Grant Rants

Sometimes a boxing glove is just a boxing glove

- June 14th, 2013

Greetings web denizens, heathens, zealots and the rest of you!

Sometimes a cigar, as the famous German once said, is just a cigar. But that doesn’t stop some people seeing a pumpkin dressed as Johnny Depp instead.

Confused? Now you know how I felt when I read a recent piece about last year’s charity boxing match between now Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and then Conservative senator Patrick Brazeau in the StarPhoenix newspaer .

By way of background, the pair squared off for an amateur boxing gala event to raise money for a cancer charity. Although neither is what you could call a polished fighter, it was a scrappy, entertaining event in which Brazeau was was stopped in the 3rd round.AG2_7996cr

According to the StarPhenix story, which turns on interpretation of the fight by Kim Anderson, an indigenous studies professor at Wilfrid Laurier University, the fight wasn’t about charity, fighting cancer, or two politicians using their national profile for a good cause. It was about racial subjugation. In this case the white “gentlemen” beating the “savage” first nations man. It was little more, in Anderson’s view, than a reflection of deeply ingrained white Canadian fear and hatred of aboriginal people.

To which I call shenanigans. I have no idea what Anderson’s credentials are, but I am going to assume she is a smart and capable woman. But based on the article, I am also going to assume she knows next to nothing about boxing, less about politicians and has a very narrow view of race relations in Canada.

Anderson starts off her “critique” by telling us that politicians shouldn’t box:

Anderson became interested in last year’s Trudeau-Brazeau charity boxing bout as it became popular in the news. She was intrigued by the consensus that it was a great event for a good cause.

“It just seemed ridiculous to me,” she said.”Since when is this a model for governance? Since when is this a model for what we want to see in leadership?”

Yah, because a charity boxing match to raise money for cancer research is all about governance. The fact is that some politicians have broad appeal and a national profile that is not used nearly enough for good causes. Both men used their names to put butts into seats to watch the match and by doing so, raised money to help those suffering from cancer. Whether someone bought a ticket to see Trudeau get beaten or to see the Tory senator kiss canvas didn’t matter. They bought their tickets to help their fellow citizens. That is a good thing.

If anyone looked at the charity about as a “model for governance” they have completely missed the point. Anderson’s dislike of boxing is evident and, I think, coloured her view of the entire event.

Anderson then goes on to tell us that, although no one was demeaning Brazeau because of his ethnic heritage or holding up Trudeau as a great white hope, the event was dripping with racism, even if no one in the news media expressed a racist thought, or no one in the audience was thinking about race at all:

…there were racial implications nobody was talking about, Anderson said.

“In the mainstream news, you’re not going to see people coming up with their critical race theory. But I was surprised there was none of that.”

The Canadian colonist narrative shows the indigenous person as “uncivilized … just this kind of brute, and that the gentleman defines himself by going to that frontier, taking on the brute, subjugating him,” she said.

That means either civilizing him or coming to blows- as happened in this case.

“He defines his own masculinity and also right to dominate by doing it, because the guy on the other side is this physical presence that also poses a threat to the civilized world,” Anderson said.

Even if people didn’t think to make that literal connection, Anderson sees a problem.

So apparently we thought of Brazeau as a savage brute to be beaten back to protect civilization even if we didn’t think that at all. Way to go Canadians, you racist bunch of back-bacon eating, imperialist jerks.

Anderson has missed the point ENTIRELY. It is very and sadly true to say we still have racism in Canada. We still have not resolved centuries old issues with our First Nations brothers and sisters. As I have written about before, the relationship between the First Nations and the rest of Canada remains a national black eye that we time and again fail to properly and honourably address.

But that doesn’t mean every interaction between white Canadians and native Canadians is defined by our sometimes ugly history. In fact, that race simply was not even a consideration for the boxing charity is a good thing and the absence of racism shows we saw the two fighters as men, not as proxies for racial conflict.AG2_8045cr

In fact, there was a media narrative about the fight, but it had nothing to do with race. Brazeau was the heavy favoured by most Canadian news reporters because they knew less than nothing about boxing and because they though the political allegiance of the fighters would tell us how they would box. So Brazeau was favoured to win because he was a Tory. The Conservative are the tough party, the party of the blue collar workers and friends of the police and military. This meant, according to some dullstone newspaper reports, that the senator would beat the Liberal MP because the Liberals were  portrayed as soft and weak and afraid to fight.

It was all ridiculous. Just as their ethnic heritage had nothing to do with their boxing skills, their politics said nothing about their pugilistic abilities. In fact, anyone who knew even a little about boxing would not have favoured Brazeau to win. The senator had done some martial arts, but hadn’t any ring experience. Trudeau on the other hand had been in many a boxing gym, having been introduced to the sport as a boy by his father. Trudeau knew how to box. Brazeau did not. That was pretty much all you needed to know.

As I had expected, Trudeau handily won, and the media reacted with shock. The wimpy underdog Liberal had beaten the tough Tory!

Anderson either was unaware of all this very public talk about the boxing match, or simply refused to acknowledge it when passing judgement on the fight and the country as a whole.  She failed to see two men trying to do a good thing for their country and that the pre and post fight narrative was not about race but about politics.

We actually need academics in this country to research and point out where we, as a society, can do things better. But evidence matters, facts matter, and imposing a racist overlay on an event that manifestly had nothing to do with race is not just inaccurate it’s irresponsible and divisive.

Sometimes a boxing glove is just a boxing glove.

The Feedback Facepalm: Sex causes tornadoes edition

- June 4th, 2013

Facepalm: verb. to raise one’s hand to one’s face, typically expressing exasperation, frustration, disbelief, horror or general woe in the presence of the burning stupid.

Greetings web denizens, heathens, zealots and the rest of you!

So after my recent  column and follow up commentary here on the Grant Rant Blog, I was lucky enough to receive this email. And by “lucky” I mean lucky in the same way one is lucky to have a root canal done by a blind, drunken dentist with no thumbs. And while I give its author credit for using his full name in the email rather than hiding behind a handle, Donny’s missive is still a fine example of the burning stupid. Here it goes, with my commentary:

Donny: when you tell God f****ts are okay —- you are telling him your word means NOTHING!!! Why sing the national anthem asking God to bless your land when he looks at it in disgust.

As readers of the rant know, I am an atheist. I don’t “tell” a god anything … well, except for Thor when there are frost giants about. I hate those guys. Anyway, if I allow myself to play a tho3bcf4274_n79020_facepalm2028house29ught experiment for a bit, if the average Christian concept of god is true — an all powerful, all benevolent, all loving creature — why would it hate anything? Why would it possess so petty a human emotion? Why would it hate the honest expression of love between two consenting adults, straight or gay? I’ve never understood why some believers insist upon defining their god as someone who love you, and then proceeds to crank out of list of things it hates and will torture you for.

If the god Donny here believes in existed, and fortunately it doesn’t, it would have to be opposed on basic moral grounds for it would be, as Richard Dawkins pointed out, a deeply unpleasant creature: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Donny: Look at all the tornadoes in Oklahoma – all because of a Gay pride parade. God destroyed Sodom & Gomorraha  because he calls homosexuality an abomination………

Ah, yes, the 700 Club, human sexual behavior model of meteorology.  I don’t have a degree in tornadology, but I am pretty sure that they are formed by the interaction of cold and warm air during a supercell thunderstorm in the part of the world that sees this type of weather event more than anywhere else.

Or by Thor. Take your pick.

All kidding aside, this sort of thinking is no different that a belief that throwing a virgin into a volcano will prevent an eruption. Fortunately, we aren’t living in caves anymore, we know for a fact that who we sleep with, or marry, or what food we eat, or crops we grow, or clothes we wear, or what days of the week we work doesn’t impact the weather. At all. To believe otherwise is to live one’s life under the gravest of misapprehensions.

By the way, since we are on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, it is worth pointing out a bit of the story Donny has failed to mention. In it, two angels hit the city of Sodom looking for enough good people to prove to god that it is not beyond saving. But Sodom is kind of like the angry love child of Las Vegas and Mad Max’s Thunderdome. So naturally, the two supernatural tourists are chased down by a rape gang. They find shelter with a dude named Lot, but the gang isn’t about to let that stop them. They really want to a piece of these angels. Lot, being an upstanding and moral guy, offers to give his own teenaged daughters to the rape gang in exchange for leaving the two visitors alone….and Lot is the hero of the story! Seriously.

Donny: Today newspaper people don’t have the guts to report the truth most are cowards —– Canada is a disgusting country in the gutter with a f****t Premier and I am so glad I no longer live there.

You know, I am never one to believe in blind patriotism. It is, as Oscar Wilde said, the “virtue of the vicious.” Nevertheless, Canada remains a fantastic country with a proud history. We have our issues, our mistakes and missteps, but it remains one of the freest, safest, and best places to live on Earth. We should be proud that, for most of us, gay marriage is a non-issue and that our government had the courage to do what was right and make it legal several years ago. We should be proud that we have reached a point where the sexual orientation of our Ontario premier is simply not a relevant issue (except for good ole Donny here) save for the fact that is shows we are increasingly willing to judge people by their character and ideas and not by bigotry of a bronze aged religion.

I think I speak for many of us, Donny, when I say we are quite happy you aren’t living here. But be warned, the world is an increasingly shrinking place. The march of freedom and equality is not so easily stopped and sooner or later, it will catch up with you. So unless you can find yourself a time machine to go back to 18th century (I suspect you’d be happy there) you’d might as well get used to it.

Read the bible Grant – read Lev. and see what your creator said and guess what 10 out of 10 people die and they face God…..and queers do not go to heaven by their own choice. Wake up Pal!!

I almost don’t have the energy to keep going with this. Yes, I have read it. More than once. It’s an awful book with worse writing than than Fifty Shades of Grey. (A book that would have been popular in Las Sodom Thunderdome, no doubt.) It is little more than an artifact of a primitive, fearful and paranoid culture that knew next to nothing about the world they lived in or the greater universe beyond it. They lived in a world where the only explanation for the things that nature does was the actions of an angry god and finding ways to sate that rage was a serious concern.

Fortunately, we’ve moved on since then.

Donny: “Wake up every day like you are broke and hungry and you will never be either.”…

Uh, no. If you wake up like you are broke and hungry, you probably are broke and hungry. If you are neither but pretend you are, you need serious help.

Grant Rant postscript: The cowardice of moral relativism

- June 3rd, 2013

Greetings web denizens, heathens, zealots and the rest of you!

There are days when I fear for the fate of the species. Sometimes we just seem so dumb, that the stupid burns so hot,  there seems little hope.

Chief among the things that mystify me is the prevalence of moral relativism — the idea that everything is good in its own context. “Right” and “wrong” are not even debatable issues from this point of view because they do not really exist. In other words, while we in Canada might find something horrific, say executing people for the imaginary crime of blasphemy, but if some other country wants to do that well, who are we to criticize them? It’s their culture, leave them alone.

It is, insofar as I can tell, craven political ideology. A philosophy that will allow suffering to go on because it does not directly impact our own backyard. While this is most often applied to religion, used particularly by those who defend the brutal excesses of despotic Islamic regimes of the middle east, it also apparently can be applied when talking about how gay people are treated in Africa.

This week I published my regular Grant Rant column about a law recently passed by Nigeria,  a fellow British Commonwealth nation, that makes gay marriage punishable by 14 years in prison. Those helping the couple get married or even voicing support for the concept of gay marriage will get 10 years behind bars. Over in another African Commonwealth state, Uganda, homosexuality is punishable by death. In Uganda it is effectively legal to murder a person for the imaginary crime of being gay.

I posted  a poll with this column, asking if readers felt Canada should do more to defend the rights of gay people abroad. Canada already has an office dedicated to helping fight religious persecution oversees, so why not do the same for people who are being jailed or killed for being gay?

The response was, I am sorry to say, disheartening. At the time I write this, nearly 60% of respondents say no, Canada should leave well enough alone when it comes to gay people in Africa. True, this is not a scientific poll and the same size is ridiculously too small to draw any conclusions, but it is a frightening  nonetheless.

Worse, were some reader comments who jumped on the moral relativist bandwagon, suggesting that Canada has no business telling another nation to stop murdering innocent citizens.

Reader “truththorold” says:

Is this argument really any different than immigrants who come to Canada and want to rewrite our laws ? Facial coverings and daggers for example ? We believe what we believe and we live here and our laws reflect that. They can believe whatever they want and make laws accordingly. Majority rules in that regard. If people don’t like whats going on they should relocate, but not try to change wherever they arrive to suit them.

And consider this reply by way of a for instance, from a reader who goes under the handle “Tyresias“:

And of course our way is the right way and we should go over there and tell them that they are wrong and they should do things the way we do. Sounds kind of familiar – you know – the Muslim extremists and how they think everyone should be like them.

This is an argument that requires one to dismiss all ideas of freedom, equality, justice, human solidarity and compassion. What this person is saying is that if gay people are put to death in Uganda or jailed in Nigeria for being a homosexual, so be it. That is their way, and who are we to say it is wrong.

This poster goes on to explain that Nigeria may find some Canadian laws objectionable, so we have no right to tell them to what to do:

Then you go right over and tell their government how to run things. And be sure to being back their list of objectionable Canadian policies. Because I’m sure they are just as righteous as you are.

Another reader, “James McCollick” defends this point view by saying:

Typical arrogance. Just because you believe something is right that doesn’t make it so.

Consider carefully what is being said here: Who are we to say killing someone for their sexual orientation is wrong? The Ugandan way is just as moral and right as the Canadian one in it’s own context. Essentially, they are using moral relativism as an justification for murder. To say “murder is wrong” is the height of arrogance.

Still others go on to say that we should not criticize Nigeria for jailing gay people and suppressing free speech because Nigeria is actually better than Canada on some fronts. Even if that were true, which it is not, how does Nigeria doing well in one area mean that jailing a gay couple for 14 years is just?

Reader “Chip Meister” had this to say:

Do you really think Nigeria is going to take criticism from Canada???
Nigeria already outshines Canada in many other areas. Why should/would they listen to our voice???
Here are just a few points where Canada could take some lessons from Nigeria.
Their economy is RED-HOT!!!
Nigeria sends out more peacekeepers around the world than any other country in the world. They have more soldiers on peace keeping missions than the US, Canada and EU!!!
I am really surprised that you neglected to mention Nigeria’s record for freedom of press. Nigeria won the Free Press Africa Award last year. How many Canadian journalists would give up their life in attempting to get the truth out?
Perhaps it would be best for Canada to look inward first before criticizing people in a country that few Canadian’s have ever been or are even thinking of travelling [sic] to. Have you been to Nigeria???

So, because Nigeria has peace keepers, an active economy and some brave journalists, Canada should say nothing about the active and systematic repression of people who have done nothing other than be born a homosexual and wanting to live a happy life. It apparently has not occurred to this poster than if any of these brave reporters speak out in defense of gay marriage, they can be thrown in prison for a decade. Free speech is the heystone of a free press, and to suggest that Nigeria, a nation that crushes the very notion of free speech in order to step on the throats of those its government considers undesirable, is laughable at best.

Canada is not prefect. We make mistakes. We have our own messes to clean up. But we do not jail or kill people for marrying the person they love or for just being gay. That difference is not trivial. Our way is, by any honest moral or ethical standard, better.

What these commenters have in common is a refusal to consider the human cost of the laws of Uganda and Nigeria and other like nations. They apparently regard the putting to death or imprisonment of innocent people as a debatable point, one that can argued in the same way that one could debate the merits of a parliamentary democracy vs  a republican one, or an argument over who has the most effective j-walking regulations.

Such a view is shameful and cowardly. It is also hypocritical. I have no doubt that if Nigeria was rounding up Jews or Christians, or people with white skin, and imprisoning them for a decade or more, the outrage would be palpable. These are often the same people that will rail against the brutality of the Jihadist, but suggest we should say nothing about a Commonwealth government committing horrors.

“What’s good for us is good for us, and what is good for them is good for them,” rings hollow when what is “good for them” is a pile of bodies and destroyed lives.

Some of us have not learned from history it seems. Prior to start of World War Two, Jews fleeing Germany appealed for help from the West. But no one cared to believe or take seriously the stories of innocent people being rounded up into ghettos, or herded into death camps. The prevailing attitudes of the day, dripping with anti-semitic bigotry and a desire to avoid more war, was to simply pretend it wasn’t important, to ignore the human costs, and say “it’s not our business.”

It is our business. It is part of what being Canadian is about. It is part of what having a free society is about. Our convictions mean nothing if we say they only apply to ourselves, the rest of the world be damned. The murder or jailing of a person who has done no wrong and caused no harm is never moral. It is indefensible. And those who do defend it should to be ashamed of themselves.

The Stupid it burns: Sympathy for the Devil edition

- May 27th, 2013

Greetings web denizens, heathens, zealots and the rest of you!

It’s 2013. I just thought I should point that out because sometimes I am not certain everyone is aware we no longer live in the middle ages.

I just think it’s critical to know where you are in the space-time continuum. It’s important. So, to review, it’s 2013.

Why do I point this out? Well, because of this Associated Press story in that constant source of the flaming madness The Holy Post, written with all the seriousness of an article about a plane crash or election, asking whether or not Pope Francis cast demons out of a sick, wheelchair bound child on purpose or not.

The video the article is about is utterly mundane. The kid slumps a bit in his chair after the pope touches him for a few seconds. The Holy Post labels the video as “intriguing.” Ok, sure, if you also find watching Glee or seeing paint dry intriguing, then Bob’s yer uncle.  But as it stands, it’s a video of a little boy who shifts a bit in his chair and this is taken as evidence of the devil being cast out.

IT’S TWENTY FRAKKING THRITEEN people!!! Ok, I can accept we don’t have hover boards yet (although, technically, we still have two years to go, so maybe we’ll get lucky and my dreams won’t be crushed.) but surely, SURELY, we have moved on from talking about illness being caused by the Devil. How is it that we are able to build a space station, peer into the deepest reaches of space and time, cure diseases, examine the smallest building blocks of the universe itself and STILL TALK ABOUT THE BLOODY DEVIL AND DEMONIC POSSESSION???

Imagine if I started writing stories about alchemy and astronomy and UFOs as though they were as real a thing as the screen you are reading this off of? I wouldn’t, and shouldn’t, be taken seriously. At all. Ever. For any reason.

And yet, where we are in the year 2013, with reporters still printing stories about exorcism. That AP story even contains a grand debate about whether or not the pope actually meant to exorcize the little boy or not. Seriously. This is apparently a “thing,” worthy not of open mockery but serious discussion. Was this an intentional casting out of the devil, or merely a coincidental one is the question, rather than the question that should have been asked — “who cares??”

You’ll notice  AP reporter Nicole Winfield doesn’t bother asking a couple of really basic questions a) what happened to the little boy? (answer: nothing apparently. He is a really sick little boy who slumped a bit in his wheelchair after being touched by one of the most famous men on Earth, surrounded by a bunch of other men in black suits, in front of the world’s media.) b) What ails the boy? (answer: we don’t know, the reporter doesn’t bother to find out.) c) Is the boy’s condition changed? (Answer: again, unknown, but five gets you ten, he is still just as sick as he was before the pope prayed over him.) and d) Why, by Odin’s unseeing eye, are we still talking about exorcisms in 2013??????

Listen, our job as journalists is to cover the facts as best as we can get at them. What is true and what isn’t is a daily consideration. It is true to say some people believe exorcisms are real. It is also true there isn’t a single shred of evidence to suggest the devil exists, let alone took up residence in the body of a wee boy. And if you are going to do a proper story about this sort of thing, not including that information is not a trivial error. Because the logic of the AP article in the Holy Post, implies the casting out of devils and demons is real. It is absolutely poor journalism.

Now, please excuse me…I need to breath into a paper bag before I hyperventilate.

PS. The best part of that article? The Rev. Robert Gahl, a theologian at Rome’s Pontifical Holy Cross University declares that not only is the devil real, but is the cause of secularism — you know, that little political idea that keeps government out of religion, and religion out of government and allows people the freedom to believe in whatever crazy thing they want? That secularism. A tool of the Satan.

 

Athiests go to Catholic heaven? It was too good to last…

- May 24th, 2013

Greetings web denizens, heathens, zealots and the rest of you!

Regular readers of the Rant will know I am not a fan of religion generally, and the actions of some religious institutions make me an grumpy fellow. Near the top of that list is the Catholic Church. Its views on sexual health, women, and a handful of other issues cause real harm and suffering and should not be glossed over because believers really believe in the goodness of the church.

When the present pope was elected, I had a few harsh words to say about it. Harsh, but I think I deserved. No man who claims, as Pope Francis does, that gay marriage is a tool of the devil  set to ruin mankind is going to get my respect.

So it was with some surprise that I read that Francis said heathens like me get to go to heaven even if we are non-believers provided that we are good people who help others.

As an atheist and someone who values logic and evidence above just about everything else, the concept of the afterlife has about all the real world relevance of a debate over who wins in a fight between the Hulk and Thor. (Psst. The answer is Thor.) Still, it was a shocking point of view coming from the mouth of a Catholic traditionalist like Francis. His point seemed to be that what mattered is not what you profess to believe but how you behave. That goodness and kindness and compassion is what matters, not what flag once carries be it Catholic or atheist or anything else he said:

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

While the concepts of heaven and metaphysical redemption mean less than nothing to me, I was still impressed that a pope would make such a clear statement that encouraged positive moral and ethical behaviour free from theological chains. It mean, taken as he said it, that good people are brothers and sisters regardless of their religious attitudes and will meet in heaven when the game is over.

It was certainly a statement I could get behind and was all set to write a column saying “maybe this Pope guy isn’t the jerk I thought I he was. Maybe I am wrong about this guy.”

But this is the Catholic Church we are talking about, so this was all too good to last. Within a couple of days the Vatican released an “explanatory” statement. Of course his popeiness didn’t REALLY mean atheists get to go to heaven just because they are good, the Vatican says. Atheists are still hell bound unless they accept Jesus and the Catholic Church:

“The Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said that people who aware of the Catholic church “cannot be saved” if they “refuse to enter her or remain in her … Rosica also said that Francis had “no intention of provoking a theological debate on the nature of salvation,” during his homily on Wednesday.”

So there you go. Even when the church says something important, something that could do some real good by ending some animosity between believers and non-believers, as an organization it still manages to shoot itself in the foot. With a bazooka.

 

Scientists are awesome!!

- May 13th, 2013

Greetings web denizens, heathens, zealots and the rest of you!

Just a couple videos for your entertainment, highlighting the recent awesome of scientists Commander Chris Hadfield and his music video from the ISS and biologist Richard Dawkins awesome Hitchslapesque comment on the utility of the scientific method.

Canadian Space Oddity

 

Science works…bitches.

Boxing round up: Mayweather romp, Pac-man is back and Bute’s hand

- May 8th, 2013

Greetings fight fans;

It’s been a busy few days in the world of boxing, so I’m here to catch you up.

Easy night for Mayweather

WEN_wenn20318931

Mayweather had an easy night beating the “Ghost” Guerrero.

Floyd Mayweather Jr., regarded by most as the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world had an easy night Saturday against his highly religious opponent, aggressive southpaw Robert Guerrero. He walked to a 12 round decision without ever being in danger. I scored the bout 199-109 for Money May. I could have given him all 12 rounds, but I scored the 12th for Guerrero, mostly because he did not look as horrible as he did in the preceding 11. Some analysts scored the first couple of rounds for Guerrero, but to my eye while they were closer than most of the others, they were clearly Mayweather rounds.

Where Miguel Cotto was able to pressure Mayweather, keep a good jab in Mayweather’s face (which seems a critical factor in making a fight of it with Money) and was able to make the most of it when Mayweather retreated to the ropes, Guerrero really had nothing. No jab. No pressure. No game plan. He was hit by so many right hand leads (normally a dangerous punch because a fighter can see a right hand coming much easier than a jab, which is typically faster and nearer to the opponent) that Mayweather actually hurt his hand on Guerrero’s hard head.

At this point, short of resurgence Manny Pacquiao actually getting into the ring with Mayweather, it’s hard to see anyone having a shot at defeating Mayweather. All eyes are focused on Saul “Canelo” Alvarez as Mayweather’s next real test, but as good as Canelo is (and he is) he seems tailor made for the  defensive genius of Mayweather.

Bute’s out

JDQ_BRUBUT20130423_28

Lucian Bute

In what would have been perhaps the biggest fight in Canadian history and very likely the biggest sporting event in Canada of 2013 (short of a Canadian team making it to the Stanley Cup finals) former super-middle weight champion Lucian Bute was to face former light-heavy weight champ Jean Pascal in Montreal. Both men were once among the best in the world until recently losses cost them their titles and neither man has challenged for a title since. The Canadian super fight, which was to be broadcast by HBO, would likely put the winner back into title contention while the other would probably fade to black. The stakes were as high as they get for professional fighters.

But Bute announced this week he hurt his hand in training and will need surgery. The fight will be rescheduled, although a new date has yet to be set.

The return of Pacman

RE_2012_05_31T021121Z_01_LOA004_RTRMDNP_3_USA_PACQUIAO

Manny Pacquiao

Manny Pacquiao’s first fight since his stunning KO loss to long time rival Juan Manuel Marquez is scheduled for November in China against American Brandon Rios, also a left handed slugger.

On the one hand it’s a risky fight for Pacman. Rios is a power hitter with no quit in him who likes to pressure fighters into submission. He’s young and hungry  and eager to come back after a recent loss to Mike Alvarado. On the other hand, come forward pressure fighters almost always get chewed up in the Pacquiao buzzsaw. Think Ricky Hatton, a skilled powerful brawler who was dispatched in brutal fashion in two short rounds.

A lot is being said about Pacman’s state of mind. Will he be gun-shy after JMM knocked him out? If Pacman is in top form (and lets not forget he was winning his fight against JMM and pretty well beating him up until he walked into a perfectly timed right hand counter from Marquez, arguably the best counter puncher in boxing) I don’t see the slower, less mobile Rios making it past 7 rounds. Rios is good but he is no Mayweather or Marquez.  Rios could not adapt to Alvarado’s more mobile style. It is hard to imagine how he will cope with the lightning feet and hands of Pacman.

I get feedback: I’m a traitor to the nation for criticizing Grapes edition

- May 5th, 2013

Greetings web denizens, heathens, zealots and the rest of you!

So my latest Rant about Don Cherry’s cave man idea about barring female reporters from NHL locker rooms has struck a nerve with many readers, most of them rising to the defense of Grapes, some missing the point entirely and a few setting a new standard for the burning stupid.

Several readers, whom I cannot help but picture twirling a mustache while shouting “Ah ha! Gotcha LaFleche!” commented that women should not be allowed in NHL locker rooms since men are not allowed to do post game interviews with female athletes in their locker rooms. Well, sorry to break it to you fellas, but male reporters do post game interviews for females sports from the locker room all the time. It is a regular occurrence, for instance, in the WNBA.

There is a general theme among those who commented on the Rant that there will be naked bodies in the locker room and reporters who are in there are either there to be peeping toms or will be shattered mentally should they witness the naked human form. Letting women in NHL locker rooms is an affront to basic decency, they say. Let a male reporter into a female locker room post game just goes too far! Soon, reporters will be asking for access to the bathrooms, says one reader.

Well the problem here is that interviews are not conducted in the shower stalls, and where the players get undressed and cleaned up etc. is, in modern NHL locker rooms, kept separate from the area that reporters get access too. Things have changed a lot since Cherry was an NHL coach. Yah, there will from time to time be a player in a towel and a naked butt seen, but by in large, it’s a non-issue. There will, of course, be the occasional moron who acts like  pig, but that player needs to be called out for that sort of behavior rather that barring the female reporter from doing her job. Which is the point. The problem isn’t the reporter, the problem is a minority of players who act like idiots.

Some readers trying to be fair want reporters, men and women, out of the locker room entirely. Yet the reason that reporters champ at the bit to get into the locker rooms is because news outlets work on tight deadlines. Getting post game reaction quickly has been a staple of coverage for decades. Reporters might have 30 minutes or so to get interviews done, finish a story and send it to their editors. The relationship between NHL teams and reporters has been built on this arrangement for ages and there really isn’t any outcry or need to change it.

Others still say by criticizing Cherry, I’m being “politically correct” and if Cherry’s politics were left of centre instead of right, no columnist would say a peep about his idea of kicking female journalists out of the locker room. Poppycock. As I have noted before, I pretty well take aim and everyone at some point or another, and usually when that happens, I am labeled as a supporter of the other side. Criticize a liberal, I’m a conservative. A conservative, I’m a liberal and so on. The fact of the matter is that if anyone, Liberal or Tory, came out and said female journalists should be barred from doing their jobs, I’d have written exactly the same thing.

Finally, there is a comment that is perhaps the most bizarre feedback I have ever received. By criticizing what Cherry said, we’re told, I am merely a puppet of my university professors. (I was unaware the political studies department at Bishop’s University was so focused on the conduct of female sports reporters and the athletes they cover. I must have missed that course.) And in fact by speaking up for the right of my peers to do their jobs I am attempting to transform Canada into communist China. Apparently, criticism of Don Cherry is evidence of being a Marxist and therefore, makes me a traitor to the nation who seeks to destroy families. I’d explain that further, but frankly it doesn’t make sense to me either.

The bottom line is that Cherry was wrong. Reporters, male and female, have a job to do and preventing them doing it on the basis of gender is discriminatory nonsense.

Lennox Lewis on Mayweather vs. Guerrero

- May 2nd, 2013

Greetings fight fans!

One of the amazing things about being a reporter is that, on occasion, one gets to interview people you admire. Such was the for me last week when I did a telephone interview with former heavyweight champion (in my view, the last great heavyweight champ) Lennox Lewis.

The primary reason for talking to Lewis is because he, along with a St. Catharines surgeon, is receiving an award next week for charity work they do in the southern hemisphere. (That story will appear in the Standard next week.)

RTRMDNP_3_BOXING_STEWARD

Lennox Lewis

But it would be impossible not to interview about the former Canadian Olympic gold medalist without talking some boxing.

Pound-for-pound king Floyd Mayweather Jr. is returning to the ring this Saturday against Robert “The Ghost” Guerrero in Vegas.  I asked Lewis who he thinks is the favorite to win.

“Oh Mayweather, definitely Floyd,” Lewis said in an interview from Jamaica. “He is just too skilled for Guerrero.”

The expectation in the boxing press is that Guerrero won’t be ghostly at all, but will try to stay in Mayweather’s face all night, rough him up, and turn the bout into an ugly war of attrition like he did against Andre Berto.  Lewis, however, believes that Guerrero won’t be able to keep pace with with the slick Mayweather, a defensive genius who has not lost in more than 40 professional fights.

“It’s like a dance,” Lewis says. “If you are going to dance with someone, you have to keep up with them. You have to dance with them. That is what Guerrero has to do, but I don’t know if he can do it.”

Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Robert Guerrero

I will be at Shoesless Joe’s at the Fairview Mall Saturday night to watch the Mayweather vs. Geurrero fight, which is being broadcast by

Showtime. Come on to talk boxing with other fight fans and see a great fight.

 

Dumb ways to die: rail safety week

- April 30th, 2013

Greetings web denizens, heathens, zealots and the rest of you!

So I thought it was just the last week of April, but apparently its yet another “official” week. This time, rail safety week. You know, CN and the like are reminding you not to jump in front of trains. Which seems like common sense, but I’ve covered dozens of deaths of people who has stood in the path a locomotive. So apparently the reminder is necessary.

And, in the spirit of the week, I figured it was a good time to repost “Dumb Ways to Die.” Play safe around trains, ranters!