2013-05-21T08:20:18-04:00 David Menzies http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=david-menzies Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for David Menzies Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1441170 2012-04-23T12:29:13-04:00 2012-06-23T05:12:02-04:00

David Menzies http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-menzies/
Minhas Craft Brewery thrives on a PR strategy in which it positions itself as a hometown David going up against a pair of ruthless, foreign-owned Goliaths in the form of Labatt and Molson.

Indeed, company co-owner Ravinder Minhas loves to play the victim card. And why not? By doing so, he receives a tax subsidy under Alberta's deeply flawed small brewer tax program. In 2010, that subsidy amounted to $5.6 million.

The program was meant to usher in an environment that allows for local craft breweries to flourish; alas, the precise opposite has occurred.

However, while Ravinder Minhas likes to position himself as the nitty-gritty all-Canadian little guy taking on the big bad world, the reality is something else entirely.

For starters, as previously reported here, all the Minhas brewing jobs are actually located in Monroe, Wisconsin. That wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that Minhas has its beer taxed at a lower rate than the big breweries (which actually employ Canadians.) Translation: The Alberta government is essentially subsidizing U.S. brewing jobs with taxpayer money.

It also turns out that all of Minhas's trademarks are registered to a Barbados-based company; Minhas is apparently funneling all his profits from the Alberta tax subsidy into an offshore tax-sheltered haven.

The bottom line? Minhas beer is brewed in the U.S., subsidized in Alberta, and sheltered from taxes in Barbados. Some local hero. And so much for Ravinder wrapping himself in the Canadian flag.

However, the Minhas' business plan -- i.e., its reliance on Alberta tax subsidies -- has hit a snag. Based on his overall beverage production (which includes beer, soft drinks and spirits), Minhas is very likely over the 400,000-hectolitre limit. If so, according to the regulations, Minhas no longer qualifies for Alberta small brewer subsidies.

But wait -- there's more! Inexplicably, Minhas has apparently declared war on all Canadian brewers, both big and small, thanks to the company's stunning multimedia attack on refillable glass beer bottles.



"Did you know that dirty beer bottles are washed and reused up to 16 times and cans are better for the environment?" asks co-owner Manjit Minhas in a 30-second TV ad, standing next to a putrid beer bottle that seems to have been excavated from swampland.

Predictably, other brewers are furious with the inexplicable fear-mongering tactics. First, contrary to Manjit's rant, aluminum beer cans -- which are recycled, not reused -- are NOT better for the environment compared to refillable glass bottles. And it is dumb beyond belief that she'd label the beer bottles as "dirty" given that before refilling, all bottles are thoroughly washed and inspected.

The fact that these containers are reused 16 times is what makes a refillable bottle far more environmentally-friendly than a single-use can.

But the party may be coming to an end for Minhas. Visiting Calgary earlier this month, I had the opportunity to chat with Danielle Smith, the leader of the Wildrose Party (and, if the polls are to be believed, the next premier of Alberta.) She was appalled that Albertan taxpayer dollars are going toward American brewery jobs. And Smith pondered how many other questionable subsidized programs are being maintained by the PCs in the province. (Let's put it this way, Smith: you have some serious housecleaning awaiting...)

In the meantime, Minhas has been providing beer for events run by the Conservative-in-name-only PC party. Sorry, Ravinder. Looks like you're backing the wrong horse this time. And here's hoping that when regime change does arrive in Alberta come Monday evening, the taps will soon be turned off when it comes to subsidies being poured into a brewery that is Canadian-in-name-only.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1427940 2012-04-16T08:06:53-04:00 2012-06-16T05:12:01-04:00

David Menzies http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-menzies/ Maclean's magazine: "Why Won't Canada Love the Canucks?"

The four-page feature, titled, "Canucks...Nation? They're our best hope for a Stanley Cup, so why don't Canadians love the Vancouver Canucks?" made for vindication for your Canucks-hating correspondent.

You see, last year, just as the Stanley Cup Finals were about to begin, I wrote a column on why I planned to cheer on the Boston Bruins over the Vancouver Canucks. Predictably, I endured copious quantities of negative feedback from British Columbia, much of the correspondence prominently making use of a certain word that rhymes not-so-nicely with "Canuck."

Even so, just because the Vancouver Canucks are geographically situated in Canada, this doesn't mean the Canucks are -- or ever will be -- "Canada's Team."

Not that certain vested interests aren't doing their best to entice all Canadians aboard the Canucks' bandwagon, mind you.

It's reminiscent of 2007, the previous time a Canadian team advanced to the Cup Final. That was when the Ottawa Senators went up against the Anaheim Ducks and there was a pathetic retailer-driven initiative to get people to support the Sens as "Canada's Team."

As a Leafs fan, I think I'd rather cheer on a team comprised of al-Qaeda insurgents than support the Senators.

In any event, attempts to promote the Vancouver Canucks as last year's edition of "Canada's Team" were also met with failure. For the record, here were my six reasons why it was a bad idea for Canadians to cheer on the Canucks:

1. Time Zone
Residing in the Eastern Time Zone (like most Canadians), I prefer hockey games to start at 7 p.m. sharp and wrap-up by 10 p.m. Sorry, B.C. -- we're already eating lunch in the East just as you guys are rolling out of bed. We just don't have your time.

2. Uniforms
How can anyone older than seven cheer on a team with a logo that seems to have been plucked from a bad Hanna-Barbera cartoon? And really, what does the nickname "Canucks" have to do with a goofy-looking killer whale breaking through the ice?

Then again, Vancouver seems to have a near monopoly on grotesque NHL uniforms. The team began with green-and-blue jerseys depicting what appeared to be a hockey stick superimposed on a TV set.

Then came that cosmic joke of sports jerseys -- the red/orange/black/yellow jerseys with the big "V" collars. The garish V-logo was eventually replaced by another logo: a stylized hockey skate that spelled the word, "Canucks." Wow! Then came those bleached-out red, white and blue uniforms with good ol' Shamu as the crest.

The current uniform is a staggering hybrid of garishness and insanity. It has the green and blue colours of the original togs, combined with the orca logo of the last uniform. And then, in an exercise of unnecessary overkill, the word "Vancouver" has been embroidered into the jersey -- just in case anyone in the hockey world was wondering which team wears such an ugly uniform.

3. Vancouver Already Had its Turn in the Sun
Team Canada -- that is to say, the real Team Canada -- won the Olympic gold medal in Vancouver in 2010. That was the biggest sporting event to happen on Vancouver soil. The Canucks winning the Stanley Cup would simply be anti-climatic.

4. The Green Goofs
Vancouver has a pair of so-called "Super Fans" who dress head-to-toe in clingy skintight-green spandex. Then they get into various yoga-like positions. That's just way too effeminate and creepy for hockey.

5. Insufficient Canadian Content
What's so "Canadian" about Minneapolis, Minnesota and Tarku, Finland? These are just two of the birthplaces of Canucks players. In fact, last year, there were 15 players on Vancouver's roster that were born in foreign countries. Vancouver isn't "Team Canada" -- it's "Team U.N."

6. Vancouver Hockey Fans are Un-Canadian
The '72 edition of Team Canada squad is perhaps our most beloved national hockey team of all time. Except when it comes to Vancouverites, who lustily booed the team after losing 5-3 to the Soviet Union on September 8, 1972.

That ugly incident led to Phil Esposito's emotional outburst for the ages on national TV: "I'm completely disappointed," Espo said. "I cannot believe it. Every one of us guys -- 35 guys -- we came out because we love our country. Not for any other reason. We came because we love Canada."



Alas, those fair-weather puck-heads packing the Pacific Coliseum that night threw Team Canada under the bus, writing them off like so much flotsam and jetsam and never keeping the faith that a Toronto Maple Leaf, Paul Henderson, would go on to single-handedly win the Summit Series by scoring the winning goals in Games 6, 7 and 8.

Vacuous Vancouverites will never, ever live that sorry spectacle down -- and nor should they be allowed to.

Addendum: Keep in mind my column was written before that hellacious Vancouver riot upon the conclusion of Game 7. Thus, add to the list a seventh reason to hate the Canucks: Too many Vancouver fans are nothing more than violent loogans.

As for the superb Maclean's piece, some of the reasons stated as to why most Canadians don't cheer on the Canucks include: "bland" stars; too many players who are whiners and divers; an arrogant general manager; cry-baby fans; and over-rated players.

Bottom line: a recent Angus Reid poll indicated that only 35 per cent of Canadians said they'd root for the Canucks.

Count me among the 65 per cent of Canadians who have made the right call.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1418386 2012-04-11T14:19:59-04:00 2012-06-11T05:12:02-04:00

David Menzies http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-menzies/
Case in point: In 1982, when seven people in the Chicago area died due to ingesting Extra Strength Tylenol tablets that were tainted with cyanide, it was predicted that Tylenol as a brand name would also perish. After all, a pain killer that's simply a killer isn't good press for a pharmaceutical company.

But Johnson & Johnson Inc. proved the observers wrong. Instead of saying "no comment" or hiding behind legalese, the company formed the template for damage control. A public apology was issued (even though the deaths were clearly due to the malevolence of a madman as opposed to a mistake in the production of Tylenol). A hefty reward was offered for information; billions of Tylenol tablets were recalled the world over; and Johnson & Johnson became a pioneer of the now de rigueur tamper-resistant packaging.

The end result: The public responded positively. Indeed, far from a dead brand, Tylenol in 2012 has a bigger market share of the painkiller category than it did three decades ago. And deservedly so.

I was thinking of crisis management when I happened upon a letter of apology (if it can be called that) to fans of the Toronto Maple Leafs from Lawrence ("Larry") Tanenbaum, part-owner of the team and chairman of the board of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment. (The full-page mea culpa was published on Tuesday in several Toronto daily newspapers.)

Alas, whereas the damage control embraced by Johnson & Johnson was sincere and heartfelt, Tanenbaum's letter comes across as being unintentionally funny.

Without further ado, here's a deconstruction of Larry's laughable letter (my comments are in italics):

Dear Leafs Fans: (Actually, its Leafs tickets that are "dear," as in outrageously expensive.)

On behalf of the ownership of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment, we want to thank you for your unwavering passion and loyalty. Like every fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs, we are disappointed with the results of this season.

(Just THIS season? What about the past six seasons in which the Leafs also failed to make the post-season?)

The Toronto Maple Leafs are a public trust (As long as members of the public pays copious quantities of cash, that is) with the greatest fans in the world (Ah, the one scintilla of truth buried in a heap of stinking B.S.!). We have fallen short of everyone's expectations ("Everyone's expectations"? C'mon, Larry -- as long as the balance sheet is in the black, ownership's expectations have been met), and for that we are sorry (how sorry? Enough to roll-back ticket prices? Enough to tender your long-overdue resignation?) . We take full responsibility for how this team performs on the ice, and we make no excuses. (Really? Earlier this year, Leafs General Manager Brian Burke said it is harder for players to excel in Toronto due to all the media and fan scrutiny... sure sounds like an excuse to me.) The way this year ended was unacceptable. (Why? The Leafs under Tanenbaum's tutelage have missed the playoffs since 2004. I dare not mention the decade the team last won the Stanley Cup, although here's a hint: the Beatles were still recording vinyl LPs). Results are the only measure of success in sports and the results speak for themselves. (Forgive me for nitpicking, but can someone at MLS&E kindly provide a tangible definition of "results" other than having a robust balance sheet?)

Ownership believes in the plan for the Maple Leafs. (For the love of God, Larry, can you reveal the specifics of that alleged "plan"?) All of the resources at our disposal will be used to make sure that the entire organization is focused on making the Leafs a successful playoff team. (Balderdash. The Leafs like all the other teams residing in the NHL must function under a salary cap. The team is prohibited from using "all of the resources" at its disposal.) We are 100% committed to ensuring we ice a team that competes with the NHL's best.(Mission accomplished, Larry! The Leafs do compete with the NHL's best. It's just that they lose more often than they win). Passion, hard work and accountability will always be the hallmarks of our organization. (Um... what about winning?)

The Toronto Maple Leafs are privileged to have such passionate and loyal fans. We do not take that for granted. (Oh, Larry, please... as they say down on the midway, "Don't kid the kidders.") Our entire organization wants nothing more than to deliver a team that makes you proud. (WHEN?)

Yours sincerely, (Good one! "Sincerity" and "Larry Tanenbaum" form an oxymoron that eclipses "jumbo shrimp.")

Lawrence M. Tanenbaum, O.C. (what the hell does "O.C." mean? "Order of Canada" perhaps? Are we supposed to be impressed?)

Chairman of the Board

Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment

Bottom line: Similar to the Canadian National Exhibition and the defunct Eaton's department store chain, the Toronto Maple Leafs are one of those unique properties that is loved far more by its client base than its owners.

As long as the stands are packed and the merchandise sells and the TV money rolls in, there's precious little incentive for ownership to strive for excellence other than a few extra playoff gates.

How profoundly sad. Loyal and long-suffering Toronto Maple Leafs fans deserve so much better. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1397375 2012-04-02T13:52:44-04:00 2012-06-02T05:12:01-04:00

David Menzies http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-menzies/
Indeed, when that final game has been played and a team is eliminated from the playoffs or a championship tilt, there is an understated beauty that unfolds when former combatants line up opposite one and other while extending their hands and saying, "Nice game."

The post-series handshake is something you don't see in most other team sports; the losing players on baseball, basketball, and football teams typically make a beeline for the dressing room once the final whistle sounds.

And that's too bad. For when the victors shake hands with the vanquished out on the ice, what results is an act of good sportsmanship that is nothing short of endearing. Whereas mere minutes ago those very same players were virtually smearing one another into the boards in pursuit of the puck, when that final buzzer sounds and a champion is declared, an armistice kicks in and hostilities immediately cease. At this point, there's no more body checking or fisticuffs or swearing. Rather, there's just a respectful realization that the series ended magnificently for one squad and, well, not so jolly for the other.

Still, there's no shame in honest failure. Which is the very reason why losing players line up to shake hands with the victors in the first place.

Alas, what I witnessed at the conclusion of a local league hockey championship in Thornton, Ont. recently made a mockery of hockey's ultimate act of chivalry.

The details: the Bantam Championship Final was contested between the Thornton Tigers and the Oak Ridges Kings as part of The Ontario Minor Hockey Association (OMHA). The Tigers won the game 2-1, and with the victory, captured the best-of-five series. Full disclosure: my son, Adam, plays for Oak Ridges.

The game itself was a penalty-filled affair. Indeed, a Kings' player had to be taken to hospital after the game upon suffering a concussion -- he had been brutally cross-checked from behind into the boards after the game's final buzzer sounded.

I could devote an entire column to the multiple cheap shots and a referee so incompetent he made ex-NHL official Kerry Fraser resemble the second coming of Red Storey. But I shan't go there.

Instead, I'll reflect upon the desecration that was inflicted upon the post-game handshake. Here's what happened: The players on both teams lined up and for the most part, the time-honoured ritual unfolded just as you'd expect.

But, sadly, some of the victorious Tigers broke the code. They refused to shake hands. And as they slowly skated down the lineup of opposing players, instead of uttering positive parting words, they spewed vulgarities: "Loser. Faggot. Retard."

Nice.

Disturbingly, Thornton's coaching staff turned a collective blind eye to the antics. Even more disturbing, many of the Thornton parents in the stands seemingly approved of their sons' behaviour. Dirty tactics aside, witnessing the sanctity of hockey's post-game handshake violated to such a degree resulted in a sad spectacle indeed.

Not that such a thing is unprecedented. Billy Smith, the combative netminder who backstopped the New York Islanders dynasty to four straight Stanley Cups in the early 80s, never shook hands with opposing players. But as much as Smith was a bona fide "money goaltender," he'll forever be a zero rather than a hero in my book for his cowardly post-series behavior.

Bottom line, there's something even more important than losing with grace: namely, winning with dignity.

On the ice, the Thornton Tigers are champs. That's irrefutable. But when it comes to the bigger picture, those players who decided to trash talk rather than shake hands disgraced not only themselves but a cherished element of the game itself.

How sad.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1394046 2012-03-31T18:23:31-04:00 2012-05-31T05:12:02-04:00

David Menzies http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-menzies/
Yes, folks, we're supposedly killing the planet thanks to our cars and our home heating oil and everything else that gives us a comfortable lifestyle. And unless we revert to living in grass huts and forage for grubs, planet earth is deader than disco.

But as Public Enemy once crooned: "Don't believe the hype."

Here are two good reasons to keep your lights blazing come Saturday night when we should be "celebrating" Earth Hour.

The first reason NOT to celebrate Earth Hour: Earth Hour Doesn't Achieve its Intended Effect (Energy/Carbon Reduction):

It is perversely amusing to see thousands of Earth Hour adherents generate illumination during Earth Hour by lighting candles and making bonfires. Isn't the very premise behind Earth Hour to REDUCE carbon emissions? Where is the logic in eschewing clean-burning electricity - and by the way, 96% of the electricity in the province of Ontario IS clean-generated - in favour of illumination obtained from a power source (i.e., open fire) that generates completely unfiltered CO2 emissions?

Indeed, most of the candles sold in Canada are made from paraffin, a petroleum byproduct. Thus, illuminating one's house with paraffin candles is equivalent to letting a diesel engine idle.

Oh, and how's this for an inconvenient goof? Turning off the lights in a skyscraper only to reactivate those lights an hour later actually consumes MORE power than letting those lights remain on for the duration of that hour. Oh sure, it makes for a nifty photo op - but what, pray tell, is the point? Is Earth Hour simply about feel-good optics rather than tangible solutions?

The second reason to take a pass on Earth Hour: Sponsor Hypocrisy

I find it a tad rich to receive a holier-than-thou sermon from a corporation that isn't doing everything in its power to reduce its environmental footprint. Case in point: Earth Hour Canada sponsor the Toronto Star. To quote the Star verbatim:

"We are committed to reporting on and bringing awareness to environmental issues that matter to Canadians. We believe that action on climate change is needed and that Earth Hour is a way to bring attention to this URGENT issue facing us all."

Well, if there's such enviro-urgency afoot, why doesn't the Star choose to reduce its carbon emissions and save millions of trees in the process by no longer publishing a hard copy version of the paper? After all, the technology exists for the Star to be delivered electronically... except that might not be so good for business as many readers and advertisers actually still prefer a paper-based product. Stop the presses in the name of Mother Earth? Not a chance. "Business is business" after all.

Bottom line: if you want to experience Earth Hour 24/7, 365 days a year, then by all means take a charter flight over North Korea. And if you receive permission to touch down in the Hermit Kingdom, feel free to ask your average North Korean how wonderful it is to shiver in the dark and eat grass on a daily basis.

In the meantime, let's all reject the Earth Hour hoax. "Fight back against this insanity on Saturday night by turning ON every light, appliance, and gadget in your house. Celebrate this particular 60 minutes in glorious electrical illumination. And let's refer to this wonderful celebration for what it really is: Human Achievement Hour.

It's a great time to be alive, for we are living in a golden age. Don't let a bunch of disingenuous naysayers tell you otherwise.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1331929 2012-03-08T08:42:32-05:00 2012-05-08T05:12:02-04:00

David Menzies http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-menzies/
Answer: When that person wraps himself in the rainbow flag.

Case in point: Toronto Maple Leafs GM/bully Brian Burke -- who endeavours (and sometimes succeeds) in getting commentators fired when he doesn't care for their opinions -- is part of an anti-homophobia public service announcement entitled, "You Can Play."

The debut of the spot comes on the heels of a very brutal few weeks for Burke, after he failed to make a significant deal at the trading deadline and then met his Waterloo in trying to get Don Cherry fired from Coach's Corner. (Sorry, Burkie -- you taking on hockey icon Cherry is akin to the Thornhill Selects taking on the Detroit Red Wings.)

So, what does Burke do to bolster his tarnished image? He rolls out an anti-homophobia campaign on the premise that his son, Brendan -- who tragically died in a car accident in 2010 -- was gay.

Surely, anyone being bullied for any reason is wrong -- whether that person is too fat, too nerdy, too freckle-faced -- you name it.

Yet, in the anti-bullying biz these days, it seems there's a subtext that the very worst sort of bullying is the kind that is perpetrated against homosexuals.

But why? Is it not equally repugnant to bully a gay kid as it is to bully a red-headed kid? Surely all forms of bullying are vile and should be eradicated.

However, when it comes to optics, a sure-fire way to get an image makeover is by latching on to a gay cause. And it seems to be working for Burke, who is being roundly applauded for his feel-good initiative -- even though I'm unaware of a scintilla of evidence that any professional or amateur hockey player has ever been discriminated against or targeted due to his sexual orientation.

So, what gives?

My guess is that Burke has learned a lesson from potty-mouth Sean Avery. This is the ex-New York Ranger who allegedly mocked ex-Leaf Jason Blake about having cancer. Avery also referred to his ex-girlfriend, actress Elisha Cuthbert, as "sloppy seconds" when Dion Phaneuf started dating her.

Avery needed a PR makeover too. So what did he do? He claimed that during a fight with Wayne Simmonds of the Philadelphia Flyers, Simmonds used a homophobic slur. (Oh, the horror! Apparently, in the NHL, players can use each other as punching bags until the ice turns crimson with blood, but for God's sake, nobody should utter a slur while releasing haymakers.)

Milking the gay angle for all it's worth, Avery went on to state how he was pro-gay marriage; what this has to do with the pursuit of pucks is beyond me.

But there was a very unhappy epilogue to the Avery story. Damien Goddard of Rogers Sportsnet had the temerity to tweet that he supported traditional marriage. A few days later, Goddard was terminated.

It's all so perversely ironic. For decades, the gay community has (rightfully) asked for more understanding and more tolerance. Yet it appears that tolerance is apparently a one-way street. If someone has problems with gay matrimony, that isn't a matter of having a differing viewpoint. Rather, it's apparently just cause for termination.

In fact, the whole gay issue seems to be less about equal rights and more about special rights these days. Case in point: at the Pride parade, numerous revellers go completely naked. Last time I checked, going au natural on city streets was against the law. Yet, is anyone ever charged with public indecency? Nope. But just try marching in the buff at the St. Patrick's Day parade and see what happens.

Sean Avery and Brian Burke are two peas in a pod in that they are both thoroughly unsavoury characters. But it's abundantly clear that the first step toward remaking one's image as Mr. Nice Guy is reinventing oneself as an advocate for gay causes.

I'll have to remember that next time I get into some hot water. I've even got a whiz-bang slogan: "If it's good, it's gay; and if it's gay, it's good."
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1322549 2012-03-05T18:57:27-05:00 2012-05-05T05:12:01-04:00

David Menzies http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-menzies/
Still, the Brian Burke story is more than merely yet another tale of a hockey general manager flaming out in Hogtown. Rather, the real story of Brian Burke is what a despicable human being this man is when he doesn't get his way or he takes offence to fair criticism.

Indeed, Burke is a vengeful man, and he has been successful in terminating the employment of at least two journalists because he thought they were being too hard on his sad sack team.

Imagine that: Burke uses the weapon of economic penalization against members of the Fifth Estate if he can't take the heat.

Indeed, I reported on John Oakley's "Media and the Message" show on AM640 last Thursday that Burke tried to get yet another Toronto journalist fired for having the temerity to report a story that is 100 per cent true albeit embarrassing for Burke.

Thankfully, he failed in his vengeful efforts. A good thing, too: for the scribe he tried to get terminated is a true gem.

In any event, I had no idea how vindictive Burke is until I caught "Coach's Corner" on Hockey Night in Canadaon Saturday. That's when Don Cherry revealed that Burke actually tried to get Grapes fired too.

Incredible.

Cherry noted how Burke "went behind my back" to complain about him to the CBC to "deflect" attention away from his team's losing ways.

Said a visibly upset Cherry: "I thought this stuff was over but it is quite obvious what Brian is doing. He is trying to deflect from his team's performance missing the playoffs three years running at my expense and to be a hero to his players at my expense."

Burke told QMI Agency this week he "raised the issue quietly and professionally" and while he likes Cherry, his weekly "vicious and cutting" remarks on players and ex-Leafs coach Ron Wilson have "got to stop."

"Vicious"? Wow. Pot meet kettle; kettle meet pot.

Cherry also apparently upset Burke with his Coach's Corner comment that Wilson "couldn't care less" when he did not join the mass applause for the troops at the Canadian Armed Forces appreciation night last month.

"I guess Brian is mad at me for criticizing his coach for not acknowledging our 500 troops at the New York Rangers-Toronto game where they honoured our troops."

Wilson has in the past responded by saying: "I'll compare my record with Don Cherry."

But Cherry scored a knockout punch in rebuttal noting: "I have to admit I lost twice to Montreal in the finals and lost again to Montreal in the semifinals seventh game in overtime. But maybe Ron is right because since he's been with the Leafs he hasn't lost a playoff game."

As for Burke, on "Coach's Corner" on Saturday, a not-so-cheery Cherry slammed Burke's delusions of grandeur in terms of getting people he doesn't like fired.

Said Cherry: "I say what I think. I am not pussy-footing around like some guys, you know what I mean? I don't go on and ask him soft questions... He wants my job, he wants to get me fired, he goes behind my back to my bosses to try and get me fired. Not only that, he went to the [NHL] governors and said it, too. ALL RIGHT, NOW, I DON'T CARE! YOU WANT TO GET ME OFF? YOU WANT TO TAKE ME ON? Two years ago you said you were going to do something to me in the playoffs. REMEMBER THAT? And I said, "OOOH, Brian Burke, I'm shakin' in my boots! I'm shakin' right now! DO YOUR BEST!"

Way to go, Don; It's always a delight to see someone stand up to a bully. (Ever notice that both "Burke" and "bully" are five-letter words beginning with "B-U"? Just saying...)

The really sad thing about Burke's ham-fisted truculence is that the benchmark for success in Toronto is so low. For the Leafs' beleaguered fans, a successful season isn't about winning a Stanley Cup or going to the Conference Finals these days -- it's merely about making the playoffs.

As an aside, some Burke defenders say Scotty Bowman is an arrogant hockey executive, too. But guess what? Bowman has almost as many Stanley Cup rings as he has fingers. What's Burke's justification for being such an arrogant S.O.B.?

Oh, I'll grant you this: If the measure of success for a hockey general manager in Toronto is the number of times he prances down Church Street during the Gay Pride Parade, then Brian Burke is indeed the second coming of Punch Imlach.

But if we are to judge Burke by the laughable product he's assembled on the ice, he's not only a loser -- he's a sore loser at that.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1270464 2012-02-11T14:57:00-05:00 2012-04-12T05:12:01-04:00

David Menzies http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-menzies/ Rocky theme music here ...)

Yet, the idea that big is bad and small is good isn't necessarily a truism. But another way, sometimes Goliath isn't really such a bad guy... and sometimes, David is, well, a bit of an opportunistic shyster.

Case in point: the ongoing saga in Alberta involving Calgary-based Minhas Craft Brewery. Minhas employs a PR strategy in which it fancies itself as a hometown David going up against a pair of ruthless, foreign-owned Goliaths in the form of Labatt and Molson.

As I reported last November, company co-owner Ravinder Minhas loves to play the victim card. And why not? By doing so, he received a tax subsidy under Alberta's deeply flawed small brewer tax program that amounted to $5.6 million in 2010. (The program was meant to usher in an environment that allows for local craft breweries to flourish; alas, the precise opposite has occurred.)

Indeed, while Ravinder Minhas likes to position his brewery as an all-Canadian little guy taking on the world, when one examines this brewery a little more closely, such is hardly the case.

For starters, as previously reported, all the Minhas brewing jobs are actually located in Monroe, Wisconsin. That wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that Minhas has its beer taxed at a lower rate than the big breweries (which actually employ Canadians.) Translation: the Alberta government is essentially subsidizing U.S. brewing jobs with taxpayer money.

But a little recent investigative work has uncovered that Minhas also runs a company called Global Distillers SRL. Do a search of Global Distillers and it turns out that it is based in that great Canadian territory known as... Barbados.

In fact, it turns out that all of Minhas's trademarks are registered to a Barbados-based company (See here). So much for wrapping himself in the Canadian flag. Indeed, Ravinder Minhas is apparently funneling all his profits from the Alberta tax subsidy into an offshore tax-sheltered haven.

The bottom line? Minhas beer is brewed in the U.S., subsidized in Alberta, and sheltered from taxes in Barbados. Some local hero.

And it's a good thing Minhas doesn't have to slum it when he goes south. That's because he has a swank resort in the Barbados, too -- the lavishly-appointed Minhas Villa, where rooms go for US$299 to US$675 per night depending on the season. In fact, Minhas Villa is a delightful place for Canadians to seek refuge from winter and soak up the sun. And one can only wonder about how many Alberta government officials have relaxed on the beach revelling in epic bonfire side stories of Minhas' small business heroics against the "big multinationals."

But alas, Minhas' business plan -- i.e., its reliance on Alberta tax subsidies -- has hit a snag. Based on his overall beverage production (which includes beer, soft drinks and spirits), Minhas is very likely over the 400,000-hectolitre limit. If so, according to the regulations, Minhas no longer qualifies for Alberta small brewer subsidies.

Which means the savvy entrepreneur is now employing Plan B: Minhas is supposedly building a new brewery in Calgary that is supposed to be opening in March 2012.

Situated in an industrial space that is less than 5,000 sq. ft., this facility will output less than one per cent of the volume of his 300,000 sq. ft. Wisconsin brewery (which pumps out 351,000 hectoliters of beer, making Minhas the 14th largest brewer in the U.S.).

Announced in a letter widely distributed into the Alberta government in late November, there is no doubt that Mr. Minhas' postage-stamp sized brewery is being played for all its worth. What better way to lobby for continued and increased Alberta government subsidies than touting Alberta "jobs and investment" -- even if the value of both are outstripped by the rich annual subsidies to Minhas' U.S. operations by an order of magnitude.

There are two sides to every story, of course. Except that when it comes to the Minhas file, nobody's talking. Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission CEO Gerry MacLennan declined to comment. And shockingly, Ravinder Minhas -- who is somewhat of a media darling as long as the questions are softballs -- abruptly terminated our phone conversation without answering a single query.

Even so, the ball is now in the AGLC's court. Namely, will it revamp the regulations and continue to subsidize a brewery that brews all its beer in the state of Wisconsin and is essentially a Barbadian, not a Calgarian company? Or will the AGLC actually show some respect for Albertan taxpayer dollars and turn off the taps?

Stay tuned.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1193468 2012-01-09T07:15:08-05:00 2012-03-10T05:12:01-05:00

David Menzies http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-menzies/
Paul Henderson (not Paul Henderson the hockey player who scored the winning goal for Team Canada in 1972, but the Paul Henderson who fronted Toronto's 1996 Olympic Bid) recently caused a commotion in the sporting community. He sent an open letter to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty warning that the 2015 Pan American Games could come in at least a billion dollars over budget.

According to Henderson, the $2.4 billion budget is unrealistic, given the scope of proposed new buildings and facility renovations. Organizers, he argues, have also failed to accurately budget for numerous "soft costs" such as extra policing. In fact, the price tag might be more than double the original estimate.

Look, I don't want to say "I told you so" (actually, that's not true. I love saying "I told you so"), but ever since Toronto first announced it wanted to host the 2015 Games, I've been sounding the alarm that the Pan Am Games is a dog. And a dog with fleas.

For years, Toronto's 2015 Pan Am Games Committee promised this athletic "gala" would prove to be an enormous shot in the arm for the city. For starters, the committee claimed the Pan Am Games would generate close to $2 billion in economic activity -- building the facilities alone will supposedly create 17,000 jobs.

And the games will lure an estimated 250,000 tourists to the GTA. (Yes, apparently there's a quarter-million sports fans out there with a severe case of "Pan Am Fever." And if you believe that whopper, I'm currently taking offers on a bridge currently for sale in a certain New York City borough...)

According to Toronto's Pan Am prophets, going full-speed ahead with a multi-billion dollar investment during dire economic times actually makes good fiscal sense.

David Peterson, former Ontario premier and current Pan Am promoter, crowed awhile back that snagging the Pan Am Games was all about "building a sustainable legacy."

Hate to be a party pooper, but don't believe the hype.

Here's four reasons why Toronto should do whatever it can to pull out of hosting the 2015 Pan Scam Games:

1. Wrong place, wrong time, wrong economic conditions
Funding a bread-and-circuses gala such as the Pan Scam Games is a bad idea in good times. But in a less than stellar economy, it's truly awful. When Winnipeg hosted the games in heady 1999, the city reported an operating loss; meanwhile, a hoped-for increase in tourism to offset this loss never did materialize. Keep in mind that Toronto's debt load is already pegged at nearly $3-billion.

In addition to all levels of government investing hundreds of millions, the Toronto committee is counting on corporate sponsorship money. But from whom? Even the likes of NASCAR and Formula One are having trouble keeping all their blue chip sponsors on board. Who's chomping at the bit to back the Pan Scam Games?

2. What "legacy"?
Proponents of the Pan Scam Games speak glowingly of the "legacy" the facilities will have long after the games are over. Really? One of the required multimillion infrastructure nuggets Toronto must construct for 2015 is a velodrome for cycling. How curious that less than 15 years after Montreal hosted the 1976 Olympic Games, a chainsaw was taken to the teak track of the Montreal velodrome to convert that facility into a zoological garden. That city's now-obsolete Olympic Stadium, meanwhile, has been already abandoned by its major tenants. Wow, what a legacy!

3. The fiscal folly of mega-projects
As just about every Olympic Games has proven, the estimated budget for constructing facilities is always ridiculously low only to balloon into the stratosphere once the concrete starts to pour. And take a wild guess who's always left holding the bag? Indeed, in the book Five Ring Circus: Myths and Realities of the Olympic Games, author Christopher A. Shaw notes the original estimate for the Vancouver 2010 Winter Games was $1.68 billion in construction costs plus an additional $580 million in operating costs. As it turned out, the Vancouver construction costs alone topped an astonishing $5 billion.

Torontonians have already experienced mega-project sticker shock courtesy of the SkyDome. This whiz-bang multipurpose stadium was supposed to cost about $150 million, although the final tally was closer to $600 million. Oddly, unlike every other piece of downtown Toronto real estate over the past two decades, SkyDome's market value actually plunged over the years, allowing Rogers Communications to purchase it for a mere $25 million in 2004. Incredible!

4. Nobody cares about the Pan Am Games
Finally, the most persuasive argument against staging the Pan Am Games is that nobody cares about the Pan Am Games -- including the athletes who compete in the Pan Am Games. Indeed, at the 1999 Pan Am Games in Winnipeg, the U.S. team was comprised of second stringers. Meanwhile, media coverage of the event was virtually non-existent. Granted, decades ago, there was a time when the Pan Am Games meant something and managed to attract some of the best amateur athletes. But these days, when it's not an Olympic year, most elite amateur athletes focus exclusively on their own world championship games. The Pan Am Games are irrelevant.

Poor Toronto. Spurned twice by the International Olympic Committee, it gets the Pan Scam Games as a consolation prize. It is reminiscent of the sales competition depicted in the 1992 film Glengarry Glen Ross: First prize: Cadillac Eldorado; Second prize: set of steak knives.

The Pan Am Games is a set of rusty steak knives -- and a costly set at that. Indeed, the spectre of brand new, multi-million dollar taxpayer-funded edifices devoid of spectators for athletic events nobody wants to see (handball, anyone?) is downright vulgar in this day of fiscal restraint.

Here's hoping Toronto will do the right thing and bail on the Pan Am Games -- the athletic world's version of a pig in a poke.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1168903 2011-12-24T10:56:07-05:00 2012-02-23T05:12:01-05:00

David Menzies http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-menzies/
Item: School buses in Kingston, Ont., are forbidden to display any sort of Christmas decorations. Safety first, you understand. After all, that Santa Claus poster affixed to the roof of the bus might somehow impair the driver's vision.

Item: Home Hardware is marketing something called a "pre-lit tree" that looks very much like a... Christmas tree. No, I've never heard of a "pre-lit tree" either. Still, isn't there a bigger issue at play? Presumably, only Christians are in the market for Christmas trees in the first place. Why would a retailer think that calling a Christmas tree a "Christmas tree" would be offensive to Christian consumers of Christmas trees? It simply does not compute.

Item: In August, I drove by a York Region police station with a video message board wishing everyone a "Happy Ramadan." I don't have an issue with the cops wishing those of the Muslim faith a Happy Ramadan. But it would've been quite jolly to see that same video board wishing folks a Merry Christmas come late December. Instead, motorists are greeted with the lame "Happy Holidays" salutation. I really hate to be a nitpicker, but if Christmas is rebranded as a generic "holiday," then shouldn't Ramadan simply be referred to as a "holiday" too?

Of note, I pursued the matter regarding the double standard when it comes to the holiday double standard. Here's the official explanation courtesy of Tracy Smith of York Regional Police: Ramadan is identified by name is because "Ramadan is the only holiday in August" whereas December encompasses Christmas, Hanukkah, and the even the fake holiday of Kwanzaa; thus, the police just want to be "inclusive."

I informed Smith she is either misinformed or lying for there is indeed another holiday in August -- Simcoe Day. Her reply: "I'm sorry you feel that way."

Item: Without doubt, the Jump-The-Shark Award regarding this year's War on Christmas marketing goes to Christine McGee of Sleep Country Canada. In radio ads promoting Sleep Country's Boxing Week sale (already underway), the CEO rhetorically asks, "Why wait unit after the holiday [singular]" to take advantage of Boxing Day discounts? It's an uncanny statement given that Boxing Day, by definition, always occurs on December 26. That's the day after Christmas -not the day after Hanukkah or even the day after Festivus. And yet, even in this scenario, McGee just can't bring herself to utter the "C"-word. Amazing.

Still, the point of my rant isn't to merely bemoan the War on Christmas. That's old hat. Rather, I want to suggest an option when it comes to standing up to those waging war on Christmas. Namely, fighting back. The weapon of choice: your pocketbook.

Thus, during this "holiday season", I decided to go out of my way to patronize only those merchants that actually used the word "Christmas" in their TV, radio, or newspaper ads.
It's slim pickings, but there are still some merchants that aren't terrified to say "Christmas."
So it was that I purchased a table from Bad Boy and a set of headphones from 2001 Audio Video. And I made certain to tell the clerk in each case why I selected their store. (As a side note, neither clerk was Christian, yet they both agreed that avoiding the "C" word at Christmastime was ludicrous. So kindly remind me again: Who are we protecting from being offended?)

I also plan to write the CEOs of these chains, informing them why I chose to patronize their stores. As an army of one, it will be hard to make headway. But if enough people do likewise in the Decembers to come, maybe there's a chance we can collectively make a tangible difference regarding the War on Christmas.

Won't you join me?]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1133784 2011-12-13T10:31:51-05:00 2012-02-12T05:12:01-05:00

David Menzies http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-menzies/ Pssst? Wanna make 12 bucks, plenty of questions asked?

Then simply take part in an OLG market research interview at a shopping mall near you.

The Q&A is being paid for by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (meaning you, actually.) The questionnaire? Unintentionally funny.

The OLG wants to know what you think about the logo it unveiled five years ago. And its paying a market research firm $25,000 to get the answers.

A while back, I took part in one of the surveys at Hillcrest Mall in Richmond Hill. It was baffling.

What had my Spidey senses tingling was the biased nature of the questionnaire in terms of painting a glowing picture of the OLG.

For example, one question pertained to descriptors one would use to describe the lottery corporation. There are about a dozen positive choices offered (along the lines of "fun" and "responsible"); only a few descriptors have a negative connotation. That's odd given the OLG's egregious recent history.

For the sake of accuracy, I wanted to reprint parts of the questionnaire verbatim in this space. But when I asked for a copy of the questionnaire, OLG spokesman Rui Brum said I'd have to file a Freedom of Information request due to "privacy" reasons. How do questions pertaining to OLG branding violate anyone's "privacy?"

And the reason for the market research?

"We want a better sense of the public's understanding of our logo," says Brum.

Uh oh! Surely the OLG isn't thinking of "rebranding" itself again?

Brum denies a rebranding is in the works -- even though several of the questions pertained to how the OLG could make its logo more appealing.

The price tag of the OLG's 2006 rebranding wasn't cheap. While Brum declined to reveal the previous expenditures (privacy concerns), thankfully such data can be found on the OLG's own website. Here's the skinny: in '06, the lotto monopoly spent $190,000 on focus groups and public opinion research. Then OLG spent a total of $5.84 million on new signage. It's as if the OLG won the lottery (although it's actually our money)!

If and when the results of this market research are published, let's hope we're spared the PR bumf the OLG trotted out during its last rebranding exercise.

For example, check out this rhetorical question: "What do an organization's values have to do with its corporate logo and brand name?" Answer: "The essence of a leading brand is that it is able to inspire trust and confidence among its customers and the public."

In case you're wondering how to properly "interpret" the OLG's whiz-bang logo, evidently those three circles around the letters O-L-G "reflect our three core values of integrity, respect and accountability."
I'm not making this up.

Of course, a few months after the '06 rebranding, Ombudsman Andre Marin tabled his blistering report on the OLG and its systemic practice of turning a blind eye to insider wins.

Integrity, respect, accountability.

Oops.

Bottom line: the OLG is a state-sanctioned gambling monopoly. It doesn't need fancy logos or multimillion dollar signage -- it's the only game in town. Surely Ontarians would be better served if this crown corporation ploughed the millions it spends on self-aggrandizement projects into, say, hospitals and community centres?

Alas, I fear the odds of this lotto monopoly acting with "integrity, respect and accountability" would make even the most reckless gambler cringe.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1113174 2011-11-26T11:55:41-05:00 2012-01-26T05:12:02-05:00

David Menzies http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-menzies/
I shan't be among them.

Indeed, I'm actually calling for a boycott of the Canadian Football League's big game -- and for the CFL in general.

This has nothing to do with the Argonauts missing the playoffs or my desire for Toronto to acquire an NFL franchise.

My beef is this: The CFL is an illegal sports league.

Oh, it's true.

Why is that we must report temperature in Celsius; sell bananas by the kilo; measure speed and distance by the kilometre; and purchase petro by the litre?

And yet, when it comes to the CFL, the field isn't marked out in Systeme Internationale-approved metres.

Even in 2011, the CFL clings to defunct old Imperial yards. And without repercussions to boot! It's a double standard.

If your friendly neighbourhood Imperial Oil station sold gas imperially by the gallon, there'd be hell to pay via Ottawa's measurement mandarins.

So how is it that football clubs don't have to play by the same set of rules as everyone else?

When I first contacted the CFL about this many moons ago, a spokesman said sticking with yards is all about "tradition" and the fact that all of the league's records have always been measured in Imperial increments as opposed to metres and centimetres.

What's more, he said if the government ever forced the league to go metric, the CFL would simply mark off the field in 110 increments measuring exactly 91.44 centimetres (in other words, 36 inches.) And each 91.44-centimetre increment would officially be known as something called a "yard."

Isn't that special?

If anything, the CFL has a perfectly legit reason to go metric. After all, a CFL field between the end zones is 110 yards. Think about that -- 110. What a dumb number. Yet, by happy coincidence, 100 metres fits almost perfectly into a 110-yard footprint.

But no. The CFL continues to illegally flaunt metrication.

That's not right. After all, Canadians -- that is to say, those who aren't professional football players -- have suffered enough. Used to be that if a car got 28 miles to the gallon, that was a fuel-efficient vehicle. But now we must contend with litres per 100 kilometres. Really, does anyone say their car consumes 8.9 litres per 100 kilometres? (There was a solution to this, by the way: we could've measured fuel consumption by adopting a system of kilometres-per-litre. But that was way too logical for Ottawa's measurement minions.)

And let's be honest: Does anyone measure their tire pressure in kilopascals as opposed to pounds per square inch?

By the way, what was the point in going metric in the first place given that our largest trading partner, the U.S., is still firmly rooted in Imperial?

Either we have one measurement standard for everyone or we have complete measurement freedom of choice. The fact remains, the CFL enjoys privileged status in this land for no valid reason. Put another way: if you operated a grocery store and sold fruit exclusively by the pound, you'd be fined or even shut down.

Even though I love the Grey Cup, come Sunday, my TV set will be a CFL-free zone. And it will remain CFL-free until measurement liberty finally returns to our grand Dominion.

Won't you please join me in this endeavour for measurement justice?]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1112188 2011-11-24T15:41:44-05:00 2012-01-24T05:12:02-05:00

David Menzies http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-menzies/
However, in the province of Alberta, millions of dollars in tax breaks are being given to a brewer to ensure that brewing jobs remain not in Calgary, Edmonton or Red Deer, but rather, in Monroe, Wisconsin.

The back story: The Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission presumably had good intentions in mind when it brewed up a policy to lend a helping hand to small breweries. Namely, beer companies qualify for substantially reduced beer tax rates on the first 200,000 hectolitres sold in Alberta. The explicit aim was to help small players compete against industry giants such as Labatt and Molson. And, implicitly, the tax break would entice craft breweries to set up shop in the province.

However, eight years after the reduced beer tax rates -- estimated by one analyst to total about $200 million in savings -- were first implemented, little in the Alberta beer business has worked out quite the way the AGLC envisioned. Only five small breweries have opened for business in Alberta since the policy was implemented. And in that time Alberta has become a market characterized by discount beer.

But the most embarrassing unintended consequence is that at least one of the breweries taking advantage of the AGLC policy doesn't even brew in the province, let alone Canada.

Case in point: one of the biggest beneficiary of Alberta's small brewer tax break is Minhas Craft Brewery. Though its head office is in Calgary, the main brewing operation is in Monroe, Wisc., where it has recently poured US$3.5 million into the operation. While the firm won't release financial information, co-owner Ravinder Minhas says it shipped 96,000 hectolitres to Alberta last year, meaning the reduction in the beer tax was worth $5.6 million.

Even so, why in the world would the government of Alberta send tax dollars to subsidize jobs that aren't even in Alberta or even Canada?

Ravinder Minhas says Albertans actually do benefit by being able to buy cheap beer. Fantastic! Thus, although the high-paying brewery jobs are in Wisconsin, at least an unemployed Albertan can drink away his sorrows by having access to cheapo Minhas beer brands such as Boxer Light and Mountain Crest Classic Lager (which the company inexplicably markets as "premium brews.")

Bryan Cox, a vice-president of Canada's National Brewers (a trade association that represents Molson, Labatt and Sleeman), says Minhas's rationalization for the tax break "is interesting. Our understanding of the policy is that it was to incentivize local craft brewing in the province of Alberta."

Cox notes that "a strong, vibrant, local brewing environment is good for beer -- it gets people talking about beer, and it helps grow the pie, which is good for all brewers." Yet he points out there's actually a dearth of craft brewers in Alberta. And there have been other side effects. John Sleeman confirmed that his firm, Sleeman Breweries, cancelled plans for a new Alberta-based brewery, in part because of the brewer tax break, which it would not qualify for.

AGLC CEO Gerry MacLennan declined to comment on the program. However, AGLC spokeswoman Christine Wronko insists Alberta's "unique mark-up system" is all about creating a "level playing field for liquor companies" even though it actually does the precise opposite by creating a very unlevel playing field.

Wronko says the fact that just five breweries have opened in the province since the tax break scheme was hatched in 2003 and that the Alberta beer market is defined by discount brands, are consequences that are out of the government's control. Nice.

Bottom line: Alberta's small brewer system would appear to be yet another case of the law of unintended consequences -- especially when a government agency tinkers with the free market economy. From a dearth of local Albertan craft brewers to providing a helping hand for American jobs, the AGLC's bizarre beer tax policy is enough to drive a teetotalling Albertan to drink.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1088160 2011-11-11T13:00:17-05:00 2012-01-11T05:12:01-05:00

David Menzies http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-menzies/
Sometimes we honour the war dead.

But these days, we - that is to say, those Canadians who deeply care about those
soldiers who made the supreme sacrifice -are increasingly finding ourselves in a
position in which we must defend the war dead.

This is a perverse scenario. Yet, in recent years, cultural vandals have engaged
in all manners of ideological warfare - from the war on Christmas to the war on
Halloween. Disturbingly, a new target has emerged in their crosshairs: the war
on Remembrance Day. The progressive foot soldiers of this war are armed with
naivety and self-loathing. And they wear their ignorance like a badge of honour.

Examples abound. Some folks have taken to wearing white poppies. Not only do
these people misappropriate a semi-sacred symbol, but they mock what it stands
for, claiming there can be no such thing as a just war and that all armed conflict is
bad.

If The Greatest Generation subscribed to that way of thinking some 70 years ago,
most of Europe would be conversing in German today. In this regard, it is fitting
those so-called "alternative" poppies are white - the same colour as the flag of
surrender.

Then there are those who simply can't be bothered to wear any sort of poppy, due
to warped new-age ideology blended with good old-fashioned ingratitude.

These critics scoff at November 11th, interpreting Remembrance Day as being
a day in which militarism is glorified. They believe that if we could all just sit
cross-legged in a healing circle and talk things out, hassles would be a thing of the
past. But there's no tangible benefit in "flower power" when it comes to dealing
with those tyrants and terrorists who are hell-bent on everything from invasion to
genocide.

Such thinking isn't merely wrong or offensive. It's downright vulgar.

Indeed, when I think of the lunatic fringe that chooses not to respectfully
remember Remembrance Day, I think of my late grandfather who sacrificed five
years of his life fighting in the Second World War. In the 1960s, I was a kid who
grew up reading war comics and watching afterschool reruns of The Rat Patrol.
And I used to deeply resent the fact that my grandfather was so damn miserly when
it came to sharing stories about his real-life wartime exploits in Egypt and Italy.

"C'mon - tell me a war story, Pop!" I'd plead.

I wanted to hear of machineguns blazing and grenades exploding and bad guys
being blown to smithereens. And upon each request, my grandfather would shrug,
saying he really didn't have any good wartime yarns whatsoever.

I reckoned this to be a crock, because I had once stumbled upon a small,
nondescript cardboard box in the linen closet that contained my grandfather's
medals. And damnit, he sure didn't earn those medals by making hot chocolate.
What gives?

Amazingly, my friends told me that their grandfathers were also unforthcoming
with tales of wartime heroics, too. It was downright confounding. After all, comic
book publishers and Hollywood made war look so damn cool. Why wouldn't our
grandfathers share their stories?

In fact, all I can ever remember my grandfather saying about the war were two
anecdotes.

One: In his estimation, Sikhs were - by far - the very best soldiers on the planet.
He told me the Sikh soldiers he came in contact with were absolutely fearless
warriors who embraced the proviso of "death before dishonour." He saw many of
them die on the battlefield in what were essentially suicide missions. And yet, not
a single one of these soldiers ever questioned his orders or deserted his unit. Even
though their loyalty came with an enormous price-tag, there was still something so
very endearing about men embracing such dedication to duty.

The second story was anything but a military conquest steeped in glory. Rather,
it centred on a stupid, deadly accident. Marching in the Sahara, my grandfather's
unit noticed a low-flying American bomber aircraft passing overhead. The soldiers
began to wave at their ally in the sky. But much to their horror, the plane's bomb
bay doors creaked open and ordinance plummeted to earth. The soldiers made a
run for cover. When the dust settled, a sergeant - who my grandfather described
as "very short and very unpleasant" - had a piece of shrapnel lodged firmly in
his helmet. He had died instantly. Although the sergeant was a highly unlikable
individual, my grandfather nevertheless always seemed bothered that a man could
perish in such a completely senseless way.

It was after my grandfather died years later that I began to comprehend his
aversion to reciting war stories. Despite what Hollywood fare would have you
believe, war is seldom glorious. Rather, it's a very messy, very deadly kind of
business, one in which only the Grim Reaper benefits.

I don't think the new-age peaceniks would ever be able to understand my
grandfather and his ilk - men who went to war not because they wanted to but
because they had to.

What the anti-poppy crowd doesn't get is that the biggest advocates for peace are
indeed war veterans. They experienced firsthand the horror that is war and fully
know war is only undertaken when all else fails.

Our soldiers gave so much. We have benefited so much.

Is it really too much to ask that on this day we don a little crimson flower to
honour these giants before they fade away forever?]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.990214 2011-10-03T09:43:37-04:00 2011-12-03T05:12:02-05:00

David Menzies http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-menzies/
After all, that vapid and vacuous debate didn't change my mind on who's getting my vote (more on that later.)

Indeed, just consider the candidates that are on that multiple choice quiz otherwise known as an election ballot:

A. Dalton McGuinty. The high-flying (according to some polls) albeit thoroughly-lying (according to some analysts of his record) premier might miraculously "three-peat" -- despite myriad broken promises and numerous policies that have so many Ontarians fuming. From the HST to health fees, taxpayers feel like they're being nickel-and-dimed to death. And let's not forget eHealth and numerous OLG scandals. It's been one fiasco after another for Premier Pinocchio -- someone who likely wouldn't have received a second term in 2007 if not for John Tory's cosmically stupid faith-based schools blunder.

B. Andrea Horwath. Orange has never been more in vogue thanks to the passing of federal NDP leader Jack Layton. But I'm taking a pass on Orangemania. This hue is associated with Halloween, the Philadelphia Flyers, road closure signage, and other horrors. I vividly remember life in Ontario under the NDP -- an economic period more chilling than any Saw movie.

C. Tim Hudak. In a way, Hudak resembles George Smitherman when Furious George was running for mayor of Toronto: you get this sense that Hudak feels entitled to be premier. His unofficial campaign slogan seems to be: "I'm not Dalton." That's not good enough.

Ironically, Hudak's fear-mongering critics label him "Mike Harris-Lite." If only! When it comes to policies that appeal to conservatives, this dog don't hunt.

Full disclosure: I'm a red meat Conservative. But with the Hudak camp, there's no Harris-esque Common Sense Revolution afoot. In fact, there's not much common sense, period.

If any descriptor fits Hudak, it's "McGuinty-Lite." Gasp -- in some photos, Hudak even physically resembles Premier Mom.

Oddly, the PCs are running ads slamming McGuinty as "the tax man." Yet, does Hudak plan to jettison the HST he condemns so vociferously? No chance.

How does that Who song go? "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Most Conservatives I know are in crisis mode. Some say they'll be going to the ballot box holding their noses. Others say not even a hazmat suit can stifle the stench of ineptitude emanating from Hudak.

Case in point: the despicable Liberal promise of a $10,000 tax credit for companies hiring new immigrants. This was a gift for the Tories. But criticism of this odious policy was so ham-fisted the PCs made themselves look anti-immigrant. This discriminatory pledge could've -- and should've -- been McGuinty's "John Tory moment." Instead, the Tories had to go on the defensive. Amazing.

Allow me to share an anecdote that speaks volumes re: Hudak's ineffectiveness. Almost a decade ago, when the Tories were still governing, Walter Sendzik, the then-publisher of St. Catharines-based Vines magazine, was justifiably furious that the LCBO was unfairly competing against his magazine with its own publication, Food & Drink.

"Nowhere does it say [in the regulations] that it [liquor board] should become a publishing empire," said Sendzik.

At the time, Hudak was the minister responsible for the LCBO as well as Sendzik's MPP. Sendzik demanded action. Hudak's response according to Sendzik? "Walter, it [the LCBO] is out of my hands."

"Out of my hands"? As the ministerial master of an abusive government agency, Hudak had all the tools required to do the right thing. Instead he didn't want to rock the boat. It was a "no muss, no fuss" strategy while in power, but today it comes across as "no guts, no glory."

Indeed, Hudak has forfeited a slam-dunk opportunity to ride that conservative tidal wave that made Rob Ford mayor and gave Stephen Harper a majority. He could've run on a simple "respect for taxpayers" platform and promise to axe the HST outright. That alone would've carried the day. Instead, he yammers on about chain gangs.

This Thursday, I plan to decline my ballot. In other words, I'm choosing "D" on that province-wide multiple choice quiz: none of the above.]]>