorsmen than the general population (ie. office workers and city people). All the airgunners I know have jobs. They are mostly articulate. Now, I have run into one or two stereotypical gun nuts who believe that the government is out to get them (which may be true!) and believe that they need to arm themselves to the teeth to overthrow the Zionist takeover in the future. Aside from these few glaring exceptions, having exposure to these folks has made me realize that much of the perceptions of them in the media are unfounded. And to boot, there are a lot of Asians and minorities who do sport shooting - I see them when I go into the gunshop at my local outdoors store. In fact, one of the local instructors for the Canadian Firearms Security Course in Markham is an Asian guy, who holds classes in Cantonese for his students and there is a growing interest amongst Asians in the outdoors. It's nice to see stereotypes dispelled.
Now, I don't want to leave this entry with you thinking that I have a problem with minorities, per se. As an Asian guy myself, I should be more understanding, right? Wrong. I am not a bleeding-heart liberal who expects handouts from others or the government. If my life sucks, it's because I've at least in part contributed to it. Everyone has a choice, and you look at people who have come from similar situations who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and refuse to be a victim of generalization, you can see that hard work, initiative, and taking responsibility are not unique to any one racial group. They may even fight to show that they do not fit the stereotype. I applaud these people.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
There Is A Place For Vigilante Justice
I've probably held the view for a good 20 years now, that the current justice system in Canada is flawed. And it's not only because of the fact that Canada does not have the death penalty (that is another topic for another time, though I have touched on it in one of my earlier postings - but with the state of New Jersey outlawing capital punishment recently, it's worth another look...later). Much of my beef with the justice system has to do with the amount of legal loopholes criminals and their associated lawyers can conjure up to minimize the charge, or get it thrown out, on a mere technicality. Only in Canada does life in prison mean no parole for 25 years (which means that theoretically, you may be able to get out at some point after 25 years). While the U.S. justice system has its fair share of flaws, at the very least they generally mean business in having some relatively "strict" laws. Now, I know, the big criticism is often cast at California's "three strikes" law where you are locked up for life whether you commit three very minor felonies, or commit three increasingly heinous crimes that involve murder and such. Now, it is not my intention to debate the equity or fairness of that kind of system; I only mention it as an example of why I believe that the U.S. takes crime and punishment more seriously than Canada does. I am sure you heard of the recent sentencing of Robert Pickton, the pig farmer who was found guilty of killing many women and performing some heinous acts on them. Now, my freaking tax dollars will now be used to house, clothe and feed this sub-human, just like my tax dollars fund keeping convicted serial pedophilic murderer Paul Bernardo alive.
A long, long time ago, I used to be affiliated with the Guardian Angels street patrol group. They are not vigilantes, as much as the media would like to tar them with that brush. They have, and always will, continue to work with current law enforcement, aiding officers on the street. Fact of the matter is, troubled communities welcome the Guardian Angels, since the police can't be everywhere at once. The Angels have been documented and reported as preventing a number of street crimes all over the world. I am all for citizen patrols and community policing.
But as much as I try my best to put on the happy face and assume that the courts and justice system will do their job, the fact of the matter is, they aren't always successful. As a result, criminals get away with lesser (or no sentences). It is my firm belief that in such cases, where there is irrefutable, compelling evidence that is, without a shadow of a doubt damning on the charged individual, but they get off on a technicality or slick legal representation, that there is a place for vigilante justice. What I mean by this is that I believe there is an opportunity to ensure that the perpetrator does not get back onto the street and recommit a crime. It is a statistical fact that violent criminals have an exceptionally high risk to re-offend. The solution that I'd support is a simple one and is very natural. Victims' families need not live in fear, that the scumbag that hurt their family member is now on the street, released by the court, or tried unsuccessfully by the justice system. I read of a case recently where the police had all sorts of damning evidence against a perpetrator, but because they managed to procure this DNA evidence without a warrant, none of it could be used, even though the evidence leaves no doubt that he raped several women. As a result of the inadmissible critical evidence, the perpetrator was let loose, and guess what he did again? They caught him the second time and now he's behind bars. But not before some other woman was a victim of rape.
Given all this, if you were the family member of the initial victims, or the first victim herself, what would you have done? Clearly the courts are more concerned with following bureaucratic processes rather than discerning the truth. I generally am not a subscriber of the "ends justify the means" argument, but when it comes to collecting evidence, I don't look at it any other way. So in these cases, a lot of trouble (and hurt) could have been saved, if some responsible citizens decided to pay the perpetrator a visit and "strongly encourage" him against doing anything else that may get him in trouble again.
A long, long time ago, I used to be affiliated with the Guardian Angels street patrol group. They are not vigilantes, as much as the media would like to tar them with that brush. They have, and always will, continue to work with current law enforcement, aiding officers on the street. Fact of the matter is, troubled communities welcome the Guardian Angels, since the police can't be everywhere at once. The Angels have been documented and reported as preventing a number of street crimes all over the world. I am all for citizen patrols and community policing.
But as much as I try my best to put on the happy face and assume that the courts and justice system will do their job, the fact of the matter is, they aren't always successful. As a result, criminals get away with lesser (or no sentences). It is my firm belief that in such cases, where there is irrefutable, compelling evidence that is, without a shadow of a doubt damning on the charged individual, but they get off on a technicality or slick legal representation, that there is a place for vigilante justice. What I mean by this is that I believe there is an opportunity to ensure that the perpetrator does not get back onto the street and recommit a crime. It is a statistical fact that violent criminals have an exceptionally high risk to re-offend. The solution that I'd support is a simple one and is very natural. Victims' families need not live in fear, that the scumbag that hurt their family member is now on the street, released by the court, or tried unsuccessfully by the justice system. I read of a case recently where the police had all sorts of damning evidence against a perpetrator, but because they managed to procure this DNA evidence without a warrant, none of it could be used, even though the evidence leaves no doubt that he raped several women. As a result of the inadmissible critical evidence, the perpetrator was let loose, and guess what he did again? They caught him the second time and now he's behind bars. But not before some other woman was a victim of rape.
Given all this, if you were the family member of the initial victims, or the first victim herself, what would you have done? Clearly the courts are more concerned with following bureaucratic processes rather than discerning the truth. I generally am not a subscriber of the "ends justify the means" argument, but when it comes to collecting evidence, I don't look at it any other way. So in these cases, a lot of trouble (and hurt) could have been saved, if some responsible citizens decided to pay the perpetrator a visit and "strongly encourage" him against doing anything else that may get him in trouble again.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Sidney Crosby Is Overrated
So...Sidney Crosby wins the Lou Marsh trophy as best Canadian athlete according to the Toronto Star (since when was the left-leaning Star considered a credible bastion of sports information?). The NBA Phoenix Suns' Steve Nash (of Victoria, BC) ran a close second. Several other lesser-known athletes (amateur, etc.) were also nominated.
Now, every year, for the past few years, one of my colleagues (now former colleague, but I keep in touch with him) and I have our "Is Sidney Crosby That Good?" discussion. I haven't yet had it with him this year, but I suspect I'll simply email him a copy of this blog posting and get his comments. While I respect his hockey knowledge, I have vehemently disagreed with him on several occasions on touting Sidney Crosby as the next great one (I will not capitalize since I don't consider hockey players to be at deity-level). Anyhow, here are my thoughts on the selection of Crosby (by the way, if you don't know, and I have discovered in the last year that there are a few that don't - Sidney Crosby is the young 20-year-old phenom who is playing for the Pittsburgh Penguins and is garnering a lot of attention in the sports world).
OK, where to start with selecting Crosby as the winner of the Lou Marsh. This award was selected for Crosby by a bunch of sports writers, journalists, and sports media-types. That is the first problem. I wrote this on a recent bulletin board posting on tsn.ca, but I really feel that the media, especially in hockey-crazy Canada, goes ga-ga over Crosby, since they've been starving for a superstar who will provide as many thrills and on-ice magic as Wayne Gretzky did for his famed career. Sure, Mario Lemieux came along and was a superstar, but not at Gretzky's caliber (notice the NHL did not retire Lemieux's jersey league-wide). But Lemieux's career was cut short by injuries and illness (and age), so we never really saw what may have been. Regardless, the National Hockey League has been really trying to get its viewership and fanbase back to the levels that it previously had (personally, I think under current commissioner Gary Bettman, that will never happen, as long as he continues to bask in the philosophy of U.S. expansion to sunbelt areas). The NBA has similarly been waiting for the next Michael Jordan, but there have been several worthwhile candidates over the years who have provided more than ample ticket and jersey sales - I can think of LeBron James, Shaquille O'Neal, and Kobe Bryant as two examples). The NHL has had good players, but not super-superstars. Even very talented players who vie for the scoring title every year are not considered because they don't have the personality or the media smarts to make them as well-rounded as Gretzky was.
Some history first...
Sidney Crosby, who as a young teenager, was eclipsing junior hockey records and providing highlight reel material for viewers. He was touted as the next saviour of the NHL, the next big phenom, the Wayne Gretzky of the new millenium. I wasn't about to simply join on a bandwagon because people simply said so, but I must admit that I got caught in the initial hype as well and purchased some Sidney Crosby rookie cards, which are now all in hard plastic cases. Obviously, I see it more as an investment opportunity than as a fan item (sad but true, and this is contrary to my typical opinion about collectible stuff - ie. I collected comic books when I was younger due to my interest in reading them and become a fan of them - I've always shunned the capitalistic components of collecting, but even I have my limits). Anyhow, Crosby gets drafted after the NHL lockout season as the number one pick for Pittsburgh, who have struggled tremendously since the glory days with Lemieux back in the early 90s. I am glad that the Penguins got Crosby, since I believe his presence saved that franchise. Penguins owner Lemieux liked his draft pick so much, he took him under his wing and he even lived with Lemieux's family during his first year or so (not sure if he's still living with them, but that's neither here nor there).
In Crosby's first season, he does tremendously well in the NHL, though he developed a reputation as a whiner and complainer. Crosby apologists would be quick to explain that he was 18 and come on, who is mature at that age? Visiting hockey arenas were packed in order to see him play and without a doubt, even in my mind, he was and is good for the game. He finished his inaugural season with a very satisfying 102 points, causing most media types and sports journalists to start comparing him to Gretzky. In his first All-Star game, he had no points, and these same media types were alluding to Gretzky's similar "accomplishment". The bandwagon jumpers started to come onto the vehicle en mass. Of course, it is fashionable nowadays to attach a sport to a face of an individual (ie. when many people talk golf, they invariably think of Tiger Woods). Crosby was the perfect poster-child for the NHL - young, curly brown locks of hair, and for the Canadian element - a Canadian boy finally! I'm all for supporting home grown talent, but I think for the last 20 years and more in hockey, international players have not been given the credit they deserve. Anyhow, Crosby has a breakout first year, but did not win the rookie of the year Calder Trophy (the distinction went to fellow superstar Alexander Ovechkin, who in my view is just as good of a player as Crosby, but he's Russian, so the North American media markets don't give him the due he so deserves). It is worthwhile to note that Crosby was only a few points behind Ovechkin in the overall points total (I think Joe Thornton won the Art Ross trophy for most points that year). Crosby also created many highlight reels in his first season, including a shootout victory in Pittsburgh against his favourite childhood team, the Montreal Canadiens, in which Crosby scored the winner in the shootout). After Crosby's breakout year, I decided to pad my investment so I dropped a chunk of change on some more Crosby rookie cards.
In 2006-2007, Crosby would not be denied. He had a strong season and bested his previous year's point total, netting 120 points overall, winning the Art Ross Trophy as well as the Hart Trophy and the Lester B. Pearson Trophy (my mind escapes me at the moment what that one was for). He had several notable games including one in which he scored six points (against Philadelphia, I believe, who absolutely sucked last year - I think the Penguins beat them in all eight games, unlike this year where the Flyers have the Pens' number).
Given all this, and the good he has done for the game, why don't I think he was the best choice (he is a good choice, but I don't feel is the best choice) for the Lou Marsh trophy? Because I think that as an athlete, Steve Nash was more deserving due to his on-and-off-the-court contributions, his non-expendable role with his team, and his long history of making the teams that he has played on winners. Unfortunately, Nash does not play in a "Canadian game" per se (even though basketball was invented in Canada), or at least does not play in a "Canadian game" that fans in Canada give a rat's ass about. If Nash had been a hockey player, I am confident that he would have received this award. Consider this: if Nash left the Phoenix Suns, they would be a horrible team. If Crosby left the Penguins, they'd be only a bit worse than they are now (and they're pretty bad, despite last year's over-100 point showing in the standings). Nash has also been voted NBA MVP two years in a row. In an "American" sport for a Canadian athlete to dominate so much, it's impressive. Nash is also 33, considerably older than Crosby, yet excels far more than his peers who are 10 years his junior. I think what did Nash in on this award was the fact that he declared that he won't play for Canada in the upcoming basketball world championships. I don't think that should be held against him, since he's represented Canada many times. Also, bear in mind that this is not an Olympic year, so factor in the additional component that we don't have visibility to see amateur athletes in action. Unfortunately, amateur athletes also don't have the professional expsoure, so talented and successful skaters like Cindy Klassen, while getting some exposure, will never the the super-hype that pro athletes do - and that is unfortunate, since many of them are equally, if not more athletic than their professional counterparts).
Also, let's face it - Crosby has been given a few freebies over time. When the Washington Capitals offered the team captaincy to Alexander Ovechkin, he turned it down as he was not ready (and given his age and only a couple of years experience, that made sense). A real respectable choice. Crosby becomes an assistant captain after a season of play and a captain after two seasons. At 20-years-old? Tampa Bay made Vincent Lecavalier a captain at 21 or so and it didn't work out that well due to his lack of maturity. Oh sure, some will say that Crosby is mature for his years, but again, it's the hockey-crazed mostly Canadian media salivating for the next iteration of a hockey superstar. They'll say anything. If you see how Crosby continues to argue calls and whine to referees, you'll get a sense of his maturity level.
Another athlete to consider is Vincent Lecavalier (who has been on fire this year, but also has maintained a history of quality and consistency in his NHL numbers). Now, I will not play the "they always pick hockey players because Canada is nuts over hockey" card, since there hasn't been a hockey player who has won this award since Mario Lemieux back in 1993.
Now, every year, for the past few years, one of my colleagues (now former colleague, but I keep in touch with him) and I have our "Is Sidney Crosby That Good?" discussion. I haven't yet had it with him this year, but I suspect I'll simply email him a copy of this blog posting and get his comments. While I respect his hockey knowledge, I have vehemently disagreed with him on several occasions on touting Sidney Crosby as the next great one (I will not capitalize since I don't consider hockey players to be at deity-level). Anyhow, here are my thoughts on the selection of Crosby (by the way, if you don't know, and I have discovered in the last year that there are a few that don't - Sidney Crosby is the young 20-year-old phenom who is playing for the Pittsburgh Penguins and is garnering a lot of attention in the sports world).
OK, where to start with selecting Crosby as the winner of the Lou Marsh. This award was selected for Crosby by a bunch of sports writers, journalists, and sports media-types. That is the first problem. I wrote this on a recent bulletin board posting on tsn.ca, but I really feel that the media, especially in hockey-crazy Canada, goes ga-ga over Crosby, since they've been starving for a superstar who will provide as many thrills and on-ice magic as Wayne Gretzky did for his famed career. Sure, Mario Lemieux came along and was a superstar, but not at Gretzky's caliber (notice the NHL did not retire Lemieux's jersey league-wide). But Lemieux's career was cut short by injuries and illness (and age), so we never really saw what may have been. Regardless, the National Hockey League has been really trying to get its viewership and fanbase back to the levels that it previously had (personally, I think under current commissioner Gary Bettman, that will never happen, as long as he continues to bask in the philosophy of U.S. expansion to sunbelt areas). The NBA has similarly been waiting for the next Michael Jordan, but there have been several worthwhile candidates over the years who have provided more than ample ticket and jersey sales - I can think of LeBron James, Shaquille O'Neal, and Kobe Bryant as two examples). The NHL has had good players, but not super-superstars. Even very talented players who vie for the scoring title every year are not considered because they don't have the personality or the media smarts to make them as well-rounded as Gretzky was.
Some history first...
Sidney Crosby, who as a young teenager, was eclipsing junior hockey records and providing highlight reel material for viewers. He was touted as the next saviour of the NHL, the next big phenom, the Wayne Gretzky of the new millenium. I wasn't about to simply join on a bandwagon because people simply said so, but I must admit that I got caught in the initial hype as well and purchased some Sidney Crosby rookie cards, which are now all in hard plastic cases. Obviously, I see it more as an investment opportunity than as a fan item (sad but true, and this is contrary to my typical opinion about collectible stuff - ie. I collected comic books when I was younger due to my interest in reading them and become a fan of them - I've always shunned the capitalistic components of collecting, but even I have my limits). Anyhow, Crosby gets drafted after the NHL lockout season as the number one pick for Pittsburgh, who have struggled tremendously since the glory days with Lemieux back in the early 90s. I am glad that the Penguins got Crosby, since I believe his presence saved that franchise. Penguins owner Lemieux liked his draft pick so much, he took him under his wing and he even lived with Lemieux's family during his first year or so (not sure if he's still living with them, but that's neither here nor there).
In Crosby's first season, he does tremendously well in the NHL, though he developed a reputation as a whiner and complainer. Crosby apologists would be quick to explain that he was 18 and come on, who is mature at that age? Visiting hockey arenas were packed in order to see him play and without a doubt, even in my mind, he was and is good for the game. He finished his inaugural season with a very satisfying 102 points, causing most media types and sports journalists to start comparing him to Gretzky. In his first All-Star game, he had no points, and these same media types were alluding to Gretzky's similar "accomplishment". The bandwagon jumpers started to come onto the vehicle en mass. Of course, it is fashionable nowadays to attach a sport to a face of an individual (ie. when many people talk golf, they invariably think of Tiger Woods). Crosby was the perfect poster-child for the NHL - young, curly brown locks of hair, and for the Canadian element - a Canadian boy finally! I'm all for supporting home grown talent, but I think for the last 20 years and more in hockey, international players have not been given the credit they deserve. Anyhow, Crosby has a breakout first year, but did not win the rookie of the year Calder Trophy (the distinction went to fellow superstar Alexander Ovechkin, who in my view is just as good of a player as Crosby, but he's Russian, so the North American media markets don't give him the due he so deserves). It is worthwhile to note that Crosby was only a few points behind Ovechkin in the overall points total (I think Joe Thornton won the Art Ross trophy for most points that year). Crosby also created many highlight reels in his first season, including a shootout victory in Pittsburgh against his favourite childhood team, the Montreal Canadiens, in which Crosby scored the winner in the shootout). After Crosby's breakout year, I decided to pad my investment so I dropped a chunk of change on some more Crosby rookie cards.
In 2006-2007, Crosby would not be denied. He had a strong season and bested his previous year's point total, netting 120 points overall, winning the Art Ross Trophy as well as the Hart Trophy and the Lester B. Pearson Trophy (my mind escapes me at the moment what that one was for). He had several notable games including one in which he scored six points (against Philadelphia, I believe, who absolutely sucked last year - I think the Penguins beat them in all eight games, unlike this year where the Flyers have the Pens' number).
Given all this, and the good he has done for the game, why don't I think he was the best choice (he is a good choice, but I don't feel is the best choice) for the Lou Marsh trophy? Because I think that as an athlete, Steve Nash was more deserving due to his on-and-off-the-court contributions, his non-expendable role with his team, and his long history of making the teams that he has played on winners. Unfortunately, Nash does not play in a "Canadian game" per se (even though basketball was invented in Canada), or at least does not play in a "Canadian game" that fans in Canada give a rat's ass about. If Nash had been a hockey player, I am confident that he would have received this award. Consider this: if Nash left the Phoenix Suns, they would be a horrible team. If Crosby left the Penguins, they'd be only a bit worse than they are now (and they're pretty bad, despite last year's over-100 point showing in the standings). Nash has also been voted NBA MVP two years in a row. In an "American" sport for a Canadian athlete to dominate so much, it's impressive. Nash is also 33, considerably older than Crosby, yet excels far more than his peers who are 10 years his junior. I think what did Nash in on this award was the fact that he declared that he won't play for Canada in the upcoming basketball world championships. I don't think that should be held against him, since he's represented Canada many times. Also, bear in mind that this is not an Olympic year, so factor in the additional component that we don't have visibility to see amateur athletes in action. Unfortunately, amateur athletes also don't have the professional expsoure, so talented and successful skaters like Cindy Klassen, while getting some exposure, will never the the super-hype that pro athletes do - and that is unfortunate, since many of them are equally, if not more athletic than their professional counterparts).
Also, let's face it - Crosby has been given a few freebies over time. When the Washington Capitals offered the team captaincy to Alexander Ovechkin, he turned it down as he was not ready (and given his age and only a couple of years experience, that made sense). A real respectable choice. Crosby becomes an assistant captain after a season of play and a captain after two seasons. At 20-years-old? Tampa Bay made Vincent Lecavalier a captain at 21 or so and it didn't work out that well due to his lack of maturity. Oh sure, some will say that Crosby is mature for his years, but again, it's the hockey-crazed mostly Canadian media salivating for the next iteration of a hockey superstar. They'll say anything. If you see how Crosby continues to argue calls and whine to referees, you'll get a sense of his maturity level.
Another athlete to consider is Vincent Lecavalier (who has been on fire this year, but also has maintained a history of quality and consistency in his NHL numbers). Now, I will not play the "they always pick hockey players because Canada is nuts over hockey" card, since there hasn't been a hockey player who has won this award since Mario Lemieux back in 1993.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
What Christmas REALLY Is About
Well, hard to believe it is December 11 today. Only two more weeks until Christmas Day. Over the years, I have seen Christmas, and by extension, the Christmas holidays, transformed into a remarkably secular event on the calendar, punctuated by feel-good emotions and people being nice to one another (which is good in and of itself, but by golly, how about extend these warm fuzzies year-round?). Of course, all this emotional goodwill towards your fellow man all the sudden gets turned off like a switch on Boxing Day, as people flock to the malls to celebrate their greed and their need to consume and lavish themselves with bargains galore. I'm sure you have all heard of the crazy things done in shopping mall parking lots on Boxing Day, not the least of which involves all types of road rage, and flipping the finger to your fellow man as you vie for the closest parking spot to the big box store of your choice.
I guess I am not surprised that people are like this. Over time, I've found humanity in North American culture to be fairly self-absorbed with their own creature comforts and the need to feed its own continuous desire to have stuff. This is pretty obvious by the well-intentioned, but inherently questionable practice of parents encouraging their kids to write a letter to a fictitious elderly overweight character who has supplanted Jesus as the focus of Christmas, detailing the kids of things that they want, and justifying the request by the logic that they have been good all year round. I have never really understood this seemingly cultural need to lie to your kids - people frown at me when I confess that I not only steer clear of the Santa Claus topic with my child, but I distinctly tell him that Christmas is not about gifts or Santa Claus. Now, this may not put me in good stead with fellow parents at my child's school, or even amongst family and friends who think there is no issue with this - I am not here to pass judgment on their practices - simply state what I choose to do with my own child. But I think that as a believer and follower of Christ, it is important to pass along the truth to my child, no matter how seemingly strange it may come across, given the prevalent culture of everything goes and everything should be tolerable. I have come to realize, over the almost five years that I have been a parent, that my goal is to honour Jesus Christ in my actions and words (I will be the first to admit that I am not always successful in doing either), and I believe part of that is how I raise my child, and showing them through my words and actions ways in which we honour God and Christ in what we do everyday, not just at certain times of the year.
I also find it errily strange how many people come out of the woodwork to go to church on Christmas Day and the surrounding holidays. I think this tends to be more prominent in Roman Catholic churches, where unfortunately, a flawed works-based faith continues to be taught in their teachings, though by no means are the Catholics the sole proprietor of such theology - many Protestant churches seem to have a groundswell of bums on pews during the next few weeks - perhaps people who somehow feel compelled or obligated to attend these services to somehow self-satisfy their theology of "going to church = good person = going to heaven". No doubt this is related to the similarly misunderstood theological concept that if being nice to people = a plus in God's books. I am certainly amazed how how many people, even regular church-going Christians seem to continue to grasp onto this popular concept, despite being dispelled by Jesus and the apostles thousands of years ago. No doubt, the Bible does teach love towards others; however, that is not the way one will become saved; never has been that way, never will be.
So this all leads me to today's posting about what Christmas is really about. No doubt many people will associate the birth of Christ as being part of Christmas - even non-Christians know that. But why is that important? That is quite I will quickly explore today.
The Old Testament is way too rich of an account for me to do any justice in condensing it into a few morsels of summarizing sentences, but I'll attempt to do so for brevity and so that I don't get bogged down in too technical of a theological discussion. Essentially, the Bible starts with God creating the world, and people. God gave the first inhabitants some pretty easy instructions (all things considered). However, people being the curious and self-directed/self-absorbed people that they are, decided to go against God's directions and as a result, sin entered the world. Now, sin is one of those things which people seemingly equate with its symptoms or manifestations. Sure, lying, stealing, worshiping false gods and such are all sinful behavioiur and are the end-result of sin. However, if you break it down, what is sin really? Sin, I believe, is the desire to do what you want to do instead of what God wants you to do. In other words, following your own path (which is why I sometimes chuckle when I hear Christians singing secular songs with lyrics like "follow your own heart..." If you look at any end-result of sin, you'll see that it is comprised of people wanting a self-focus instead of an other-focus or a God-focus. Anyhow, sin creeps into the world. Well, guess what? God is sinless, and cannot co-exist with sin. So there is the first problem. Humans are now separated from God. However, God, being His generous and gracious Self, decides to give people a second chance. Now, I will be the first one to admit that I don't quite understand why the Old Testament seems to prescribe a works-based path to holiness - it is certainly evident in the old Jewish and Levitical law. Nonetheless, while these "rules" were made for people to follow, people, being the selfish people that they are, decided to not follow these rules. Problem with this is that humanity at this point still has a problem. Without reconciling the sinful nature to God's holiness, we are, for a lack of a better term, screwed. No heaven for us. No eternal life with God for us. Logically and theologically, it is consistent with God's nature and our sinful nature.
Thankfully, that's not where the story ends. God, in His infinite mercy (and I cannot think of a better word to describe this) sends His own Son to the earth in human form to walk amongst us, but at the same time, giving us another second chance. The requirements for this second chance are even easier than the Old Testament requirements. Now, all we need to do is not just believe that Jesus is God's Son, but accept Jesus as our personal Saviour. Now, what is all this about? What is He saving us from? Recall that we are eterntally separated from God due to our sin. Well, in due time (about 33 years after his birth), Jesus will be dying a death that will take away all of our sin, and wash us clean. Remember, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are separate, but one and the same. So God essentially came to humanity, as rotten as it was (and continues to be) and offers up Himself in the form of Jesus so that He can absorb all of our past/present/future sins and make us right before God. Think of it as a person taking a bullet for another person and you'll sort of see what I'm getting at. Jesus lived a perfect life, yet amongst these humans they did not like Him, since He really challenged their root belief systems in that works = holiness and eternal life (there's some theological questions here, which I don't have the answers to). People decided to give him the most brutal of deaths, but the Good News is, that because of Jesus' decision to go to the cross and die on our behalf (remember, He did not have to, and there is evidence that He wrestled and was anxious with what would happen), taking away our sins, all we need to do is to say "Yes, Jesus, I not only believe that you did this for me, but I accept your free gift of salvation, and will live my life according to how you want me to." That's it. No mumble jumble about rubbing beads, doing good deeds, praying for dead people, etc. The gospel message is such a simple message, yet people continue to scorn it and scoff at it, because once again, they want to go their own way. This is nothing new, as history would tell us.
So given all of this, Jesus' birth is a real celebration. Now, there are Christians out there who will not celebrate Christmas because Christmas is not exactly the end of the story. That is true - Christmas would not be worth celebrating, had Jesus not gone to the cross, died, and rose again, clearing demonstrating that He is truly God's own Son. I can understand these sentiments, but the fact of the matter is, we DO have the entire story, and so I really do see Jesus' birth as a cause for celebration since it is the first step in God giving us another chance that is so easy to grasp. It is really, a gift. Now, Jesus' birth was not without its complications (Herod was king at the time and viewed Jesus' birth as a threat to his earthly kingship, not to mention Caesar's). But through God's continuous protection, Jesus and His parents managed to elude a potentially dangerous situation and Jesus grew up and made the supreme sacrifice for humanity. The gift is there for everyone to take. The question is, will you accept it?
Based on all this, you can sort of see why I find it a shame that the world has once again shunned God and Christ, replacement Him with figments of this world and reducing Christmas to a bunch of holidays with feel-good emotions. True, Christmas is a time to celebrate, but not for reasons of simply being kind to others and buying one another gifts (attaching gift receipts to the same) and compiling your own wish list. The true celebration of Christmas is in the fact that God gave us a second chance thousands of years ago, and that should really be the only gift that truly matters.
I guess I am not surprised that people are like this. Over time, I've found humanity in North American culture to be fairly self-absorbed with their own creature comforts and the need to feed its own continuous desire to have stuff. This is pretty obvious by the well-intentioned, but inherently questionable practice of parents encouraging their kids to write a letter to a fictitious elderly overweight character who has supplanted Jesus as the focus of Christmas, detailing the kids of things that they want, and justifying the request by the logic that they have been good all year round. I have never really understood this seemingly cultural need to lie to your kids - people frown at me when I confess that I not only steer clear of the Santa Claus topic with my child, but I distinctly tell him that Christmas is not about gifts or Santa Claus. Now, this may not put me in good stead with fellow parents at my child's school, or even amongst family and friends who think there is no issue with this - I am not here to pass judgment on their practices - simply state what I choose to do with my own child. But I think that as a believer and follower of Christ, it is important to pass along the truth to my child, no matter how seemingly strange it may come across, given the prevalent culture of everything goes and everything should be tolerable. I have come to realize, over the almost five years that I have been a parent, that my goal is to honour Jesus Christ in my actions and words (I will be the first to admit that I am not always successful in doing either), and I believe part of that is how I raise my child, and showing them through my words and actions ways in which we honour God and Christ in what we do everyday, not just at certain times of the year.
I also find it errily strange how many people come out of the woodwork to go to church on Christmas Day and the surrounding holidays. I think this tends to be more prominent in Roman Catholic churches, where unfortunately, a flawed works-based faith continues to be taught in their teachings, though by no means are the Catholics the sole proprietor of such theology - many Protestant churches seem to have a groundswell of bums on pews during the next few weeks - perhaps people who somehow feel compelled or obligated to attend these services to somehow self-satisfy their theology of "going to church = good person = going to heaven". No doubt this is related to the similarly misunderstood theological concept that if being nice to people = a plus in God's books. I am certainly amazed how how many people, even regular church-going Christians seem to continue to grasp onto this popular concept, despite being dispelled by Jesus and the apostles thousands of years ago. No doubt, the Bible does teach love towards others; however, that is not the way one will become saved; never has been that way, never will be.
So this all leads me to today's posting about what Christmas is really about. No doubt many people will associate the birth of Christ as being part of Christmas - even non-Christians know that. But why is that important? That is quite I will quickly explore today.
The Old Testament is way too rich of an account for me to do any justice in condensing it into a few morsels of summarizing sentences, but I'll attempt to do so for brevity and so that I don't get bogged down in too technical of a theological discussion. Essentially, the Bible starts with God creating the world, and people. God gave the first inhabitants some pretty easy instructions (all things considered). However, people being the curious and self-directed/self-absorbed people that they are, decided to go against God's directions and as a result, sin entered the world. Now, sin is one of those things which people seemingly equate with its symptoms or manifestations. Sure, lying, stealing, worshiping false gods and such are all sinful behavioiur and are the end-result of sin. However, if you break it down, what is sin really? Sin, I believe, is the desire to do what you want to do instead of what God wants you to do. In other words, following your own path (which is why I sometimes chuckle when I hear Christians singing secular songs with lyrics like "follow your own heart..." If you look at any end-result of sin, you'll see that it is comprised of people wanting a self-focus instead of an other-focus or a God-focus. Anyhow, sin creeps into the world. Well, guess what? God is sinless, and cannot co-exist with sin. So there is the first problem. Humans are now separated from God. However, God, being His generous and gracious Self, decides to give people a second chance. Now, I will be the first one to admit that I don't quite understand why the Old Testament seems to prescribe a works-based path to holiness - it is certainly evident in the old Jewish and Levitical law. Nonetheless, while these "rules" were made for people to follow, people, being the selfish people that they are, decided to not follow these rules. Problem with this is that humanity at this point still has a problem. Without reconciling the sinful nature to God's holiness, we are, for a lack of a better term, screwed. No heaven for us. No eternal life with God for us. Logically and theologically, it is consistent with God's nature and our sinful nature.
Thankfully, that's not where the story ends. God, in His infinite mercy (and I cannot think of a better word to describe this) sends His own Son to the earth in human form to walk amongst us, but at the same time, giving us another second chance. The requirements for this second chance are even easier than the Old Testament requirements. Now, all we need to do is not just believe that Jesus is God's Son, but accept Jesus as our personal Saviour. Now, what is all this about? What is He saving us from? Recall that we are eterntally separated from God due to our sin. Well, in due time (about 33 years after his birth), Jesus will be dying a death that will take away all of our sin, and wash us clean. Remember, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are separate, but one and the same. So God essentially came to humanity, as rotten as it was (and continues to be) and offers up Himself in the form of Jesus so that He can absorb all of our past/present/future sins and make us right before God. Think of it as a person taking a bullet for another person and you'll sort of see what I'm getting at. Jesus lived a perfect life, yet amongst these humans they did not like Him, since He really challenged their root belief systems in that works = holiness and eternal life (there's some theological questions here, which I don't have the answers to). People decided to give him the most brutal of deaths, but the Good News is, that because of Jesus' decision to go to the cross and die on our behalf (remember, He did not have to, and there is evidence that He wrestled and was anxious with what would happen), taking away our sins, all we need to do is to say "Yes, Jesus, I not only believe that you did this for me, but I accept your free gift of salvation, and will live my life according to how you want me to." That's it. No mumble jumble about rubbing beads, doing good deeds, praying for dead people, etc. The gospel message is such a simple message, yet people continue to scorn it and scoff at it, because once again, they want to go their own way. This is nothing new, as history would tell us.
So given all of this, Jesus' birth is a real celebration. Now, there are Christians out there who will not celebrate Christmas because Christmas is not exactly the end of the story. That is true - Christmas would not be worth celebrating, had Jesus not gone to the cross, died, and rose again, clearing demonstrating that He is truly God's own Son. I can understand these sentiments, but the fact of the matter is, we DO have the entire story, and so I really do see Jesus' birth as a cause for celebration since it is the first step in God giving us another chance that is so easy to grasp. It is really, a gift. Now, Jesus' birth was not without its complications (Herod was king at the time and viewed Jesus' birth as a threat to his earthly kingship, not to mention Caesar's). But through God's continuous protection, Jesus and His parents managed to elude a potentially dangerous situation and Jesus grew up and made the supreme sacrifice for humanity. The gift is there for everyone to take. The question is, will you accept it?
Based on all this, you can sort of see why I find it a shame that the world has once again shunned God and Christ, replacement Him with figments of this world and reducing Christmas to a bunch of holidays with feel-good emotions. True, Christmas is a time to celebrate, but not for reasons of simply being kind to others and buying one another gifts (attaching gift receipts to the same) and compiling your own wish list. The true celebration of Christmas is in the fact that God gave us a second chance thousands of years ago, and that should really be the only gift that truly matters.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Right to Bear Arms
I've talked with a number of people in the past year or so about the whole topic of the right to bear arms, as embedded in the U.S. constitution. This is something that is not entrenched in the Canadian constitution (Charter of Rights and Freedoms), but to all the anti-gun naysayers, out there, a recent tragic example shows why this is so needed for our U.S. neighbours, and dare I say it, in Canada as well.
You may have read about the tragic shootings at the missionary center as well as a megachurch in Colorado yesterday. The story seems to be evolving to detail a disgruntled former adherent or member who decided to take out his frustration on others, killing innocent lives in the process. Now, I know what you may say - if they had banned guns, no one would be hurt. But let's live in reality here - to say that banning guns will create an atmosphere of non-violent behaviour and curb people killing one another is like saying that prohibition in the 1920s curbed the distribution, consumption, and trade of alcohol. Quite the opposite, history will tell us.
What ended up happening yesterday was a female member of the church, who happened to have been armed (yes, it does seem kind of weird that someone would go to church armed, but I digress), confronted the gunman, and eventually shot and killed him. Could you imagine what would have happened had she not had a weapon at her disposal? It is almost guaranteed that there would have been many more deaths at the hands of this twisted psycho. Look at the Virginia Tech massacre - a supposedly gun-free zone, and the carnage inflicted on there. You would have to be dumb to not reflect on how different things would have turned out had students and teachers been able to carry firearms to defend oneself.
I will agree, people carrying firearms is not the ideal solution for discouraging gun violence. But it is better than nothing. Passing more restrictive gun laws will only cause those who abide by them to be hand-cuffed - it will do nothing to prevent criminals from stealing or smuggling guns, and it certainly will not change the climate in some segments of society, which seem to place a lesser premium on the value of life. In those cases, the key is to provide a positive home environment which is not condusive to the child and young adult being left by themselves and feeling alienated and bored. The key to reducing violent behaviour, in my view, is for children to grow up in loving, stable families, not this single-parent stuff which is so prevalent. Kids from these types of environments are more likely to join similar kids and form gangs and use guns as a show of manhood and intimidation, rather than as a tool for protection, hunting for food, or sport enjoyment. But of course, we don't live in such an environment, and as much as we would like to see it change, societal trends show that this is unlikely to happen. So now you have people on the street who are angry with the world (as is often the case with these mass murder shooters), feel betrayed, feel knocked down and the only way for them to deal with this anger is to grab a gun and start shooting people. The gun is the the problem. Violent behaviour and a violent culture is. As long as that permeates throughout our society, people have a right to not be intimidated by those who obviously want to wreak havoc on their lives - people have a right to live their lives and not be subject to, or have their lives threatened by these increassingly angry, mentally unstable individuals who happen to have access to a firearm with ill intentions.
You may have read about the tragic shootings at the missionary center as well as a megachurch in Colorado yesterday. The story seems to be evolving to detail a disgruntled former adherent or member who decided to take out his frustration on others, killing innocent lives in the process. Now, I know what you may say - if they had banned guns, no one would be hurt. But let's live in reality here - to say that banning guns will create an atmosphere of non-violent behaviour and curb people killing one another is like saying that prohibition in the 1920s curbed the distribution, consumption, and trade of alcohol. Quite the opposite, history will tell us.
What ended up happening yesterday was a female member of the church, who happened to have been armed (yes, it does seem kind of weird that someone would go to church armed, but I digress), confronted the gunman, and eventually shot and killed him. Could you imagine what would have happened had she not had a weapon at her disposal? It is almost guaranteed that there would have been many more deaths at the hands of this twisted psycho. Look at the Virginia Tech massacre - a supposedly gun-free zone, and the carnage inflicted on there. You would have to be dumb to not reflect on how different things would have turned out had students and teachers been able to carry firearms to defend oneself.
I will agree, people carrying firearms is not the ideal solution for discouraging gun violence. But it is better than nothing. Passing more restrictive gun laws will only cause those who abide by them to be hand-cuffed - it will do nothing to prevent criminals from stealing or smuggling guns, and it certainly will not change the climate in some segments of society, which seem to place a lesser premium on the value of life. In those cases, the key is to provide a positive home environment which is not condusive to the child and young adult being left by themselves and feeling alienated and bored. The key to reducing violent behaviour, in my view, is for children to grow up in loving, stable families, not this single-parent stuff which is so prevalent. Kids from these types of environments are more likely to join similar kids and form gangs and use guns as a show of manhood and intimidation, rather than as a tool for protection, hunting for food, or sport enjoyment. But of course, we don't live in such an environment, and as much as we would like to see it change, societal trends show that this is unlikely to happen. So now you have people on the street who are angry with the world (as is often the case with these mass murder shooters), feel betrayed, feel knocked down and the only way for them to deal with this anger is to grab a gun and start shooting people. The gun is the the problem. Violent behaviour and a violent culture is. As long as that permeates throughout our society, people have a right to not be intimidated by those who obviously want to wreak havoc on their lives - people have a right to live their lives and not be subject to, or have their lives threatened by these increassingly angry, mentally unstable individuals who happen to have access to a firearm with ill intentions.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry - Movie Review
Well, for a while I swore off most Hollywood movies and with good reason. I've seen a plethora of bad ones in the past year (either through rental or purchase). It does seem like the old days with movies that have a good plot, superlative acting and creative humour have fallen by the wayside, now replaced with dull, unimaginative and utterly unfunny jokes and non-memorable catch-phrases.
This past Saturday, my wife was out visiting a friend in another town, so I had my son for the day so I thought I'd take him to a movie (at the theatre). He has only seen two movies in the theatre before - Curious George and Over the Hedge, but based on what I heard about The Bee Movie, it seemed pretty good. To my pleasant surprise, it was. Of course, after the amount of cash I dropped to see it (tix plus food), it made me think twice, but I thought, "well, at least Hollywood is not all crap". So given the fact that we are on vacation today due to my wife's pregnancy appointments, I thought I'd rent a few movies for the family to watch last night. I got my son Ratatoule, which was pretty good, and I got my wife and I the recently released comedy, "I Now Pronounce You as Chuck and Larry". I am generally not a big Adam Sandler fan, but I thought that the premise of the movie was interesting. I didn't think that it was be a pro gay marriage movie, but more of a corny cheeseball flick that was more immature and had some slapstick situational humour. Boy, was I wrong on all counts.
The whole premise of the movie centers around a couple of firefighters, Larry (Kevin James) and Chuck (Adam Sandler). Larry is a widower who is raising a young son and daughter, and is, by all means, a family man. Chuck is a philandering man-whore who will be happy to get booty any way he can. As a result of Larry saving Chuck's life, Chuck indicates that he owes Larry. Larry decides that Chuck can repay this debt by "marrying" him through a same-sex partnership, since that would entitle Chuck to get Larry's pension in order to take care of his kids, should Larry die. Then, of course, things spiral in all directions when the scheme starts to take all sorts of unexpected twists. Without revealing much about the plot to spoil it for people who haven't seen the movie, I do have some general observations about the movie.
First, some positive elements. While I don't condone fraud, I do think that the fact that the Larry character wants to take care of his children is an admirable quality. In my view, the ends do not justify the means, but surely we can be sympathetic to a father who wants to take care of his children. Another positive aspect of the movie was the deep friendship seen in the Chuck and Larry characters - the fact that despite squabbles, and irritating each other to death at times, they still maintained a fairly warm, brotherly comaraderie, backing each other up when needed, and being there emotionally for each other when needed.
Despite some positive qualities, I feel that the movie is severely tainted by some negative components. The first of which is its obviously rabidly pro-gay stance, which I suppose should not be surprising, given Hollywood's severe left-wing bent. Not just in the Chuck and Larry characters, but also in Larry's son, who obviously is in need of some testosterone shots, based on some of his past times and activities. Perhaps I was naive, but I was seriously surprised by how much gay lifestyle and gay culture made it into this movie. I expected something slapstick silly, but there was obviously the same old bullshit message about "tolerance for gay, transexual, transgender, asexual", and the other plethora of sexual deviances known to man, as well as the constant barrage of cross-dressing men and such. To have Dan Ackroyd make his little speech at the end about tolerance was baffling, since his character wasn't that well developed to begin with.
Even though I am not one to be easily offended, I took tremendously gross offence at the way Asians were stereotyped in this movie. At the beginning, the Chuck character can be seen gallivanting with a group of scantily-clad Asian girls (reinforcing an unfortunate existing prevalent stereotype). I've never liked Rob Schneider, but the fact that he actually had the gall to put on a ridiculous suit from the 60s/70s (with matching haircut) and then make-up his face so he looks Japanese, and then put on a historically stereotypical broken-English Japanese accent, making the character look severely unintelligent - well, I can say that I will be boycotting anything to do with this asswipe in the near future. Of course, if he had done this and painted his face black and put on an ebonics accent, the film would have never seen the light of day and he probably would be fearing for his life right now. But it disturbs me greatly to see that Asians seem to be fair fodder for racist propaganda in these movies. Thankfully, I have heard that the movie has more than its fair share of critics other than me.
Combine all this with the fact that the movie constantly pokes fun at the weight of Larry - I'm surprised that Kevin James accepted the script - it shows that this movie, while trying to get laughs, will stoop to the lowest of the low to obtain them. Don't get me wrong - there is nothing wrong with humour, and even humour that may not be necessarily in the best taste - but it should not be at the expense of those who have historically been targets of such bigotry. To see Sandler and Schneider, both of whom have Jewish blood (and Schneider has a bit of Filipino blood) mock people racially - well, it's clear that both aren't well read in history. I once read Schneider commenting on how he would never work with Mel Gibson after Gibson's anti-semitic remarks. What a freaking hypocrite.
This perhaps should not be of much surprise to me, but I was a little shocked to see the overt sexuality in the movie, including the scene where the Chuck character is visibly fondling the breasts of the Jessica Biel character. My wife and I thought that was really dumb, not funny, and was there just to put some shock value into the movie
This movie had lots of potential - but as often is the case in Hollywood movies, I should not get my hopes up.
This past Saturday, my wife was out visiting a friend in another town, so I had my son for the day so I thought I'd take him to a movie (at the theatre). He has only seen two movies in the theatre before - Curious George and Over the Hedge, but based on what I heard about The Bee Movie, it seemed pretty good. To my pleasant surprise, it was. Of course, after the amount of cash I dropped to see it (tix plus food), it made me think twice, but I thought, "well, at least Hollywood is not all crap". So given the fact that we are on vacation today due to my wife's pregnancy appointments, I thought I'd rent a few movies for the family to watch last night. I got my son Ratatoule, which was pretty good, and I got my wife and I the recently released comedy, "I Now Pronounce You as Chuck and Larry". I am generally not a big Adam Sandler fan, but I thought that the premise of the movie was interesting. I didn't think that it was be a pro gay marriage movie, but more of a corny cheeseball flick that was more immature and had some slapstick situational humour. Boy, was I wrong on all counts.
The whole premise of the movie centers around a couple of firefighters, Larry (Kevin James) and Chuck (Adam Sandler). Larry is a widower who is raising a young son and daughter, and is, by all means, a family man. Chuck is a philandering man-whore who will be happy to get booty any way he can. As a result of Larry saving Chuck's life, Chuck indicates that he owes Larry. Larry decides that Chuck can repay this debt by "marrying" him through a same-sex partnership, since that would entitle Chuck to get Larry's pension in order to take care of his kids, should Larry die. Then, of course, things spiral in all directions when the scheme starts to take all sorts of unexpected twists. Without revealing much about the plot to spoil it for people who haven't seen the movie, I do have some general observations about the movie.
First, some positive elements. While I don't condone fraud, I do think that the fact that the Larry character wants to take care of his children is an admirable quality. In my view, the ends do not justify the means, but surely we can be sympathetic to a father who wants to take care of his children. Another positive aspect of the movie was the deep friendship seen in the Chuck and Larry characters - the fact that despite squabbles, and irritating each other to death at times, they still maintained a fairly warm, brotherly comaraderie, backing each other up when needed, and being there emotionally for each other when needed.
Despite some positive qualities, I feel that the movie is severely tainted by some negative components. The first of which is its obviously rabidly pro-gay stance, which I suppose should not be surprising, given Hollywood's severe left-wing bent. Not just in the Chuck and Larry characters, but also in Larry's son, who obviously is in need of some testosterone shots, based on some of his past times and activities. Perhaps I was naive, but I was seriously surprised by how much gay lifestyle and gay culture made it into this movie. I expected something slapstick silly, but there was obviously the same old bullshit message about "tolerance for gay, transexual, transgender, asexual", and the other plethora of sexual deviances known to man, as well as the constant barrage of cross-dressing men and such. To have Dan Ackroyd make his little speech at the end about tolerance was baffling, since his character wasn't that well developed to begin with.
Even though I am not one to be easily offended, I took tremendously gross offence at the way Asians were stereotyped in this movie. At the beginning, the Chuck character can be seen gallivanting with a group of scantily-clad Asian girls (reinforcing an unfortunate existing prevalent stereotype). I've never liked Rob Schneider, but the fact that he actually had the gall to put on a ridiculous suit from the 60s/70s (with matching haircut) and then make-up his face so he looks Japanese, and then put on a historically stereotypical broken-English Japanese accent, making the character look severely unintelligent - well, I can say that I will be boycotting anything to do with this asswipe in the near future. Of course, if he had done this and painted his face black and put on an ebonics accent, the film would have never seen the light of day and he probably would be fearing for his life right now. But it disturbs me greatly to see that Asians seem to be fair fodder for racist propaganda in these movies. Thankfully, I have heard that the movie has more than its fair share of critics other than me.
Combine all this with the fact that the movie constantly pokes fun at the weight of Larry - I'm surprised that Kevin James accepted the script - it shows that this movie, while trying to get laughs, will stoop to the lowest of the low to obtain them. Don't get me wrong - there is nothing wrong with humour, and even humour that may not be necessarily in the best taste - but it should not be at the expense of those who have historically been targets of such bigotry. To see Sandler and Schneider, both of whom have Jewish blood (and Schneider has a bit of Filipino blood) mock people racially - well, it's clear that both aren't well read in history. I once read Schneider commenting on how he would never work with Mel Gibson after Gibson's anti-semitic remarks. What a freaking hypocrite.
This perhaps should not be of much surprise to me, but I was a little shocked to see the overt sexuality in the movie, including the scene where the Chuck character is visibly fondling the breasts of the Jessica Biel character. My wife and I thought that was really dumb, not funny, and was there just to put some shock value into the movie
This movie had lots of potential - but as often is the case in Hollywood movies, I should not get my hopes up.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Walther CP Sport Air Pistol Review
In the spirit of providing (hopefully) decent air gun / pistol / rifle reviews for your consideration so you can make an informed choice, I am providing the latest review on a popular air pistol, which is one of those "love 'em or hate 'em" models: the Walther CP Sport.
This CO2 pistol is modeled after the CP99, but a more compact version that is more "plasticky" in feel. Walther, of course, is famous world-wide for their real-life pistols, most notably James Bond's PPK. The replica air gun models are licensed and manufactured by Walther (and distributed by Umarex in North America - I believe Umarex is somehow affiliated with Crosman).
The CP Sport is a double-action .177 repeater, that is fairly light to handle and comes with an 8-shot rotary clip. Now, I believe the velocity is around 430FPS or something in that range, but one thing for sure - this is meant for close-range target shooting. There are accessory rails on the gun if you want to mount a laser sight, but it looks really, really dumb, since it's under the barrel rather than at the top.
Several people have suggested this pistol as something worth trying out, considering my disappointment with the Crosman T4 (see my other review). For one, the big selling point is accuracy, which make sense, considering the fact that the CP Sport has a rifled steel barrel built in. I can attest that with the open sights, the CP Sport is fairly accurate for close-range shooting - it is by no means a match gun, but it's decent enough - far better than your standard pellet gun. It's also slightly smaller than the T4, so it's easy to handle. Its loading port is much more user friendly and the rotary clip drops in place and stays in place unlike the T4. However, that's about all the benefits that I have experienced with the CP Sport and I'd have to say that it's a tad overhyped.
The downsides to the CP Sport are few, but the few are significant. One is the fact that the safety is not easy to operate (for me anyway). It's a two-stage slide safety on the right hand side of the gun. You basically have to press in a little button and then in the same motion slide the safety switch backward (to take it off SAFE). To put it on SAFE, it's just s simple slide forward. Perhaps I'm not doing it right, but these kinds of things should not be rocket science. Here's where I like the Crosman T4 and 2240's cross-bolt safety (though the cross-bolt safety has its own inherent problems, not the least of which is causing a false sense of security in the shooter in that he/she assumes which side is the SAFE and which side is the FIRE position. With the CP Sport, you'll always know it's more difficult to put it on FIRE than it is to put it on SAFE.
The second thing I do not like about the CP Sport is the heavy trigger. Some people have advised me of this, but I always though - you just get used to it. Not so. Unless you have finger and hand muscles that rival those of WWF (sorry, it's WWE now) wrestlers, you will likely struggle with the trigger - and that does affect your accuracy to a degree since you are straining to pull the trigger and even the little shakes of your hand will cause your shot to miss its target. I heard that this can be modified, but I'm not yet a airgun gunsmith, so I won't even bother trying. Besides, my wife will kill me if I have air gun parts lying all over the kitchen table.
Finally, the last thing I find not so endearing on this pistol is now the 12g CO2 cartridge is loaded. As with most air pistols of this variety, the cartridge is behind/inside the grips of the gun. That is not a problem. The CP Sport's CO2 compartment release switch is near the trigger guard and easy to use. However, when the CO2 compartment is released, there are several steps that you will need to do. First is turning the boot of the compartment more than 180 degrees (one side to open, one side to close/lock). I thought that that was unnecessary until I realized that turning it back to the locking position pierces the CO2 canister. However, that is not possible until you turn this brass notched wheel to tighten the CO2 canister before moving the boot lock. Honestly, with so many steps, it is a bit obtuse and takes the fun away from a quick CO2 load (with the T4, it's a quick two step insert and snap the cartridge in place, which pierces the canister). Now, this is just the insertion of the CO2 cartridge part to which I am referring. If you happen to not spend all of the gas and wish to release it (good idea since it won't wear), you eject the compartment and then slowly turn the boot to let out the gas. When I mean slowly, I mean slowly - like turtle-slow. What I thought was slow ended up having the leftover gas spray all over my hand and shirt, and that is not pleasant as the CO2 is very cold and you can theoretically develop frostbite if you expose your skin to too much of it.
One last thing - I am all for warning text and labels, but there is so much writing on this gun, it looks like a billboard from an NHL hockey rink or a NASCAR driver's outfit. But this may be by design, since it's a pretty decent replica of a Walther product, so the text is probably there to ensure no one mistakes it as a real pistol (and of course, you should never try to paint over this text to make the gun look more "authentic").
There is a front and rear sight (one of them is adjustable, I believe it's the rear), and both are a white-dot colour - really easy to see. The gun also gets decent life on your CO2 canisters - you may get around 50-60 shots, which is pretty decent, in my view. Also, the loading port latch is very easy to use and is sturdy (unlike the T4's flat-against-the slide one).
Overall, the CP Sport is a decent air pistol. It's not the best out there, but it's hardly the worst. If you don't mind a little bit more work with the trigger pull, and some of the other idiosyncrasies with this gun, it's worth your consideration. It does seem solid and well built.
This CO2 pistol is modeled after the CP99, but a more compact version that is more "plasticky" in feel. Walther, of course, is famous world-wide for their real-life pistols, most notably James Bond's PPK. The replica air gun models are licensed and manufactured by Walther (and distributed by Umarex in North America - I believe Umarex is somehow affiliated with Crosman).
The CP Sport is a double-action .177 repeater, that is fairly light to handle and comes with an 8-shot rotary clip. Now, I believe the velocity is around 430FPS or something in that range, but one thing for sure - this is meant for close-range target shooting. There are accessory rails on the gun if you want to mount a laser sight, but it looks really, really dumb, since it's under the barrel rather than at the top.
Several people have suggested this pistol as something worth trying out, considering my disappointment with the Crosman T4 (see my other review). For one, the big selling point is accuracy, which make sense, considering the fact that the CP Sport has a rifled steel barrel built in. I can attest that with the open sights, the CP Sport is fairly accurate for close-range shooting - it is by no means a match gun, but it's decent enough - far better than your standard pellet gun. It's also slightly smaller than the T4, so it's easy to handle. Its loading port is much more user friendly and the rotary clip drops in place and stays in place unlike the T4. However, that's about all the benefits that I have experienced with the CP Sport and I'd have to say that it's a tad overhyped.
The downsides to the CP Sport are few, but the few are significant. One is the fact that the safety is not easy to operate (for me anyway). It's a two-stage slide safety on the right hand side of the gun. You basically have to press in a little button and then in the same motion slide the safety switch backward (to take it off SAFE). To put it on SAFE, it's just s simple slide forward. Perhaps I'm not doing it right, but these kinds of things should not be rocket science. Here's where I like the Crosman T4 and 2240's cross-bolt safety (though the cross-bolt safety has its own inherent problems, not the least of which is causing a false sense of security in the shooter in that he/she assumes which side is the SAFE and which side is the FIRE position. With the CP Sport, you'll always know it's more difficult to put it on FIRE than it is to put it on SAFE.
The second thing I do not like about the CP Sport is the heavy trigger. Some people have advised me of this, but I always though - you just get used to it. Not so. Unless you have finger and hand muscles that rival those of WWF (sorry, it's WWE now) wrestlers, you will likely struggle with the trigger - and that does affect your accuracy to a degree since you are straining to pull the trigger and even the little shakes of your hand will cause your shot to miss its target. I heard that this can be modified, but I'm not yet a airgun gunsmith, so I won't even bother trying. Besides, my wife will kill me if I have air gun parts lying all over the kitchen table.
Finally, the last thing I find not so endearing on this pistol is now the 12g CO2 cartridge is loaded. As with most air pistols of this variety, the cartridge is behind/inside the grips of the gun. That is not a problem. The CP Sport's CO2 compartment release switch is near the trigger guard and easy to use. However, when the CO2 compartment is released, there are several steps that you will need to do. First is turning the boot of the compartment more than 180 degrees (one side to open, one side to close/lock). I thought that that was unnecessary until I realized that turning it back to the locking position pierces the CO2 canister. However, that is not possible until you turn this brass notched wheel to tighten the CO2 canister before moving the boot lock. Honestly, with so many steps, it is a bit obtuse and takes the fun away from a quick CO2 load (with the T4, it's a quick two step insert and snap the cartridge in place, which pierces the canister). Now, this is just the insertion of the CO2 cartridge part to which I am referring. If you happen to not spend all of the gas and wish to release it (good idea since it won't wear), you eject the compartment and then slowly turn the boot to let out the gas. When I mean slowly, I mean slowly - like turtle-slow. What I thought was slow ended up having the leftover gas spray all over my hand and shirt, and that is not pleasant as the CO2 is very cold and you can theoretically develop frostbite if you expose your skin to too much of it.
One last thing - I am all for warning text and labels, but there is so much writing on this gun, it looks like a billboard from an NHL hockey rink or a NASCAR driver's outfit. But this may be by design, since it's a pretty decent replica of a Walther product, so the text is probably there to ensure no one mistakes it as a real pistol (and of course, you should never try to paint over this text to make the gun look more "authentic").
There is a front and rear sight (one of them is adjustable, I believe it's the rear), and both are a white-dot colour - really easy to see. The gun also gets decent life on your CO2 canisters - you may get around 50-60 shots, which is pretty decent, in my view. Also, the loading port latch is very easy to use and is sturdy (unlike the T4's flat-against-the slide one).
Overall, the CP Sport is a decent air pistol. It's not the best out there, but it's hardly the worst. If you don't mind a little bit more work with the trigger pull, and some of the other idiosyncrasies with this gun, it's worth your consideration. It does seem solid and well built.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Beretta CX-4 Storm Semi-Automatic .177 Carbine Review
For those airgun enthusiasts who are looking for the ultimate tactical unit, I'd encourage you to check out the Beretta CX-4 Storm. This gun is not very easy to get - you won't find it at your local sporting store per se, since one of the well-known airgun collectors in Toronto told me recently when I visited his shop, that if there is one gun that is an exact replica of the "real thing", but uses gas-powered powerplants, it is the CX-4. Most stores don't want to carry it, just in case some psycho decides to buy it and then hold up a bank with it (or worse). Until recently, I only saw photos of the unit, and when comparing it to the actual CX-4 in photos, you will be hard-pressed to see the difference. Even in real life, it looks pretty authentic (some airguns look absolutely cheesy, but not this one).
Now, some quick comments on it. If you're looking for power, this is not the gun for you. On a typical shooting chrony (I have an F1 model), the Canadian model will get around 350-380 FPS on it (despite what the box says), well under the Canadian legal limit of 500 FPS. Apparently the U.S. version will go up to 600, but in all honestly, CO2 semi-autos as a general rule cannot fire the projectiles at a consistent rate with rapid pulls of the trigger - the colder the environment (and with each firing the CO2 canister gets considerably colder) - the slower the pellet travels. It uses .177 caliber pellets so we're talking not a whole lot of power here. All that being said, the big selling point to this carbine is the fact that it uses a 30-shot rotating belt-style magazine, which is very uncommon for airguns. As mentioned, it is a semi-automatic, that is powered by an 88gram CO2 canister. Some people have written that this airgun is good for target practice (I say yes) as well as personal defence (I would vehemently say no - most airguns are very poor self-defence choices, due to lack of power - the ones you get that are over 500FPS are usually rifles, and even then you are looking at mostly .177 caliber, which is fine for hunting birds and squirrels and such, but hardly has the stopping power for the two-legged variety of varmints.
You can get some mountable options such as scopes and laser sights for this. Even with open sights, the adjustment is interesting - the front sight adjusts for elevation, while the rear sight adjusts for windage. The carbine is fairly light at around 5 lbs., and its length is around 30 inches (maybe slightly more). Of course, the thing is black as night.
If you are looking for this airgun, you can get it through airgun-specific shops like D&L Airguns out of B.C., or you can find some local private dealers that can buy them directly from the manufacturer (if you live in the Toronto area and don't know any, just email me and let me know). At a little under $300.00 for these things, they aren't cheap, but if you're wanting the tactical look and don't care about the power loss, I'd say that it's a pretty good deal.
Now, some quick comments on it. If you're looking for power, this is not the gun for you. On a typical shooting chrony (I have an F1 model), the Canadian model will get around 350-380 FPS on it (despite what the box says), well under the Canadian legal limit of 500 FPS. Apparently the U.S. version will go up to 600, but in all honestly, CO2 semi-autos as a general rule cannot fire the projectiles at a consistent rate with rapid pulls of the trigger - the colder the environment (and with each firing the CO2 canister gets considerably colder) - the slower the pellet travels. It uses .177 caliber pellets so we're talking not a whole lot of power here. All that being said, the big selling point to this carbine is the fact that it uses a 30-shot rotating belt-style magazine, which is very uncommon for airguns. As mentioned, it is a semi-automatic, that is powered by an 88gram CO2 canister. Some people have written that this airgun is good for target practice (I say yes) as well as personal defence (I would vehemently say no - most airguns are very poor self-defence choices, due to lack of power - the ones you get that are over 500FPS are usually rifles, and even then you are looking at mostly .177 caliber, which is fine for hunting birds and squirrels and such, but hardly has the stopping power for the two-legged variety of varmints.
You can get some mountable options such as scopes and laser sights for this. Even with open sights, the adjustment is interesting - the front sight adjusts for elevation, while the rear sight adjusts for windage. The carbine is fairly light at around 5 lbs., and its length is around 30 inches (maybe slightly more). Of course, the thing is black as night.
If you are looking for this airgun, you can get it through airgun-specific shops like D&L Airguns out of B.C., or you can find some local private dealers that can buy them directly from the manufacturer (if you live in the Toronto area and don't know any, just email me and let me know). At a little under $300.00 for these things, they aren't cheap, but if you're wanting the tactical look and don't care about the power loss, I'd say that it's a pretty good deal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)