History's Greatest Chess Match

Yesterday, the G-8 Summit of Industrialized Nations released a statement imploring both Israel and its enemies to cease their operations and stop the escalating violence that is currently taking place in what has long been the most volatile region in the Middle East. Justifiably, the world- even Canada now, after Stephen Harper finally came to his senses- reacted in horror as news of rocket blasts hitting civilian targets, killing scores of innocent citizens caught in the shrapnel of Israel’s campaign to see the return of three kidnapped soldiers, the best known of whom is Corporal Gilad Shalit, the soldier kidnapped in Gaza that started the entire campaign.

Now, if Shalit or any of his compatriots are alive it would be a miracle, because the militants that captured them are as extremist as Israel is and wouldn’t give one whit about exercising restraint against an enemy that seeks to destroy them as much as they wish to destroy it. Keeping Shalit alive under these circumstances would become moot, because these militants wanted war and, as far as they’re concerned Israel has already gone too far in their campaign and there’s no turning back. The Israelis would have gone to war if Shalit was dead and they’re already at war with the Gazans as we speak, so there’s nothing Gaza can gain by turning him over. An eye for an eye as Hammurabi would say, and, sadly, in this situation there is no alternative.

Of course, what is missing through this whole ordeal- one that threatens to tear Lebanon apart- is perspective. It’s easy for us in Canada, the United States, Oceania and Europe to say that Israel should be exercising restraint, and while it may serve both Israel and its adversaries better if cooler heads did prevail, the way the Middle East is right now things are sadly going to get worse before they get any better. Where peace deals and treaties of friendship allow the West to operate in harmony with each other, Israel is faced with extremely hostile neighbours and only has a peace deal with two nations in the Middle East in the Western-oriented Jordan and Egypt, the latter one whose deal cost then-Egyptian President Anwar Sadat his life. Whereas we can say here that friends surround us, Israel is surrounded by enemies, so it’s no surprise that at the littlest of provocation it strikes with the mightiest of fury.

Where the problems in the Middle East began is hard to say. “Islamophobia” in the West can date back to at least 732, when Charles Martel, the “mayor” of the Franks- forerunners to today’s France- defeated an invading Arabic force at Poitiers, just east of Tours. Then, Martel was hailed as the saviour of Europe for stopping the incursion of the Arabs deep into the heart of Europe after the Arabs had already taken Spain, North Africa, Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia (Iraq), Persia (Iran/Afghanistan) and the Sind (southern Pakistan) in what was the world’s most impressive wave of conquests since the peak of the Roman Empire. History since that time period has seen the Christians of Europe face off against the Arabs in several set piece battles and struggles for territory and influence in what has become history’s longest chess match. The Europeans would respond to Martel’s victory by staging the successful “Reconquista” in Spain and the Crusades in the 11th-13th centuries, but the Muslims would strike back with the “Gunpowder Empires” in the 14th-18th centuries, with the Mughals reigning in northern India, the Safavids in Persia and the Ottomans- the most successful of the bunch- in Turkey.

It was the Ottomans who placed themselves squarely against the Europeans at this stage, for it was they who took the legendary Christian bulwark- Constantinople- away from Christendom and extended their Empire as far north as Hungary in the Balkans, as far east as Azerbaijan and Iraq, as far south as Yemen and Sudan and as far west as Morocco. Western histories typically display the Ottomans as finally ending the Roman State but the Ottomans believed they were continuing it, and their case isn’t that flimsy, since they didn’t have a state until they took land from the Romans’ successors, the Byzantines. Nevertheless, the Ottomans’ successes inspired new fears in the West of the “growing influence of Islam” and ushered a new counter-offensive, ending in World War I when the British and French divided what they hadn’t yet taken from the Ottomans previously between them. In regards to this story, Britain would land in Israel and start the “Zionist” policy there as early as 1917, with Israel eventually gaining independence as a Jewish state in 1948. The U.S. took the lead from Britain in supporting Israel unequivocally, which would land it- and thus the West- into the middle of the Arab-Israeli conflict, a conflict the Americans have not backed down from with regards to their aggressive policies in Iraq. For their part, since independence in 1948, Israel has had an ongoing struggle for recognition in the Middle East, with only two states since then- the aforementioned Jordan and Egypt- doing so, and both rather reluctantly. Israel’s greatest triumph in their own struggle was the Six-Day War of 1967 (where it handily defeated Syria, Jordan and Egypt and doubled its territory), but at the same time had to face the setback of the stalemate in 1973 and a continuous wave of terrorist strikes that its own military has had a hard time eradicating.

Thus, it’s important to understand the Israeli conflict in this context- it is embroiled in the almost 1300-year chess match between the Muslims and the West, and judging by current events, the end is nowhere near in sight. For Israel, its already fragile existence gets drawn into question at the slightest of setbacks, and while we here may see their actions as extreme, they’re certainly understandable given their history. Probably what keeps Israel alive is rationality- its enemies are so driven ideologically that none of them have bothered trying to physically challenge Israel, believing their sub-par weaponry (and tactics) is enough to win the day because of their resolve, but Israel can’t bank on their advantage holding out forever. What would be beneficial in the long run is for both sides to eventually come to their senses and realize they don’t have anything to gain from continuous warfare, but both sides have far too much pride to let that happen. The truth- the sad truth- is that this situation is going to get far worse before it’ll get better, and that will mean that the stakes will be higher than Shalit and his compatriots alone. It will mean the chess match reaching its conclusion, but with both sides still having most of its pawns left to play, don’t count on the match ending in our lifetime.

-DG

L'Italia: Campione nel Mondo

It seems only fitting that Italy’s fourth World Cup triumph comes as a result of penalty kicks.

L’Auzzurri hadn’t lost a game in regulation at the World Cup since the opening game of the 1994 tournament to Ireland, and, in two of those losses, the Italians lost in a shootout. The most memorable of the shootout losses was in that same 1994 tournament in the United States, as Italy lost a 3-2 shootout decision when Roberto Baggio’s shot sailed over the crossbar to give Brazil their fourth World championship. Of course, not to be outdone was the semi-final loss to France in 1998 and the stunning quarterfinal loss via a golden goal from South Korea’s Ahn Jung-Hwan in the 2002 tournament. It was no surprise that Italians feared a penalty shootout against this very same French team, but it was the Italians who showed superior determination in nailing all five of their penalty kicks while the French missed one, that one via Davide Trezeguet’s shot that caromed off the crossbar and the post and out of play. Trezeguet’s miss was the ultimate payback for Italy, since it was he who gave the French the victory in extra time in the Euro 2000 Final after the Italians held a 1-0 lead until injury time.

This particular final wasn’t the best of games, but for the partying Italians who win for the first time since 1982, they don’t really care. The game got off to a splendid albeit controversial start, as France’s Flourent Malouda was deemed to have been hauled down in the penalty area by Marco Materazzi’s foot, even though Materazzi’s foot didn’t really make contact with him. The legendary Zinedine Zidane- who would figure prominently later in the game for all the wrong reasons- struck the penalty home in the seventh minute to give France an improbable 1-0 lead and hand Italy their first deficit of the tournament.

However, if France hoped that Italy would collapse like the Brazilians did, they were mistaken. Twelve minutes later Materazzi would make up for his mistake by heading home the equalizer off an Andrea Pirlo free kick. The game was 1-1 before the 20-minute mark, a surprise for many who believed this game would be another 0-0 affair. Reality would set in for the rest of the game, as neither side really generated a lot of chances as the game ended 1-1 after extra time.

This wasn’t to say that the game was devoid of more special moments. The biggest of these moments came late in the second extra time period, when Zidane, for whatever reason, decided to viciously head-butt Materazzi to the ground. Before the incident, Materazzi and Zidane were exchanging words and seemingly laughing, but somewhere in all that Zidane got angry, lost his head and hurled it into Materazzi’s chest. Zidane would be red-carded and probably would have been suspended for several games if this wasn’t his last one, but because the game had barely five minutes left to play, Italy couldn’t capitalize on their new opportunity sending the game to shootouts.

Once the game went to shootouts, it was the Italians who would emerge victorious. Every one of them was poised and confident in taking their shots, with the last goal by new Inter Milan pickup Fabio Grosso- who has made a name for himself at this tournament- to seal the victory. Trezeguet’s miss was the only one in the entire shootout, vindication for an Italian side he beat in 2000.

Perhaps, in many ways Italy’s World Cup victory was a telling sign for this year’s World Cup. The defence-first Italians encapsulated what really was a defensive-minded World Cup, as goals per game were only a shade above the record low for goals per game with a 2.30 average. Worse, the average for the knockout stages was only 1.88 goals per game- after a 2.40 clip during the group stages- with four games decided by penalties and two of those dour 0-0 games- the England/Portugal semi-final and the Switzerland/Ukraine Round of 16 game, the one where the Swiss did not find the back of the net at all. The statistics don’t lie: the knockout stages produced few impressive displays of soccer, a sharp contrast to the electrifying group stages, and while the Germans were excellent hosts, far too many of the games themselves went far below expectations.

There were also many other problems that marred this edition of the World Cup besides there being far too few goals, top of which was incredibly inconsistent and inefficient refereeing. At one end was the “War of Nürnberg”, the famous Portugal-Netherlands Round of 16 match that featured four red cards and 16 cards total, most of which occurring in the second half where both sides decided not to play soccer. At the other end was the Switzerland-Ukraine opening round match-up played after the Portugal-Netherlands game, where obvious fouls were missed, attackers were mugged and, predictably, no goals were scored except in the shootout. Another slight against the tournament was the fact there were far too few surprises in the tournament and, essentially, only one surprise team in Ghana, a team that would eventually be outclassed by Brazil but also done in by the referee’s whistle. There were also far too many question marks that came out of this tournament. Did Australia’s Lucas Neill trip Grosso in the penalty area or did Grosso intentionally run into him just to get tripped? Did Ghana’s Asamoah Gyan really dive in the penalty area or did Brazil’s Juan, who indicated to the referee that it was Gyan’s second yellow card, trip the attacker? Was Adriano really offside in scoring the second goal for Brazil against Ghana or was it a call the referee just missed? Should Luis Figo have been sent off for head-butting the Netherlands’ Mark van Bommel? Was Cristiano Ronaldo really tripped in the penalty area in the Portugal-France semi-final shortly after Zidane scored on his spot kick or was it a dive? Did Ronaldo egg on England’s Wayne Rooney just so he could blow his top and guarantee he be sent off for stomping on Ricardo Carvalho’s groin or did Rooney really lose his cool? Was Brazil’s Ronaldo really overweight to start the tournament, and why did the Brazilians suddenly collapse against the French? Was referee Jorge Larrionda extremely harsh in the U.S.-Italy group stage game or were each of his cards justified? Finally, probably the biggest question of them all: what on Earth was Zidane thinking when he head-butted Materazzi?

In the end, there can be no one who won’t say the best team didn’t win this tournament- the Italians had the superior defence and, ultimately, the superior determination. Their Football Association is in shambles after a match-fixing scandal that will send Juventus down to the third division of Italian professional football in Serie C and may end up sending three other high-profile teams, Milan, Fiorentina and Lazio, down with them. 13 of Italy’s 23 players play for the clubs in trouble and their futures are very much uncertain, even Italian captain Fabio Cannavaro, who said he’d stay with Juventus even in Serie B but nobody is really going to believe him. They deserved to win, and for this Italian-Canadian, L’Azzurri’s victory will be one that will be savoured for the rest of my life. It may only amount to a consolation for a sub-par tournament, but at least it’s a satisfying one.

-DG

New Ideas For The Beautiful Game

Two days ago, FIFA President Sepp Blatter stated that he was worried that there were too few goals being scored at this year’s World Cup. The statistics would prove him right: before Germany’s 3-1 demolition of Portugal in the third place game today, a total of 141 goals had been scored in 62 games at the World Cup, for a clip of 2.27 goals per game. That is a shade above the 1990 record low of 2.21, and, had there been no goals in either the Germany-Portugal third place game or the Italy-France Final yet to be played, the average would have dipped below 2.21 but just barely, to a clip of 2.20.

It did take Blatter a while to reach this conclusion, but in this case, at least it is better late than never. In light of his realization, I have decided to put forward my own ideas for Blatter and the soccer brain trust to consider in helping improve the Beautiful Game and breathe some new life into soccer’s top competition. In no particular order they are:

1. A set of standards for cards and fouls. This is the biggest problem facing the World Cup this year- there appears to be no set standards with regards to what qualifies for a foul or a card, and, expectedly, a lot of players and coaches have been confused as a result of it. So, I suggest the following system of fouls to be put in place: (1) Minor fouls- these are fouls that specifically impede a player from doing his job, such as tripping, clutching and grabbing, holding, pushing and “body-checking”. Four of these kinds of fouls by one player brings an automatic card. (2) Major fouls- these are fouls worthy of receiving an automatic card, such as a two-footed tackle, a tackle from behind, “unnecessary roughness” or a “professional foul”. Should this foul also result in a player’s fourth foul and he has yet to be yellow-carded, he would receive a red card.

2. New Penalties for Diving. Blatter and his associates make a big deal about catching “divers”, and, after seeing Cristiano Ronaldo’s performance earlier today, it’s high time he acted. However, I don’t think FIFA goes far enough simply giving a yellow card for diving- FIFA should also award the opponent a spot kick, either a penalty kick if it’s in the penalty area or a free kick close to the opponent’s goal if it’s not. Yes, it’s an extreme decision, but this is an extreme infraction, plus the point of diving is to draw a penalty or free kick anyway so why not award it to the other team?

3. Have a standard for awarding penalties. This goes along with the diving component, but it does stand alone- far too often in the World Cup, the referees have been afraid to call a penalty kick, probably because they’re afraid that decision will turn the game and public opinion against them. This has resulted in a considerable amount of penalty calls- such as the obvious foul on Ronaldo in Portugal’s semi-final against France- that are just not called. It is thus impertinent that the same types of standards used for fouls outside the penalty area be used inside it as well, because obstruction in the penalty area- which, in this World Cup, has resulted in far too many fouls being called on attacking players- kills far too many scoring opportunities, and the most skilled players in the game should be allowed to strut their stuff without being mugged. Yes, fouls should continue to be called against attacking players should they commit them, but sometimes attackers should be given the benefit of the doubt, as sometimes they push away because they’re being grabbed or pushed themselves. Defenders should only win the ball with their feet and that should be the standard throughout the field, not just in the penalty area.

4. Offside Changes. Here’s a bold new idea: should the ball be inside the penalty area, offside should not be called. The reason is simple: inside the penalty area it’s too small for any “cherry pickers” to gain much of an advantage, plus there isn’t a whole lot of room in there for which to cherry pick. This will result in a lot more goals being scored off deflections and one-on-one goalkeeper battles, and will ensure that the goalkeepers are just as alert as their defenders. Perhaps the rule could be even bolder by having a line stretching the width of the field extending from the top of the penalty area or a few yards above it where, if the ball precedes the attacking players, offside cannot be called. It’s similar to the offside rule in hockey and should help maintain pressure in the attacking zone because the attackers can “hem in” the defence, although this could also lead to crowding. A benefit, though, is that potentially a three-on-none break could occur in front of the opposing goal and create a bona fide scoring chance, forcing the defenders to be extra alert. There are those who might say that scores may become ridiculous because of changes like this and they may be right, but I will say that being one-on-one with a goalkeeper isn’t as easy as it looks and, as it stands now, soccer’s counterattacks are rarely as thrilling as they are in hockey or basketball because they always have to deal with a wall opposing them, and that helps suck a lot of goals out of the game.

There we have it- four bona fide rule changes that would help The Beautiful Game. Yes, some are radical but after watching what should be the world’s most exciting tournament turn into a snooze-fest, it’s within soccer’s best interests to open up the game a little more. The best club teams can produce lots of thrilling, open-ended games- the come-from-behind 2-1 win by Barcelona in the Champions’ League Final with Arsenal is a splendid example- and it is something FIFA can learn from. The World Cup is supposed to feature the world’s best teams, but most of us would agree that this has been far from a world-class tournament.

-DG

Kings Without A Crown

It’s not quite as if Montserrat had beaten them but it’ll do.

Thierry Henry’s 57th minute toe flick is all that separated France from Brazil in an otherwise squalid 1-0 game that saw the French advance to the semifinals of the FIFA World Cup while the defending champions Brazil- who had not lost a World Cup match since losing to the French in the 1998 Final- were sent home early for the first time since 1990. It is, without a doubt the World Cup’s biggest upset and the day’s only bright spot in what was otherwise a turgid display of soccer in the two quarterfinal matches today.

For the French, the role of “giant killers” couldn’t be more rewarding as the team tries to win its second World Cup and thus the second for its legendary midfielder, the Algerian-descended Zinedine Zidane. It’s true “Les Blues” have always been one of the world’s leading soccer powers, but in this tournament the French came in as somewhat of an underdog. They had a lot to prove since the debacle at the 2002 World Cup where they didn’t even score a goal and lost to the likes of Senegal, and, early on in this tournament the French looked like they’d continue their 2002 form, drawing 0-0 with the Swiss and conceding a late equalizer in a game against the Korea Republic. They qualified for the last 16 with two second-half goals against lowly Togo, and- despite rallying from 1-0 down against the favoured Spaniards- France’s 3-1 win could have been chalked up as yet another Spanish collapse. Given no chance against a Brazilian team that many were prepared to simply hand the World Cup to, their victory today is a remarkable accomplishment, being the closest we’ve come to a true David beating Goliath.

For the Brazilians, the loss cannot be described any other way except in being a shock. Nobody expected them to lose, especially not after breezing through their group matches and their Round-of-16 match against Ghana, and many had predicted that the far-from-form Brazilians were just rounding into shape as they progressed in the finals. Yet it just may be that easy first set of games that did them in here, since despite all the talent that the team possesses, they’ve never had to play from behind, so when they were faced with a real challenge against the French, it should come as no surprise that they didn’t know what they were doing.

It was not without effort. Roberto Carlos was a workhorse on the field, furiously running up the flanks and never backing down from a challenge for the ball, while Ronaldinho- misplaced as a forward (he’s more of a playmaker)- was again making crisp, accurate through-balls that were bungled by his teammates, the biggest of which was a botched header from Ronaldo, who looked today like the overweight player he was accused of being before the tournament. However, it became apparent that after Henry got his goal Brazil became antsy, with their passes coming forced and their tackles poorly timed, since the Brazilians were for the first time in eight years playing in unfamiliar territory- from behind. This isn’t to say that the French were not worthy of their win- their midfield was a wall anchored by a Zidane who looked like he was 32 going on 23, and when it mattered most the French capitalized. There were nervous moments when the theatrical Fabien Barthez saved a Brazilian shot in the dying minutes, but in the end it was the Brazilians who didn’t execute and that is why they’re going home.

A parallel here- a not-so outrageous one considering TSN’s Vic Rauter compared the French to the Edmonton Oilers- could be drawn with hockey’s Ottawa Senators, a team like Brazil handpicked by many to cart around hockey’s Stanley Cup championship before the season began. They were, like the Brazilians, true to form in the regular season in finishing second overall in the National Hockey League and in hammering the Tampa Bay Lightning in five games in their best-of-seven first-round playoff series. Meeting the Buffalo Sabres in the second round of the playoffs, Ottawa appeared destined for its first Stanley Cup since re-entering the NHL in 1992, since there was no way the team could have been beaten after playing so well for so long.

However, in Game 1 of their best-of-seven second round series, the Sabres and Senators traded goals in what truly was a classic game. The two teams were tied 4-4 at the end of the second period, and with only a minute and a half left in the third period and thus the game, Ottawa clung to a 6-5 lead off a Bryan Smolinski goal. It was here that it all fell apart. The Sabres were determined to knot the score like they had so often in the game, and, with just 10.7 seconds left, Buffalo’s Tim Connolly did just that. The game went to overtime, and, eighteen seconds in, Ottawa’s Anton Volchenkov fanned on a pass attempt, gave the puck over to Buffalo’s Mike Grier who then found Chris Drury who rifled it home. The stunned Senators lost the game 7-6 and were down 1-0 in the series and were never the same. The mighty Senators were tentative and nervous for the remainder of the series, and, despite a far-from-convincing 2-1 win in Game 4 that kept their season alive, Ottawa limped out of the playoffs losing their series 4-1 to a Buffalo team that just displayed more determination. Like the Brazilians, Ottawa are now faced with the tough questions concerning why they didn’t win when they were certain to do it so early on in their campaign.

The similarities here are nauseatingly close- both Brazil and Ottawa had stellar opening rounds and had impressive first-round victories; and both were knocked out in the second round by a team that simply displayed more determination than they did. Both teams were essentially done in by the fact their second round contests were not the breezes they thought they would be since neither had come under the same kind of adversity their second round opponents entered their match-ups with, as Buffalo had famously dropped two straight games in their opening round series against the Philadelphia Flyers while France stunningly came back from 1-0 down against Spain. Hand Brazil or Ottawa the lead and they keep it, because their talent is enough to send them through. Put them behind the eight-ball and they fall faster than a house of cards. For Ottawa, the next opportunity will come in 2007, but for Brazil they’ll have to wait four long years for a second chance, and it could be with vastly different players. Several key players- Cafu, Ze Roberto, Carlos, goalkeeper Dida, Ronaldo, etc.- are getting long in the tooth and may not be back in 2010. What’s worse is that the prospect of an ageing Brazil could mean that they might not even qualify for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa- which would be a first for the team- since they won’t have a lot of time to allow the new line-up to gel into a World Cup-winning form. In many ways, this 2006 defeat could very well be ominous in marking the end of the Brazilian dynasty and plunging the team into its own veritable “Dark Age”.

For the French, the collapse of Brazilian soccer couldn’t have come at a better time. For the Brazilians, they now have a lot of questions left begging to be answered, the most important of which is trying to prevent that Dark Age from coming. That is their top priority, for if they don’t correct their mistakes, today’s defeat could leave an unsavoury taste for a longer time than many may think.

-DG

A Yellow Card For FIFA

For Ghana, despite the fact they lost 3-0 to Brazil earlier today, their World Cup campaign can be considered a smashing success. Picked to be the incredibly weak sister in a Group E featuring powerhouses Italy and the Czech Republic as well as a not-bad United States side, the Ghanaians surprised everyone with a convincing 2-0 win over the Czechs and an equally impressive 1-1 draw with the United States, and, if it weren’t for an errant pass late in the game by Samuel Kuffour that led to Vicenzo Iaquinta’s goal for Italy, the Ghanaians just might have pulled out a shock draw with Italy, having played that well. They were then thrown into the fire against Brazil here today because of that 2-0 loss to the Italians, and despite an incredible effort not reflected in the scoreline, the Brazilians offensive weapons were too much for the Ghanaians, despite the fact Brazil have yet to fully hit their stride here in the tournament.

Yet, despite Ghana’s impressive play and the Brazilians’ deft display themselves, this was yet another game marred by controversy, with the fingers again being pointed squarely at the referee. To be fair, the referee didn’t do that badly in this game since for the most part it was officiated fairly and correctly, but two key blunders really stick out in this game- Asamoah Gyan’s second yellow card and the offside goal scored by Inter Milan’s Liete Ribeiro Adriano late in the first half- and both helped swing the tide Brazil’s way in this game to send Ghana home early.

Now, don’t get me wrong- I’m not taking anything away from the Brazilians, who were the superior team today despite some obvious help from the referee. However, the way the game played, had either of those two decisions been reversed the game would have been dramatically different.

First off, Adriano’s goal gave Brazil a 2-0 lead into the half, a lead that would later prove too monumental to climb for a Ghanaian team short on raw talent. The goal came mere minutes after Ghana defender John Mensah’s header was dramatically saved by Brazilian goalkeeper Dida, and while the Ghanaian defence could be accused of trying to play the offside trap too much instead of actually defending, Adriano’s goal was still an offside call that should have nullified the goal. In this case, it could be argued that the referee’s assistant simply didn’t see it, since he was just barely offside and the play moved rather quickly, but in a game like this, you would expect a referee’s assistant to be able to pick up on this, especially after several other “near-offside” calls have been called previously. These are not lower-level officials who may or may not have the training required to call a World Cup match- these are (presumably) the best officials in the game today and while Sepp Blatter can say all he wants that they’re humans, these guys are expected to make calls like this one and they didn’t.

Still, the blunder on Adriano wasn’t nearly as big as the blunder on Gyan, the player who struck that shocking early goal against the Czechs. In the 80th minute, with the Ghanaians pressing, Gyan dashed into the penalty area only to be tripped by Brazilian defender Juan Silveira dos Santos (“Juan”). Juan had already picked up a yellow card before in the match and, after the referee blew his whistle and reached for a card, I expected Juan to receive his second yellow card and be sent off. Instead, it was Gyan who was booked, his second yellow card that sent him off and any further chance for Ghana to strike for two quick goals to bring the match level again. Gyan’s offence was “simulation”, a dive to draw a penalty, in a call the Federation Internationale de Football Associations (FIFA) specially asked its referees to crack down upon, a directive that has substantially reduced the amount of spot kicks here in the tournament. So, instead of a Ghana penalty kick that could have brought the game to 2-1 with ten minutes to play, it was a Ghana team reduced by a man and forced to play against the superior Brazilians who, four minutes later, made no mistake in stringing together 25 passes to set Zé Roberto’s first goal of the tournament to give Brazil an insurmountable 3-0 lead with six minutes to go.

Could the game have gone differently if these two blunders were changed? Probably not- Brazil still had more raw talent than the Ghanaians and played superior soccer, with Dida making marvellous saves and the defence holding Ghana to only seven shots on target despite 18 total shots. Still, a legitimate complaint could be made that Ghana were done in by terrible officiating in a game that just adds to a standard-less officiating performance here at this edition’s World Cup.

That, in a nutshell is what has been wrong here at the World Cup- there are no standards, and, expectedly, a lot of calls are missed and a lot of dubious decisions are made. Nowhere clearer is the standard-less officiating made prevalent than in last night’s dreadful Switzerland-Ukraine second round contest, as it featured several trips and shoves that went unpunished by the complacent Mexican referee, who in previous contests would have certainly called or even booked those offences. It was exactly the type of game FIFA shouldn’t want on its top level of competition, but considering that Blatter gave a yellow card in effigy to Valentin Ivanov, the referee who called the Portugal-Netherlands War at Nürnberg, it shouldn’t be surprising that the Mexican official didn’t even feel like showing any cards lest he get one himself. In doing so, he not only embarrassed himself and the viewers of the game itself, but he also embarrassed FIFA in producing a dour game in a tournament where the level of play has been to this point excellent. Now it’s the Black Stars who are going home, and while they went down with a fight, they also went down because the official here today was intent on calling the game by FIFA’s Rulebook for the Day, a rulebook that decried that a referee can be lenient on offside but adamant on not giving away penalties, however obvious they may be. This, let us not forget, was the Rulebook that just yesterday gave Italy’s Fabio Grosso a penalty, despite the fact that Grosso may or may not have embellished Australian Lucas Neill’s trip in order to draw the winning penalty.

So a yellow card shall henceforth be shown to FIFA for showing a complete lack of direction in any of its calls, and, with three rounds left to play, it had better smarten up before more countries, players and fans protest in disgust, shut off their television sets and give FIFA their ultimate red card.

-DG

The Greatest Game Ever Played- Round 2

Buffalo 7, Ottawa 6 (OT)

I wish I had set a tape.

Buffalo Sabres captain Chris Drury scored from Mike Grier at the 18-second mark of overtime to lift the Sabres to an unpredictable, wild 7-6 win over the stunned Ottawa Senators. Drury’s goal came on the heels of Tim Connolly’s tying goal with just 11 seconds left, turning topsy-turvy a game that seemed destined to go Ottawa’s way.

Yeah, I probably wouldn’t call this “The Greatest Game Ever Played” if Buffalo didn’t win, but I have my reasons. You see, the last time I declared “The Greatest Game Ever Played”- when Montreal Canadiens defeated the Carolina Hurricanes 6-5 in double overtime- it featured three thrilling comebacks: Carolina from 3-0, Montreal from 4-3, then Carolina from 5-4 then Montreal again scoring the game winner. Here, Buffalo came from behind after every Ottawa goal besides the first one, upon which the Senators came from behind after Grier opened the scoring 35 seconds in. It was the eighth straight game where Buffalo scored first- including their shutout win against Carolina that ended their regular season- but whereas against the Philadelphia Flyers the first goal would stand, it wouldn’t against Ottawa.

They were right. Three minutes in, Ottawa gets goals from Jason Spezza and Brian Smolinski to put Ottawa up 2-1, then, a minute later, Buffalo’s Teppo Numminem scored on the power play to knot the score at 2. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Bob Cole and Harry Neale were commenting about how the game featured four goals in under five minutes, setting up what many predicted as a high-scoring series. Then the defences clamped down and the score remained 2-2 after one.

The second period didn’t feature a fluke opening goal, but it did feature the prettiest, this one from Martin Havlat who deked out Ryan Miller, like he had done against Tampa Bay Lightning goaltender John Grahame in the first round, to put Ottawa up again 3-2. Moments later, while shorthanded, Connolly broke in on a two-on-one break with Jason Pominville, but Connolly elected to shoot it himself banging one in on the near post past a confused Ray Emery who should have had that post covered. At 4:15, though, Dany Heatley restored the Ottawa advantage at 4-3 on the power play with Pominville in the box for hooking, but only after Miller had stopped three Ottawa attempts on the doorstep. At that point, it looked like Ottawa would carry the lead into the second period, but then a streaking Derek Roy potted the tying goal with thirty seconds left in the second. The period ended 4-4, with each team scoring twice in each period.

The third was where the game really went wild. On the opening faceoff, Ottawa won it and sprung along Mike Fisher, who stuffed a rebound past Miller on what was a beautiful rush that caught Buffalo off guard to again give Ottawa a one-goal advantage at 5-4 just sixteen seconds in. Again, Ottawa looked like they would control the play, carrying the lead until Roy converted on a shorthanded two-on-one opportunity with a minute and a half left in the game to knot the game at 5. The Senators- still on the power play, something Cole reminded everyone watching at home on, promptly fired back on a goal on the doorstep from Smolinski, who rifled the puck in after a beautiful set-up from Daniel Alfredsson. Ottawa was up 6-5 now, and, as Smolinski’s confident, defiant celebratory stance suggested, looked as though they had won the game.

The Sabres had other ideas.

With just 10.7 seconds left and their net empty, Buffalo applied tons of pressure on Emery, with several shots before Connolly jammed the puck home during a mad scramble where Emery just had the bouncing puck on the reach of his stick but couldn’t get to it before Connolly got to it. The goal stunned the sellout crowd who were ready to celebrate a 1-0 series lead, sending a wild game into overtime at 6-6. That is when Buffalo took charge and took the game away from Ottawa.

The overtime period started innocently enough. The Sabres won the opening faceoff, dumped the puck in which the Senators defence got to easily. They passed it to Anton Volchenkov- who is probably lucky this was Game 1, not Game 7- who looked like he would pass it up ice for an Ottawa rush. Instead, he fanned on the puck, allowing Grier to pounce on it and feed it to a wide open Drury, who made no mistake on the shot. The result stunned the sellout crowd more than it already was, giving Buffalo an improbable 7-6 victory and a 1-0 series lead.

I couldn’t believe it. How Buffalo had won was unexplainable, since the Sabres were playing catch-up with an Ottawa team that clearly had more talent. The Senators out-shot the Sabres 33-23 and 20-12 after two, and were probably a few bad breaks from the series lead themselves. Still, Buffalo’s resilience paid off, much as how the Edmonton Oilers’ did against the Detroit Red Wings and the Anaheim Mighty Ducks’ did against the Calgary Flames. It went to show that what happened during the regular season- and, more importantly, talent- means nothing if you don’t use it. I’m not taking anything away from Buffalo- they are a very talented team- but Ottawa is over and above them. The Senators showed they were clearly stronger against the Lightning, but they’re now in danger of yet another early exit unless they can match their hearts- and wits- with their talent. Buffalo looked beatable, and pretty much only won because mentally they were better.

Either way, it looks like a fine series. Buffalo and Ottawa were primed to be THE series of the second round and it looks like it will be. After tonight, Buffalo may look like they’ll take it, but they have to remember they still have three games left to win. As for Ottawa, they have to show that they have as much heart as talent- otherwise, it’s another early trip to the golf course.

-DG

The Greatest Game Ever Played

Montreal 6, Carolina 5 (20T)

Wow. What a wild one that one was.

Yesterday, the Montreal Canadiens and Carolina Hurricanes played what was probably the finest hockey game in a while- and the finest I’ve ever seen- in Game 2 of their Eastern Conference Quarterfinal Series. In a game that featured more drama and cliffhangers than a Hollywood blockbuster, the Canadiens overcame a blown three-goal deficit to win 6-5 on Michael Ryder’s double-overtime goal, taking a 2-0 series lead over a Hurricanes team that is quickly unravelling.

“We stuck with the same plan, we kept believing,” Canadiens centre Mike Ribeiro told ESPN. “It was a great game to watch, I’m sure, for everyone.”

He probably couldn’t have said it better. After the Canadiens staked out a 3-0 lead in the first period off some erratic play by Carolina starting goaltender Martin Gerber, the Hurricanes found their “on” switch in the second period. Gerber- who allowed three goals on 13 shots- was pulled from the game in favour of former first-round draft pick Cam Ward, but it was the previously dormant Carolina forwards who put Carolina back in the game. 1:42 into the second with the Hurricanes buzzing around the net of Canadiens goaltender Cristobal Huet, Matt Cullen’s centering pass got a lucky bounce of Huet’s misplaced stick to cut the Montreal lead to 3-1. After that goal, the Hurricanes were virtually unstoppable; continually buzzing along the ice with the Canadiens repeatedly in footraces they had no chance of winning. It comes as no surprise that with the increasing pressure- and a span of 3:05 worth of Montreal penalties- that Carolina’s Rod Brind’amour found the back of the net halfway through the second period to cut the deficit to 3-2. Brind’amour’s goal was similar to Cullen’s goal in that it was on the doorstep, being a redirected centering pass past a helpless Huet, who now looked extremely vulnerable down low. It was a fabulous display of hockey, with the Hurricanes displaying the run-and-gun form that brought them to within a point of the top-ranked Ottawa Senators in the Eastern Conference.

The Hurricanes sustained their form in the third period, scoring 33 seconds in the third period off yet another redirected centering pass, this time off the stick of Ray Whitney. 42 seconds later Brind’amour again found the back of the net with a nifty wraparound that handcuffed Huet that catapulted Carolina to its first lead of the game and of the series. The Hurricanes’ goals- coming only after 1:15 of the third period- both also came on the powerplay, with Montreal’s Alexander Perezhoghin and Francois Bouillion both in the box from two late second-period penalties, causing the CBC’s Don Cherry after the third to criticize the Habs, telling them “they should be ashamed of themselves” for taking the penalties and essentially handing the game to the Hurricanes. While I think the Habs didn’t help their situation here with their penalties, they literally had no answer for the continued Carolina pressure. The Hurricanes just seemed to race up the ice unopposed with the Canadiens continually in a hopeless pursuit, and when the ’Canes were on their game- as they were in the second and early in the third- their passing game was in a deadly synchronicity. This is what allowed them to exploit Huet’s weakness in covering the bottom of the net, because each of those centering passes were dead on to the stick of a hungry Carolina player.

However, time would not be on the Hurricanes’ side. They still had 18:45 of the third to kill, and as the third wore on, it became apparent that the Hurricanes’ footrace wouldn’t hold up for long. The Canadiens- having realized that their penalty trouble gave Carolina the room to operate- realized that with five players on the ice they might be able to set up an impregnable wall that could stop the Carolina rushes before they got dangerous. They played a poise and composure that CBC play-by-play announcer Jim Hughson noted was just like their coach, Bob Gainey, which contrasted with the frantic pace the Hurricanes were by now desperate to keep up. The Canadiens’ poise and patience wore on the Hurricanes, as well as Carolina’s refusal to dump the puck into the Montreal zone, as Carolina’s roaring attack was stopped time and time again at the Montreal blueline like barbarians trying to scale the Great Wall of China. The Canadiens would later turn their defence into offence, springing loose Alexei Kovalev and Richard Zednik who scored 36 seconds apart halfway through the third to hand Montreal back the lead at 5-4. Both goals came off bad angles near the goal line over Ward’s left shoulder, “goal scorer’s goals” as TSN’s Jay Onrait called them. Suddenly, a game in which Carolina looked in control suddenly became a topsy-turvy mess, with a Canadiens team that wasn’t supposed to be winning somehow in the lead.

Of course, just how time was against the Hurricanes, so too was it against the Canadiens. With Peter Laviolette pulling Ward for the extra attacker unusually early at 18:06 of the third, Carolina’s Cory Stillman connected on a one-timer from just inside the left face-off circle to knot the score at 5. Just before Stillman’s goal, the CBC’s Harry Neale commented that Laviolette “had to take a chance to get a chance”, and Laviolette’s gamble paid off. The Hurricanes were re-energized heading to overtime, looking to run-and-gun Montreal into submission.

It very nearly worked. The Hurricanes came out flying to start the overtime period, racking up a 7-1 shot advantage halfway through the period. Their best chance of the period came when Craig Adams almost jammed the puck around Huet’s left pad, but Huet- learning from his mistakes against Brind’amour and Whitney- got his skate on the puck in time, prevent Adams from converting a goal he knew from his reaction afterwards he should have had. However, the Hurricanes stunted their momentum with two penalties before the ten-minute mark of the overtime period, and the one shot Montreal did have was very nearly the one that ended the game. This shot came on the Canadiens’ second power play of the overtime period eight minutes with Michael Ribeiro almost jamming the puck past the skate of Ward, who quickly smothered the puck to prevent a second chance.

If there was a turning point in the hockey game- besides Ryder’s overtime winner and the 3-0 Montreal first period lead- it would have been Carolina’s inability to wrap up the game following Tomas Plekanec’s interference call on Cullen. The Hurricanes’ power play, which had been phenomenal all game, suddenly couldn’t get any shots past Huet, with barely any coming from in close. They spent a good chunk of the power play setting up the shot instead of taking it, with the Hurricanes displaying none of the confidence that allowed them to storm to the lead to start the third. Predictably, the Canadiens killed off the penalty, and with it, any chance of a Carolina victory.

The death knell came in the second overtime period. The Hurricanes, for their part, generated some chances but most were tentative and easily stopped by Huet. The Canadiens- who probably had more energy since they didn’t play at full speed like the Hurricanes did- waited for their chances, and on a rush two minutes into the second overtime period, Saku Koivu, Christopher Higgins and Ryder set up a triangle that arched from behind the net to Ryder that ended the game. The tic-tac-toe passing play was extremely quick and caught me (and probably Ward) off-guard, sending the Hurricanes into a hole and the Canadiens ready to fill it up.

Looking at the game, it was easy to see why the Hurricanes lost. Montreal displayed in Game 1 that it had the horses to run with the Hurricanes’ gunners and the ability to shut them down, and showed in Game 2 that if they needed to run with the Hurricanes they could. They also showed patience and composure, refusing to give up when momentum clearly swung Carolina’s way, playing a smart positional game that allowed them to contain the Hurricanes and ensure that if things did get wild, they wouldn’t get away. The Hurricanes, by contrast, refused to come up with any counter to Montreal’s wall, insisting on ramming into defenders when the Canadiens wouldn’t give an inch. The Hurricanes made it easy for them to be coached against, since all the Canadiens needed to do was set themselves up at the blueline and they would be able to stop the Carolina rushes, since Carolina wouldn’t dump the puck in behind them. They had to rely on power plays to generate chances because that opened up the ice for their attack, and while the Hurricanes were able to hit their groove in spurts, they played without any of the confidence and poise the Canadiens had. They seemed like a racecar driver who always has his foot on the pedal, unable or unwilling to let their foot off even if it means hitting a wall.

This isn’t to say that the Canadiens didn’t win the game deservedly- they did. Many teams would have folded under the pressure of the Hurricanes, but the Canadiens didn’t relent, choosing to wait until the Hurricanes gave them the chance to respond. The result was a splendid victory that puts a stranglehold on the series, which now shifts back to Montreal. The Canadiens played like a Stanley Cup winner, and, dare I say it, they may have just proven themselves capable of taking the silverware home in June, a relief for long-suffering Canadiens fans who have now had to endure their longest drought without the Cup. In the process, they played in one of the NHL’s finest games in a while- if not ever- with the fact that Montreal was in it being a worthy honour for a team as rich in history as the Canadiens. Carolina and Montreal represented the clash of the old (Canadiens) and the new (Hurricanes), with both putting on a show that won’t be repeated for a while. In the process, Montreal showed why they’re the winningest team in NHL history playing with a championship-level poise that left Carolina in the dust. In the meantime, Carolina have shown themselves as mere pretenders, being a team that may look like a winner but, when faced against a real winner, they wilt like a weed, and they only have themselves to blame.

-DG

Hi hi, hi ho, it's off to the playoffs we go! (whistles) Hi ho, hi ho, hi ho hi ho!

Buffalo 3, Toronto 2 (SO)

It’s ugly, but we’ll take it.

The Buffalo Sabres found themselves clinching a playoff berth today after defeating the Toronto Maple Leafs 3-2 in a shootout, snapping a 1-7-1 slide that saw them fall from within a point of catching the Northwest Division-leading Ottawa Senators to their current position, still firmly in fourth and nine points back.

“It was a relief to get that one point and clinch a playoff spot,” Buffalo goaltender Martin Biron told ESPN. “Even though this last stretch was a bad one, the biggest stretch of the year is coming up in three weeks. That's really important.”

The Sabres were the first to get out of the gate, ringing up a 7-2 shot advantage on the Leafs midway through the first and appearing to get two goals by the time the period was half done. Derek Roy scored his 16th goal of the season after redirecting an errant Ales Kotalik shot that had gone off the boards into the net past Toronto goaltender Jean-Sebastein Aubin, but a goal was nullified later in the period after Adam Mair was shoved into Aubin forcing the puck in with him (the referees had ruled they had called the play dead at that point). The missed goal was only one in a series of questionable calls during the game on both sides, from penalties that shouldn’t have been called (Chris Drury’s trip) to ones that should have (Ian White was once tripped with no call, and there was the Darcy Tucker knee-on-knee hit on Jochen Hecht that had Buffalo coach Lindy Ruff infuriated, although the play that started it was haphazard- Mike Grier did hit Tucker first, so it’s not like the Sabres were off the hook).

The first period ended 1-0, as the life the Sabres had was shorn from some erratic and frankly too eager play that Buffalo had been known for all season. Buffalo managed to show a fury of life on the power-play midway through the second- resulting in Maxim Afinogenov’s 20th goal of the season- but let the game start to slip away when Toronto’s John Pohl- a call-up- scored to cut the lead to 2-1. Buffalo’s flopping and flailing ways- continued into the third, where Matt Stajan capitalized on some brutal defensive work to tie the game up at two, giving Toronto a life they shouldn’t have had. The Sabres shouldn’t allow games to be this close when they claim to be a playoff contender, and, if they want to go far in the playoffs, they need find a way to develop the killer instinct. Of course, to their credit, the Leafs were also showing a lack of execution, as they had multiple chances but failed to convert (a common complaint this season about the Maple Leafs). It should also be noted that Biron stood on his head and that will be an asset come playoff time, but Buffalo can’t **only** rely on its goaltender if it wants to succeed.

In overtime, Buffalo outplayed the Leafs but barely, garnering the overtime’s best chance when Daniel Briere stood all alone jamming the puck at the impregnable Aubin. Since overtime solved nothing the teams went to the shootout, where Afinogenov potted the only goal and Biron stood on his head to deny Mats Sundin and Tucker. Alexei Ponikarovsky- not known for his stickhandling- tried to deke out Biron but only met his right pad, with the puck stopped on the goal line (this was reviewed but the decision stood). The result gave Buffalo its first playoff berth since 2001, which is about time.

The game was endemic of both teams’ seasons. Toronto proved time and again it had the talent to be a top-level team but also showed it lacked the execution and the management to get there (there’s no reason why Ponikarovsky- who had never scored in the shootout- should have been picked for the shootout, because he was bound to fail, which he did). Buffalo, meanwhile, was erratic and haphazard, being the kind of team that may not overwhelm anyone but still finds a way to succeed in the end. I’m not yet convinced that my Sabres are Stanley Cup material yet- since they need a game-breaker to stop their over-reliance on goaltending- but, with three weeks to go before the post-season, there’s still time to gel to post-season form. When they do, this’ll be a team that’ll be fun to watch and impossible to stop, as they’ve got enough youthful energy to keep pounding away at teams relentlessly. It’s about time- I’ve been waiting for this moment for far too long.

-DG

Toronto loses another one

Today marked the funeral of Scarborough native Kevin Persaud, run down and killed last Monday near Canmore Park where Persaud was at a friend's house. The Toronto Police believe that Persaud was pursued by his attackers- whose relationship to Persaud, as of yet, is not known- and killed following an altercation that night. An 18-year-old and a 17-year-old, both males, have been charged with the attack.

Now, if this is the first time you've heard of Persaud, you won't be the only one. The story itself appeared with a small photo on the third page of The Toronto Star (date: March 12, 2006), with a much larger picture at the top devoted to the story behind the death of American Tom Fox, a member of the Christian peacekeeping group that was abducted by the Swords of the Righteous Brigade. Persaud's story was much more noticeable than Fox's, but it was still not front-page material, only being known to those who bothered to open the paper past the frontpage.

This contrasts with the treatment of the murder of Jane Creba. You know her- the 15-year-old girl who was gunned down by a stray bullet after a shootout between gangs at Yonge & Dundas Square in downtown Toronto on Boxing Day, 2005. Her story was frontpage news and garnred nationwide attention as proof that Toronto's gun problem- which hit 52 victims in 2005- was at the boiling point and something needed to be done. Days afterward Paul Martin- who at the time was running for re-election- proposed a ban on handguns, and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Toronto Mayor David Miller called for tougher gun and sentencing laws. Her memorial on January 26, 2006, one month afterward, received widespread media attention, with the weepy ceremony making the 6 o'clock news. We saw stills of the happy girl being presented while Creba's favourite song- James Blunt's "You're Beautiful"- played in the background. It was gripping stuff, sure, but at the same time it was sickening.

You see, the first thing that shot to my head when thinking of the differences between the Creba case and the Persaud case is that Creba is a 15-year-old Caucasian girl and Persaud is- I believe- African-Canadian. Yeah, I hate to play the race card too, but it sickens me that Creba's funeral and memorial got the play that it did and that the memorials of the other gun victims that year- almost all of which were visible minorities- got little or no play at all, with their names barely being a footnote in contrast to the well-known Creba. Remember Ali Mohamud Ali and Loyan Mohammed Ahmed? No? Well, they were the two youths killed outside of The Phoenix nightclub last June shortly after it closed. The killings themselves received a lot of play in the paper as people suddenly became frightened over the violence, but the victims' funerals and memorials were bypassed with nary a mention in the press. In fact, McGuinty, Miller and Martin did nothing in the aftermath, with the only person actually doing something was Ontario Conservative Leader John Tory, who visited the homes of the victims to send his condolensces. Several days later, the whole ordeal was forgotten, much like the names of the victims shortly after they were killed.

This is not to marginalize the death of Creba- by all means, what happened to her was tragic. However, it's disgusting to think that the media seemed to only care about Creba and not about Persaud, Ali or Ahmed, all of whom were visible minorities and all of whom received far less press than she did. It's like we seem- almost- to "expect" the minorities to get into trouble, but when it comes to a Caucasian, the alarm bells ring and the community reacts as if we've all lost a family member. Sure, the reaction to Creba's shooting is justified, but Persaud, Ali and Ahmed are just as much "family" as she was. It sickens me to think that in a supposedly liberal and tolerant country like Canada people like Persaud can be marginalized like they are now.

This, however, is just treading water- the problem- gangs- is much bigger and larger than a few random shootings, and what's worse is that nothing as of yet has been done about it except talk. The politicians have talked widely about how they want to get tough on gangs, but the only person with the fortitude to do anything is Curtis Silwa, the head of the "street vigilante" group The Guardian Angels, a volunteer organization that uses laws allowing for citizen's arrests to target and combat street gangs. The Angels are, effectively, an outreach program, and while I don't like the idea of- in effect- a "legal gang" running around the streets of Toronto, it is refreshing to know that someone wants to do something. Of course, lost in all this is the real problem behind the gangs: a culture of marginalization, poverty and no opportunities. Just looking at Toronto's housing costs alone will tell you that: the lowest rents are in the neighbourhood of $700/month for a single person, and combined with food and travel costs, there's not a lot left over if the person works a minimum wage job, which most immigrants have been sadly forced into. Furthermore, just look at Jane & Finch, the high-crime neighbourhood that's close to my University, York University. A walkthrough of the area reveals literally a dump, with shanty apartments, a mall and no community centre of any kind in the vicinity. I take a look at Jane & Finch and think, "no wonder there's a lot of crime here- there's nothing to do and everything about this place says 'poor'. What else are the residents going to do?" All this talk certainly won't make the area look any nicer, nor will it help the decrepit lot many of the residents have.

In the meantime, I'm going to take a moment to dedicate this space to all of Toronto's murder victims, including Kevin Persaud, Jane Creba, Loyan Mohammed Ahmed and Ali Mohamud Ali. You will all be missed, equally.

-DG

Left vs. Right vs. Who Really Cares?

George W. Bush. What hasn’t been written or said about the man? We all pretty much know he’s the President of the United States of America and that he recently won re-election to the White House, without any question regarding his victory. We also know that despite his re-election- by just 3% over the very weak Democratic nominee Senator John Kerry- Bush has managed to polarize not just the US but also of the world.

Now, before you roll your eyes and think “oh no, not another Bush-bashing wannabe who’ll just spout everything that Michael Moore and his cronies did”, this is not another Bush-bashing piece. In fact, there won’t be any Bush-bashing in this segment whatsoever. I wouldn’t have voted for him if I had the chance (being that I’m Canadian, I can’t), but that’s a personal matter. No, what I want to talk about is that polarization, and, despite joining the chorus of worried individuals who see the negative effects of polarization, I hope to maybe shed a new light on the subject. If I don’t, well, at least I’m getting this off my chest.

You see, ever since Bush came to power, the political world has been gripped by fear- to quote the New Californian Republic people, it’s “vote for me or the terrorists will win”, or “vote for me or gay rights will go down the toilet”, or- a line used frequently by Liberal leader Paul Martin in last summer’s Canadian election campaign- “vote for me or society as we know it will go down the toilet”; and, largely it works- fear motivates people, because politicians know that if you’re afraid of “the other guy” you’ll do everything in your power to make sure that they don’t win. That sentiment led Canadians to vote back the Liberals but without a majority, because it’s “anything but those American-loving Conservatives”, and the Americans to turn out in record numbers to vote in the 2004 elections. Bush- the target of many people’s rage- may have won out, but that’s because he at least came off as a leader, unlike the all-talk-no-walk “I have a plan” Kerry, and, perhaps, because his “the terrorists will win” message worked better than Kerry’s “society-as-we-know-it will crumble if he wins” message. Whatever the case, 2004 was wrapped up in such anxious rhetoric that even if none of the candidates’ messages had any teeth, people were still afraid nonetheless.

To be fair, it’s not like fear hasn’t been used before- it’s a useful propaganda tool, with probably the greatest recent example being the “us-versus-them” message used to recruit for the war effort against Germany in World War II. Even when fear isn’t the main instrument, election campaigns still have it in their bag of tricks- “if you vote for him, you will get X more years of unaccountability, which you won’t get from me”, a trick Dalton McGuinty used to near perfection in ousting the Ontario Tories from power in late 2003. However, in today’s day and age, fear becomes the only selling point, with the idea that unless you’re picking a side you can’t accomplish anything at all. Reason has all but left the discussion- it doesn’t matter if something doesn’t make sense, as long as it fits in with the pre-conceived ideologies then it’s okay.

The effects of this have been rather damaging. The right and the left, long the fringes of political thought, have become the mainstream, leaving people such as myself (normally classified as “centrist” but I don’t believe a label really suits my way of thinking) a dying breed. Ideas that could once be mixed- God and fornication, atheism and the death penalty, equal representation and fiscal restraint, etc.- are now once again separated, with many believing that if you believe in one, you can’t believe in the other. No longer do we have such a thing as a “cafeteria Catholic” who may believe firmly in God but also believes in gay marriage, or abortion or pre-marital sex, or the atheist who is an anti-abortionist and fiscally rightist. It’s always “if you believe in God you’re anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and anti-pre-marital sex” (funny how those three things always seem to go in tandem, don’t you think?), or “if you believe in equal rights and abortion, you’ve got to have something against God.” We’ve become so obsessed with categorization that labels become badges of honour or words of intense scorn, with things like “bleeding heart liberal”, “bleeding heart conservative” (or, put it more simply, “liberal” and “conservative”), “Christian”, “Republican”, “Democrat”, “socialist”, “atheist”, and “libertarian” being overused, and to such a point where the people using the terms don’t even understand what they really mean (for starters, whoever said that “liberal” and “conservative” were political ideologies really needs to give their heads a shake- “liberal” just means “open-minded”, and “conservative” means “staying the same”. Nowhere does any of that translate to political beliefs). Never can anyone ever take bits and pieces of an idea or set of ideas and merge them with another- you’re either in “this group” or “that group”, and “if you don’t fight, they’ll change everything you’ve ever known”. True individuality- let alone tolerance and reason- have gone out the window, and it’s truly appalling.

I mean, is it wrong to go to Church yet still believe in pre-marital sex? Or to abstain yet find it incomprehensible to believe in a God? Or to believe in equal opportunity yet saying “we really need to cut taxes right about now”? Or to simply say that “well, we could really use X service, but we can’t afford it, so it has to go”? Where has the truly left-leaning Christian gone, the one who preached tolerance and the belief that if “you too believed in God your life will be better”? Have they all gone to the right or are their voices just muffled under the oppressive boot of the so-called “religious right”? Nothing clearer regarding the polarization of the world comes to my mind than the “Christian versus the world” idea, and it’s the one I know the most about and the one that probably also sickens me the most.

I’ll be honest, it bothers me when I hear- for the lack of a better word- some Christians say things like “homosexuality is a lie” or that “pre-marital sex is wrong” and then use twisted logic- using mostly what debaters call “selective reasoning” and “appeals to authority”- to back up their statements. I could go all day arguing against their sentiments, but this won’t be the place to do it. No, what really bugs me the most is these Christians’ belief that somehow, some way my way of life is completely wrong and that only their view of the world is right. As we’ve all come to know, we’re all unique, and, by extension, so too is our values and our morals. No two people are going to have exactly the same morals, so to fit a “one-size-fits-all” dichotomy is something I find to be completely irresponsible. Live your lives the way you want to, but at least have the decency to let me live mine the way I want to.

However, at the same time, it also bothers me to hear, time and time again, repeated attacks against Christians and Christianity itself, with the mostly ignorant attitude that the religion itself is inherently wrong and that it and its members “all” believe the same things and are out to “convert the world” into a single moral mind frame (usually rightist), when nothing could be further from the truth. It’s true that some Christians “do” have that kind of intolerant attitude, and, believe me I think that’s reprehensible. However, that far from describes ALL Christians, or even Christianity itself. Most Christians I have come across are actually fairly tolerant and believe at their core the same things that many people do anyway- respect, tolerance and equality of all, and are actually quite nice people. In fact, there are those- such as myself- who classify themselves as Christian but don’t necessarily agree with everything the Church tells them, based largely on semantics. In fact, it may surprise a lot of people, but I actually think Christianity is a leftist religion, because at its core it preaches tolerance, respect and equality, which are hallmarks of the left. It is true that, in a modern interpretation (mostly, and I emphasize, created by men), some forms of Christianity (not all) have developed some rightist qualities, like pro-life, but to categorize it as rightist because of a few fringe values I believe is wrong, with the erroneous categorization coming as a result of the Church’s own poor portrayal of their religion (this I realized at World Youth Day 2002 in Toronto, which was all about love and respect and not about something like pro-life). To be a Christian, one simply has to have a faith in Jesus Christ, God, Mary and the Holy Spirit, and to follow the quite logical Golden Rule- “do unto others as you would unto them” (Matthew 7:12). That’s it. One can add other beliefs if they like or follow any other kind of established Christian Codes like Catholicism, but as long as the above basics are covered, then that’s all one needs to be a Christian. Besides, no matter what way you go on any kind of debate, I’m sure that Jesus Himself would preach respect and tolerance, and certainly would not approve of the forceful evangelicalism that many of today’s Christian leaders profess. My main point is that Christianity isn’t about pro-life and pro-abstinence- it’s about love, respect, equality and tolerance. Wouldn’t you agree that’s what we should all be about anyway?

This, of course, is not to say that the so-called “Christian right” is wrong and that only a leftist point of view is the way to go- far from it, actually. While some rightist Christians need to learn to respect others’ way of life, the left itself also needs to learn the same lessons, in particular with one of the biggest issues of today’s time, gay marriage. Now, I’m a supporter of the cause (even though I’m not gay), but I believe the way the left is going about implementing it the rightists has every right to complain. For example, earlier this year, when Canada tabled legislation that would legalize gay marriage, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler’s only reasoning behind the change was “it’s in the Charter, stupid”. To Cotler- exemplifying an attitude that is common on both sides of the political spectrum- anyone who doesn’t see gay marriage as a noble improvement must have something wrong with them. Denying people rights? How could they? Now, I don’t agree with the Christian right’s reasoning on the matter, but Cotler’s attitude is far from the right approach if he wants to convince the right to accept gay marriage. Yet the left- like the right- don’t seem to understand that the most successful of changes are gradual and usually involve compromises on both sides of the argument. Something like gay marriage- which would be a radical change for society to accept- is not something I believe that can be brought in now, at least not in its current form. What way it could be brought in, I don’t know (I think it’s really an argument over the use of the word “marriage”- very few people opposed to the idea also oppose the idea of extending gays and lesbians the same rights that heterosexual couples have- but right now that’s just a gander), but I certainly know that as long as the left adopts this “righteous” attitude about gay marriage they certainly won’t sell it. Much like the Christian right who insist that I change my lifestyle, insisting that they accept gay marriage- or any other leftist initiative that the right opposes- only creates more alienation and brings you no closer to resolving the issue, which is what should be happening anyway.

One last point before I conclude: there once was a time when politicians literally bent over backwards to appease just about everyone they could. A left-leaning politician would, say, tell a college audience that the politician intend on working hard to lower their tuitions, maybe even eliminating them entirely, while telling a Church congregation that is facing bankruptcy that the politician intends on preserving their Church and upholding their right to practice their faith in the nation. Very rarely- if ever- did a politician ever address the so-called “hot-button issues” such as abortion, because if they addressed it they would lose a significant number of votes, and, thus, most were content with simply letting their citizens decide for themselves how they wanted to live their lives. However, ever since George W. Bush, an ardent Christian, came to power in the US, ethics and morals have become the main political issues, making many believe it’s the politicians right to dictate the way that people live. This shift in thinking- away from the matters that really affect the nation, such as the economy- is a slippery slope that could have dire consequences in the future. Of course, the US has always been a little “morally upright” before (it just never became “front and centre” like it is now), but if politicians cannot be seen as representing everybody, then what will become of our democracies?

Perhaps I am a bit of a dreamer in thinking about a day where Christians and atheists could again hold hands together as one, and could at last put aside their differences and work together for this world. However, I don’t believe it is impossible. When September 11th occurred, the whole world stood together in arms, and for a week anyway we put aside our differences to collectively mourn, and decide that something just had to be done about the attacks. I don’t believe that we’ve gone about that the right way, but at least for that week anyway nothing else mattered. It may be sad that we needed a tragedy to realize all our petty problems are just that- petty- but if we are able to do it, why can’t we do it again? Fundamentally we are all the same, and we don’t need to be “a part of a group” to feel needed. Division just leads to tension, with polarization just breeding more polarization. It’s time that we as a society again become tolerant and accepting and quit dividing each other, for as long as believes they have to fight then that will be all they will do. We’re not “liberals” or “Christians” or “socialists” or “conservatives”- we’re humans, and it’s about time we realized that.

-DG