Why Sidney Crosby shouldn’t go to the White House, in terms he can understand

If you haven’t heard, the Pittsburgh Penguins announced they would be accepting an invitation to visit the White House. They did this despite Donald Trump’s expletive-filled, racially-motivated tirade about black NFL players not standing for the anthem. To make this move even more tone deaf, Penguins Captain Sidney Crosby revealed he supported the visit and thinks it’s “a great honour.”

penguins-white-house-100616-620

That Crosby said this despite everything that’s happened in the last week is not very surprising to me. Aside from ingrained white privilege, the real trouble, I think, is that Sidney Crosby does not understand life outside of hockey. Have you ever seen an interview or documentary footage from his day-to-day life? The man does not look comfortable in his own skin unless it’s adorned with a jersey, pads and skates.

So allow me to try to explain to Sidney Crosby why he shouldn’t go to the White House the only way he’ll understand: with hockey terminology.

Hey Sid, look alive now.

Going to the White House is an offside. Your team won’t be advancing the play here. It’s actually like you’ve iced the puck and you have to go all the way back down the ice. You’re as far away as possible from where you want to be.

You’ve got to understand, Sid, that as a white guy, you were born on the power play. There’s a whole lot of people out there with different colour skin who live their whole lives like they’re defending a 5-on-3. And right now, Donald Trump is doing a whole lot of unsportsmanlike conduct to make sure they stay on the disadvantage. The refs have put their whistles away and they won’t be calling any roughing on him.

If you go to the White house, that’s gonna put you in the box. And we’re not talking about a double minor here. You’re looking at a game misconduct. Heck, you could be facing a suspension. Sure, you’ll still be able to put your stick on the ice in an NHL game, but you’re not likely to find yourself playing centre in many street hockey contests.

You’re putting yourself on the away team roster here, Sid. Everyone’s rooting for the team trying to play their way out of the 5-on-3. Going to the White House is like you taking a dive to break up their shorthanded rush. You’re not going to light the lamp playing like that. Your plus-minus will take a big hit after all this.

I know politics isn’t your style of play. But it’s time for you to do some serious backchecking away from this White House visit. You’ve got a chance to change the momentum here. If you give it 110%, you just might bounce back from this.

No more bonehead plays now, eh? Let’s go.

Advertisements

A right to life. And to choose.

A few months ago, I happened upon an article in Toronto Life about assisted suicide. Specifically, about a man who had helped people take their own life in secret. At the end of the article, there is a very long and heated “debate” going on in the comments section. I know, I know, don’t read the comments. But this is a subject that is important to me, as I believe assisted suicide should be a legal option for the terminally ill. So my curiosity got the better of me.

Naturally, there are strong reactions to the idea of being able to take your own life. Many people (like myself) who have witnessed the suffering of family and friends see assisted suicide as an act of compassion. Opponents of the idea label it as a coward’s way out, or something that will be a slippery slope and abused my those who don’t actually need it. And then there are those who think it’s wrong in the eyes of God.

Full disclosure: I don’t believe in God. I “practiced” religion until around the age of 12. Then my Mom allowed me to make my own decisions. I have no problem with those who do believe, though. In many ways, I admire their faith and commitment. What I do have a problem with is using the idea of a God as a reason to not allow something to become law.

In my (admittedly very subjective) experience, many of the opponents of assisted suicide invoke the idea that all humans have a “right to life” and therefore we cannot allow people to take their own lives. There’s a concern that people will be wrongfully coerced into using assisted suicide when they don’t really need to, or that they will die shortly before a drug was discovered that could have cured them. This is, in fact, exactly what was suggested by the most outspoken opponent in the comments on the article.

Most of his arguments stemmed from a column he wrote where he outlined the following scenario:

“A strong, healthy man suffers from a disease. He wastes away to a shadow of his former self. He is all skin and bones. Death is imminent. The doctors are telling him there is no cure, no treatment left. At this point, he considers assisted suicide to avoid the pain and suffering and maybe to save his family some of the money being spent on his care. He goes through with it. In a short time, he is killed by a physician. And the very next week, a new drug is discovered which could have allowed that man to make a complete recovery.”

Of course, that is always a possibility. But is it a realistic one? Or even remote? To me, this reads like a fantasy. It is talking in absolutes. If only someone didn’t kill themselves, a miracle drug would have been created a week later!

I will admit that this is a possibility, however remote. But if the terminally ill have a right to life, don’t they have the right to choose death? The idea with assisted suicide is that the patient chooses to end their life rather than endure an excruciating death. And yes, they are eliminating the unlikely possibility of being saved by a miracle drug. That’s their choice.

There seems to be a theme from the right to life crowd, which is that they claim making this law will make suicide and assisted suicide one in the same. I have yet to see any convincing argument as to why that would be true. I also find it interesting that they say you have a right to life, but apparently you don’t have a right to choose.

To me, our right to choose is as ingrained and essential as our right to life. In Canada, we have the privilege to make choices about our lives. I think, in the case of terminal illnesses, that should include being able to choose to die. It is not cowardly and it is not morally wrong. It, ideally, is an informed choice made because of the finite nature of existence. We don’t have to have our suffering and our death decided by nature. Certainly not by God.

Personally, I am thankful that our government is basing our laws in the reality in front of us. They are acknowledging that to be human is to have the right to live and, eventually, the right to choose to not.

If you’re interested in the subject of assisted suicide, I suggest you watch the documentary How To Die In Oregon. For or against, it’s moving to watch.

This Budweiser Anti-Drunk-Driving PSA Isn’t An Anti-Drunk-Driving PSA

Budweiser just released their 2016 Super Bowl commercial four days ahead of the actual game, as now seems to be commonplace. The commercial itself, labelled as a drunk driving PSA, stars Helen Mirren telling any would-be drunk drivers that they are, basically, the lowest scum on the earth. The problem is, this isn’t an anti-drunk-driving PSA.

Have a look for yourself.

The commercial starts with Helen Mirren saying, “Ooh, my beer, lovely” after she’s been served with a Budweiser. So the first thing the ad is hitting the viewer with is beer. And not just any beer, but a fresh, sweet, sweet, frosty Budweiser. The King Of Beers, lest you forget.

Mrs. Mirren goes on to make some very frank declarations about how dumb and useless you are if you drink and drive. And I agree with all of them. Drunk driving is a very serious problem that doesn’t get nearly enough attention or have nearly harsh enough consequences.

However, I can’t help but feel that most people watching this ad will agree, too. No one ever comes out in support of drunk driving. So it’s not like Budweiser is doing anything notable here. They’re just doing what they know they have to do every once in a while, as one of the world’s largest beer manufacturers. But I can’t remember watching an “anti-drunk driving” PSA that so actively advertises beer. In fact, this drunk driving PSA makes me thirsty for a beer.

Forget the fact that Helen Mirren gets all matter-of-fact and tells potential drunk drivers that the whole world will thank them for not drinking and driving. That’s the middle bit of the ad. People are going to spend more time thinking, “Hey! It’s Helen Mirren gettin’ sassy” than they will actually listening to what she’s saying. They’ll see the perfectly lit bottle of Budweiser sitting next to a deliciously styled burger and fries. They’ll notice the beautifully staged pub she’s sitting in. And they’ll most certainly remember that this drunk driving PSA starts and ends with Helen Mirren talking about how great cold, fresh beer is.

This is a beer ad camouflaged as a PSA. It’s basically saying, “You shouldn’t drink and drive, but you should definitely drink. Isn’t beer delicious?” The ad features no suggestions for how you might avoid drinking and driving, it just says you’re an idiot if you drink and drive. No shit. How about giving people a reminder to call a cab, or a friend, or take the bus, or even walk home? You might plant that seed in their mind. Instead, this ad just tries to be memorable by having a famous woman with an English accent say some pithy things. All while enjoying a beer. Yes, that definitely makes me want to drive and not drink.

This is a PSA for Budweiser and how awesome it is. The company is down with Helen Mirren. She even drinks it! Maybe even in real life! You should drink it too! That’s why this alleged anti-drunk driving message ends with her holding a Budweiser saying, “Cheers. Ah, nice and cold.”

I don’t know about you, but I could really go for a beer.

I’m Young But I’m Not

There’s always going to be someone older than you. It starts with your parents. Maybe an older sibling or two. But you’re never going to be the oldest person alive. (Barring your ability to live to be 120.) You might end up being the oldest person you know, but realistically, there will always be someone to tell you that you’re not really that old.

This might sound a bit rich coming from a guy that’s only 31. My age is still puts me well within the “young” category, at least in relative terms. I’m not “starting out university” young or “backpacking in Europe for six months” young, I’m the “still building up a career” kind of young. That really means that only teenagers and 20-somethings wouldn’t think of me as young. And yet I’ve had a 35-year-old tell me I’m still young. So which is it?

I feel more old than I feel young. I don’t have kids but I bemoan how kids act today. I don’t have the physical problems that come with advancing age, but I do have some of the financial concerns. I still like going to bars but only if I leave before midnight. I have unreasonably ambitious dreams that conflict with the ever-increasing reasonableness of a steady paycheque. I can have regrets about the life I didn’t live while I’m still living it.

I know I’m young enough that I could make a drastic life change if I wanted to, but I would have to think long and hard about if that was the responsible thing to do. The reality is that we’re always going to be younger than someone else, even when we’re older. There will be moments where we feel young and others where we feel old (I’m looking at you, Vitamin C supplement). And yet we still always seem to want to compare our lives to those of younger people.

It can be people just two years younger than you or ten years. But if you see someone doing something at age 25 that you hadn’t achieved by 30 it can start to feel like you missed some kind of opportunity, regardless of whether it was one that was never presented to you or one you were never interested in. It creates that feeling of “If only I had done that in my 20s, I would be doing this other thing in my 30s or 40s.”

I find myself more envious of people who achieve some quick level of success in their mid-20s than I am of someone in their 50s with a lengthy, sustained career of success. And that’s ridiculous. For almost everyone, success doesn’t happen overnight. That applies to success in work, relationships, hobbies or any other pursuit. It takes a lot of hard work and lot of trying and failing (insert generic DIY mantra here). So why do we idolize young people who have achieved some title or other token of accomplishment when we really don’t know much of how they came by it?

According to a lot of other people, I’m still young. If I achieve one of my life goals by the time I turn 35, there’s going to be some 45-year-old out there who will be envious of me. Same goes if I achieve something at 50. There will be a 60-year-old who only sees a failure in his own life. But he’s not that old. He’s still got time. Just like everyone else.

Oh, You’re Mad About Strategic Voting?

This past Monday, Canada elected a new prime minister. Maybe you heard about Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. Or his hair. He unseated the Conservative’s Stephen Harper. Maybe you heard about that, too. You probably also heard about how Canada’s third major party, the NDP, lost a lot of support to the Liberals in this election. A lot of people seem to think this is because of strategic voting. And a lot of people are mad about that.

Now I’m pretty sure that anyone complaining about strategic voting after this election probably voted for the NDP, because they didn’t win. I doubt you would complain if the party you voted for got elected.(I won’t say who I voted for, but it wasn’t Liberal and it wasn’t Conservative.) People seem to be mad about strategic voting because it seems like voters went Liberal only because they felt it was their best chance to defeat Stephen Harper. I can’t really deny that.

But you shouldn’t be mad at strategic voting. You should be mad at Stephen Harper.

You should be mad that he made the majority of Canadians that afraid of him.

You should be mad that he gave them very legitimate reasons to be afraid of him. (Seriously. Read that.)

You should be mad that the majority of Conservative voters have probably never heard of any of those things.

You should be mad that Harper tried to divide the country into a strict right and left divide, attempting to split the vote between the Liberals and NDP so he could retain power.

You should be mad that he tried to make people afraid of Niqabs.

You should be mad that he thought he could make this election about Justin Trudeau’s hair and toques for ISIS.

You should be mad that some Conservative voters honestly believe Harper is the greatest prime minister in the history of Canada, and therefore should stay in office forever.

You should be mad he made the NDP feel like they had to go a little bit soft.

You should be mad that he put Canada in this position.

Based on the election results and voter turnout, the country clearly felt he needed to go. My problem with people getting upset over strategic voting is that you are allowed to change the party you vote for for reasons besides strategy.

There was strategic voting at play in this election, without a doubt. But what about the people that switched their vote from Conservative to Liberal? Was that strategic? Or was it they felt like they could no longer support the Conservative party with a leader as tyrannical as Stephen Harper? To me, that’s not strategic. That’s not wanting to vote Conservative in this election.

That’s the thing. It wasn’t just NDP voters switching parties. It was Conservatives, too. This country realized Stephen Harper needed to go. I understand people being upset that Justin Trudeau was elected because of people voting against Harper, but he didn’t give us much choice. That’s what you should be mad at. He made Canada feel threatened.

In the same way that you couldn’t logically claim you voted for Stephen Harper because he was the lesser of four evils (which is the most obviously untrue thing in this entire election), you can’t lament strategic voting and say Trudeau’s government is definitely going to bad. He hasn’t done anything for us to get mad about. Yet.

I have an opinion on the opinion pieces on the tragedy I know nothing about

Let me start this by saying: I had never heard of Charlie Hebdo before the attack on their office that left 12 people dead. I think that’s important because I feel like a lot of people in North America had never heard of it before either. And yet everyone now seems to have an opinion about the attack and what it means. What a surprise.

One horrible tragedy that spawns a global news story and suddenly everyone is an expert on freedom of speech, Muslims and editorial cartoons. (Here’s a fun game: when’s the last time you actually saw an editorial cartoon that had enough of an effect on you to tell a friend about it?) Apparently, everyone is also now an expert on opinion pieces about freedom of speech, Muslims and editorial cartoons. Thanks to the internet and our 24 hour news streams, there are always opinion pieces about opinion pieces about opinion pieces.

Because it’s important that someone “gets it right” in terms of what 12 people getting killed for making politically charged cartoons all means. That’s what’s important. There has to be meaning from this. It can’t just be that two mentally unstable people shot a bunch of people for no reason. No, it means something and everyone needs their meaning to be the right one.

Je_suis_Charlie.svg

Responding to the attack isn’t about saying “Je suis Charlie,” it’s about saying “Je suis Ahmed.” Or even “I am not Charlie Hebdo.” The material produced in Charlie Hebdo is racist. It’s also heroic. But… pretty racist. That said, we should still condemn those kooky radical Muslims, am I right? Everyone needs to have a response and it needs to be posted by EOD. Every media outlet needs to have one of their people say something about the tragedy before the story dies. The quickest way to think of something to say is to respond to something that’s already been said. And then of course we all must have something to say about all that’s been said.

That’s what’s important. This story is all over news. You have to know where you stand. You definitely have to tell all your Facebook friends where you stand. Twitter needs to know, too. So start sharing everyone. Don’t take a step back to consider the attacks themselves, why they occurred, what they were against or even what they were for. Quickly form your opinion based on the first North American op-ed you saw that more-or-less felt right to you. We’re all waiting to hear what you think.

But really, you don’t always have to have an opinion on something. Even if it’s a tragedy on this scale. Or one that’s this politically charged. You don’t have to rush to determine which opinion piece best represents your views on the event. You certainly don’t have to tell everyone how you feel. Especially when you were never familiar with the magazine or what its material was about.

Sometimes saying “Well, this is really fucking awful” is enough. But that’s just my opinion.